No, it wasn't neutral. It favoured the Tories, who accumulate votes in areas where the population tends to be less transient. MPs represent all their constituents, even the ones not allowed to vote.
The Act of 2011 certainly favoured the Tories vis-à-vis the current situation, which favours the Labour Party. It is certainly true that MPs represent the whole population of their constituency, not just the eligible voters. It is quite another thing to say that the ineligible population should be counted for the purposes of determining the size of constituencies. That was after all the basis of the notorious three-fifths rule in the United States Constitution, which provided that when determining the size of Congressional Districts, a slave should count for three-fifths of a person, notwithstanding that they did not have a vote. Should Wakefield be 1000 voters smaller than neighbouring constituencies because of the presence of one of Her Majesty's Prisons in the constituency? The logic of your argument suggests that it should.
The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?
The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.
I stand to be corrected but I thought that all boundary reviews since the system was established decades ago were based on registered electors rather than population. If that is the case then your argument about Tory 'gerrymandering' has no merit whatever.
But the Tories changed the way boundary reviews were to be conducted by making equal sized constituencies the most important factor. Having done that, they could have changed other practices too, but chose not to. Funnily enough, the overall effect was to create something that was far more conducive to their interests. If equal-sized constituencies really were so important then doing it by population based on the most recent census was the only fair way to do it.
In the 19th century, the UK expanded its empire and imposed what we called "civilisation" on the natives of those countries. This was bad according to "progressives" because it's imperialism. We shouldn't have imposed our Victorian attitudes on others.
Nowadays, the progressive view is to spread our values like democracy, diversity, apple pie and motherhood to the developing world. And this is good. We will boycott Russia if they are homophobic, we will intervene in Iraq if they democratically elect the wrong PM.
My argument about what is "good", it's an argument about consistency.
Unless Imperialism is spreading "bad views" and progressives only want to spread "good" views, so that's alright.
Or, as As Oscar said, I'm not young enough to know everything.
Not sure if this poll on the Empire just before the Commonwealth Games was made known.
"By three to one, British people think the British Empire is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of – they also tend to think it left its colonies better off, and a third would like it to still exist
Britain has long found it difficult to evaluate its former empire. Imperial nostalgia on television has been shamed by historians, and modern prime ministers have expressed ‘deep sorrow’ for Britain’s role in slavery – but they have also called on British people to celebrate the legacy of the Empire.
Among the British public, feelings tend to be positive. A new YouGov survey finds that most think the British Empire is more something to be proud of (59%) rather than ashamed of (19%). 23% don't know. Young people are least likely to feel pride over shame when it comes to the Empire, though about half (48%) of 18-24 year olds do. In comparison, about two-thirds (65%) of over 60s feel mostly proud.
Economically, the British Empire invested in infrastructure, established trading routes and installed institutions – but it also extracted resources, oversaw famines and in some cases left behind instability. Though many (36%) are unsure, British people do tend to think that, overall, former British colonies are now better off for having been part of the empire, by 49-15%.
A third of British people (34%) also say they would like it if Britain still had an empire. Under half (45%) say they would not like the Empire to exist today. 20% don’t know."
Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
The drop seems down to increased production in USA and Gulf, combined with low demand particularly the Eurozone.
It may also be deliberate. Leveraging the price of oil down by the US and its allies does put pressure on the Russian economy in particular.
Or just an unwinding of a very large hedge fund net long speculative position, now unwound.
Big commodity correction this summer, especially in ags. With the stronger pound a real boon to the UK consumer.
There are at least three reasons why we know this was not caused by a 'very large hedge fund'.
1. The oil market is huge. Around 90 million barrels a day are produced, meaning than c. $9-10bn of oil is extracted every day. For one hedge fund to make a material difference, sustained over many days, in such a large market is implausible.
2. OECD oil inventories increased around 90m barrels in the second quarter. That's not a hedge fund. With inventory levels now back near normal levels, it's not surprising that buying patterns have returned to more normal levels.
3. Production is up in Canada, the US, Libya and Saudi Arabia...
•For April to June 2014, there were 30.60 million people in work, 167,000 more than for January to March 2014 and 820,000 more than a year earlier.
•For April to June 2014, there were 2.08 million unemployed people, 132,000 fewer than for January to March 2014 and 437,000 fewer than a year earlier.
•For April to June 2014, there were 8.86 million economically inactive people (those out of work but not seeking or available to work) aged from 16 to 64. This was 15,000 more than for January to March 2014 but 130,000 fewer than a year earlier.
•For April to June 2014, pay including bonuses for employees in Great Britain was 0.2% lower than a year earlier, but pay excluding bonuses was 0.6% higher.
Just incredible. It is very hard to understand how we are doing this.
" It is very hard to understand how we are doing this. " Labour aren't in power?
Take a look what is going on with the benefits system and the move to self-employment. Don't forget the Tories redefined unemployment about 30 times in the 80s.
What have you got against self-employment ?
Also, a fact; Every single Labour government has ended its term of office with unemployment higher than when it came in. Labour, my arse.
Only if you do not create another bias. The Tories had a range of options and chose the one that most favoured them.
It was a facially neutral measure, which was perfectly justifiable. If population rather than those registered to vote should be the measure of constituency sizes, does that mean that those disqualified by law from voting should determine the size of a constituency? The only gerrymandering contained in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was the provisions relating to the Isle of Wight, and the Highlands and Islands.
No, it wasn't neutral. It favoured the Tories, who accumulate votes in areas where the population tends to be less transient. MPs represent all their constituents, even the ones not allowed to vote.
