UKGDPpercapita UK Gross Domestic Product(GDP) per capita (per person)

I am writing this blog because I think it is relevant to the Brexit debate, the immigration debate and wider issues in UK politics - how we see ourselves as a nation - and what decisions we need to make for a better future.

I am writing this blog in the belief that the relevance and significance of  "GDP per capita" is not widely understood or appreciated by many - and it would be better if it was!

I shall try and explain for the common good - ha!

It is regularly stated (banded about) that "the UK is a wealthy country - the 5th or 6th wealthiest country in the world". (Politically this is used to criticize lack of government (public) spending in social areas.}

We need to establish some basic concepts now in order to evaluate the correctness - the validity of the above statement. It is important to do so because it so profoundly affects how we see ourselves as a nation, the decisions we make for the future and our political cohesion.

Question 1. How do we measure the economic wealth of a nation. Answer - perhaps the main way - we calculate the GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) of the nation (usually over a given year) and compare against other nations. 

QUESTION 2. How is GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT calculated - what is it? Answer -  

Gross domestic product is the total value of everything produced in the country. It doesn't matter if it's produced by our citizens or foreigners. If they are located within the country's boundaries, their production is included in GDP.

GDP is the total value of the goods and services produced by all sectors of the economy; agriculture, manufacturing, energy, construction, the service sector and government. 

To avoid double-counting, it measures the final value of the product, but not the parts that go into it. For example, it measures the value a new car engine only after it's assembled in the vehicle.

QUESTION 3. Is it correct to state the UK is the 5th or 6th wealthiest country in the world? Answer - yes if you use GDP as the measure and compare.

BUT BEWARE - this is misleading! 

Why is it misleading? - ANSWER - it is misleading because it does not take into account how many PEOPLE (average population in the period) it takes to make (create) the GDP figure.

If GDP is the total size of the cake how many people has it taken to make the cake? Put another way how many mouths does the cake have to feed? This is GDP per capita (per person).

QUESTION 4. Using GDP per capita - per person - is the UK one of the wealthiest countries in the world? The answer is NO - nothing like it. On most comparisons we are currently 22 in the world rankings.

Now we have our heads around the more meaningful (practically relevant GDP per capita) we can ask 2 questions?

Question 1 - why is our per capita - per person output relatively poor and Question 2 - how do we increase it?

Here are a list of factors that help determine GDP per capita :-

• Long term planning-a country has to set long term achievable goals to adhere to including blueprints that contain guidelines and expectations.
• Size of population.
• Industrialization.
• Infrastructure-a country that wishes to grow must enhance connectivity for its citizens. This entails upgrading airports, sea ports, railroads, highways, urban areas, electricity, pipelines and drainage systems.
• Education-training of citizens is crucial to an ambitious nations. It is important to endow the working population with quality technical skills most by use of trade schools. Basic education should a right for the younger generation. For higher education, it is best to balance university to trade school population ratio.

If we look at the list it becomes obvious where we have gone wrong - why we are not as wealthy as we think we are.

1. Our long term planning has been poor. One of the reasons - uncontrolled immigration. We have a massive population - heading to be the largest in Europe. In the last 10 years 3 million migrants (at least) have come to this country and none of this was strategically planned. We have coped badly with the numbers.
2. Size of population. True - most of the migrants work - so they increase our GDP. True - migrants help individual business profits because invariably their wages are low and they have as a result kept wages across the piste low.True - business profits have increased because we have imported trained labour rather than UK business (and government) incurring the cost of training and apprenticeships for our own. True - business - the CBI - manufacturers - agriculture - the NHS - the care sector - say we rely on migrants - we need more and more to sustain our businesses - to grow our GDP. But more people does not necessarily make our country wealthier - our citizens better off. GDP grows but millions more people have to share it!
3. Industrialisation - we are an industrialised nation. However many argue and I agree - the abundance of cheap labour has reduced our companies and businesses motivation to increase productivity by working smarter, introducing more advanced technologies and innovating. The UK has been poor in keeping pace with modern technological investment. They have not needed to - because exploiting cheap labour (subsidised by the tax payer) is the easier option to profit. No surprise they want to maintain high levels of migrant flow after Brexit. 
4. Infrastructure. Geographically we are a small country. With our massive and rapidly growing population we are overcrowded. Our urban areas are often gridlocked. Our trains are full. Motorways are rammed. None of this is efficient. Everything is working at over capacity. Our infrastructure and public services cannot cope. So much cost and time is wasted trying to move goods and people around. Relying on an ever increasing population is madness. It is badly damaging our per capita GDP. 
5. Education and training. We have not done enough with our own citizens. It is shortsighted. They have to be subsidised through benefits because they are effectively unemployable - and the double whammy - we import even more people to do what our own should be doing.

