Crikey, the EU wants us to pay €100 billion to leave

The Financial Times reports, “Brussels hoists gross Brexit ‘bill’ to up to €100bn – France and Germany back tougher approach to Britain’s departure obligations”. [Click on image to expand].

The UK’s annual net contribution to the EU is around £10 billion. Asking us to pay €100 billion up front is optimistic. No, it’s downright bonkers. It’s naive of the EU to release their estimate of the UK’s debt of between €91bn-€113bn during a general election campaign, for surely it will strengthen Theresa May’s vote. Is that what they want? Goodness only knows.

This nonsensical number, of €100 billion, is bound to increase the clamour for a quick exit from the EU, which I’d be against. We must now learn to play hardball with the EU. I recommend we publish our proposals for citizen rights in fine detail, and be prepared for public negotiations. The EU will soon see the benefit of conducting confidential negotiations.

Here are a couple depressing of quotes from the FT’s article,

It also reflects the steadily hardening position of many EU member states, which have abandoned early reservations about the bill’s political risks to pile on demands that will help to plug a Brexit-related hole in the bloc’s common budget.

At the request of France, Germany and several other member states, the commission also abandoned its initial plans to offer the UK a share of assets, worth between €3bn and €9bn, depending on the definition used.

Interesting research: ‘The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground’

One of the Pew Research Center for social and demographic research reports is on how The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground. Their report’s opening paragraph states,

After more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number by those in the economic tiers above and below it. In early 2015, 120.8 million adults were in middle-income households, compared with 121.3 million in lower- and upper-income households combined, a demographic shift that could signal a tipping point, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.

The Financial Times’ article on America’s Middle-class Meltdown has this helpful GIF which shows the change in middle incomes over time.

d823a614-9e82-11e5-b45d-4812f209f861

My admiration for the Financial Times’ Gillian Tett is boundless

Why do I admire Gillian Tett, assistant editor of the Financial times? Not only is she lucid and articulate, but she’s immensely knowledgeable about global economies, and can explain the arcane in a easy to understand way.

Gillian Tett

All this was demonstrated on Thursday’s edition of BBC Newsnight [worth a look on iPlayer from 30 minutes in]. Gillian Tett was on the programme to talk about business confidence, in light of the positive signs of growth in the UK economy. Newsnight’s economics editor, Paul Mason, preceded the discussion with a trailer about his ‘five random indicators of confidence’, which included one about when his twitter messages no longer claim that he’s a Cameron/Osbornist propagandist.

There followed a discussion between Kirsty Wark, Gillain Tett, and US Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Both of whom agreed that quantitative easing had mostly benefited the rich, and that both the young and those with low educational training were yet to feel any benefit from economic growth. Gillian Tett’s view that “the gap between the old and the young is perhaps one of the most important issues right now, because if you are old and have assets you’re benefiting…”

She continued, “….the Bank of England is suggesting that 40% of the gains from quantitative easing has gone to the wealthiest 5%”. Answering Kirsty Wark’s point about a potential bubble in the economy, she said, “Frankly, I don’t think we’re in bubble territory right now, nowhere near it.”

Newsnight discussion about Twitter IPO

Next, Gillian was involved in a discussion with Paul Mason about the announced stock market flotation of Twitter. While Paul was as excited as a small boy in a sweet shop, and about as articulate, Gillian gave a masterful briefing on the issues around Twitter’s flotation and possible profitability. Here’s what she said,

“Here’s an interesting factoid. Since Twitter’s been formed there’s been 430 billion tweets, in just 7 years. …. The big question now for Twitter is how you make money on the back of those tweets.

There’s two ways of doing it. One, they can put adverts on our tweets, and people don’t like that. The creepier way though is to start sorting people in social groups, and with algorithms to start monitoring their behaviour, and then use that to try to market and sell to things to people much more subtly….

What we’re seeing now is the same algorithmic geeks who were doing finance a decade ago, … now trying to use us to see the signals as to how we’re living. I suspect Twitter is trying to do both.