Unless you are considering extending the franchise to 6 month old babies, your statements this morning about basing the electoral system on population are a load of tosh and nonsense. It's always been done on registered electors, a switch to population would indeed be gerrymandering.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
On-topic, it;s strange that the Tories always start bleating on about this but the largest constituency of all is the one I live in, East Ham, which is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Indeed, there's a strong argument for the creation of at least one new constituency given the increasing population in East London and it's almost inevitable that would be another for the Labour column so it does work both ways.
As far as UKIP here is concerned, their candidate finished third in the Mayoral election with 6% of the vote and their few Council candidates were well stuffed (as indeed were everyone's except Labour). I could envisage UKIP finishing third in East Ham and possibly keeping their deposit but that's it.
The main bleater so far as I can see this morning is smiling lefty troll pirate @Southamobserver !
No, it wasn't neutral. It favoured the Tories, who accumulate votes in areas where the population tends to be less transient. MPs represent all their constituents, even the ones not allowed to vote.
The Act of 2011 certainly favoured the Tories vis-à-vis the current situation, which favours the Labour Party. It is certainly true that MPs represent the whole population of their constituency, not just the eligible voters. It is quite another thing to say that the ineligible population should be counted for the purposes of determining the size of constituencies. That was after all the basis of the notorious three-fifths rule in the United States Constitution, which provided that when determining the size of Congressional Districts, a slave should count for three-fifths of a person, notwithstanding that they did not have a vote. Should Wakefield be 1000 voters smaller than neighbouring constituencies because of the presence of one of Her Majesty's Prisons in the constituency? The logic of your argument suggests that it should.
There was 5% leeway in the 2011 Act, so I doubt a discrepancy of 1,000 would be a huge problem.
Seems certain that unemployment will crash below the 2 million barrier just a couple of weeks before the conference season. George, he of near perfection, couldn't have timed it better, could he?
Only if you do not create another bias. The Tories had a range of options and chose the one that most favoured them.
It was a facially neutral measure, which was perfectly justifiable. If population rather than those registered to vote should be the measure of constituency sizes, does that mean that those disqualified by law from voting should determine the size of a constituency? The only gerrymandering contained in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was the provisions relating to the Isle of Wight, and the Highlands and Islands.
No, it wasn't neutral. It favoured the Tories, who accumulate votes in areas where the population tends to be less transient. MPs represent all their constituents, even the ones not allowed to vote.
Unless you are considering extending the franchise to 6 month old babies, your statements this morning about basing the electoral system on population are a load of tosh and nonsense. It's always been done on registered electors, a switch to population would indeed be gerrymandering.
No it would not, it would just be less favourable to the Tories. I certainly believe that MPs should represent the children who live in their constituencies.
The chances of any change in to the FPTP system in general elections have been scuppered for the time being but local government could lead the way,as usual,by adopting the STV system adopted in Scotland, where there is enough evidence now to suggest less uncontested seats and one-party states(one party states more than not end in tears for the party in charge).Should this system be seen to work in local government,it may open the way again for proposed change in national elections.
If the Conservatives and Lib Dems form another coalition, then PR in local government in return for an EU referendum seems the obvious deal.
I'm not sure why the Lib Dems should be that keen on PR anymore. It would probably help Ukip.
I actually think it's hard to see another blue/yellow deal. What are they going to agree to? If Clegg tries to form another coalition with the Tories on the basis of having got PR for local government, I'd fear for his safety.
UK unemployment fell by 132,000 to 2.08 million in the three months to June, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics said the unemployment rate also fell to 6.4% in the quarter, down from 6.5% in May.- It means the unemployment rate is at its lowest level for six years.”
Excellent news - forget, who was the economist predicting 5m unemployed?
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
O'Flynn's a Cambridge lad.
So it is a local candidate will have a better idea of winning the seat approach I think.
But like you I'm grateful for them picking him for that seat.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
UK unemployment fell by 132,000 to 2.08 million in the three months to June, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics said the unemployment rate also fell to 6.4% in the quarter, down from 6.5% in May.- It means the unemployment rate is at its lowest level for six years.”
Excellent news - forget, who was the economist predicting 5m unemployed?
I must confess to some puzzlement about the unemployment figures. I also suspect the true story is about it being much less of an incentive to be "unemployed" and more and more people turning to self-employment (there were at least 4.2 million in 2012 and that number is likely to be higher now).
In the same way, statistics such as the number of hours "worked" and the number of people in employment are probably far less rosy than they appear at headline level (though I would guess Conservatives would prefer people didn't think about the numbers too much).
One anecdotal observation is the number of pitches at shopping centres (not actual shop units but pitches in the main walkways) - these would be worked by the self-employed either aa franchise or son some form of commission. That means people working and hours being worked but how much is being earned.
This illustrates how the "statistics" aren't really telling the truth about what's happening in the real economy (let alone the black economy).
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
True, but he's a good communicator and a very credible candidate. I would have thought they'd want him to stand in one of the dozen or so of their best shots.
There was 5% leeway in the 2011 Act, so I doubt a discrepancy of 1,000 would be a huge problem.
You are not engaging with the principle. The maximum permitted variation of 5% from the electoral quota in the Act of 2011 was to allow for some administrative convenience, not to permit the taking into account of extraneous considerations (such as the number of ineligible persons) by the Boundary Commission. The question is really very simple. If 40% of a constituency were under the age of 18 and thus disqualified by law from voting, should that constituency have a considerably lower number of voters than its neighbours, where say, 20%, were under the age of 18? The result would be that the votes of the adults in that constituency would be worth relatively more than those of adults elsewhere. It is clearly irrational, and contrary to all previous practice and electoral law.
