Discussion:
The pound surges as Boris Johnson reshuffles his cabinet!
(too old to reply)
Tufnell Park
2020-02-13 15:43:28 UTC
Permalink
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.

Another election and Brexit bonus!
Pamela
2020-02-13 17:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.

No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
Tufnell Park
2020-02-13 17:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
abelard
2020-02-13 17:24:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:22:38 +0000, Tufnell Park
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
s/ge make 'her' living on the ggs
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2020-02-14 18:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
Keema's Nan
2020-02-14 18:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
Pamela
2020-02-14 21:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
Keema's Nan
2020-02-14 21:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his
cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don’t you wish you were?
Ian Jackson
2020-02-14 21:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his
cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of
Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don’t you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.

As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us leaving
the EU - and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
--
Ian
Keema's Nan
2020-02-14 21:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his
cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of
Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don’t you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us leaving
the EU -
I thought you might have the courage to give us an example of how we are not
going to benefit from remaining in the EU, without resorting to hypothetical
situations and guesswork - but you seem to have chickened out.
Post by Ian Jackson
and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
Which damage would that be? (Remember, no guessing or hypotheticals).
Pamela
2020-02-17 16:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
On 17:22 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
On 15:43 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris
reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on
account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to
Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don't you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us leaving
the EU -
I thought you might have the courage to give us an example of how we are
not going to benefit from remaining in the EU, without resorting to
hypothetical situations and guesswork - but you seem to have chickened
out.
Post by Ian Jackson
and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
Which damage would that be? (Remember, no guessing or hypotheticals).
As you ask, one way the UK will not benefit from Brexit is the additional
£20 billion cost for customs checks. It makes our net contribution to the
EU look small by comparison.
JNugent
2020-02-17 22:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
On 17:22 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
On 15:43 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris
reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don't you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us leaving
the EU -
I thought you might have the courage to give us an example of how we are
not going to benefit from remaining in the EU, without resorting to
hypothetical situations and guesswork - but you seem to have chickened
out.
Post by Ian Jackson
and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
Which damage would that be? (Remember, no guessing or hypotheticals).
As you ask, one way the UK will not benefit from Brexit is the additional
£20 billion cost for customs checks. It makes our net contribution to the
EU look small by comparison.
We already have HMRC and the former C&E branches of it. They've been
working all the time because most countries of the world are not in the
European Empire.

Are you saying it's going to cost £20,000,000,000 a year more?

If you are, why do you say it/
Pamela
2020-02-18 13:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
On 17:22 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
On 15:43 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris
reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on
account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don't you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us
leaving the EU -
I thought you might have the courage to give us an example of how we
are not going to benefit from remaining in the EU, without resorting
to hypothetical situations and guesswork - but you seem to have
chickened out.
Post by Ian Jackson
and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
Which damage would that be? (Remember, no guessing or hypotheticals).
As you ask, one way the UK will not benefit from Brexit is the
additional £20 billion cost for customs checks. It makes our net
contribution to the EU look small by comparison.
We already have HMRC and the former C&E branches of it. They've been
working all the time because most countries of the world are not in the
European Empire.
Are you saying it's going to cost £20,000,000,000 a year more?
If you are, why do you say it/
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure? The BBC analysed HMRC's
£20 billion estimate and didn't find any obvious errors. See here:

"Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
JNugent
2020-02-19 02:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
On 17:22 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
On 15:43 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris
reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on
account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don't you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us
leaving the EU -
I thought you might have the courage to give us an example of how we
are not going to benefit from remaining in the EU, without resorting
to hypothetical situations and guesswork - but you seem to have
chickened out.
Post by Ian Jackson
and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
Which damage would that be? (Remember, no guessing or hypotheticals).
As you ask, one way the UK will not benefit from Brexit is the
additional £20 billion cost for customs checks. It makes our net
contribution to the EU look small by comparison.
We already have HMRC and the former C&E branches of it. They've been
working all the time because most countries of the world are not in the
European Empire.
Are you saying it's going to cost £20,000,000,000 a year more?
If you are, why do you say it/
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure? The BBC analysed HMRC's
"Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"?

Or "extra cost"?
Pamela
2020-02-19 09:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
On 14 Feb 2020, Ian Jackson wrote (in article
Post by Ian Jackson
On 14 Feb 2020, Pamela wrote (in article
Post by Pamela
On 14 Feb 2020, Pamela wrote (in article
On 17:22 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
On 15:43 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris
reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on
account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to
Mr and Mrs Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don't you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few
Brexiteers can give any specific and plausible examples of how the
ordinary man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit
from us leaving the EU -
I thought you might have the courage to give us an example of how we
are not going to benefit from remaining in the EU, without resorting
to hypothetical situations and guesswork - but you seem to have
chickened out.
Post by Ian Jackson
and if by chance they do manage to come up with something, justify
the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
Which damage would that be? (Remember, no guessing or
hypotheticals).
As you ask, one way the UK will not benefit from Brexit is the
additional £20 billion cost for customs checks. It makes our net
contribution to the EU look small by comparison.
We already have HMRC and the former C&E branches of it. They've been
working all the time because most countries of the world are not in
the European Empire.
Are you saying it's going to cost £20,000,000,000 a year more?
If you are, why do you say it/
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure? The BBC analysed
HMRC's £20 billion estimate and didn't find any obvious errors. See
"Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"?
Or "extra cost"?
Glad to be of service by finding it for you.

Their cost estimate is for the additional requirement brought by Brexit.
Sounds like you haven't come across HMRC's Brexit calulation before.
JNugent
2020-02-19 11:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
On 14 Feb 2020, Ian Jackson wrote (in article
Post by Ian Jackson
On 14 Feb 2020, Pamela wrote (in article
Post by Pamela
On 14 Feb 2020, Pamela wrote (in article
On 17:22 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
On 15:43 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris
reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on
account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to
Mr and Mrs Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don't you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few
Brexiteers can give any specific and plausible examples of how the
ordinary man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit
from us leaving the EU -
I thought you might have the courage to give us an example of how we
are not going to benefit from remaining in the EU, without resorting
to hypothetical situations and guesswork - but you seem to have
chickened out.
Post by Ian Jackson
and if by chance they do manage to come up with something, justify
the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
Which damage would that be? (Remember, no guessing or
hypotheticals).
As you ask, one way the UK will not benefit from Brexit is the
additional £20 billion cost for customs checks. It makes our net
contribution to the EU look small by comparison.
We already have HMRC and the former C&E branches of it. They've been
working all the time because most countries of the world are not in
the European Empire.
Are you saying it's going to cost £20,000,000,000 a year more?
If you are, why do you say it/
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure? The BBC analysed
HMRC's £20 billion estimate and didn't find any obvious errors. See
"Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"?
Or "extra cost"?
Glad to be of service by finding it for you.
Their cost estimate is for the additional requirement brought by Brexit.
Sounds like you haven't come across HMRC's Brexit calulation before.
I am mildly surprised that the UK's entire customs operation (as opposed
to, and distinct from, its revenue functions) costs as much as
£20,000,000,000 a year.
Andy Walker
2020-02-19 10:36:08 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by JNugent
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure?  The BBC analysed HMRC's
    "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"?
Or "extra cost"?
For a different sort of "reality check", £20bnpa is enough
to employ ~300000 FTE low-to-middle-ranking professionals including
their offices, computers, secretaries, .... That seems a little OTT.
It's a bit less, a bit more, or a lot more than the number of
accountants in the UK, depending on what qualifications you count,
or about twice the number of solicitors, or about half the number of
teachers, or about 3/2 the number of university lecturers, or about
5/2 the number of policemen, or about the same as the number of
doctors or of nurses.

IOW, Pamela, HMRC and the BBC are proposing that to deal
with customs post-Brexit, effectively a whole new profession on
the same scale as those mentioned will be necessary. That fails
all the "sniff" tests you can imagine. It also makes you wonder
how on earth we cope with trade with non-EU countries now.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Keema's Nan
2020-02-19 11:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[..]
Post by JNugent
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure? The BBC analysed HMRC's
"Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"?
Or "extra cost"?
For a different sort of "reality check", £20bnpa is enough
to employ ~300000 FTE low-to-middle-ranking professionals including
their offices, computers, secretaries, .... That seems a little OTT.
It's a bit less, a bit more, or a lot more than the number of
accountants in the UK, depending on what qualifications you count,
or about twice the number of solicitors, or about half the number of
teachers, or about 3/2 the number of university lecturers, or about
5/2 the number of policemen, or about the same as the number of
doctors or of nurses.
Or about half a dozen useless masonic captains of British industry, to run
companies such as Capita, Serco, etc., and then retire to the tax havens
immediately before they call in the receivers.
Post by Andy Walker
IOW, Pamela, HMRC and the BBC are proposing that to deal
with customs post-Brexit, effectively a whole new profession on
the same scale as those mentioned will be necessary. That fails
all the "sniff" tests you can imagine. It also makes you wonder
how on earth we cope with trade with non-EU countries now.
Roger
2020-02-19 11:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[..]
Post by JNugent
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure?  The BBC analysed HMRC's
    "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"?
Or "extra cost"?
For a different sort of "reality check", £20bnpa is enough
to employ ~300000 FTE low-to-middle-ranking professionals including
their offices, computers, secretaries, .... That seems a little OTT.
It's a bit less, a bit more, or a lot more than the number of
accountants in the UK, depending on what qualifications you count,
or about twice the number of solicitors, or about half the number of
teachers, or about 3/2 the number of university lecturers, or about
5/2 the number of policemen, or about the same as the number of
doctors or of nurses.
IOW, Pamela, HMRC and the BBC are proposing that to deal
with customs post-Brexit, effectively a whole new profession on
the same scale as those mentioned will be necessary. That fails
all the "sniff" tests you can imagine. It also makes you wonder
how on earth we cope with trade with non-EU countries now.
As I understand it the problems facing customs have nothing to do with tariffs and taxes.....it's illicit shipments (illegal substances, counterfit products, non homogolated products etc.). It dosn't matter where they come from....with so much stuff being shipped these days it's getting impossible to control.....but open borders of course make this more difficult.
JNugent
2020-02-19 12:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Andy Walker
[..]
Post by JNugent
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure?  The BBC analysed HMRC's
    "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"?
Or "extra cost"?
For a different sort of "reality check", £20bnpa is enough
to employ ~300000 FTE low-to-middle-ranking professionals including
their offices, computers, secretaries, .... That seems a little OTT.
It's a bit less, a bit more, or a lot more than the number of
accountants in the UK, depending on what qualifications you count,
or about twice the number of solicitors, or about half the number of
teachers, or about 3/2 the number of university lecturers, or about
5/2 the number of policemen, or about the same as the number of
doctors or of nurses.
IOW, Pamela, HMRC and the BBC are proposing that to deal
with customs post-Brexit, effectively a whole new profession on
the same scale as those mentioned will be necessary. That fails
all the "sniff" tests you can imagine. It also makes you wonder
how on earth we cope with trade with non-EU countries now.
As I understand it the problems facing customs have nothing to do with tariffs and taxes.....it's illicit shipments (illegal substances, counterfit products, non homogolated products etc.). It dosn't matter where they come from....with so much stuff being shipped these days it's getting impossible to control.....but open borders of course make this more difficult.
That is why I separated the concept of the customs function from the
revenue functions (whether traditional C&E or Inland Revenue).
JNugent
2020-02-19 11:59:23 UTC
Permalink
[..]
Post by JNugent
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure?  The BBC analysed HMRC's
    "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"?
Or "extra cost"?
    For a different sort of "reality check", £20bnpa is enough
to employ ~300000 FTE low-to-middle-ranking professionals including
their offices, computers, secretaries, ....  That seems a little OTT.
It's a bit less, a bit more, or a lot more than the number of
accountants in the UK, depending on what qualifications you count,
or about twice the number of solicitors, or about half the number of
teachers, or about 3/2 the number of university lecturers, or about
5/2 the number of policemen, or about the same as the number of
doctors or of nurses.
    IOW, Pamela, HMRC and the BBC are proposing that to deal
with customs post-Brexit, effectively a whole new profession on
the same scale as those mentioned will be necessary.  That fails
all the "sniff" tests you can imagine.  It also makes you wonder
how on earth we cope with trade with non-EU countries now.
Thank you.