So with regard Brexit - the free movement of people - and the need for a migrant workforce etc it is obvious we need a major rethink. We are nowhere near as wealthy as a nation as we think we are. Our priority should be to up productivity per person - not kid ourselves we are wealthy because we have a big cake.

One big factor is the effect of uncontrolled inward migration. We are full. We are inefficient as a result. Our companies and businesses have to be weaned off cheap migrant flows and innovate - and train and educate our own. We need a strategic plan to do so. Brexit should be that. We have the opportunity and the people have seen it - even if some politicians can't and businesses wilfully refuse to do so (unless they are forced). 

This is one of the main reasons I am a staunch advocate of Brexit. We will be wealthier in GDP per capita (real terms)  if we stand on our own two feet and no longer take the lazy migrant option. Our quality of life will be better too because we are full - we are bursting at the seams. We do not need more people - we need to get smarter - we need to think longer term. And I have not even mentioned social cohesion and the British values and way of life!

#Channelmigrants a conflicted view!

I am challenging myself to write this blog. Why is it a challenge? It is a challenge because like many I suspect - I have a conflicted view which I am not sure it is sensible to reveal or face down. However I have decided to do so because it is a debate that requires action. Someone has to decide what to do. What would I do?

The plight of migrants, illegal immigrants or asylum seekers (choose your own noun) crossing the English Channel in the middle of winter in small poorly equipped boats is disturbing. (94 have been detained in Kent since Christmas Day). Yesterday our Home Secretary described this relatively new phenomenon as "a major incident" and he has appointed himself as "gold commander" to address the problem. Without being facetious what is the problem?

The "problem" that needs to be addressed is likely to be different depending on your point of view. This is the nub of the debate. Is the fundamental problem :-

• Human life is paramount. How do we stop desperate people putting their lives at risk in a desperate attempt to get to the UK for a better life.

or

• How do we keep these people out because we don't want them here (the country is full - there is been far too much uncontrolled migration) - what they are doing is illegal - and if any of them succeed in their attempt - it will only encourage more to try.

Put more simply - do these people deserve our compassion or our condemnation? Are they desperate or are they criminal? Are they seeking sanctuary from persecution or are they on the make?

This is one narrative :-

These people are desperate. They are fleeing conflict. Many are apparently persecuted Kurds in origin. They have a right to decide where they want to seek asylum and this is the only way in practice that they now stand a chance to get to the UK. (Calais port and tunnel now much more effectively guarded). Many are exploited by people traffickers. (apparently they are being told go now - because it will be much harder after Brexit). While we would prefer them not to set out in small boats once they do the ONLY consideration - the paramount consideration above all others - is the sanctity of human life. They must be brought to safety and looked after with kindness and consideration. Their case for political asylum must now be considered both objectively and fully. Who can argue with that?

This is a second narrative :-

Probably millions of people would like to get to the UK because it is perceived as the land of milk and honey. They are economic migrants. They are acting illegally. Their boats should be turned back at every opportunity and they should be sent back to France as soon as they are landed. To do otherwise will encourage more to come and we neither need or want them. They are queue jumpers. They certainly are not genuine asylum seekers because under the Dublin convention asylum seekers must seek sanctuary in the first safe haven they get to. France is definitely a safe haven - so they should not be here.

