Ici Londres: Singapore on Thames? Bring it on!

[davidgifford]

On my visits I found Singapore: clean, safe, polite, affluent and welcoming. Everything that London is striving to leave behind.

[fisher]

Singapore on Thames would be the best thing for this country.
We buy and sell things for a living perfect economic model for us.

[sixmagpies]

Singapore's wealth stems from reliable rule of law, and international trust in that rule.  
God, how one wishes Britain could once again rely on her own uniquely fair and precious rule of law, and her own unique people, to develop her prosperity. Separated from EU control and cost, Britain will rapidly flourish and offer a truly secure home for her people again.

[domfrancis]

It would be better to be a free country, then one tied to the apron strings of the corrupt EU. Yes, even Singapore would do.

[lantawon]

Dan forgot the higher standards in education in Singapore.

[jiros]

PM of Singapore says the Singapore model is simply not feasible in the UK. The Swiss model is probably more apt.

[jeffharmed]

Probably the biggest single factor contributing to the downfall of the British empire is socialism. It’s an extra overhead that handicaps a nation in a competitive world.

[bb]

Great video, but you’ve missed a trick @danhannan - Singapore got rich by copying the free trade and economic freedom that made Britain once great. We wouldn’t be copying Singapore, we’d be reviving forgotten British values!

[davidmartin_EtherSolutions]

Some more great points Daniel.
Will you come and stand as an MP in Aylesbury Vale?

[talkcoxieuk]

Get back to England and please stand as an MP

[seane]

I absolutely love Singapore and Dan is (not surprisingly) right on many counts in this video. The only wrinkle in my mind is that I wonder if the comparison breaks down in looking to compare / make analogous the fate of Singapore to that of the whole of the UK. Singapore to London fine... absolutely.

But the whole of Singapore’s health and wealth status is contained in comparable geographic and population densities to the capital. I’m just thinking about how and if that could scale to include the Midlands, the North, Wales, Scotland and NI (as long as they stay with us!)

Maybe I’ll just try and set up a business in Singapore itself and move!!

[Culbokie_croft]

Singapore exploited its position as a strategic choke point - hence its success. Agree with your message.

[aquaticpears]

Lived in Singapore for a good while and it's a stunning place but... everyone works bloody hard! Spend some time over there and it's embarrassing how luddite we are generally compared to them. We're soo entitled and lazy here, it's unreal.

[mushogi]

Ha Ha quite like some of Dan Hannans points but he forgets to mention 80% of Singapore housing is provided by Government ie is social housing and have rents controlled . In Uk rented sector is a nightmare and many peoples wages only just cover rent.

[WasLostButNowAmFound]

yes, welfare system once implemented will be entrenched. that's the problem with trying to move towards a Singapore model.

[innercircle]

Ain't gonna happen under Boris surrender treaty.
And have we conveniently forgotten our unionist friends in NI?
You have all either been got at or as usual once the scent of power wafts up your hooters you immediately forget principles.
It's not even close to being about the ability to trade
We want our self determination, setting our own rules, regulations, immigration policy, defence policy, foreign policy. We want out of the ECHR.
None of this is possible under Boris' treaty.
Disgusted

[neilhedley]

I don’t know what he’s been drinking but his brain has gone.
Poor chap

[angusmcangus]

Dan, are you standing for a Westminster seat?

[garylewis]

We're going to end up with Somalia-on-Thames if we're not careful!

[deanstuart]

Singapore became rich for a very good reason. In an age of currency and capital controls, the government said "please invest here, and if it all goes wrong you can take your money away."

Many countries at the time held the view that any money invested there was theirs to do with as they wished and was not the property of the investors. That meant that investors refused to invest. Why should they if their property could be confiscated on the whim of a government official?