The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?
The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.
I stand to be corrected but I thought that all boundary reviews since the system was established decades ago were based on registered electors rather than population. If that is the case then your argument about Tory 'gerrymandering' has no merit whatever.
But the Tories changed the way boundary reviews were to be conducted by making equal sized constituencies the most important factor. Having done that, they could have changed other practices too, but chose not to. Funnily enough, the overall effect was to create something that was far more conducive to their interests. If equal-sized constituencies really were so important then doing it by population based on the most recent census was the only fair way to do it.
No it didn't.
The Act sets out a number of Rules in Schedule 2 which are relevant to the detailed development of proposals for individual constituencies.
Foremost among these is Rule 2, which provides that – apart from four specified exceptions – every constituency must have an electorate (as at the review date) that is no less than 95% and no more than 105% of the ‘UK electoral quota’. The UK electoral quota for the 2013 Review is, to the nearest whole number, 76,641.
Accordingly, every constituency in England must have an electorate as at the review date that is no smaller than 72,810 and no larger than 80,473
Put away the tissues my friends, and have a look at wage growth. It tells a story that very few on here notice or understand.
Maybe we could have had ai informed discussion about wage growth - and had a grown up debate about how it would pan out, BEFORE Labour opened the borders without asking the voters....
Put away the tissues my friends, and have a look at wage growth. It tells a story that very few on here notice or understand.
Maybe we could have had ai informed discussion about wage growth - and had a grown up debate about how it would pan out, BEFORE Labour opened the borders without asking the voters....
I assure you the wage growth stats are nonsense. Wages are climbing in the construction industry very quickly.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
Agree that it seems odd on the surface - I wonder if he is acting slightly sacrificially for the benefit of the wider party? Basically, if he is the Comms Director and will have a national profile, then he won't actually be in his own seat so why waste a genuine opportunity? Better to put yourself up in a 'high profile' seat that the media will cover a bit and make sure that you are seen nationally to help everywhere else. Or UKIP are just strategically inept - could be either.
Tories are a dying breed, attracting mainly older people. What was the average age of an attendee at their party conference a few years back ? From memory, I think it was about 70 years of age.
Cameron has tried to modernise the Tories, but in doing so, has seen party membership fall by half. Quite a lot of these have moved to UKIP. Grant Shapps (Michael Green) may not appeal to many party members, as he was only moved into the role as chairman because he had knowledge of internet campaigning. Given the age of membership, this might not be that relevant.
Unless some of the over 65's decide to back the Tories instead of UKIP, then it would be very difficult for the Tories to win most seats. Then you have the Warsi issue that immigrants make up a sizeable portion of the electorate in some seats and the Tories won't stand a chance of winning these, if they say the wrong things on immigration, in trying to deal with UKIP.
2015 will be the election for Labour to lose by making mistakes, which cannot be ruled out. Not convinced that Balls can run a sensible campaign on economic issues without making errors, which might prove fatal.
Put away the tissues my friends, and have a look at wage growth. It tells a story that very few on here notice or understand.
Very true. What is means is that new jobs are being created as the economy rebalances. Unsurprisingly, all those people now entering the jobs market for the first time or after a period of unemployment are not going straight into high-paying jobs in financial services. At the same time, in financial services big bonuses and very high salaries are falling, which reduces the average. This of course does not mean that individuals outside those very high-paying sectors are seeing their own wages fall.
It is getting very hard indeed to deny that IDS was right: restructuring the welfare system to remove perverse incentives which prevented people getting off benefits and into work (with all the attendant advantages both for themselves and for society as a whole) is really beginning to show results.
There was 5% leeway in the 2011 Act, so I doubt a discrepancy of 1,000 would be a huge problem.
You are not engaging with the principle. The maximum permitted variation of 5% from the electoral quota in the Act of 2011 was to allow for some administrative convenience, not to permit the taking into account of extraneous considerations (such as the number of ineligible persons) by the Boundary Commission. The question is really very simple. If 40% of a constituency were under the age of 18 and thus disqualified by law from voting, should that constituency have a considerably lower number of voters than its neighbours, where say, 20%, were under the age of 18? The result would be that the votes of the adults in that constituency would be worth relatively more than those of adults elsewhere. It is clearly irrational, and contrary to all previous practice and electoral law.
If you believe an MP represents all his/her constituents then their age is immaterial, as is whether they appear on the electoral roll. Equal-sized constituencies that override natural and historic boundaries are irrational and contrary to all previous practice.
UK unemployment fell by 132,000 to 2.08 million in the three months to June, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics said the unemployment rate also fell to 6.4% in the quarter, down from 6.5% in May.- It means the unemployment rate is at its lowest level for six years.”
Excellent news - forget, who was the economist predicting 5m unemployed?
Seems certain that unemployment will crash below the 2 million barrier just a couple of weeks before the conference season. George, he of near perfection, couldn't have timed it better, could he?
And at the same time those claiming JSA will fall below 1m. From the BBC
"The number of people claiming Jobseekers Allowance fell for the 21st month in a row in June, by 33,600 to 1.01 million."
Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
The drop seems down to increased production in USA and Gulf, combined with low demand particularly the Eurozone.
It may also be deliberate. Leveraging the price of oil down by the US and its allies does put pressure on the Russian economy in particular.
Or just an unwinding of a very large hedge fund net long speculative position, now unwound.
Big commodity correction this summer, especially in ags. With the stronger pound a real boon to the UK consumer.
There are at least three reasons why we know this was not caused by a 'very large hedge fund'.