Some people hold either one of the above views - only see one narrative. Most I suspect relate to both. Most people are conflicted. Would it be inaccurate to suggest that at an individual level - a personal level there is compassion - even if they are economic migrants trying to improve their lot - but the scale - the invasion - is without much sympathy. They must be stopped - they must be seen to fail otherwise hordes more will be encouraged to attempt to come to the UK through the back door - and we definitely do not want that.

I think I am going to end this blog because I do not need to explore more. It is obvious I cannot resolve it. I am conflicted. Like most I have a soft heart. Put yourself in the migrants situation. What would you do? Wouldn't you try to improve your lot - try to improve your offer to your family. Aren't they showing tremendous courage and fortitude - or must they not, be truly desperate? So my answer to the problem of cross channel migrants, I think is we have to muddle along - to be pragmatic. We have to rescue people. At a personal level we have to show compassion without doubt. But somehow overall I think we have to discourage attempts. The only real way to do that is to ensure their failure - so boats have to be turned back to France and therefore have to be intercepted earlier, people traffickers have to be disrupted and we must deport people when they are here illegally. The Dublin Convention has to be upheld too. (People must understand they are required to ask for asylum at the first opportunity - the first safe country they come to. Subsequently we may or may not take some as part of an international response.)

The sad irony is the UK is unlikely to be a land of milk and honey (although of course it is if you are genuinely fleeing war or persecution). For the vast majority of migrants their life while their asylum claim is being processed is likely to be pretty grim. In many cases they will be held in a detention centre and even if they are not, they are not able to work legally and will be housed in economically deprived areas where housing costs are cheap. Their existence will be pretty grim because there is hardly enough money to look after our own properly. If they do get permission to stay, it will be hard to move forward and there is no getting away from the fact that many people have an antipathy towards migrants - ironically because there are so many of them and their presence is resented.

What a terrible human tragedy to be dealing with at anytime - but particularly at Christmas time. What will 2019 hold for these desperate people. Your heart has to go out to them - but then there are millions like them - part of the human cycle. Put more brutally - Darwinian theory being played out in real life I guess.

#Populism - what is it?

More and more political commentators are referring to the rise of populist parties - the rise of populism. It is a term typically used in a condescending way by political elites - as something to be feared or resisted. It is a term our own BBC are determined to use in their reporting. (of course many see the BBC as part of the sneering political liberal elite establishment).

To many the Brexit referendum result is seen as a populist backlash. Trump is explained as a manifestation of populism as is Jeremy Corbyn (by some). In early 2019 there are a number of EU countries going to the polls and many pundits are predicting further and significant electoral success for populist parties - be they on the left or on the right. To say the least the EU establishment - the EU machine - the EU bureaucracy - that rule our lives are worried about it.

So what is populism? 

It can be defined as "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."

Here are a few other relevant explanations :

• In politics, populism refers to a range of approaches which emphasise the role of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things since that time. Few politicians or political groups describe themselves as "populists", and in political discourse the term is often applied to others pejoratively.
• A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents "the people" as a morally good force against "the elite", who are perceived as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, all of which are depicted as a homogenous entity and accused of placing the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.
• Populism is a worldwide revolt of the majority (or “plebs” as the governing class call them) feeling disrespected, ignored, and oppressed by the political ruling class, social influencers for the governing class, and international economic power brokers. LePen in France is one recognized leader of the populist movement, Brexit was a nation wide example of a populist movement succeeding politically.
  

What is good about populism?

The main good is that populism brings to the fore issues that large numbers of the population evidently care about and the political elites want to avoid discussing (for their own vested interest or because they feel they know what is best - either practically or morally - and the plebs needed leading). Think of migration/immigration to the right or anti austerity to the left.

What is wrong with populism? One view :- 

Nothing in principle, a lot in practice. The problem with populism is that it is typically usurped and used to eliminate freedom and persecute minorities (historical). Usually the goals are nebulous and hence are not really achievable. Frequently, populism has been used to support authoritarian regimes.