The £20,000,000,000 "extra cost" just didn't seem at all likely.
Pamela
2020-02-20 13:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[..]
Don;t you recall that HMRC produced this figure?  The BBC analysed
HMRC's £20 billion estimate and didn't find any obvious errors.  See
here:     "Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
"Cost"? Or "extra cost"?
For a different sort of "reality check", £20bnpa is enough
to employ ~300000 FTE low-to-middle-ranking professionals including
their offices, computers, secretaries, .... That seems a little OTT.
It's a bit less, a bit more, or a lot more than the number of
accountants in the UK, depending on what qualifications you count, or
about twice the number of solicitors, or about half the number of
teachers, or about 3/2 the number of university lecturers, or about 5/2
the number of policemen, or about the same as the number of doctors or
of nurses.
IOW, Pamela, HMRC and the BBC are proposing that to deal
with customs post-Brexit, effectively a whole new profession on the same
scale as those mentioned will be necessary. That fails all the "sniff"
tests you can imagine. It also makes you wonder how on earth we cope
with trade with non-EU countries now.
Perhaps you could get clarification from your colleague Andy Grainger at the
University of Nottingham who provided some of the figures and used his
experience in logistics, which is more than you have, to say:

"The estimated £32.50 figure per declaration does not look out of place
when one considers the current charges by logistics companies to assist
traders with customs and other border formalities".

"In instances where goods are held for inspection, the costs will be
many times higher. In instances where procedural demands are minimal,
such as for goods sent by post, the costs could be lower".
Andy Walker
2020-02-20 20:48:25 UTC
Permalink
On 20/02/2020 13:31, Pamela wrote:
[...]
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
IOW, Pamela, HMRC and the BBC are proposing that to deal
with customs post-Brexit, effectively a whole new profession on the same
scale as those mentioned will be necessary. That fails all the "sniff"
tests you can imagine. It also makes you wonder how on earth we cope
with trade with non-EU countries now.
Perhaps you could get clarification from your colleague Andy Grainger
at the University of Nottingham
He's not a colleague. He arrived after I retired, and came to
a part of the university that is not even on the same campus as the
maths dept. He is described as an "Honorary Assistant Professor",
which doesn't suggest that he's a very active participant in anything
that I or my former colleagues would ever have been involved in.
Post by Pamela
who provided some of the figures and
used his experience in logistics, which is more than you have, to
No matter how much more experienced in logistics he may be,
he can't change the laws of arithmetic. There are three possibilities:

(a) the figure of £20bnpa extra is grossly in error;
(b) filling out customs forms is such a highly-skilled process
that its practitioners are typically on salaries of half a
million or more; or
(c) you/he/they are indeed proposing the establishment of a
profession of form-fillers, similar in scale to the sorts of
profession I mentioned [police, doctors, nurses, teachers,
solicitors, ...], and which for some inexplicable reason has
not been necessary until now for the considerable fraction of
our trade outside the EU.

My money is on (a). Where is yours?
Post by Pamela
"The estimated £32.50 figure per declaration does not look out of place
when one considers the current charges by logistics companies to assist
traders with customs and other border formalities".
Ah, well, there we are. You want to send your goods to some
remote part of the world, and you don't know how to do it, so you go
to a logistics company and they spend half an hour with you while you
explain the problem and they fill in the forms with your assistance,
and assure you it will now all be OK. Yes, a charge of £32.50 is not
unreasonable. But it doesn't scale. If you send 10000 crates of
[whatever], you don't pay that same company £325000, you employ a
logistics expert who spends half an hour learning what is in the
crates and filling out the first form, and the rest of the week
dealing with the rest of the shipment. Next week she saves you
another £300000 or so.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-02-21 10:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
IOW, Pamela, HMRC and the BBC are proposing that to deal
with customs post-Brexit, effectively a whole new profession on the
same scale as those mentioned will be necessary. That fails all the
"sniff" tests you can imagine. It also makes you wonder how on earth
we cope with trade with non-EU countries now.
Perhaps you could get clarification from your colleague Andy Grainger
at the University of Nottingham
He's not a colleague. He arrived after I retired, and came to
a part of the university that is not even on the same campus as the
maths dept. He is described as an "Honorary Assistant Professor",
which doesn't suggest that he's a very active participant in anything
that I or my former colleagues would ever have been involved in.
Post by Pamela
who provided some of the figures and
used his experience in logistics, which is more than you have, to
No matter how much more experienced in logistics he may be,
(a) the figure of £20bnpa extra is grossly in error;
(b) filling out customs forms is such a highly-skilled process
that its practitioners are typically on salaries of half a
million or more; or
(c) you/he/they are indeed proposing the establishment of a
profession of form-fillers, similar in scale to the sorts of
profession I mentioned [police, doctors, nurses, teachers,
solicitors, ...], and which for some inexplicable reason has
not been necessary until now for the considerable fraction of
our trade outside the EU.
My money is on (a). Where is yours?
Post by Pamela
"The estimated £32.50 figure per declaration does not look out of
place when one considers the current charges by logistics companies
to assist traders with customs and other border formalities".
Ah, well, there we are. You want to send your goods to some
remote part of the world, and you don't know how to do it, so you go
to a logistics company and they spend half an hour with you while you
explain the problem and they fill in the forms with your assistance,
and assure you it will now all be OK. Yes, a charge of £32.50 is not
unreasonable. But it doesn't scale. If you send 10000 crates of
[whatever], you don't pay that same company £325000, you employ a
logistics expert who spends half an hour learning what is in the
crates and filling out the first form, and the rest of the week
dealing with the rest of the shipment. Next week she saves you
another £300000 or so.
For all you cavilling and misunderstanding, the estimate is accepted as
valid by all relevant parties and genuine third-party fact-checkers.

The notion that your allegedly hyper-incisive mind had found some fatal
flaw in the whole estimate, despite many better qaulified people failing
to do so, is risible.

Your jibes and ripostes suggest you haven't even looked at the underlying
calulations or ranges being used. Move on, Andy, your "hyper-analysis"
has let you down once again.
Andy Walker
2020-02-22 00:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
For all you cavilling and misunderstanding, the estimate is accepted as
valid by all relevant parties and genuine third-party fact-checkers.
What are you claiming I have misunderstood? As for the
estimate, it's your choice whether to believe "authority" or your
own common sense.
Post by Pamela
The notion that your allegedly hyper-incisive mind had found some fatal
flaw in the whole estimate, despite many better qaulified people failing
to do so, is risible.
Who has made this allegation? But it doesn't matter how well-
qualified the people are, either (a) the amount is wrong, or (b) they
are going to pay enormous salaries, or (c) they are going to employ an
enormous number of people. That's simple arithmetic.
Post by Pamela
Your jibes and ripostes suggest you haven't even looked at the underlying
calulations or ranges being used.
But I have. I read the BBC "fact check" article, and read the articles referenced there, and saw Prof Grainger on TV -- I noted it particularly because until I saw his name spelled out I wondered
if he was related to Prof Sir Clive Granger, the Nobel Laureate --
all before I saw this thread and decided to contribute to it.

Instead of being rude, why not just tell us which of (a,b,c)
you think applies?
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-02-22 11:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
For all you cavilling and misunderstanding, the estimate is accepted as
valid by all relevant parties and genuine third-party fact-checkers.
What are you claiming I have misunderstood? As for the
estimate, it's your choice whether to believe "authority" or your
own common sense.
Post by Pamela
The notion that your allegedly hyper-incisive mind had found some fatal
flaw in the whole estimate, despite many better qaulified people
failing to do so, is risible.
Who has made this allegation? But it doesn't matter how well-
qualified the people are, either (a) the amount is wrong, or (b) they
are going to pay enormous salaries, or (c) they are going to employ an
enormous number of people. That's simple arithmetic.
Post by Pamela
Your jibes and ripostes suggest you haven't even looked at the
underlying calulations or ranges being used.
But I have. I read the BBC "fact check" article, and read the
articles referenced there, and saw Prof Grainger on TV -- I noted
it particularly because until I saw his name spelled out I wondered
if he was related to Prof Sir Clive Granger, the Nobel Laureate --
all before I saw this thread and decided to contribute to it.
Instead of being rude, why not just tell us which of (a,b,c)
you think applies?
Do you honestly believe you have now proven that the HMRC estimates that new
customs procedures after Brexit can not possibly cost "somewhere between
£17bn and £20bn" and that your back-of-an-envolope calculations show it?

Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226

Has anyone every mentioned the term "narcisssim" to you?
Andy Walker
2020-02-22 16:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Instead of being rude, why not just tell us which of (a,b,c)
you think applies?
Do you honestly believe you have now proven that the HMRC estimates that new
customs procedures after Brexit can not possibly cost "somewhere between
£17bn and £20bn" and that your back-of-an-envolope calculations show it?
Can we have that in English, please? Making my best guess at
what you meant to ask, I haven't "proven" anything, I merely asked you
a question. Note that £20bnpa is approaching £1000pa per family; take
a look around at other things that cost your family £1000pa and ask
yourself if filling in customs forms seems at all likely to be in the
same category. Every scientist is, or ought to be, taught to make
"back of the envelope" estimates; it's often the first sign that a
calculation or experiment or proposal has gone astray. If the BotE
estimate differs substantially from other estimates or results, then
they need to be reconciled. Thus far, you have made no contribution
at all to such a reconciliation, merely repeated the HMRC estimate.
Post by Pamela
Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
Yes, seen it, as I already told you. But if it is right,
then you are driven to (b) or (c) from my PP. Which?
Post by Pamela
Has anyone every mentioned the term "narcisssim" to you?
No, you are the first. Instead of obsessing about my
personality [which should be of little or no interest to you],
why not address the issues? What is *your* reconciliation of
the BotE estimate with the HMRC one?
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-02-23 12:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Instead of being rude, why not just tell us which of (a,b,c)
you think applies?
Do you honestly believe you have now proven that the HMRC estimates
that new customs procedures after Brexit can not possibly cost
"somewhere between £17bn and £20bn" and that your back-of-an-envelope
calculations show it?
Can we have that in English, please? Making my best guess at
what you meant to ask, I haven't "proven" anything, I merely asked you
a question. Note that £20bnpa is approaching £1000pa per family;
take a look around at other things that cost your family £1000pa and
ask yourself if filling in customs forms seems at all likely to be in
the same category. Every scientist is, or ought to be, taught to make
"back of the envelope" estimates; it's often the first sign that a
calculation or experiment or proposal has gone astray. If the BotE
estimate differs substantially from other estimates or results, then
they need to be reconciled. Thus far, you have made no contribution
at all to such a reconciliation, merely repeated the HMRC estimate.
Your seemingly incisive theoretical analysis is disproven by real world
experience.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226
Yes, seen it, as I already told you. But if it is right,
then you are driven to (b) or (c) from my PP. Which?
Post by Pamela
Has anyone every mentioned the term "narcissism" to you?
No, you are the first. Instead of obsessing about my
personality [which should be of little or no interest to you],
why not address the issues? What is *your* reconciliation of
the BotE estimate with the HMRC one?
Obviously, the back-of-the-envelope calculation is wrong. Your self-
congratulatory manner and self-belief prevents you from seeing it.

You seem to think no one (but you) thought to work out the cost by family
or individual. Family income does not account for all national income.

If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with the
wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit customs costs,
then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.

https://www.gov.uk/contact-hmrc
https://email.number10.gov.uk/
Joe
2020-02-23 13:01:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 12:15:07 GMT
Post by Pamela
If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with
the wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit
customs costs, then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.
The primary purpose of both the government in general and HMRC in
particular is to take money away from the people who earned it. Why do
you believe that they would *not* exaggerate costs in pursuit of that
aim?

Except, of course, when the government is looking for public support
for something, such as a railway line, in which case they will
'estimate' costs at around ten percent of what they really think.
--
Joe
abelard
2020-02-23 13:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 12:15:07 GMT
Post by Pamela
If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with
the wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit
customs costs, then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.
The primary purpose of both the government in general and HMRC in
particular is to take money away from the people who earned it. Why do
you believe that they would *not* exaggerate costs in pursuit of that
aim?
Except, of course, when the government is looking for public support
for something, such as a railway line, in which case they will
'estimate' costs at around ten percent of what they really think.
sadly, spammy pammy is incorrigibly naive...

trying to educate 'her' looks close to being a lost cause
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2020-02-24 16:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
[...] Thus far, you have made no contribution
at all to such a reconciliation, merely repeated the HMRC estimate.
Your seemingly incisive theoretical analysis is disproven by real world
experience.
(a) There is no real-world experience of the extra customs cost
incurred by Brexit, not least because we won't know for some time what
the customs arrangements between the UK and the EU will be. All we
have are the estimates. (b) Nor have I produced a "theoretical
analysis", incisive or otherwise; merely pointed out the consequences
if the HMRC estimate is roughly correct.
Post by Pamela
[...] What is *your* reconciliation of
the BotE estimate with the HMRC one?
Obviously, the back-of-the-envelope calculation is wrong.
That's not a reconciliation. What is the mistake in the
calculation you believe to be "obviously" wrong?
Post by Pamela
Your self-
congratulatory manner and self-belief prevents you from seeing it.
You know nothing of relevance about me, which makes your
attempts at analysis useless. You would do better to address the
message rather than the messenger.
Post by Pamela
You seem to think no one (but you) thought to work out the cost by family
or individual. Family income does not account for all national income.
I "seem to think" no such thing. I merely point out that the
scale of the HMRC estimate implies a whole new profession on the scale
of major existing professions such as nursing, accountancy, .... It
would be amazing if no-one in a position of responsibility has thought
either "oops, the estimate must be wrong" or "oops, we need to train up
a vast new army of professional customs form fillers".

Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post that
the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT support,
secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Post by Pamela
If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with the
wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit customs costs,
then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.
There's no point. It will happen or not, with nothing much
that anyone can do about it. It's either another manifestation of
Project Fear or a real concern which will have a major effect on the
UK economy. Take your pick. But you would do better to apply some
common sense rather than merely accept everything put out by the
authorities.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-02-25 14:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] Thus far, you have made no contribution at all to such a
reconciliation, merely repeated the HMRC estimate.
Your seemingly incisive theoretical analysis is disproven by real world
experience.
(a) There is no real-world experience of the extra customs cost
incurred by Brexit, not least because we won't know for some time what
the customs arrangements between the UK and the EU will be. All we have
are the estimates. (b) Nor have I produced a "theoretical analysis",
incisive or otherwise; merely pointed out the consequences if the HMRC
estimate is roughly correct.
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] What is *your* reconciliation of the BotE estimate with the HMRC
one?
Obviously, the back-of-the-envelope calculation is wrong.
That's not a reconciliation. What is the mistake in the
calculation you believe to be "obviously" wrong?
Post by Pamela
Your self- congratulatory manner and self-belief prevents you from
seeing it.
You know nothing of relevance about me, which makes your
attempts at analysis useless. You would do better to address the
message rather than the messenger.
Your priggishness is evident.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
You seem to think no one (but you) thought to work out the cost by
family or individual. Family income does not account for all national
income.
I "seem to think" no such thing. I merely point out that the
scale of the HMRC estimate implies a whole new profession on the scale
of major existing professions such as nursing, accountancy, .... It
would be amazing if no-one in a position of responsibility has thought
either "oops, the estimate must be wrong" or "oops, we need to train up
a vast new army of professional customs form fillers".
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post that
the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT support,
secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are 1.25 to 1.4
times salary and in this case may be less because a portion of the work is
done outdoors. Also your assumption of an average salary of £50,000 is
remarkably high, as the average salary of a UK customs officer is currently
less than £25,000.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with the
wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit customs
costs, then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.
There's no point. It will happen or not, with nothing much
that anyone can do about it. It's either another manifestation of
Project Fear or a real concern which will have a major effect on the UK
economy. Take your pick. But you would do better to apply some common
sense rather than merely accept everything put out by the authorities.
"There is no point" indeed, because your back of the envelope worry doesn't
show anything useful. For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social
protection" which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per
family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
JNugent
2020-02-25 15:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] Thus far, you have made no contribution at all to such a
reconciliation, merely repeated the HMRC estimate.
Your seemingly incisive theoretical analysis is disproven by real world
experience.
(a) There is no real-world experience of the extra customs cost
incurred by Brexit, not least because we won't know for some time what
the customs arrangements between the UK and the EU will be. All we have
are the estimates. (b) Nor have I produced a "theoretical analysis",
incisive or otherwise; merely pointed out the consequences if the HMRC
estimate is roughly correct.
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
Did we then have C&E expenditure on dealing with just those countries
currently in the EU at the price equivalent of £20,000,000,000 per annum?
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] What is *your* reconciliation of the BotE estimate with the HMRC
one?
Obviously, the back-of-the-envelope calculation is wrong.
That's not a reconciliation. What is the mistake in the
calculation you believe to be "obviously" wrong?
Post by Pamela
Your self- congratulatory manner and self-belief prevents you from
seeing it.
You know nothing of relevance about me, which makes your
attempts at analysis useless. You would do better to address the
message rather than the messenger.
Your priggishness is evident.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
You seem to think no one (but you) thought to work out the cost by
family or individual. Family income does not account for all national
income.
I "seem to think" no such thing. I merely point out that the
scale of the HMRC estimate implies a whole new profession on the scale
of major existing professions such as nursing, accountancy, .... It
would be amazing if no-one in a position of responsibility has thought
either "oops, the estimate must be wrong" or "oops, we need to train up
a vast new army of professional customs form fillers".
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post that
the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT support,
secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic.
Nevertheless, that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil
service. If an estimate of £20,000,000,000 is made, then within it,
£10,000,000,000 will be for labour costs (salaries) and £10,000,000,000
will be for the extra "on-costs" (everything from carpets and
window-blinds to pension liability).
Post by Pamela
Typically they are 1.25 to 1.4
times salary and in this case may be less because a portion of the work is
done outdoors. Also your assumption of an average salary of £50,000 is
remarkably high, as the average salary of a UK customs officer is currently
less than £25,000.
But where do you get your figures from?

And think of this: taking your 1.4 figure, and applying it to £25,000,
the figure (including on-costs according to your formula) will be
£35,000 per employee per annum.

Now let's see: £20,000,000,000 ÷ £35,000 = 571428.5714 (number of extra
employees on those figures).

Let's round off the odd 428.5714 posts and call it 571,000.

Five hundred and seventy-one thousand extra HMRC posts, in addition to
whatever the manpower complement currently is or would otherwise be.

Are you *sure* about those figures? I ask because instinctively - and
these were *your* figures (£20,000,000,000, £25,000 and 1.4) which were
used to arrive at that number of extra posts - it cannot be right, can it?

Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?

Alternatively, allowing for the 100% of salary for on-costs and for a
rather higher average salary than £25,000 would make your case less
incredible, and rather closer to Andy's.

Anyway, that's the straightforward numerical implications of the three
claims you have made. Have a think about them at least.
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with the
wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit customs
costs, then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.
There's no point. It will happen or not, with nothing much
that anyone can do about it. It's either another manifestation of
Project Fear or a real concern which will have a major effect on the UK
economy. Take your pick. But you would do better to apply some common
sense rather than merely accept everything put out by the authorities.
"There is no point" indeed, because your back of the envelope worry doesn't
show anything useful. For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social
protection" which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per
family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
What is "social protection"?
Pamela
2020-02-25 19:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] Thus far, you have made no contribution at all to such a
reconciliation, merely repeated the HMRC estimate.
Your seemingly incisive theoretical analysis is disproven by real
world experience.
(a) There is no real-world experience of the extra customs cost
incurred by Brexit, not least because we won't know for some time what
the customs arrangements between the UK and the EU will be. All we
have are the estimates. (b) Nor have I produced a "theoretical
analysis", incisive or otherwise; merely pointed out the consequences
if the HMRC estimate is roughly correct.
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
Did we then have C&E expenditure on dealing with just those countries
currently in the EU at the price equivalent of £20,000,000,000 per
annum?
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] What is *your* reconciliation of the BotE estimate with the
HMRC one?
Obviously, the back-of-the-envelope calculation is wrong.
That's not a reconciliation. What is the mistake in the
calculation you believe to be "obviously" wrong?
Post by Pamela
Your self- congratulatory manner and self-belief prevents you from
seeing it.
You know nothing of relevance about me, which makes your
attempts at analysis useless. You would do better to address the
message rather than the messenger.
Your priggishness is evident.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
You seem to think no one (but you) thought to work out the cost by
family or individual. Family income does not account for all
national income.
I "seem to think" no such thing. I merely point out that the
scale of the HMRC estimate implies a whole new profession on the scale
of major existing professions such as nursing, accountancy, .... It
would be amazing if no-one in a position of responsibility has thought
either "oops, the estimate must be wrong" or "oops, we need to train
up a vast new army of professional customs form fillers".
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post
that the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT
support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic.
Nevertheless, that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil
service. If an estimate of £20,000,000,000 is made, then within it,
£10,000,000,000 will be for labour costs (salaries) and
£10,000,000,000 will be for the extra "on-costs" (everything from
carpets and window-blinds to pension liability).
Post by Pamela
Typically they are 1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be
less because a portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your
assumption of an average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the
average salary of a UK customs officer is currently less than £25,000.
But where do you get your figures from?
And think of this: taking your 1.4 figure, and applying it to £25,000,
the figure (including on-costs according to your formula) will be
£35,000 per employee per annum.
Now let's see: £20,000,000,000 · £35,000 = 571428.5714 (number of
extra employees on those figures).
Let's round off the odd 428.5714 posts and call it 571,000.
Five hundred and seventy-one thousand extra HMRC posts, in addition to
whatever the manpower complement currently is or would otherwise be.
Are you *sure* about those figures? I ask because instinctively - and
these were *your* figures (£20,000,000,000, £25,000 and 1.4) which
were used to arrive at that number of extra posts - it cannot be right,
can it?
Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?
Alternatively, allowing for the 100% of salary for on-costs and for a
rather higher average salary than £25,000 would make your case less
incredible, and rather closer to Andy's.
Anyway, that's the straightforward numerical implications of the three
claims you have made. Have a think about them at least.
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with
the wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit
customs costs, then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.
There's no point. It will happen or not, with nothing much
that anyone can do about it. It's either another manifestation of
Project Fear or a real concern which will have a major effect on the
UK economy. Take your pick. But you would do better to apply some
common sense rather than merely accept everything put out by the
authorities.
"There is no point" indeed, because your back of the envelope worry
doesn't show anything useful. For example the UK spends £250 bn on
"social protection" which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable
£12,500 per family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to
add.
What is "social protection"?
"average salary for a Customs Officer is £24,554 per year in the UK"
https://www.indeed.co.uk/salaries/customs-officer-Salaries

"Social protection" is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom

1.25 to 1.4 loading for overheads is here:
https://beebole.com/blog/how-to-calculate-the-real-cost-of-an-employee/

JN: "Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?" Of course not.
That is the sort of nonsense Andy's calculations are leading him to.