1. The oil market is huge. Around 90 million barrels a day are produced, meaning than c. $9-10bn of oil is extracted every day. For one hedge fund to make a material difference, sustained over many days, in such a large market is implausible.
2. OECD oil inventories increased around 90m barrels in the second quarter. That's not a hedge fund. With inventory levels now back near normal levels, it's not surprising that buying patterns have returned to more normal levels.
3. Production is up in Canada, the US, Libya and Saudi Arabia...
I could go on...
Many, not one hedge fund. Short term price movements are driven by speculators. If you followed the CFTC you see this is what has happened this summer, indeed it was a record net long position.
In 2010 there were 45,855,693 registered electors in 650 seats
That gives 70547 electors/seat as the mean figure, the largest seat was the Isle of Wight with 110924, and the smallest Na h-Eileanan an Iar with 21837 electors.
The median constituency was Chorley with 71,333 electors (325th largest) &
The constituency closest to the mean was North Warwickshire with 70,544 electors (349th largest)
This means the seat distribution is slightly left skewed, but not much.
The Standard deviation was 7526 electors with Berwick Upon Tweed (628th largest, 55785 electorate) being 2 SDs below the mean and only Wirral West in England being smaller, but meanwhile 17 Welsh seats being more than 2 standard deviations below the mean.
There are 4 Scottish seats more than 2 SDs below the mean, but 3 of these have vast geographical areas in the Highlands. Glasgow North however certainly does not.
The seats more than 2 SDs above the mean are as follows (85601 electorate)
Isle of Wight (Safe Con) East Ham (Safe Labour) Manchester Central (Safe Labour) North West Cambridgeshire (Safe Con) Ilford South (Safe Labour) West Ham (Safe Labour) Bury St Edmunds (Safe Con)
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
Daniel "Finished Third" Zeichner will be cursing into his workers tea this morning - the Kippers can perhaps take a chunk of the WWC votes in Arbury and Kings hedges leaving Huppert with a clear run. I guess O'Flynn might ensure they aren't 3rd again this time.
Kippers campaigning noisily ensuring an arch Federalist wins - a little microcosm of the 2015 GE.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
Agree that it seems odd on the surface - I wonder if he is acting slightly sacrificially for the benefit of the wider party? Basically, if he is the Comms Director and will have a national profile, then he won't actually be in his own seat so why waste a genuine opportunity? Better to put yourself up in a 'high profile' seat that the media will cover a bit and make sure that you are seen nationally to help everywhere else. Or UKIP are just strategically inept - could be either.
I'd love to see the many PB faces that scoff, if O'Flynn actually won the seat.
UK unemployment fell by 132,000 to 2.08 million in the three months to June, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics said the unemployment rate also fell to 6.4% in the quarter, down from 6.5% in May.- It means the unemployment rate is at its lowest level for six years.”
Excellent news - forget, who was the economist predicting 5m unemployed?
Ah yes, that's the chap - I guess after such a monumental career cock-up, writing for the Indy is the next best thing to 'keeping your head down'...
Quoted from that Indy article:
"Answer: the UK took in a large influx of migrants, who have pushed down on wages, and older workers were forced back to work after the collapse of their pensions, increasing the labour supply.
Since the start of 2004, the number of non-UK born workers is up by two million, including a rise of 880,000 from the 10 Eastern European accession countries of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia (the A10). Since May 2010 there has been a rise of 715,000 in foreign-born workers, including 315,000 from the A10. This increase in migrant employment presumably also has zero to do with welfare reforms. "
And who is to blame for the collapse of Private Sector pensions and the increase in immigration? Noticeably DB does not comment.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
True, but he's a good communicator and a very credible candidate. I would have thought they'd want him to stand in one of the dozen or so of their best shots.
I had S Cambs as a seat where UKIP may do well, but not Cambridge...have to assume they know what theyre doing...
My guess is they are putting local candidates in place, so they must think that parachuting is a turn off for the kind of people that might vote UKIP
Farage, O'Flynn, Suzanne Evans, Tim Aker are four of the more high profile kippers, and all standing in the constituency they were born in/grew up
And who is to blame for the collapse of Private Sector pensions and the increase in immigration? Noticeably DB does not comment.
The other amusing thing about his desperate clutching at straws is that he doesn't seem to have noticed that workers over state pension age aren't eligible for Job Seeker's Allowance.
The whole reaction of the Left to the excellent economic news is hilarious to behold. Working backwards from their conclusion that the Conservatives must by definition be wrong, they cast around for ever more implausible explanations for why things really cannot possibly be going well, despite what every statistic shows.
Put away the tissues my friends, and have a look at wage growth. It tells a story that very few on here notice or understand.
I have certainly noticed it and admit that I don't fully understand it. Mr. Navabi's analysis up-thread goes someway to explaining it, but I doubt it is the full story. So please could you explain to us what you think is happening?
"But the Bank has also slashed its forecast for wage growth in the UK. It now expects wages to rise by just 1.25% in 2014, down from 2.5% previously. It sees growth picking up to 3.25% in 2015, down from 3.5% before. And in 2016, it reckons wages will rise by 4%, up from 3.75% previously."
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
Agree that it seems odd on the surface - I wonder if he is acting slightly sacrificially for the benefit of the wider party? Basically, if he is the Comms Director and will have a national profile, then he won't actually be in his own seat so why waste a genuine opportunity? Better to put yourself up in a 'high profile' seat that the media will cover a bit and make sure that you are seen nationally to help everywhere else. Or UKIP are just strategically inept - could be either.
I'd love to see the many PB faces that scoff, if O'Flynn actually won the seat.