As with all political theories there are masses of articles written about populism. The emergence of Hitler no less for instance. I recommend you do your own research.

For myself I can see where it can go wrong. However I feel the British people have a natural - an inbuilt resistance to the worst of populism - so I am not concerned of its (so called) emergence. (However I would be concerned for the populist tide (actually potential anarchy) that would be unleashed if our democracy is trashed by politicians failing to deliver a proper Brexit.)

As you know I am 100% behind Brexit. I think it is logical, rational, objective and fair. There is nothing wrong with the people wanting to be sovereign again. That is not radical or justification to denigrate us as populists. There is nothing wrong with wanting to control our borders again - not least because the people know from experience that uncontrolled migration has been / is bad for our country and our way of life - even if the political elites and vested interests perversely choose to deny it.

#Labour for Corbyn & the "young" voter. Rhetorical questions PT2

I came across this blog - half finished in my file. I have finished it off and decided to post it now despite the fact the all consuming focus for most of us in the UK is Brexit.

Here is an article written by George Maggs. If you are a socialist - or maybe more to the point - think you are - how do you respond to his observation?

• Socialism encourages people to think that their selfishness is compassion.
• Socialism gives greed and envy ideological justification.
• The Right must make the case that people power is strengthened by aspiration.

One of the most distressing psychological tricks socialism performs on its adherers is not only to give raw human emotions such as greed and envy ideological justification, but also to encourage people to think that their selfishness is somehow compassionate.

Many people become drawn to socialism primarily because they want things for “free”: free state benefits, handouts for schools, hospitals and public services, free tuition, free TV licences and free winter heating – the list goes on.

Nor do they want want taxes to rise, or at least, not if it means they have to make a contribution. Instead, it’s “the rich” who should be fleeced, bankers who sould be taxed, big business who should be forced to cough up eye-watering sums – all for the privilege of employing people and providing us with the goods and services we wish to buy. Everyone should pay, except of course, for “us”.

Even government borrowing, an ingenious way of taxing as yet unborn children to fund things in the present, is seen as somehow “progressive”. It is difficult to imagine anything less virtuous than using the power of the state to take other people’s money – be they alive or yet to be born – to fund things we don’t want to pay for ourselves.

But this is the brilliance of socialism. It turns morality completely on its head, allowing people to feel morally superior for succumbing to their primordial desires.

Feelings of envy, generated by the realisation that some people in society may (either through luck or endeavour) be wealthier than others, are converted into calls for greater “solidarity” and “equality”. These become demands that “they” be taxed more.

Taking money from others to make socialists feel better becomes a moral good. They get a nice warm fuzzy feeling when they call publically for (their own) lives to be made easier at “others” expense.

So how do we fight the pernicious mind games of the Left? Making economic arguments to counter their narrative, something the Government failed spectacularly to do prior to the last election, would be a start.

According to the Centre for Policy Studies, for example, Labour manifesto promises would have burdened the young with £150bn in extra debt. But this is no riposte to the ethical muscle flexing of socialism. This battle must be fought on grounds of liberty and freedom.

The socialist cry of  “power to the people”, in fact means quite the opposite. It means handing over the control of and responsibility for our lives to the state. Take the Left’s response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy: Corbyn began openly calling for people’s houses and flats to be requisitioned.

The very concept of private property would be threatened under a Labour government. Any or all of our possessions could be taken from us “for the greater good”, rendering us powerless against the whims of leviathan.

To counter this ever increasing threat from the Left, we must repeatedly make the case that people power is strengthened by aspiration, allowing individuals to keep their own money, own their property, and make their own decisions over matters which affect their lives.

Socialism outsources all moral decisions to a few individuals at the top, leaving no space for personal morality. Things are either banned or made compulsory; provided by the state or not at all.

If we sincerely care about the fate of others in society, then those of us who can see through the socialist pretence must make the case that the most compassionate course of action is not to rely on the state but to take responsibility for our own actions; to preserve our ability to work and trade freely with one another without state interference; to promote aspiration through low taxes and the preservation of property rights; to get a grip on state finances so as not to burden future generations; and to use our personal liberty to help others wherever possible.