Those 430 billion tweets are currently sitting in databases. Who is going to use them? How are they going to use that information? and can that be moneatised? That’s the big question that matters not just to the economy but to issues around privacy ….”

Paywalls, success or failure?

Now that The Times and Sunday Times online content is behind a paywall, I no longer get access to their reporting, that’s unless I buy an inky newspaper. I’ll miss Matthew Parris’s articles – hugely, and Rachel Sylvester’s political insight, also Daniel Finklestein’s Comment Central blog [It’s been removed from my blog roll].

Am I persuaded to subscribe? No. I’m not convinced by the arguments that a news service should sit behind a paywall, specialist opinion and comment yes, news no. Two examples to note. The Metro is succeeding as a free sheet, as is the London Evening Standard. The Financial Times has two terrific blogs [see my blogroll] and allows a limited number of articles to be viewed per month. Not perfect, as I do like to read as much of Gillian Tett as I can, but I’m perfectly happy with the Financial Times charging model.

So, will pay walls succeed or fail? Obviously I can’t be certain either way. I think it’s a bit short-sighted to stick all your content behind a paywall. A better model might be, free online news, paid for opinion, and a weekly paid for online summary that includes video and other specialist features. In that way, you put you most valuable resource behind a paywall, but leave the cheap and cheerful news coverage as a taster to bring in more subscribers. But, hell what do I know, when Rupert Murdoch owns The Times. 

My solution, which I’ll pass on yo you, is to build up a list of indispensible blogs and online sources. Trouble is, it’ll take time, which means I might never complete it. Or, I could like Roy Greenslade try and find ways around paywalls.

Oh, the tortured calculations

Well, you could’ve knocked me down with a feather. I never expected that the Financial Times would declare for the Conservatives in this election. Seems they have in the editorial in Tuesday’s paper.

The FT’s Westminster blog is on my blog roll, specifically because its take on the political scene has a unique finance and City perspective. It’s two main writers, Frank Jim Pickard and Alex Barker, have, it seems to me, a strong leftish agenda, never seeking an opportunity to find the positive in Conservative policy.

Oh, how tortured must have been the discussions and calculations to come out for the Tories. I listened to the paper’s editor, Lionel Barber, being interviewed by Jeff Randall, on Randall and Boulton Unleashed. His endorsement of the Conservatives was offered on the basis that they would be best at reducing the size of the state, and be best for and enterprise and wealth creating culture. His words in the editorial were,

“They [the Conservatives] are not a perfect fit, but their instincts are sound. Their fiscal plans, while vague, suggest they would do most to reduce the size of the state – cutting more and taxing less than their opponents. They would create the best environment for enterprise and wealth creation.”

Spot on Lionel.

UPDATE: Oops, penalty of late night blogging, I called the estimable Jim Pickard, Frank. Apologies offered.

Is there a hidden deal with Tony Blair?

Slippery Tony Blair has surfaced from his money-making adventures around the world to pop up in his old constituency to offer support to Gordon Brown.

I wonder what the deal is with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Support me and I’ll keep the investigators away from prying into how you make your multi-millions. It wouldn’t surprise me.

David Cameron’s reaction, as reported by Conservative Home, is “Nice to see him make a speech that nobody’s paying for.” Well, that’s the question, isn’t it. If everything you do on leaving office is to do it for money, direct or through your own charity, then people will rightly conclude that there may be a deal behind his support.

It demeans the office of Prime Minister, to have a past one so keen to hide his income from public view. Tony Blair may have currency and status elsewhere in the world. He has none here in the UK. I’m somewhat surprised that he has homes here. That his children have Irish passports doesn’t speak of a commitment to this country.

If Labour want to use him in the election campaign, fine. But, for me he’s a lightening rod for negativity with Labour.

Others are quizzical about his reappearance too. Guido Fawkes, naturally. Peter Hoskin in the Spectator. Although the Jim Pickard in the Financial Times still sees traces of stardust around Blair.