I must confess to some puzzlement about the unemployment figures. I also suspect the true story is about it being much less of an incentive to be "unemployed" and more and more people turning to self-employment (there were at least 4.2 million in 2012 and that number is likely to be higher now).
In the same way, statistics such as the number of hours "worked" and the number of people in employment are probably far less rosy than they appear at headline level (though I would guess Conservatives would prefer people didn't think about the numbers too much).
One anecdotal observation is the number of pitches at shopping centres (not actual shop units but pitches in the main walkways) - these would be worked by the self-employed either aa franchise or son some form of commission. That means people working and hours being worked but how much is being earned.
This illustrates how the "statistics" aren't really telling the truth about what's happening in the real economy (let alone the black economy).
As Richard has said it is the introduction of a million new workers over the last year into the employment market over the last year which is driving down average earnings as their earnings tend to be less than the average.
This does not mean the inability of labour to push through wage increases is not a remarkable feature of this surge in employment. I think that the level and scale of immigration together with the freedom of movement within the EU has fundamentally changed our job market.
Labour supply is now highly elastic which is very nice for employers but not so nice for the employed. This is quite a difficult problem to fix.
Put away the tissues my friends, and have a look at wage growth. It tells a story that very few on here notice or understand.
I have certainly noticed it and admit that I don't fully understand it. Mr. Navabi's analysis up-thread goes someway to explaining it, but I doubt it is the full story. So please could you explain to us what you think is happening?
Wage growth is limited and reduced by the Minimum Wage. An unintended consequence is that it provides a low benchmark for employers who are no longer in a competitive market for employees at the low end of the income scale (see DavidL below).
As many of the jobs created are at the low income level, the average wage figures will be depressed.
Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
The drop seems down to increased production in USA and Gulf, combined with low demand particularly the Eurozone.
It may also be deliberate. Leveraging the price of oil down by the US and its allies does put pressure on the Russian economy in particular.
Or just an unwinding of a very large hedge fund net long speculative position, now unwound.
Big commodity correction this summer, especially in ags. With the stronger pound a real boon to the UK consumer.
There are at least three reasons why we know this was not caused by a 'very large hedge fund'.
1. The oil market is huge. Around 90 million barrels a day are produced, meaning than c. $9-10bn of oil is extracted every day. For one hedge fund to make a material difference, sustained over many days, in such a large market is implausible.
2. OECD oil inventories increased around 90m barrels in the second quarter. That's not a hedge fund. With inventory levels now back near normal levels, it's not surprising that buying patterns have returned to more normal levels.
3. Production is up in Canada, the US, Libya and Saudi Arabia...
I could go on...
If you want you can look at the COT and plot the Hedge Funds net position against that of the crude oil price and you can see the massive net long liquidation running parallel to that of the collapse in the crude oil price this summer.
UK unemployment fell by 132,000 to 2.08 million in the three months to June, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics said the unemployment rate also fell to 6.4% in the quarter, down from 6.5% in May.- It means the unemployment rate is at its lowest level for six years.”
Excellent news - forget, who was the economist predicting 5m unemployed?
Ah yes, that's the chap - I guess after such a monumental career cock-up, writing for the Indy is the next best thing to 'keeping your head down'...
Quoted from that Indy article: "Answer: the UK took in a large influx of migrants, who have pushed down on wages, and older workers were forced back to work after the collapse of their pensions, increasing the labour supply."
Blanchflower with others has argued previously that immigration does not affect wages. "The empirical literature from around the world suggests little or no evidence that immigrants have had a major impact on native labour market outcomes such as wages and unemployment. Recent work by a number of other authors for the UK is also consistent with this view." by DG Blanchflower - 2007 - No 2615, IZA Discussion Papers from Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
•For April to June 2014, there were 30.60 million people in work, 167,000 more than for January to March 2014 and 820,000 more than a year earlier.
•For April to June 2014, there were 2.08 million unemployed people, 132,000 fewer than for January to March 2014 and 437,000 fewer than a year earlier.
•For April to June 2014, there were 8.86 million economically inactive people (those out of work but not seeking or available to work) aged from 16 to 64. This was 15,000 more than for January to March 2014 but 130,000 fewer than a year earlier.
•For April to June 2014, pay including bonuses for employees in Great Britain was 0.2% lower than a year earlier, but pay excluding bonuses was 0.6% higher.
Just incredible. It is very hard to understand how we are doing this.
" It is very hard to understand how we are doing this. " Labour aren't in power?
Take a look what is going on with the benefits system and the move to self-employment. Don't forget the Tories redefined unemployment about 30 times in the 80s.
What have you got against self-employment ?
Also, a fact; Every single Labour government has ended its term of office with unemployment higher than when it came in. Labour, my arse.
I've nothing against self-employment, but you have to ask why is it if we have this jobs miracle going on that the welfare bill isn't coming down in the same way.
To understand what is happening to wages, you really need to look at the whole picture by sector and region, as well as looking at the shape of the distribution curve. It's incorrect to assume that the average (mean) value of that distribution curve describes the experience of existing workers in typical jobs, although there is no doubt that wage growth has been very muted.
@Richard_Nabavi Not that muted for those at the top of the tree though, which tends to lower increases for those at the bottom when you look at the bare figures?
The headline really says it all: fewer than half of those with no qualifications are in employment.
The need to reform an improve our education system was urgent and well worth Gove ruffling a few feathers. The current educational establishment simply fails too many of our citizens. It is the least able and the most poorly taught who suffer for past failures. It is the driving force for inequality. Blair had it right but unfortunately he was a coward.