If freedom is to endure, the moral battle against socialism must be fought anew.

George Maggs works as a constituency coordinator for Charlotte Leslie MP and is a final year PhD researcher at the University of the West of England

sad or silly - maybe rather pathetic

#Brexit planning for no deal - win win

Another Brexit blog. It is such a fast moving issue.

I was impressed with Theresa May yesterday in Parliament. She was resolute in defending the democratic legitimacy of the 2016 Brexit referendum result. She understands wisely that it is paramount Brexit is delivered. She is rightly adamant a 2nd referendum would be seen as betrayal and do yet unseen damage to our society. She will not countenance it (I hope).

Labour are not going to get a General Election.

So I am beginning to feel optimistic again. It looks like Theresa May's deal or No Deal (the default legal position if Parliament does not agree a deal).

This morning the Cabinet are apparently meeting to agree to step up No Deal planning. This must happen.

Ironically this step also increases the chance of the EU coming back with the improvements Theresa May needs to her deal to stand a chance of getting it through Parliament. We know the EU form. Big decisions are made seconds before midnight. If they really believe we will go with a planned no deal rather than a bad deal (the deal currently on offer) they are much more likely to make concessions because No Deal is very bad for them. This is simple negotiating strategy and one so many people including politicians have failed to understand.

So plan for No Deal. A Win Win.

PS. I do not subscribe to the view that with No Deal we have no financial liability to the EU. I think we need to be fair and reasonable but I am not sure what that figure is. It certainly is not 39 billion. 

#useitorloseit - use it or lose it

I thought I would pass this pearl of wisdom on - lol!

All my life I have played amateur sport. I have been amazingly lucky - (mega mega touchwood.) I have suffered hardly any injuries - maybe they can be counted on one hand - and none have been serious (mega mega touchwood again !). Of course I am thinking back over a long time and all I can think of that has stopped me playing for a decent period was two separate broken collar bones from rugby.

My (non medical) theory/approach has always been keep going - it will either get better or worse. Invariably I have found it gets better. Sharp pain I acknowledge you have to be careful with but by and large I think you can play through lets say "discomfort" and some how or other the body sorts it out. That has been what works for me. If it does get worse you know you have a problem - lol!

I appreciate this view is controversial and many would find it nonsensical. However I have observed many people that always seem to be injured - and stop playing while they recover. Two things come to mind. The first is your body is rarely in perfect shape and if you only do something when it is, you might have a very stop start sporting life. I think it is normal to have aches and pains and niggles. You can run them off. (have you noticed everyone is suddenly fit for the glory games - like cup finals!). The second is - stopping increases your chance of further injury - I am sure of this. While you are waiting around for something to come right - your body (fitness) regresses making further injury when you get going again more likely - hence the stop start.

Why am I writing this now? Well I am enjoying my squash. I have just got back to league 2 at my local club and it has been a battle - but I have really enjoyed it. It has been a battle because I had a gap in playing properly for several months because of Clipper sailing and other stuff. When you are younger you can recover quickly from a gap in playing. As you get older less so. Your body loses its specific fitness more rapidly when you get older - and the double whammy - it is then harder to get it back.

So my squash is going well - and I am playing my son George in a friendly and out of the blue I pull a calf muscle (self diagnosis). The pain is acute - like cramp. I have to stop immediately. Next morning my calf is swollen.

What to do? A quick google! Calf muscle pulls/strains/tears are graded 1 to 3 in seriousness. Recommendation - rest. Grade three can be several months. I have a grade 1 I reckon (hope) - recovery estimated as two weeks in the blurb. I suppose two weeks doesn't sound long but I know what two weeks of doing nothing can mean.

Anyway I happen to be having a general chat with my youngest son Richard on the phone - he is practicing his first year as a doctor. I ask him (not for the first time) if there is any medical evidence that my theory of keeping going aids repair - can make you heal more quickly. He said not with something like a calf muscle tear - but maybe in a general sense. Apparently in geriatric care they use the expression - "use it or lose it".