JN: "that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil service".
That's true for forward planning but Andy is reversing the final figure to
work out actuals.
JNugent
2020-02-25 23:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] Thus far, you have made no contribution at all to such a
reconciliation, merely repeated the HMRC estimate.
Your seemingly incisive theoretical analysis is disproven by real
world experience.
(a) There is no real-world experience of the extra customs cost
incurred by Brexit, not least because we won't know for some time what
the customs arrangements between the UK and the EU will be. All we
have are the estimates. (b) Nor have I produced a "theoretical
analysis", incisive or otherwise; merely pointed out the consequences
if the HMRC estimate is roughly correct.
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
Did we then have C&E expenditure on dealing with just those countries
currently in the EU at the price equivalent of £20,000,000,000 per
annum?
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] What is *your* reconciliation of the BotE estimate with the
HMRC one?
Obviously, the back-of-the-envelope calculation is wrong.
That's not a reconciliation. What is the mistake in the
calculation you believe to be "obviously" wrong?
Post by Pamela
Your self- congratulatory manner and self-belief prevents you from
seeing it.
You know nothing of relevance about me, which makes your
attempts at analysis useless. You would do better to address the
message rather than the messenger.
Your priggishness is evident.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
You seem to think no one (but you) thought to work out the cost by
family or individual. Family income does not account for all
national income.
I "seem to think" no such thing. I merely point out that the
scale of the HMRC estimate implies a whole new profession on the scale
of major existing professions such as nursing, accountancy, .... It
would be amazing if no-one in a position of responsibility has thought
either "oops, the estimate must be wrong" or "oops, we need to train
up a vast new army of professional customs form fillers".
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post
that the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT
support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic.
Nevertheless, that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil
service. If an estimate of £20,000,000,000 is made, then within it,
£10,000,000,000 will be for labour costs (salaries) and
£10,000,000,000 will be for the extra "on-costs" (everything from
carpets and window-blinds to pension liability).
Post by Pamela
Typically they are 1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be
less because a portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your
assumption of an average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the
average salary of a UK customs officer is currently less than £25,000.
But where do you get your figures from?
And think of this: taking your 1.4 figure, and applying it to £25,000,
the figure (including on-costs according to your formula) will be
£35,000 per employee per annum.
Now let's see: £20,000,000,000 · £35,000 = 571428.5714 (number of
extra employees on those figures).
Let's round off the odd 428.5714 posts and call it 571,000.
Five hundred and seventy-one thousand extra HMRC posts, in addition to
whatever the manpower complement currently is or would otherwise be.
Are you *sure* about those figures? I ask because instinctively - and
these were *your* figures (£20,000,000,000, £25,000 and 1.4) which
were used to arrive at that number of extra posts - it cannot be right,
can it?
Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?
Alternatively, allowing for the 100% of salary for on-costs and for a
rather higher average salary than £25,000 would make your case less
incredible, and rather closer to Andy's.
Anyway, that's the straightforward numerical implications of the three
claims you have made. Have a think about them at least.
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with
the wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit
customs costs, then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.
There's no point. It will happen or not, with nothing much
that anyone can do about it. It's either another manifestation of
Project Fear or a real concern which will have a major effect on the
UK economy. Take your pick. But you would do better to apply some
common sense rather than merely accept everything put out by the
authorities.
"There is no point" indeed, because your back of the envelope worry
doesn't show anything useful. For example the UK spends £250 bn on
"social protection" which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable
£12,500 per family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to
add.
What is "social protection"?
"average salary for a Customs Officer is £24,554 per year in the UK"
https://www.indeed.co.uk/salaries/customs-officer-Salaries
That simply reflects something already said.
Post by Pamela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom
Not all government spending can possibly "social protection".
Post by Pamela
https://beebole.com/blog/how-to-calculate-the-real-cost-of-an-employee/
You have also to include the costs of technology and capital equipment.
Post by Pamela
JN: "Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?" Of course not.
That is the sort of nonsense Andy's calculations are leading him to.
JN: "that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil service".
That's true for forward planning but Andy is reversing the final figure to
work out actuals.
Starting with, and proceeding from, the figures (all of which you have
provided), how would you get to anything other than 470,000+ extra
employees in round terms?
Pamela
2020-02-26 11:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] Thus far, you have made no contribution at all to such a
reconciliation, merely repeated the HMRC estimate.
Your seemingly incisive theoretical analysis is disproven by real
world experience.
(a) There is no real-world experience of the extra customs cost
incurred by Brexit, not least because we won't know for some time
what the customs arrangements between the UK and the EU will be.
All we have are the estimates. (b) Nor have I produced a
"theoretical analysis", incisive or otherwise; merely pointed out
the consequences if the HMRC estimate is roughly correct.
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
Did we then have C&E expenditure on dealing with just those countries
currently in the EU at the price equivalent of ‚£20,000,000,000 per
annum?
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
[...] What is *your* reconciliation of the BotE estimate with the
HMRC one?
Obviously, the back-of-the-envelope calculation is wrong.
That's not a reconciliation. What is the mistake in the calculation
you believe to be "obviously" wrong?
Post by Pamela
Your self- congratulatory manner and self-belief prevents you from
seeing it.
You know nothing of relevance about me, which makes your attempts at
analysis useless. You would do better to address the message rather
than the messenger.
Your priggishness is evident.
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
You seem to think no one (but you) thought to work out the cost by
family or individual. Family income does not account for all
national income.
I "seem to think" no such thing. I merely point out that the
scale of the HMRC estimate implies a whole new profession on the
scale of major existing professions such as nursing, accountancy,
.... It would be amazing if no-one in a position of responsibility
has thought either "oops, the estimate must be wrong" or "oops, we
need to train up a vast new army of professional customs form
fillers".
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post
that the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT
support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic.
Nevertheless, that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil
service. If an estimate of £20,000,000,000 is made, then within it,
£10,000,000,000 will be for labour costs (salaries) and
£10,000,000,000 will be for the extra "on-costs" (everything from
carpets and window-blinds to pension liability).
Post by Pamela
Typically they are 1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be
less because a portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your
assumption of an average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as
the average salary of a UK customs officer is currently less than
£25,000.
But where do you get your figures from?
And think of this: taking your 1.4 figure, and applying it to £25,000,
the figure (including on-costs according to your formula) will be
£35,000 per employee per annum.
Now let's see: £20,000,000,000 · £35,000 = 571428.5714 (number of
extra employees on those figures).
Let's round off the odd 428.5714 posts and call it 571,000.
Five hundred and seventy-one thousand extra HMRC posts, in addition to
whatever the manpower complement currently is or would otherwise be.
Are you *sure* about those figures? I ask because instinctively - and
these were *your* figures (£20,000,000,000, £25,000 and 1.4) which
were used to arrive at that number of extra posts - it cannot be
right, can it?
Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?
Alternatively, allowing for the 100% of salary for on-costs and for a
rather higher average salary than £25,000 would make your case less
incredible, and rather closer to Andy's.
Anyway, that's the straightforward numerical implications of the three
claims you have made. Have a think about them at least.
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
If you think HMRC and Downing Street are both barrelling along with
the wrong estimates on something as fundamental as post-Brexit
customs costs, then tell them and see if they accept your analysis.
There's no point. It will happen or not, with nothing much that
anyone can do about it. It's either another manifestation of
Project Fear or a real concern which will have a major effect on the
UK economy. Take your pick. But you would do better to apply some
common sense rather than merely accept everything put out by the
authorities.
"There is no point" indeed, because your back of the envelope worry
doesn't show anything useful. For example the UK spends £250 bn on
"social protection" which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable
£12,500 per family. And then there's the NHS, education and police
to add.
What is "social protection"?
"average salary for a Customs Officer is £24,554 per year in the UK"
https://www.indeed.co.uk/salaries/customs-officer-Salaries
That simply reflects something already said.
Post by Pamela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom
Not all government spending can possibly "social protection".
Post by Pamela
https://beebole.com/blog/how-to-calculate-the-real-cost-of-an-employee/
You have also to include the costs of technology and capital equipment.
Post by Pamela
JN: "Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?" Of course
not. That is the sort of nonsense Andy's calculations are leading him
to.
JN: "that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil service".
That's true for forward planning but Andy is reversing the final figure
to work out actuals.
Starting with, and proceeding from, the figures (all of which you have
provided), how would you get to anything other than 470,000+ extra
employees in round terms?
Once you've refined your figures to a level of accuracy you find
satisfactory, do you believe they will show HMRC's calcuation of £20 bn
cost (specifically a range of £17 bn to 20 bn) for what the journalist
calls the "unprecedented system" must be wrong?

"Brexit: How did HMRC get to a £20bn customs cost?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226

Several reality checkers analysed HMRC's estimate and didn't find any
significant error. The Institute for Govt wrote in its report,

"introduction of customs declarations alone could end up costing
traders in the region of £4 billion a year".

John Thompson told a Parliamentary committee asking about the breakdown of
this that,

"the cost to UK businesses under 'no deal' would be £18 billion. He
explained that this figure was composed of two elements—£13 billion for
import and export customs declarations and £5 billion for tariffs."

At the time the FT pointed out,

"The £20bn number assumes that every business will need to fill in a
customs declaration, which is a legal necessity under global rules. It
stems from an estimate of the business costs of filling in a customs
declaration of £35 a consignment, which can range from a container load
to a fast parcel, such as those delivered by courier companies such as
FedEx or UPS."

"UK chief executive of Siemens, said ... that a high-friction model,
such as max fac, would have higher costs than the £20bn because "it
does not include the cost of delays" and other impediments to business,
which he used to deal with before the single market was created"

Earlier I posted two links for Andy to inform No.10 and HMRC of any fatal
flaws. This whole matter is important for our costing of trade with the EU
and you should join Andy in informing governement of your iconoclastic
analysis.
Andy Walker
2020-02-26 16:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
JN: "Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?" Of course not.
That is the sort of nonsense Andy's calculations are leading him to.
So *either* you should be able to point to a mistake in the
calculation *or* the starting figure of £20bn is wrong -- and not
merely slightly wrong, but order-of-magnitude wrong.
Post by Pamela
JN: "that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil service".
That's true for forward planning but Andy is reversing the final figure to
work out actuals.
Of course. If the expenditure is £20bnpa, then we're entitled
to work out from that how many jobs are implied. If you can get to a
reasonable number at a reasonable salary, then show your working. Use
common sense, not an inappropriate appeal to authority.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-02-27 22:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
JN: "Is HMRC planning to employ an extra 470,000+ people?" Of course
not. That is the sort of nonsense Andy's calculations are leading him
to.
So *either* you should be able to point to a mistake in the
calculation *or* the starting figure of £20bn is wrong -- and not merely
slightly wrong, but order-of-magnitude wrong.
Post by Pamela
JN: "that is *precisely* what is done throughout the civil service".
That's true for forward planning but Andy is reversing the final figure
to work out actuals.
Of course. If the expenditure is £20bnpa, then we're entitled
to work out from that how many jobs are implied. If you can get to a
reasonable number at a reasonable salary, then show your working. Use
common sense, not an inappropriate appeal to authority.
I am not interested in your calculated staff numbers for customs checks.

If you use the wrong assumptions then your calculation will be bonkers.

You snipped my links and quotes. Maybe they're too troubling for your
failing argument.
Andy Walker
2020-02-29 00:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
I am not interested in your calculated staff numbers for customs checks.
If you use the wrong assumptions then your calculation will be bonkers.
For someone who is "not interested", you seem to be desperately
keen for the calculation to be "bonkers". There are two [relevant]
assumptions: the figure [which you support] of £20bnpa for the extra
cost of customs documentation, and the proportion of that [which I very
cautiously took to be 50%, in line with usual practice] that goes in
salaries.

If there is not at least 50% going in salaries, then where is
it going? It isn't the calculation that's "bonkers" -- you can divide
£10bnpa by £50Kpa yourself if you want to know FTE staff implications. Replacing £50K by £25K or 50% by 80% doesn't change anything important;
it's the £20bnpa that's "bonkers". You prove it yourself every time
you try to re-work the numbers; but you prefer to pretend it's some
imagined character defect in me and, presumably, in JN. Phooey. Your
trollery is wasted.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-02-29 21:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Pamela
I am not interested in your calculated staff numbers for customs
checks. If you use the wrong assumptions then your calculation will be
bonkers.
For someone who is "not interested", you seem to be desperately
keen for the calculation to be "bonkers". There are two [relevant]
assumptions: the figure [which you support] of £20bnpa for the extra
cost of customs documentation, and the proportion of that [which I very
cautiously took to be 50%, in line with usual practice] that goes in
salaries.
If there is not at least 50% going in salaries, then where is
it going? It isn't the calculation that's "bonkers" -- you can divide
£10bnpa by £50Kpa yourself if you want to know FTE staff implications.
Replacing £50K by £25K or 50% by 80% doesn't change anything
important; it's the £20bnpa that's "bonkers". You prove it yourself
every time you try to re-work the numbers; but you prefer to pretend
it's some imagined character defect in me and, presumably, in JN.
Nugent has a better grip of what's involved. if yuo feed garbage numbers
in then you get garbage numbers out.

I said HMRC estimated an additional cost of up to £20 bn to handle the
current level of goods in the event of a no deal Brexit. Others agree. What
exactly is your problem?
Andy Walker
2020-03-02 00:41:32 UTC
Permalink
[...] if yuo feed garbage numbers
in then you get garbage numbers out.
For once, and in this instance, I agree with you [though the
converse result is more apposite]. However, you do not seem to
understand the implication, that the £20bnpa is a garbage number.
You prefer to attack the messenger.
I said HMRC estimated an additional cost of up to £20 bn to handle
the current level of goods in the event of a no deal Brexit.
Actually you didn't say that. What you said, on February 17th,
in "<***@176.124.71.34>", was:

" one way the UK will not benefit from Brexit is the additional
" £20 billion cost for customs checks. "

Spot the subtle differences. But no matter.
Others
agree.
Perhaps some do. AFAIR, no-one here has admitted to it; and
your favourite BBC "Reality Check" source has another subtly different
version. See "https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44238226". Again,
it doesn't really matter, except to show that "Project Fear" is alive
and well.
What exactly is your problem?
Why would anyone suppose that I have a problem?
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-03-02 10:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Why would anyone suppose that I have a problem?
lol!

Andy Walker
2020-02-26 16:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
We didn't have ships transporting many thousands of containers
in 1972; and we're not here discussing customs checks but the form-
filling required to import/export goods. How much we spend on checking
is entirely in our hands. For a long time now, it has been "intelligence
led"; the vast majority of imports/exports go through reputable
companies and are subject only to random checks, and it's up to us
whether we check 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%. It's different if you've
been told that *that* container is being used to ship cocaine, or
arms, or refugees; but there's no reason to suppose that we will be
swamped by such intelligence as a consequence of Brexit.