Shame Parliament hasn't been recalled, as it would have been nice to give Miliband and Balls and opportunity to comment on the employment figures and growth forecasts.
Of course Labour always manage to find something bad to discount the good news, maybe unemployment is falling too quickly now?
@DavidL I am glad you are finally looking at the problem. Our idea of reskilling has for years been parking people for a year in a privately run training establishment, and handing out an NVQ2 at the end, I am not denigrating the qualification, I leave that to the employers, but we have a need for "proper skills", and a commitment to invest in manufacturing, or come the next financial crash, we are heading down the plughole. Burger flipping is not a great help in the export side of things.
The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?
The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.
Did the Tories change those rules though? Or just maintain the status quo?
They changed the rules by mandating constituencies of equal size according to the electoral register above all other considerations.
That's a politican's answer.
Yes, they mandated consituencies of equal size.
But were constituencies previously benchmarked against population or against registered voters. The allegation you are making is that they switched to registered voters because that favoured them. Is that true, or not?
One of the most interesting points arising from A Neil's programme last night, was that in view of the multi-party promises to Scotland, that even if NO wins, then it is very likely that the WLQ will be sorted out and that measures will have to be put in place if Scotland, Wales and NI, control more of their policies and some taxation.
This would mean for England (even if EdM did not abort on his promises) that if Labour wins in 2015, he may well not have a majority in the HoC on English-only matters.
Perhaps the Ministers for Education, Health and Environment would have to come from the 'Opposition' benches?
Also it was conjectured that probably there would be a realigning of the Left and Right in England to meet this eventuality.
@Richard_Nabavi Not that muted for those at the top of the tree though, which tends to lower increases for those at the bottom when you look at the bare figures?
No, other way round. The fall in bonuses at the top end, and fewer highly-paid jobs in financial services, are partly responsible for the drop in the average earnings, although there are many other factors as well including phasing of bonuses as a result of the income tax changes. I suspect (although I don't know this for sure) that there may be an effect from the quite striking and very welcome move from public-sector jobs to increased private-sector employment.
The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?
The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.
Did the Tories change those rules though? Or just maintain the status quo?
They changed the rules by mandating constituencies of equal size according to the electoral register above all other considerations.
That's a politican's answer.
Yes, they mandated consituencies of equal size.
But were constituencies previously benchmarked against population or against registered voters. The allegation you are making is that they switched to registered voters because that favoured them. Is that true, or not?
No, that is not the allegation that I am making. What I am saying is that fairness was the overriding consideration they would have proposed constituencies based on population not on electoral roll.
Not worried about wage growth, it will bounce back next month to around 1.1-1.3% YoY, and head upwards after that. Financial services is, as ever, the part of the economy weighing down wage growth, but just now private trackers say wage growth in financial services will hit ~10% next year so that downturn is over as well.
The other interesting detail is that the streams are about to cross, the average wage in the private sector is about to go above the average wage in the public sector. That is something that hasn't been seen since the late 90s before Labour gave the public sector a massive bung to keep voting Labour. The rebalancing from public to private needs to go further.
Otherwise the good news on employment keeps coming, but productivity is still an issue, we need to bring high productivity areas like shale gas online to make up for the falls in productivity that comes with declining oil and gas output.
'Put away the tissues my friends, and have a look at wage growth. It tells a story that very few on here notice or understand'
According to the Resolution Foundation-Commission on Living Standards,a very similar picture to the period 2003 - 2008, but we did have cheap loans, self certified mortgages etc to give an illusion of better living standards,however,we then had to return to the real world.
'The period from 2003 onwards has seen median wages stagnate, and then fall in the aftermath of the 2008-09 recession. From 2003 to 2008, median wages were stagnant. Despite growth in GDP of 11 percent over the period, median earnings fell by an annual average of 0.2% percent for men, and for women rose by 0.3 percent a year. Put simply, a middle earner in 2008 did not earn noticeably more than a middle earner in 2003.'
@philiph "As many of the jobs created are at the low income level, the average wage figures will be depressed. "
Yes, which leads to the need for those wages to be subsidized in the form of tax credits, and housing benefits.
Which would explain why the welfare bill is not falling as employment increases as one would have expected in decades past. What has happened is that in work benefits are subsidising employers to an extent not seen before the age of tax credits etc. (see also unintended consequence of the minimum wage). That could be seen as a bad thing, taxpayers subsidising the profits that largely go to the already wealthy. However there, perhaps, is a social good in that if the jobs weren't created the welfare bill would be even higher and its far better for someone to be in work, even if that has to be subsidised, that sitting at home watching daytime TV (DavidL makes the same point up-thread).
The key to real improvements in prosperity has to be productivity and innovation, without those we are merely shuffling around the same ever shrinking pool of money. To improve on those requires, as Mr. Observer has noted many times on these pages, far better management of UK companies and that in turn as, has also been noted here umpteen times, better rules of corporate governance. It also requires our education system be rescued from the vested interests that have kept it skewed away from the needs of the majority of the population since it was first set up in the 19th century.
"Bank of England press conference - Q&A session begins Onto questions -- Ben Chu of the Independent asks why the Bank has lowered its forecasts for productivity growth. Mark Carney explains that firms have been taking on workers rather than investing in new equipment, as labour is cheaper than capital. That process should end once cheap labour has been mopped up, meaning workers demand higher wages, and encouraging firms to invest in new equipment that will boost productivity. That process is taking longer than thought."
Which is all well and good, except Carney admits he has no idea of the slack
Correct but would you rather they were unemployed?
This is Labour's problem. People are getting "the wrong type of jobs". But they give the impression they would rather see them sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle than in a job, in the workforce, learning and earning.