So this is what is behind my snappy little blog title - use it or lose it. It sums up my general theory. The danger of not keeping going is you lose it. Of course you lose fitness. You lose flexibility. You can lose resistance. (At a more extreme level geriatrics can quickly lose the ability to walk if they only sit down.) It snow balls. I think many people fall in to this trap. One of my other favourite sayings (often grumpily reminding myself ) is - " the less you do the less you feel like doing". This is right too and sits well with 'use it or lose it" I think.

So anyway I have had a few days of rest - the swelling has reduced. I have found I can slow jog (even slower than usual lol!). Hopefully I can get back to squash sooner rather than later but I know this will be a setback. A nuisance to say the least. It must be dreadful if you are a high level athlete - say like Andy Murray and you get a major injury. It must be a brutal journey back - both in body and mind. Some never make it. Use it or lose it. It makes sense to me.

#Brexit it is not looking good for our society

Yesterday was a monumental day. As observers have concluded - the day Parliament reasserted itself. So why is that not a good thing? The simple reason :-

1) Parliament voted overwhelmingly to give the people a democratic vote to determine the binary choice - leave or stay in the EU.

2) Leave was understood by everyone to mean  - to take back control of our laws, money and borders and to be able to trade freely with the rest of the world on our own terms.

3) A majority of MP's do not like the decision of the people.

4) MP's are now playing fast and loose with the democratic decision of the people. Outcomes yesterday gives them far more scope to do so and the guise of the sovereignty of parliament above the people.

DANGER WARNING

People say our country is divided. If a proper Brexit is not delivered by MP's because they have usurped the decision they gave to the people I fear we will see what divided really means.

From here on in it will be a hollow call that we are a democratic country. From here on in we will be unable to say democracy is paramount and we must respect it.

From here on in people will be able to say democracy has been undermined by MP's - the establishment - the media - the powerful for their own agenda or because they think they know best.

From here on in people will be able to say their vote does not matter.

The conclusion - why support - why defend the democratic principal if our vote does not matter?

They are right. Democracy can be seen to no longer work. What is the point of voting? From now on vote losers will be able to say - why do I have to accept the decision? It doesn't suit me - I will ignore it. There is a monumental precedent for their action - the Brexit vote (the largest democratic turnout ever in the UK) - the democratic decision of the people to properly leave was ignored - overturned by the establishment.

So what happens to a society where the principal of democracy is no longer accepted as sacrosanct by the people?

What happens to a society where the people believe they can no longer trust the ballot box to bring about the change they have voted for?

The answer

POPULISM or ANARCHY

MP's are now going to spend 4 or 5 days in debate about the type of Brexit they want - or in many cases why Brexit should be overturned.

What they are really discussing is the way they are going to trash our democracy for generations.

I really fear it is going to end badly for this country - because if you do not have democracy what do you have to hold it together?

Don't be surprised if populist anti establishment politics really begins to get hold both on the left and particularly the right. Don't expect it to be through the legitimacy of the ballot box.

Don't be surprised if our own version of Gilet Jaune emerges.

We have seen riots before in this country - it is never far away - but we have always been able to point to the legitimacy of the ballot box as a defence. We will no longer be able to do that. Take to the streets to bring about change could easily be the call to which people respond. Who could blame them? Their vote no longer counts.

FOOTNOTE

• I despair at people like Dominic Grieve. He cannot see the wood for the trees. Democracy is a simple concept - easily understood. One man one vote. There is a proposition. It is voted on. The outcome is decided by the most votes. That is democracy. Parliament deferred to the people by a massive vote to grant the referendum. He is NOT upholding democracy - the complete opposite and it is so damaging.
• I am sickened by people like Anna Soubry. She claims she is a democrat. She is not because she has not supported the decision of the people - worst she has sought to undermine it. Her mantra is she knows best. She believes GDP and money is more important than democracy.