[...]
Post by Pamela
Post by Andy Walker
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post that
the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT support,
secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are
1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be less because a
portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your assumption of an
average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the average salary
of a UK customs officer is currently less than £25,000.
As JN points out, you are going in the wrong direction with
these "corrections". Halving the salary doubles the number of people
involved, given the same total estimate. However, we are not talking
about "customs officers" but about the cost of employing people to
create customs declarations. As previously noted, this is the sort
of cost that simply doesn't scale. It costs a lot to do it "one
off", but you can copy the form, apart from date and serial number,
for the next 1000 parcels or containers or whatever that you send
containing the same things and going to the same places.
Post by Pamela
[...] For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social protection" which,
taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per family. And
then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
In UBI threads, I have pointed out that to very crude
approximation, the UK benefits system consists of half of us paying
£5Kpa to the other half. Scaling up from individuals to families
indeed gives roughly £12.5Kpa. But that is not a cost to the UK,
it's an internal transfer from wealthy people to poor people. We
indeed also have the NHS, education and police to add; but these
facilities bring benefits [and it's a matter of politics whether
we should pay more or less for them], unlike the proposed army of
expensive form-fillers for customs checks. I understand why we
might need 2-300000 doctors or nurses or teachers or policemen
or .... Tell us again why we need that number of customs form
fillers, and why this does not fly in the face of common sense.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Pamela
2020-02-27 12:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
We didn't have ships transporting many thousands of containers in 1972;
and we're not here discussing customs checks but the form- filling
required to import/export goods. How much we spend on checking is
entirely in our hands. For a long time now, it has been "intelligence
led"; the vast majority of imports/exports go through reputable
companies and are subject only to random checks, and it's up to us
whether we check 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%. It's different if you've been
told that *that* container is being used to ship cocaine, or arms, or
refugees; but there's no reason to suppose that we will be swamped by
such intelligence as a consequence of Brexit.
[...]
Post by Pamela
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people on a
salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post that
the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT
support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are 1.25
to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be less because a portion of
the work is done outdoors. Also your assumption of an average salary
of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the average salary of a UK customs
officer is currently less than £25,000.
As JN points out, you are going in the wrong direction with these
"corrections". Halving the salary doubles the number of people
involved, given the same total estimate. However, we are not talking
about "customs officers" but about the cost of employing people to
create customs declarations. As previously noted, this is the sort of
cost that simply doesn't scale. It costs a lot to do it "one off", but
you can copy the form, apart from date and serial number, for the next
1000 parcels or containers or whatever that you send containing the same
things and going to the same places.
Post by Pamela
[...] For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social protection" which,
taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per family. And
then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
In UBI threads, I have pointed out that to very crude approximation, the
UK benefits system consists of half of us paying £5Kpa to the other
half. Scaling up from individuals to families indeed gives roughly
£12.5Kpa. But that is not a cost to the UK, it's an internal transfer
from wealthy people to poor people. We indeed also have the NHS,
education and police to add; but these facilities bring benefits [and
it's a matter of politics whether we should pay more or less for them],
unlike the proposed army of expensive form-fillers for customs checks.
I understand why we might need 2-300000 doctors or nurses or teachers or
policemen or .... Tell us again why we need that number of customs form
fillers, and why this does not fly in the face of common sense.
You arrived at your vast number of staff by assuming the cost must be
translated into customs staffing. You're digging a hole for your argument
and should stop especially as you alsopoint out it "simply doesn't scale".

I tried to show how your assumptions were even more preposterous than your
staffing figures, as a truer salary assumption would lead to an even
larger staff figure. Your increasingly unwarranted assumptions makes your
original argument look even more foolish.

Your comments on intelligence-led random sampling as an alternative go to
show you haven't read what I quoted about how all "every business will
need to fill in a customs declaration, which is a legal necessity under
global rules". Where does it say the estimated cost is bourne by
additional customs staff?

You're making assumptions about how we will fulfill EU requirements for
customs checks if we have a hard Brexit at the end of the year in which
Boris refuses to align standands with the EU.

Go and tell Downing Street and HMRC of your amazing discovery. They will
say you are a pedantic plonker and a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing.
JNugent
2020-02-27 15:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
We didn't have ships transporting many thousands of containers in 1972;
and we're not here discussing customs checks but the form- filling
required to import/export goods. How much we spend on checking is
entirely in our hands. For a long time now, it has been "intelligence
led"; the vast majority of imports/exports go through reputable
companies and are subject only to random checks, and it's up to us
whether we check 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%. It's different if you've been
told that *that* container is being used to ship cocaine, or arms, or
refugees; but there's no reason to suppose that we will be swamped by
such intelligence as a consequence of Brexit.
[...]
Post by Pamela
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people on a
salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post that
the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT
support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are 1.25
to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be less because a portion of
the work is done outdoors. Also your assumption of an average salary
of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the average salary of a UK customs
officer is currently less than £25,000.
As JN points out, you are going in the wrong direction with these
"corrections". Halving the salary doubles the number of people
involved, given the same total estimate. However, we are not talking
about "customs officers" but about the cost of employing people to
create customs declarations. As previously noted, this is the sort of
cost that simply doesn't scale. It costs a lot to do it "one off", but
you can copy the form, apart from date and serial number, for the next
1000 parcels or containers or whatever that you send containing the same
things and going to the same places.
Post by Pamela
[...] For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social protection" which,
taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per family. And
then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
In UBI threads, I have pointed out that to very crude approximation, the
UK benefits system consists of half of us paying £5Kpa to the other
half. Scaling up from individuals to families indeed gives roughly
£12.5Kpa. But that is not a cost to the UK, it's an internal transfer
from wealthy people to poor people. We indeed also have the NHS,
education and police to add; but these facilities bring benefits [and
it's a matter of politics whether we should pay more or less for them],
unlike the proposed army of expensive form-fillers for customs checks.
I understand why we might need 2-300000 doctors or nurses or teachers or
policemen or .... Tell us again why we need that number of customs form
fillers, and why this does not fly in the face of common sense.
You arrived at your vast number of staff by assuming the cost must be
translated into customs staffing.
...or other staff at that sort of salary.
Post by Pamela
You're digging a hole for your argument
and should stop especially as you alsopoint out it "simply doesn't scale".
I tried to show how your assumptions were even more preposterous than your
staffing figures, as a truer salary assumption would lead to an even
larger staff figure. Your increasingly unwarranted assumptions makes your
original argument look even more foolish.
Your comments on intelligence-led random sampling as an alternative go to
show you haven't read what I quoted about how all "every business will
need to fill in a customs declaration, which is a legal necessity under
global rules". Where does it say the estimated cost is bourne by
additional customs staff?
You're making assumptions about how we will fulfill EU requirements for
customs checks if we have a hard Brexit at the end of the year in which
Boris refuses to align standands with the EU.
Go and tell Downing Street and HMRC of your amazing discovery. They will
say you are a pedantic plonker and a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing.
Pamela
2020-02-27 18:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
We didn't have ships transporting many thousands of containers in
1972; and we're not here discussing customs checks but the form-
filling required to import/export goods. How much we spend on
checking is entirely in our hands. For a long time now, it has been
"intelligence led"; the vast majority of imports/exports go through
reputable companies and are subject only to random checks, and it's up
to us whether we check 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%. It's different if
you've been told that *that* container is being used to ship cocaine,
or arms, or refugees; but there's no reason to suppose that we will
be swamped by such intelligence as a consequence of Brexit.
[...]
Post by Pamela
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people on
a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post
that the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT
support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are
1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be less because a
portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your assumption of an
average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the average salary
of a UK customs officer is currently less than £25,000.
As JN points out, you are going in the wrong direction with these
"corrections". Halving the salary doubles the number of people
involved, given the same total estimate. However, we are not talking
about "customs officers" but about the cost of employing people to
create customs declarations. As previously noted, this is the sort of
cost that simply doesn't scale. It costs a lot to do it "one off",
but you can copy the form, apart from date and serial number, for the
next 1000 parcels or containers or whatever that you send containing
the same things and going to the same places.
Post by Pamela
[...] For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social protection"
which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per
family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
In UBI threads, I have pointed out that to very crude approximation,
the UK benefits system consists of half of us paying £5Kpa to the
other half. Scaling up from individuals to families indeed gives
roughly £12.5Kpa. But that is not a cost to the UK, it's an
internal transfer from wealthy people to poor people. We indeed also
have the NHS, education and police to add; but these facilities bring
benefits [and it's a matter of politics whether we should pay more or
less for them], unlike the proposed army of expensive form-fillers for
customs checks. I understand why we might need 2-300000 doctors or
nurses or teachers or policemen or .... Tell us again why we need
that number of customs form fillers, and why this does not fly in the
face of common sense.
You arrived at your vast number of staff by assuming the cost must be
translated into customs staffing.
...or other staff at that sort of salary.
Andy calculated the effect of spending £20 bn in terms of customs jobs. He
didn't apportion any of the cost to non-customs employees or lost profits. I
tried to tell him not to use over-simplistic calculations.