A dairy farm local to me has recruited 2 new Romanians to replace the two Romanians who have left to build their own home back in Romania on money earned in the UK.
The jobs were advertised at the local Job Agency but nobody wanted to be available for milking at 5am (transported is provided). So perhaps John Major has a point regarding willingness to work etc.
I do not expect that those who refused these unskilled jobs have had their benefits affected.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
True, but he's a good communicator and a very credible candidate. I would have thought they'd want him to stand in one of the dozen or so of their best shots.
I had S Cambs as a seat where UKIP may do well, but not Cambridge...have to assume they know what theyre doing...
Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
The drop seems down to increased production in USA and Gulf, combined with low demand particularly the Eurozone.
It may also be deliberate. Leveraging the price of oil down by the US and its allies does put pressure on the Russian economy in particular.
Or just an unwinding of a very large hedge fund net long speculative position, now unwound.
Big commodity correction this summer, especially in ags. With the stronger pound a real boon to the UK consumer.
There are at least three reasons why we know this was not caused by a 'very large hedge fund'.
1. The oil market is huge. Around 90 million barrels a day are produced, meaning than c. $9-10bn of oil is extracted every day. For one hedge fund to make a material difference, sustained over many days, in such a large market is implausible.
2. OECD oil inventories increased around 90m barrels in the second quarter. That's not a hedge fund. With inventory levels now back near normal levels, it's not surprising that buying patterns have returned to more normal levels.
3. Production is up in Canada, the US, Libya and Saudi Arabia...
I could go on...
If you want you can look at the COT and plot the Hedge Funds net position against that of the crude oil price and you can see the massive net long liquidation running parallel to that of the collapse in the crude oil price this summer.
I could go on...
You said 'a very large hedge fund', not the 'commodity hedge funds reducing their exposure'. Your argument might have made more sense if you had said the latter.
In any case: the majority of hedge fund positions are in WTI, rather than Brent, and therefore we would expect that an unwinding of hedge fund long positions would widen the differential between the two. That has not happened - in fact at under $6, the WTI/Brent differential is at multi-year lows.
Look: I'm not denying that hedge fund long positions may have had an impact - but it is just one factor among many. Recent weakness was certainly not because 'one large hedge fund' cut their position. Simply: there is no hedge fund big enough to have that kind of impact.
There was 5% leeway in the 2011 Act, so I doubt a discrepancy of 1,000 would be a huge problem.
You are not engaging with the principle. The maximum permitted variation of 5% from the electoral quota in the Act of 2011 was to allow for some administrative convenience, not to permit the taking into account of extraneous considerations (such as the number of ineligible persons) by the Boundary Commission. The question is really very simple. If 40% of a constituency were under the age of 18 and thus disqualified by law from voting, should that constituency have a considerably lower number of voters than its neighbours, where say, 20%, were under the age of 18? The result would be that the votes of the adults in that constituency would be worth relatively more than those of adults elsewhere. It is clearly irrational, and contrary to all previous practice and electoral law.
If you believe an MP represents all his/her constituents then their age is immaterial, as is whether they appear on the electoral roll. Equal-sized constituencies that override natural and historic boundaries are irrational and contrary to all previous practice.
So you are arguing that the Tories are guilty of a sin of ommission.
They didn't change this, therefore they are wicked people.
"Bank of England press conference - Q&A session begins Onto questions -- Ben Chu of the Independent asks why the Bank has lowered its forecasts for productivity growth. Mark Carney explains that firms have been taking on workers rather than investing in new equipment, as labour is cheaper than capital. That process should end once cheap labour has been mopped up, meaning workers demand higher wages, and encouraging firms to invest in new equipment that will boost productivity. That process is taking longer than thought."
Which is all well and good, except Carney admits he has no idea of the slack
All the time we have net immigration at over 200,000 p.a. then there isn't going to be that incentive to invest in capital that is more expensive than labour. Forcing up wages demand by withdrawing in work benefits would do the job, but at the expense of higher unemployment , which may not be politically or morally acceptable. Failing that cutting immigration to "tens of thousands a year" would also probably do the trick, but again the politics are difficult, if not impossible.
@Financier Any idea how many "job seeker sanctions" were handed out in the last set of figures? When you look at them (as I am sure you will) you will find out why "self employment" backed by tax subsidies suddenly seems like a very good idea.......creative accountancy is no longer the preserve of the rich. Of course, after the election, changes will be made throwing a lot of those already self employed back on the dole, and hindering those that want to create a business rather than those who merely want to keep a roof over their heads. But you know that already? As you have your eyes on the future legislation.
@DavidL I am glad you are finally looking at the problem. Our idea of reskilling has for years been parking people for a year in a privately run training establishment, and handing out an NVQ2 at the end, I am not denigrating the qualification, I leave that to the employers, but we have a need for "proper skills", and a commitment to invest in manufacturing, or come the next financial crash, we are heading down the plughole. Burger flipping is not a great help in the export side of things.
I have never disputed or suggested that productivity is a problem as is the lack of good quality training. The quotations from the IPPR report way down thread showed a part of the problem:
"For example, it says, 94,000 people were trained in beauty and hair for just 18,000 jobs, while only 123,000 were trained in the construction and engineering sectors for an advertised 275,000 jobs."
Our colleges are just not responsive to the jobs market in the way they need to be. Add in the lack of rigour in their exam systems and many who attend become less employable not more. I would like major local employers to have much more input into what was taught. I would like their concerns about or approbation of the skills of their trainees to be positively fed back into the colleges. I think work placements are more useful than an unfocussed course leading to a general but discredited qualification.