One contributory reason the £20 bn cost is so large is that the UK has a
colossal trade with the EU, for even the smallest items, which would not
have grown as it did if customs checks had been a requirement throughout
our 47 years. The estimated cost can be avoided if Boris avoids a "no
deal" Brexit together with regulatory non-alignment but he is threatening
both. Alternatively, to save costs the UK could cut back drastically on the
volume of trade with the EU. What a mess.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
You're digging a hole for your argument and should stop especially as
you alsopoint out it "simply doesn't scale".
I tried to show how your assumptions were even more preposterous than
your staffing figures, as a truer salary assumption would lead to an
even larger staff figure. Your increasingly unwarranted assumptions
makes your original argument look even more foolish.
Your comments on intelligence-led random sampling as an alternative go
to show you haven't read what I quoted about how all "every business
will need to fill in a customs declaration, which is a legal necessity
under global rules". Where does it say the estimated cost is bourne by
additional customs staff?
You're making assumptions about how we will fulfill EU requirements for
customs checks if we have a hard Brexit at the end of the year in which
Boris refuses to align standands with the EU.
Go and tell Downing Street and HMRC of your amazing discovery. They
will say you are a pedantic plonker and a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing.
JNugent
2020-02-27 23:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
We didn't have ships transporting many thousands of containers in
1972; and we're not here discussing customs checks but the form-
filling required to import/export goods. How much we spend on
checking is entirely in our hands. For a long time now, it has been
"intelligence led"; the vast majority of imports/exports go through
reputable companies and are subject only to random checks, and it's up
to us whether we check 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%. It's different if
you've been told that *that* container is being used to ship cocaine,
or arms, or refugees; but there's no reason to suppose that we will
be swamped by such intelligence as a consequence of Brexit.
[...]
Post by Pamela
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people on
a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of post
that the basic cost is doubled when you account for office space, IT
support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are
1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be less because a
portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your assumption of an
average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the average salary
of a UK customs officer is currently less than £25,000.
As JN points out, you are going in the wrong direction with these
"corrections". Halving the salary doubles the number of people
involved, given the same total estimate. However, we are not talking
about "customs officers" but about the cost of employing people to
create customs declarations. As previously noted, this is the sort of
cost that simply doesn't scale. It costs a lot to do it "one off",
but you can copy the form, apart from date and serial number, for the
next 1000 parcels or containers or whatever that you send containing
the same things and going to the same places.
Post by Pamela
[...] For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social protection"
which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per
family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
In UBI threads, I have pointed out that to very crude approximation,
the UK benefits system consists of half of us paying £5Kpa to the
other half. Scaling up from individuals to families indeed gives
roughly £12.5Kpa. But that is not a cost to the UK, it's an
internal transfer from wealthy people to poor people. We indeed also
have the NHS, education and police to add; but these facilities bring
benefits [and it's a matter of politics whether we should pay more or
less for them], unlike the proposed army of expensive form-fillers for
customs checks. I understand why we might need 2-300000 doctors or
nurses or teachers or policemen or .... Tell us again why we need
that number of customs form fillers, and why this does not fly in the
face of common sense.
You arrived at your vast number of staff by assuming the cost must be
translated into customs staffing.
...or other staff at that sort of salary.
Andy calculated the effect of spending £20 bn in terms of customs jobs. He
didn't apportion any of the cost to non-customs employees or lost profits. I
tried to tell him not to use over-simplistic calculations.
The whole of the amount (whatever it is) can be seen in terms of
salaries and on-costs. Approximately 50% to each category. It really
doesn't matter whether they are customs jobs or not (but some of them
would have to be).
Post by Pamela
One contributory reason the £20 bn cost is so large is that the UK has a
colossal trade with the EU, for even the smallest items, which would not
have grown as it did if customs checks had been a requirement throughout
our 47 years. The estimated cost can be avoided if Boris avoids a "no
deal" Brexit together with regulatory non-alignment but he is threatening
both. Alternatively, to save costs the UK could cut back drastically on the
volume of trade with the EU. What a mess.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
You're digging a hole for your argument and should stop especially as
you alsopoint out it "simply doesn't scale".
I tried to show how your assumptions were even more preposterous than
your staffing figures, as a truer salary assumption would lead to an
even larger staff figure. Your increasingly unwarranted assumptions
makes your original argument look even more foolish.
Your comments on intelligence-led random sampling as an alternative go
to show you haven't read what I quoted about how all "every business
will need to fill in a customs declaration, which is a legal necessity
under global rules". Where does it say the estimated cost is bourne by
additional customs staff?
You're making assumptions about how we will fulfill EU requirements for
customs checks if we have a hard Brexit at the end of the year in which
Boris refuses to align standands with the EU.
Go and tell Downing Street and HMRC of your amazing discovery. They
will say you are a pedantic plonker and a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing.
Pamela
2020-02-28 10:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
We didn't have ships transporting many thousands of containers in
1972; and we're not here discussing customs checks but the form-
filling required to import/export goods. How much we spend on
checking is entirely in our hands. For a long time now, it has been
"intelligence led"; the vast majority of imports/exports go through
reputable companies and are subject only to random checks, and it's
up to us whether we check 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%. It's different if
you've been told that *that* container is being used to ship
cocaine, or arms, or refugees; but there's no reason to suppose
that we will be swamped by such intelligence as a consequence of
Brexit.
[...]
Post by Pamela
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of
post that the basic cost is doubled when you account for office
space, IT support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are
1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be less because a
portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your assumption of an
average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the average
salary of a UK customs officer is currently less than £25,000.
As JN points out, you are going in the wrong direction with these
"corrections". Halving the salary doubles the number of people
involved, given the same total estimate. However, we are not
talking about "customs officers" but about the cost of employing
people to create customs declarations. As previously noted, this is
the sort of cost that simply doesn't scale. It costs a lot to do it
"one off", but you can copy the form, apart from date and serial
number, for the next 1000 parcels or containers or whatever that you
send containing the same things and going to the same places.
Post by Pamela
[...] For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social protection"
which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per
family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
In UBI threads, I have pointed out that to very crude approximation,
the UK benefits system consists of half of us paying £5Kpa to the
other half. Scaling up from individuals to families indeed gives
roughly £12.5Kpa. But that is not a cost to the UK, it's an
internal transfer from wealthy people to poor people. We indeed
also have the NHS, education and police to add; but these
facilities bring benefits [and it's a matter of politics whether we
should pay more or less for them], unlike the proposed army of
expensive form-fillers for customs checks. I understand why we might
need 2-300000 doctors or nurses or teachers or policemen or ....
Tell us again why we need that number of customs form fillers, and
why this does not fly in the face of common sense.
You arrived at your vast number of staff by assuming the cost must be
translated into customs staffing.
...or other staff at that sort of salary.
Andy calculated the effect of spending £20 bn in terms of customs
jobs. He didn't apportion any of the cost to non-customs employees or
lost profits. I tried to tell him not to use over-simplistic
calculations.
The whole of the amount (whatever it is) can be seen in terms of
salaries and on-costs. Approximately 50% to each category. It really
doesn't matter whether they are customs jobs or not (but some of them
would have to be).
Simply saying "salaries" can imply entire jobs (and of a particular
profession) to those not alert to the full range of possibilities. There
may not be additional salary paid to a company employee dealing with new
customs procedures but less of their former profitable activity.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
One contributory reason the £20 bn cost is so large is that the UK has
a colossal trade with the EU, for even the smallest items, which would
not have grown as it did if customs checks had been a requirement
throughout our 47 years. The estimated cost can be avoided if Boris
avoids a "no deal" Brexit together with regulatory non-alignment but he
is threatening both. Alternatively, to save costs the UK could cut
back drastically on the volume of trade with the EU. What a mess.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
You're digging a hole for your argument and should stop especially as
you alsopoint out it "simply doesn't scale".
I tried to show how your assumptions were even more preposterous than
your staffing figures, as a truer salary assumption would lead to an
even larger staff figure. Your increasingly unwarranted assumptions
makes your original argument look even more foolish.
Your comments on intelligence-led random sampling as an alternative
go to show you haven't read what I quoted about how all "every
business will need to fill in a customs declaration, which is a legal
necessity under global rules". Where does it say the estimated cost
is bourne by additional customs staff?
You're making assumptions about how we will fulfill EU requirements
for customs checks if we have a hard Brexit at the end of the year in
which Boris refuses to align standands with the EU.
Go and tell Downing Street and HMRC of your amazing discovery. They
will say you are a pedantic plonker and a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing.
JNugent
2020-02-28 18:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
We didn't have ships transporting many thousands of containers in
1972; and we're not here discussing customs checks but the form-
filling required to import/export goods. How much we spend on
checking is entirely in our hands. For a long time now, it has been
"intelligence led"; the vast majority of imports/exports go through
reputable companies and are subject only to random checks, and it's
up to us whether we check 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%. It's different if
you've been told that *that* container is being used to ship
cocaine, or arms, or refugees; but there's no reason to suppose
that we will be swamped by such intelligence as a consequence of
Brexit.
[...]
Post by Pamela
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000 people
on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that sort of
post that the basic cost is doubled when you account for office
space, IT support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are
1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be less because a
portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your assumption of an
average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the average
salary of a UK customs officer is currently less than £25,000.
As JN points out, you are going in the wrong direction with these
"corrections". Halving the salary doubles the number of people
involved, given the same total estimate. However, we are not
talking about "customs officers" but about the cost of employing
people to create customs declarations. As previously noted, this is
the sort of cost that simply doesn't scale. It costs a lot to do it
"one off", but you can copy the form, apart from date and serial
number, for the next 1000 parcels or containers or whatever that you
send containing the same things and going to the same places.
Post by Pamela
[...] For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social protection"
which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per
family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
In UBI threads, I have pointed out that to very crude approximation,
the UK benefits system consists of half of us paying £5Kpa to the
other half. Scaling up from individuals to families indeed gives
roughly £12.5Kpa. But that is not a cost to the UK, it's an
internal transfer from wealthy people to poor people. We indeed
also have the NHS, education and police to add; but these
facilities bring benefits [and it's a matter of politics whether we
should pay more or less for them], unlike the proposed army of
expensive form-fillers for customs checks. I understand why we might
need 2-300000 doctors or nurses or teachers or policemen or ....
Tell us again why we need that number of customs form fillers, and
why this does not fly in the face of common sense.
You arrived at your vast number of staff by assuming the cost must be
translated into customs staffing.
...or other staff at that sort of salary.
Andy calculated the effect of spending £20 bn in terms of customs
jobs. He didn't apportion any of the cost to non-customs employees or
lost profits. I tried to tell him not to use over-simplistic
calculations.
The whole of the amount (whatever it is) can be seen in terms of
salaries and on-costs. Approximately 50% to each category. It really
doesn't matter whether they are customs jobs or not (but some of them
would have to be).
Simply saying "salaries" can imply entire jobs (and of a particular
profession) to those not alert to the full range of possibilities.
Full time jobs (Total sum divided by average f/t salary including
on-costs) or equivalent. If calculating for part-time jobs (or for only
acertain proportions of full-time jobs), the arithmetic still works but
is more complicated. Part time would imply even more people involved of
course, since we know that bthere is a claimed total (£20,000,000,000)
and an average full-time equivalent number of jobs.
Post by Pamela
There
may not be additional salary paid to a company employee dealing with new
customs procedures but less of their former profitable activity.
That is still a cost in economics terms. It is known as opportunity cost.
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
One contributory reason the £20 bn cost is so large is that the UK has
a colossal trade with the EU, for even the smallest items, which would
not have grown as it did if customs checks had been a requirement
throughout our 47 years. The estimated cost can be avoided if Boris
avoids a "no deal" Brexit together with regulatory non-alignment but he
is threatening both. Alternatively, to save costs the UK could cut
back drastically on the volume of trade with the EU. What a mess.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
You're digging a hole for your argument and should stop especially as
you alsopoint out it "simply doesn't scale".
I tried to show how your assumptions were even more preposterous than
your staffing figures, as a truer salary assumption would lead to an
even larger staff figure. Your increasingly unwarranted assumptions
makes your original argument look even more foolish.
Your comments on intelligence-led random sampling as an alternative
go to show you haven't read what I quoted about how all "every
business will need to fill in a customs declaration, which is a legal
necessity under global rules". Where does it say the estimated cost
is bourne by additional customs staff?
You're making assumptions about how we will fulfill EU requirements
for customs checks if we have a hard Brexit at the end of the year in
which Boris refuses to align standands with the EU.
Go and tell Downing Street and HMRC of your amazing discovery. They
will say you are a pedantic plonker and a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Pamela
2020-02-29 21:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
You have only to go back to before 1972 to know what customs checks involve.
We didn't have ships transporting many thousands of containers in
1972; and we're not here discussing customs checks but the form-
filling required to import/export goods. How much we spend on
checking is entirely in our hands. For a long time now, it has
been "intelligence led"; the vast majority of imports/exports go
through reputable companies and are subject only to random checks,
and it's up to us whether we check 10%, 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%. It's
different if you've been told that *that* container is being used
to ship cocaine, or arms, or refugees; but there's no reason to
suppose that we will be swamped by such intelligence as a
consequence of Brexit.
[...]
Post by Pamela
Just to remind you -- £20bnpa is enough to employ 200000
people on a salary of £50Kpa on the assumption usual to that
sort of post that the basic cost is doubled when you account for
office space, IT support, secretarial support, cleaners, etc.
Doubling for office overheads is unrealistic. Typically they are
1.25 to 1.4 times salary and in this case may be less because a
portion of the work is done outdoors. Also your assumption of an
average salary of £50,000 is remarkably high, as the average
salary of a UK customs officer is currently less than £25,000.
As JN points out, you are going in the wrong direction with these
"corrections". Halving the salary doubles the number of people
involved, given the same total estimate. However, we are not
talking about "customs officers" but about the cost of employing
people to create customs declarations. As previously noted, this
is the sort of cost that simply doesn't scale. It costs a lot to
do it "one off", but you can copy the form, apart from date and
serial number, for the next 1000 parcels or containers or whatever
that you send containing the same things and going to the same
places.
Post by Pamela
[...] For example the UK spends £250 bn on "social protection"
which, taking your view, comes to an unaffordable £12,500 per
family. And then there's the NHS, education and police to add.
In UBI threads, I have pointed out that to very crude
approximation, the UK benefits system consists of half of us
paying £5Kpa to the other half. Scaling up from individuals to
families indeed gives roughly £12.5Kpa. But that is not a
cost to the UK, it's an internal transfer from wealthy people to
poor people. We indeed also have the NHS, education and police to
add; but these facilities bring benefits [and it's a matter of
politics whether we should pay more or less for them], unlike the
proposed army of expensive form-fillers for customs checks. I
understand why we might need 2-300000 doctors or nurses or
teachers or policemen or .... Tell us again why we need that
number of customs form fillers, and why this does not fly in the
face of common sense.
You arrived at your vast number of staff by assuming the cost must
be translated into customs staffing.
...or other staff at that sort of salary.
Andy calculated the effect of spending £20 bn in terms of customs
jobs. He didn't apportion any of the cost to non-customs employees
or lost profits. I tried to tell him not to use over-simplistic
calculations.
The whole of the amount (whatever it is) can be seen in terms of
salaries and on-costs. Approximately 50% to each category. It really
doesn't matter whether they are customs jobs or not (but some of them
would have to be).
Simply saying "salaries" can imply entire jobs (and of a particular
profession) to those not alert to the full range of possibilities.
Full time jobs (Total sum divided by average f/t salary including
on-costs) or equivalent. If calculating for part-time jobs (or for only
acertain proportions of full-time jobs), the arithmetic still works but
is more complicated. Part time would imply even more people involved of
course, since we know that bthere is a claimed total (£20,000,000,000)
and an average full-time equivalent number of jobs.
It doesn't scale up truly linearly. As an example, you can throw an extra
30 minutes a week at an individual and they usually find a way to absorb
into the existing number of hours worked. Eighty such instances do not
equate into hiring an extra employee even if the sum total of additional
work shows equivalence.
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
There may not be additional salary paid to a company employee dealing
with new customs procedures but less of their former profitable
activity.
That is still a cost in economics terms. It is known as opportunity cost.
Precisely. Which is why I said it leads to less profit.
Andy Walker
2020-02-29 01:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
You arrived at your vast number of staff by assuming the cost must
be translated into customs staffing.
*Customs* staffing is your addition. It is up to HMRC and
other authorities to decide how many staff to deploy, and therefore
how much extra [if any] money they will need. The cost is to those
companies that export having to produce extra documentation; what
notice HMRC [etc] take of that documentation is another matter. But
you seem still to be unable to tell us where that £20bnpa goes if
not, in substantial measure, in staffing [whether direct by employing
your own customs experts to produce the documentation, or indirect by
employing other companies to produce it for you].
Post by Pamela
You're digging a hole for your
argument and should stop especially as you alsopoint out it "simply
doesn't scale".
I tried to show how your assumptions were even more preposterous than
your staffing figures, as a truer salary assumption would lead to an
even larger staff figure.
It was your assumptions that were more preposterous. I would
expect an expert in producing customs declarations to be paid rather
more than £25Kpa; presumably on a scale similar to that of, say, an
accountant or a lawyer [which is pretty much what such an expert would
be].
Post by Pamela
Your comments on intelligence-led random sampling as an alternative
go to show you haven't read what I quoted about how all "every
business will need to fill in a customs declaration, which is a legal
necessity under global rules".
You seem to be confused. "Intelligence led" and "random
sampling" are not one activity; those are the alternatives that are
already in use. You target shipments about which you have information,
and you sample the rest. Neither of those necessarily involve more
money as a consequence of Brexit.
Post by Pamela
Where does it say the estimated cost
is bourne by additional customs staff?
No-one is saying that. It's borne by companies having to
do extra paperwork. The claim which you repeat is that it will cost
~£35 per item. That is a perfectly reasonable extra cost for *one*
item; but that is what doesn't scale to hundreds or thousands of
similar items, for which little expertise is needed beyond the ability
to change the numbers and dates on the forms.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Roger
2020-02-29 16:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
You seem to be confused. "Intelligence led" and "random
sampling" are not one activity; those are the alternatives that are
already in use. You target shipments about which you have information,
and you sample the rest. Neither of those necessarily involve more
money as a consequence of Brexit.
Ah, I think I can see where your going wrong Andy.

You see you are using traditional 'academic' methods where you will try and make a model that resembles the real world and then extrapolate feasible outcomes from that.

Pamela, on the other hand, is using the modern 'Executive' approach whereby you decide what you want the answer to be and then hypothesise a possible model which might have arrived at your answer as a justification. Here's the clever bit; it doesn't matter if your model is not really realistic or is full of false assumptions because you ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER!!!!!!

Now I know you might scoff at this, but the start of the new millennium risk managers made trillions of dollars out of thin air by using this simple approach....and they would be making even more by now if that loony left Obama hadn't introduced hard reality into the mix.

So, doing customs paperwork is going to cost 20 billion, got it? Now, all you need to do is whip up a justification; it's a piece of cake!!!!!!
Pamela
2020-02-29 21:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Andy Walker
You seem to be confused. "Intelligence led" and "random
sampling" are not one activity; those are the alternatives that are
already in use. You target shipments about which you have information,
and you sample the rest. Neither of those necessarily involve more
money as a consequence of Brexit.
Ah, I think I can see where your going wrong Andy.
You see you are using traditional 'academic' methods where you will try
and make a model that resembles the real world and then extrapolate
feasible outcomes from that.
Pamela, on the other hand, is using the modern 'Executive' approach
whereby you decide what you want the answer to be and then hypothesise a
possible model which might have arrived at your answer as a
justification. Here's the clever bit; it doesn't matter if your model is
not really realistic or is full of false assumptions because you ALREADY
HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER!!!!!!
Now I know you might scoff at this, but the start of the new millennium
risk managers made trillions of dollars out of thin air by using this
simple approach....and they would be making even more by now if that
loony left Obama hadn't introduced hard reality into the mix.
So, doing customs paperwork is going to cost 20 billion, got it? Now,
all you need to do is whip up a justification; it's a piece of
cake!!!!!!
Can I check your ability at arithmetic, Roger. You wrote:

"I'm actually nearer London than I would be in some UK towns".

Are you sure about your facts?

Inverness to London is 570 miles.
Varese to London is 740 miles

Where in Italy are you that's closer to London than Varese? Please advise.
abelard
2020-03-01 12:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Andy Walker
You seem to be confused. "Intelligence led" and "random
sampling" are not one activity; those are the alternatives that are
already in use. You target shipments about which you have information,
and you sample the rest. Neither of those necessarily involve more
money as a consequence of Brexit.
Ah, I think I can see where your going wrong Andy.
You see you are using traditional 'academic' methods where you will try and make a model that resembles the real world and then extrapolate feasible outcomes from that.
Pamela, on the other hand, is using the modern 'Executive' approach whereby you decide what you want the answer to be and then hypothesise a possible model which might have arrived at your answer as a justification. Here's the clever bit; it doesn't matter if your model is not really realistic or is full of false assumptions because you ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER!!!!!!
Now I know you might scoff at this, but the start of the new millennium risk managers made trillions of dollars out of thin air by using this simple approach....and they would be making even more by now if that loony left Obama hadn't introduced hard reality into the mix.
So, doing customs paperwork is going to cost 20 billion, got it? Now, all you need to do is whip up a justification; it's a piece of cake!!!!!!
:-)

the new science eh...bit like new labour
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2020-02-17 09:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his
cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of
Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don’t you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us leaving
the EU - and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
We do give examples but Remainers generally just counter that with the "damage"
argument despite never giving any specific and plausible examples of that in
turn. The whole debate is a stalemate and I have generally ceased to engage.
As long as Boris doesn't fuck it up, we'll have proof of the benefits of
leaving soon enough. Then one side can tell the other "I told you so".
Roger
2020-02-17 10:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his
cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of
Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don’t you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us leaving
the EU - and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
--
Ian
Well that's because James O'Brian and others are asking the wrong questions.

The people of Redcar are looking for is somebody with the balls to try doing something different, because for the last 40 years they've seen nothing but decline.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-51468792/redcar-voters-discuss-the-change-they-want-for-their-town

They don't care about comparisons. But nor do remainers, because if they looked at the EU's performance over the decades they would see it has not brought prosperity.

Mr and Mrs Average go on gut reaction: Mrs and Mrs I'm so clever are so full of themselves they they can't be arsed to actually go and look at the big picture.

And while we're on the subject of criticizing Mr and Mrs Oh so clever, if we ask them how they intend to 'remain' they just blithly reply 'maintaining the status quo' as if the Euro problem does not exist.
Pamela
2020-02-17 19:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Ian Jackson
On 14 Feb 2020, Pamela wrote (in article
Post by Pamela
On 14 Feb 2020, Pamela wrote (in article
On 17:22 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
On 15:43 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris
reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on
account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to
Mr and Mrs Average?
I think they will benefit from becoming Mr and Mrs Above Average.
In what way, exactly?
By being above average. Don't you wish you were?
Pamela - you're wasting your time if you expect a sensible answer.
As James o'Brien has found out on countless occasions, few Brexiteers
can give any specific and plausible examples of how the ordinary
man-in-the-British-street is going to genuinely benefit from us leaving
the EU - and if by chance they do manage to come up with something,
justify the benefit compared to the damage we are likely to suffer.
-- Ian
Well that's because James O'Brian and others are asking the wrong questions.
The people of Redcar are looking for is somebody with the balls to try
doing something different, because for the last 40 years they've seen
nothing but decline.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-51468792/redcar-voters-
discuss-the-change-they-want-for-their-town
They don't care about comparisons.
But nor do remainers, because if they looked at the EU's performance
over the decades they would see it has not brought prosperity.
The EU has brought unprecedented prosperity, not least to a failing
Britain in the '60s and '70s to the present day.
Post by Roger
Mr and Mrs Average go on gut reaction: Mrs and Mrs I'm so clever are so
full of themselves they they can't be arsed to actually go and look at
the big picture.
And while we're on the subject of criticizing Mr and Mrs Oh so clever,
if we ask them how they intend to 'remain' they just blithly reply
'maintaining the status quo' as if the Euro problem does not exist.
Britain is not a member of the Euro and would not bankroll any of the
Euro's problems, which is how we didn't get ensnared in the Greek currency
crisis. Unless I have misunderstood it, the problem you mention about the
UK and Euro is largely imaginary.
Joe
2020-02-17 20:12:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:03:16 GMT
Pamela <***@gmail.com> wrote:

y.
Post by Pamela
The EU has brought unprecedented prosperity, not least to a failing
Britain in the '60s and '70s to the present day.
No. What improvement in standard of living there has been since then is
almost entirely due to technology. The only politician I can think of
who made any kind of technological advancement was Benjamin Franklin.

As for public services and infrastructure, Britain is demonstrably less
prosperous than it was fifty years ago, in ways I have mentioned before
and many others.
--
Joe
Roger
2020-02-17 22:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:03:16 GMT
y.
Post by Pamela
The EU has brought unprecedented prosperity, not least to a failing
Britain in the '60s and '70s to the present day.
How on earth do you attribute that to the EU.

Go and compare GDP growth rate with extra EU peers post war to date. It is the most obvious data one would look at to test such a theory. All economies have grown but the second derivative, the growth rate, shows that they have not been growing at the same rate.

Your attitude exactly maps that of the Mr and Mrs Oh so clever who can't be arsed to actually check the lies they keep spinning and face up to reality.
Pamela
2020-02-18 13:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:03:16 GMT
Post by Pamela
The EU has brought unprecedented prosperity, not least to a failing
Britain in the '60s and '70s to the present day.
How on earth do you attribute that to the EU.
Go and compare GDP growth rate with extra EU peers post war to date. It
is the most obvious data one would look at to test such a theory. All
economies have grown but the second derivative, the growth rate, shows
that they have not been growing at the same rate.
Nice try at using an irrelavant time period. "Post war" in not "post UK
accession".

Furthermore, comparing GDP growth between countries is largely irrelevant
because the EU has a synergistic effect and raises growth rates in almost all
member countries in the long run. I'm sorry you can't accept the facts.
abelard
2020-02-18 13:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Furthermore, comparing GDP growth between countries is largely irrelevant
because the EU has a synergistic effect and raises growth rates in almost all
member countries in the long run. I'm sorry you can't accept the facts.
your uninformed babbling does not 'equate' to 'facts'
--
www.abelard.org
Roger
2020-02-18 15:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Furthermore, comparing GDP growth between countries is largely irrelevant
because the EU has a synergistic effect and raises growth rates in almost all
member countries in the long run. I'm sorry you can't accept the facts.
So if these Sysnergistic effects had occured we would expect to have seen the rate of Economic growth in the EU increase with respect to non EU western countries as more countries join up.

This has not happend.

I cannot find any facts that demonstrate this, in fact we find the opposite.

Should we invent numbers to please you?
The Iceberg
2020-02-18 15:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Furthermore, comparing GDP growth between countries is largely irrelevant
because the EU has a synergistic effect and raises growth rates in almost all
member countries in the long run. I'm sorry you can't accept the facts.
So if these Sysnergistic effects had occured we would expect to have seen the rate of Economic growth in the EU increase with respect to non EU western countries as more countries join up.
This has not happend.
I cannot find any facts that demonstrate this, in fact we find the opposite.
Should we invent numbers to please you?
why is she so biased towards the EU?
Roger
2020-02-18 15:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Iceberg
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Furthermore, comparing GDP growth between countries is largely irrelevant
because the EU has a synergistic effect and raises growth rates in almost all
member countries in the long run. I'm sorry you can't accept the facts.
So if these Sysnergistic effects had occured we would expect to have seen the rate of Economic growth in the EU increase with respect to non EU western countries as more countries join up.
This has not happend.
I cannot find any facts that demonstrate this, in fact we find the opposite.
Should we invent numbers to please you?
why is she so biased towards the EU?
I've always imagined that she works as an EU pen pusher or something, except that she seems to know nothing about the EU, or indeed Europe in general.
Tufnell Park
2020-02-18 11:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
Roger
2020-02-18 12:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
That's unlikely. But nor is it what Mr & Mrs Average were asking for. There is this obsession with calculating losses and gains as if the UK were deciding the most cost effective car to buy for their typical journey. Most of the time our first priority is a list of cars we are comfortable with, then we compare efficiency.

People are finding themselves living in society that has rules and laws that make no sense to them; they make no sense because they were not made for them....they were rules invented to make compromises far away from their world and made by people who seem to be increasingly out of touch with reality.

As the woman in the video earlier put it (about the Redcar closure but could be anywhere in the UK depressed economies) "It's taken the pride away, not just financially". I know a lot of people who are unable to understand that statement; they cannot understand it because they have never been in the situation.

Onyourbike Tebbit got lynched for failing to grasp the meaning of this; nowadays it's almost acceptable for politicians to be oblivious to ordinary people, at least for the press who are only interested in scandal mongering. Fortunately there where the elections to wake everybody up a bit.

But it seems that some still havn't grasped it.
Pamela
2020-02-18 13:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
On 15:43 13 Feb 2020, Tufnell Park
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr
and Mrs Average?
Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
That's unlikely. But nor is it what Mr & Mrs Average were asking for.
There is this obsession with calculating losses and gains as if the UK
were deciding the most cost effective car to buy for their typical
journey. Most of the time our first priority is a list of cars we are
comfortable with, then we compare efficiency.
People are finding themselves living in society that has rules and laws
that make no sense to them; they make no sense because they were not
made for them....they were rules invented to make compromises far away
from their world and made by people who seem to be increasingly out of
touch with reality.
As the woman in the video earlier put it (about the Redcar closure but
could be anywhere in the UK depressed economies) "It's taken the pride
away, not just financially". I know a lot of people who are unable to
understand that statement; they cannot understand it because they have
never been in the situation.
Onyourbike Tebbit got lynched for failing to grasp the meaning of this;
nowadays it's almost acceptable for politicians to be oblivious to
ordinary people, at least for the press who are only interested in
scandal mongering. Fortunately there where the elections to wake
everybody up a bit.
But it seems that some still havn't grasped it.
Roger, why do you concern yourself with social matters and personal pride
in a country which you have left? Do you ever plan on returning?

It's hard enough to understand why you left the UK when there is plenty of
work here. Perhaps you're not very committed to it.
Roger
2020-02-18 14:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Roger, why do you concern yourself with social matters and personal pride
in a country which you have left? Do you ever plan on returning?
Ye gods.....I'm actually nearer London than I would be in some UK towns...you make it sound like I've emigrated to Australia :D

For what it's worth whilst currently spending most of my time here I do have a house in the UK and I am a UK citizen.
Post by Pamela
It's hard enough to understand why you left the UK when there is plenty of
work here. Perhaps you're not very committed to it.
You can only manage to see things in terms of work?! For what it's worth (I've said this before, but you never listen to what other people are saying...) I am a great fan of Europe in general. I'm all for inter European organisation and institutions from CERN through to the Eurovision Song Contest.

The EU, on the other hand, is irrevocably crashed. I don't expect you to understand that, you repeatedly demonstrate a total lack of knowledge about it's structure and objectives.....however just bear in mind that I am in favour of Brexit for the love of Europe, not the hate of it.

I think Europe would be a much better place if it concentrated on collaboration, not centralised collective control like the soviet union.
Pamela
2020-02-18 19:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Roger, why do you concern yourself with social matters and personal pride
in a country which you have left? Do you ever plan on returning?
Ye gods.....I'm actually nearer London than I would be in some UK towns.
Are you sure about your facts?

Inverness to London is 570 miles.
Varese to London is 740 miles

Where in Italy are you that's closer to London than Varese?
Post by Roger
..you make it sound like I've emigrated to Australia :D
For what it's worth whilst currently spending most of my time here I do
have a house in the UK and I am a UK citizen.
Post by Pamela
It's hard enough to understand why you left the UK when there is plenty
of work here. Perhaps you're not very committed to it.
You can only manage to see things in terms of work?!
You not only work in Italy but live there. Strange to hear someone who
lacks the committment to live and work in the UK tell Brits what is best
for them.
Post by Roger
For what it's worth I am a great fan of Europe in general. I'm all for
inter European organisation and institutions from CERN through to the
Eurovision Song Contest.
The EU, on the other hand, is irrevocably crashed. I don't expect you to
understand that, you repeatedly demonstrate a total lack of knowledge
about it's structure and objectives.....however just bear in mind that I
am in favour of Brexit for the love of Europe, not the hate of it.
I think Europe would be a much better place if it concentrated on
collaboration, not centralised collective control like the soviet union.
Of course, there is no "centralised collective control like the soviet
union" in the EU even if it helps you play to the gallery's prejudices to say
it. Does it irk you that Italy has kept a cool head and although there is a
malcontented minority, the majority of Italians want to stay in the EU?
Pamela
2020-02-25 15:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Roger, why do you concern yourself with social matters and personal pride
in a country which you have left? Do you ever plan on returning?
Ye gods.....I'm actually nearer London than I would be in some UK towns.
Are you sure about your facts?
Inverness to London is 570 miles. Varese to London is 740 miles
Where in Italy are you that's closer to London than Varese?
Post by Roger
..you make it sound like I've emigrated to Australia :D
For what it's worth whilst currently spending most of my time here I do
have a house in the UK and I am a UK citizen.
Post by Pamela
It's hard enough to understand why you left the UK when there is
plenty of work here. Perhaps you're not very committed to it.
You can only manage to see things in terms of work?!
You not only work in Italy but live there. Strange to hear someone who
lacks the committment to live and work in the UK tell Brits what is best
for them.
Post by Roger
For what it's worth I am a great fan of Europe in general. I'm all for
inter European organisation and institutions from CERN through to the
Eurovision Song Contest.
The EU, on the other hand, is irrevocably crashed. I don't expect you
to understand that, you repeatedly demonstrate a total lack of
knowledge about it's structure and objectives.....however just bear in
mind that I am in favour of Brexit for the love of Europe, not the hate
of it.
I think Europe would be a much better place if it concentrated on
collaboration, not centralised collective control like the soviet union.
Of course, there is no "centralised collective control like the soviet
union" in the EU even if it helps you play to the gallery's prejudices
to say it. Does it irk you that Italy has kept a cool head and
although there is a malcontented minority, the majority of Italians want
to stay in the EU?
Hello Roger, are you able to answer my questions? Particularly where you
said,

"I'm actually nearer London than I would be in some UK towns".

By my calculation you're about 75 miles from Lodi, the worst outbreak of
coronavirus in Europe. That's along way from here.
Pamela
2020-02-28 14:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Roger, why do you concern yourself with social matters and personal pride
in a country which you have left? Do you ever plan on returning?
Ye gods.....I'm actually nearer London than I would be in some UK towns.
Are you sure about your facts?
Inverness to London is 570 miles. Varese to London is 740 miles
Where in Italy are you that's closer to London than Varese?
Post by Roger
..you make it sound like I've emigrated to Australia :D
For what it's worth whilst currently spending most of my time here I
do have a house in the UK and I am a UK citizen.
Post by Pamela
It's hard enough to understand why you left the UK when there is
plenty of work here. Perhaps you're not very committed to it.
You can only manage to see things in terms of work?!
You not only work in Italy but live there. Strange to hear someone who
lacks the committment to live and work in the UK tell Brits what is
best for them.
Post by Roger
For what it's worth I am a great fan of Europe in general. I'm all for
inter European organisation and institutions from CERN through to the
Eurovision Song Contest.
The EU, on the other hand, is irrevocably crashed. I don't expect you
to understand that, you repeatedly demonstrate a total lack of
knowledge about it's structure and objectives.....however just bear in
mind that I am in favour of Brexit for the love of Europe, not the
hate of it.
I think Europe would be a much better place if it concentrated on
collaboration, not centralised collective control like the soviet union.
Of course, there is no "centralised collective control like the soviet
union" in the EU even if it helps you play to the gallery's prejudices
to say it. Does it irk you that Italy has kept a cool head and
although there is a malcontented minority, the majority of Italians
want to stay in the EU?
Hello Roger, are you able to answer my questions? Particularly where
you said,
"I'm actually nearer London than I would be in some UK towns".
By my calculation you're about 75 miles from Lodi, the worst outbreak of
coronavirus in Europe. That's along way from here.
Roger, do you want to correct this claim of yours?

"I am actually nearer London than I would be in some UK towns"

It's untrue.
Keema's Nan
2020-02-18 13:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his
cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
That's unlikely. But nor is it what Mr & Mrs Average were asking for. There
is this obsession with calculating losses and gains as if the UK were
deciding the most cost effective car to buy for their typical journey. Most
of the time our first priority is a list of cars we are comfortable with,
Have you ever watched a TV car advert?

Most show smug, self satisfied drivers trying to impress everyone with their
new purchase - even their daughter’s schoolmates in one pervy version.

One car ad even spills the beans and admits their offering illustrates the
owners’ status.

The advertisers would not pay vast amounts of money to portray this idea, if
it were not true.
then we compare
It with what the neighbours have.
efficiency.
People are finding themselves living in society that has rules and laws that
make no sense to them; they make no sense because they were not made for
them....they were rules invented to make compromises far away from their
world and made by people who seem to be increasingly out of touch with
reality.
As the woman in the video earlier put it (about the Redcar closure but could
be anywhere in the UK depressed economies) "It's taken the pride away, not
just financially". I know a lot of people who are unable to understand that
statement; they cannot understand it because they have never been in the
situation.
Onyourbike Tebbit got lynched for failing to grasp the meaning of this;
nowadays it's almost acceptable for politicians to be oblivious to ordinary
people, at least for the press who are only interested in scandal mongering.
Fortunately there where the elections to wake everybody up a bit.
But it seems that some still havn't grasped it.
Tufnell Park
2020-02-18 17:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
That's unlikely.
I think it is more than likely, we have a budget due in about 3 weeks
and it's odd's on that personal allownaces will be increased by around
£750 with a commitment to lower by the same amounts in future years.
Roger
2020-02-18 18:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Roger
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
We shall have to wait a little while to see!
What's the first tangible benefit you expect Brexit to bring to Mr and Mrs
Average?
Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
That's unlikely.
I think it is more than likely, we have a budget due in about 3 weeks
and it's odd's on that personal allownaces will be increased by around
£750 with a commitment to lower by the same amounts in future years.
You may be right, but I don't know how much I would attribute tax cuts to lack of EU contributions. Although the UK was a net contributor it will incur more expenses so one cancels the other. BTW, the 'why did you vote the way you did surveys' highlighted that people did NOT believe the famous slogan on the bus ;-)


But like I said, you may be right because, as some people have pointed out, the net contribution sits atop a somewhat inefficient and large cashflow and we say net because it is also 'net' of EU funded projects....some of which have dubious or self serving value.
JNugent
2020-02-19 11:52:50 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Roger
   Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
That's unlikely.
I think it is more than likely, we have a budget due in about 3 weeks
and it's odd's on that personal allownaces will be increased by around
£750 with a commitment to lower by the same amounts in future years.
An increase in allowance by £750 with a promise to reduce the allowance
by the same amount in a subsequent budget?

What advantage would there be in such a move?
Tufnell Park
2020-02-19 13:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Roger
   Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
That's unlikely.
I think it is more than likely, we have a budget due in about 3 weeks
and it's odd's on that personal allownaces will be increased by around
£750 with a commitment to lower by the same amounts in future years.
An increase in allowance by £750 with a promise to reduce the allowance
by the same amount in a subsequent budget?
What advantage would there be in such a move?
My bad expression, of course i meant to further increase the allowance
in subsequent budgets.
JNugent
2020-02-19 15:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Tufnell Park
Post by Roger
   Lower personal taxes due to no EU contributions in future?
That's unlikely.
I think it is more than likely, we have a budget due in about 3 weeks
and it's odd's on that personal allownaces will be increased by
around £750 with a commitment to lower by the same amounts in future
years.
An increase in allowance by £750 with a promise to reduce the
allowance by the same amount in a subsequent budget?
What advantage would there be in such a move?
My bad expression, of course i meant to further increase the allowance
in subsequent budgets.
OK.
abelard
2020-02-13 17:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Tufnell Park
The pound has surged to over 1.20 euros as Boris reshuffles his cabinet.
Another election and Brexit bonus!
For a day.
No one with any sense is expecting the pound to rise on account of Brexit.
leaves you out then

only last week you were making the usual idiot of yourself...

now you want to trump it
--
www.abelard.org
Loading...