I think we also need to incentivise our employers to invest in their work forces. At a time when the supply of labour is so flexible this probably requires tax incentives such as 125% allowances on money spent on training.
There is much to do in this area but as with the schools we cannot allow current vested interests to get in the way.
So you are arguing that the Tories are guilty of a sin of ommission.
They didn't change this, therefore they are wicked people.
Whereas Labour, in government for 13 years with mega-majorities for most of the time, didn't change it either, but they are not wicked. Nor indeed did any government since time immemorial, no doubt for the obvious reason: it's clearly sensible that the size of the voting unit should be measured by the number of voters.
The way that anti-Tory prejudice distorts the worldview of the Left never fails to astonish. That someone as intelligent and nice as Southam can defend indefensible bias is really remarkable.
The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?
The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.
Did the Tories change those rules though? Or just maintain the status quo?
They changed the rules by mandating constituencies of equal size according to the electoral register above all other considerations.
That's a politican's answer.
Yes, they mandated consituencies of equal size.
But were constituencies previously benchmarked against population or against registered voters. The allegation you are making is that they switched to registered voters because that favoured them. Is that true, or not?
No, that is not the allegation that I am making. What I am saying is that fairness was the overriding consideration they would have proposed constituencies based on population not on electoral roll.
No, it doesn't. You (and Labour) want that because it is in their partisan interests.
The Conservative approach is to avoid change unless it is an improvement. It's not clear that there is an improvement in changing the time-honoured system that has worked very well to date
@Financier Any idea how many "job seeker sanctions" were handed out in the last set of figures? When you look at them (as I am sure you will) you will find out why "self employment" backed by tax subsidies suddenly seems like a very good idea.......creative accountancy is no longer the preserve of the rich. Of course, after the election, changes will be made throwing a lot of those already self employed back on the dole, and hindering those that want to create a business rather than those who merely want to keep a roof over their heads. But you know that already? As you have your eyes on the future legislation.
Nice try, but unfortunately that one won't wash either. From the Beeb:
The number of people in work rose by 167,000 in the quarter to 30.6 million, with most of the rise coming from full-time jobs, Nick Palmer* of the ONS says.
Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
The drop seems down to increased production in USA and Gulf, combined with low demand particularly the Eurozone.
It may also be deliberate. Leveraging the price of oil down by the US and its allies does put pressure on the Russian economy in particular.
Or just an unwinding of a very large hedge fund net long speculative position, now unwound.
Big commodity correction this summer, especially in ags. With the stronger pound a real boon to the UK consumer.
There are at least three reasons why we know this was not caused by a 'very large hedge fund'.
1. The oil market is huge. Around 90 million barrels a day are produced, meaning than c. $9-10bn of oil is extracted every day. For one hedge fund to make a material difference, sustained over many days, in such a large market is implausible.
2. OECD oil inventories increased around 90m barrels in the second quarter. That's not a hedge fund. With inventory levels now back near normal levels, it's not surprising that buying patterns have returned to more normal levels.
3. Production is up in Canada, the US, Libya and Saudi Arabia...
I could go on...
If you want you can look at the COT and plot the Hedge Funds net position against that of the crude oil price and you can see the massive net long liquidation running parallel to that of the collapse in the crude oil price this summer.
I could go on...
You said 'a very large hedge fund', not the 'commodity hedge funds reducing their exposure'. Your argument might have made more sense if you had said the latter.
In any case: the majority of hedge fund positions are in WTI, rather than Brent, and therefore we would expect that an unwinding of hedge fund long positions would widen the differential between the two. That has not happened - in fact at under $6, the WTI/Brent differential is at multi-year lows.
Look: I'm not denying that hedge fund long positions may have had an impact - but it is just one factor among many. Recent weakness was certainly not because 'one large hedge fund' cut their position. Simply: there is no hedge fund big enough to have that kind of impact.
@DavidL As private firms run a great deal of the training providers, you would think they would be responsive to "market forces". However, it is a nice little earner for a modicum of outlay, and as long as the job centers send enough bodies (usually under threat of sanction), the standard of training is a mere sideshow.
"I would like major local employers to have much more input into what was taught. I would like their concerns about or approbation of the skills of their trainees to be positively fed back into the colleges."
All that was supposed to have happened more than a decade ago. There were quangos set up to see that it would and lots more money provided for FE colleges to provide what local employers were demanding. In fact you comment could have been taken almost directly as a lift from the guff that was coming out of central government at the time. I wonder what happened to those initiatives and quangos.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
True, but he's a good communicator and a very credible candidate. I would have thought they'd want him to stand in one of the dozen or so of their best shots.
I had S Cambs as a seat where UKIP may do well, but not Cambridge...have to assume they know what theyre doing...
They are gifting the seat to an arch federalist.
Its the Kipper way !
Farage seems keen to give other senior figures difficult seats. One wonders why.
Wage growth figures don't include income tax cuts - ones that Labour would never have implemented.
Doesn't make a difference because of working tax credit withdrawal. It's why the Tories didn't pick the policy up for 2010. The only way to get real wages rising for low income people is to end corporate welfare like WTC and housing benefits for working people and force companies to pay their employees a proper wage. The state should not be involved with keeping unsustainable business practices in operation. Creative destruction.
So you are arguing that the Tories are guilty of a sin of ommission.
They didn't change this, therefore they are wicked people.
Whereas Labour, in government for 13 years with mega-majorities for most of the time, didn't change it either, but they are not wicked. Nor indeed did any government since time immemorial, no doubt for the obvious reason: it's clearly sensible that the size of the voting unit should be measured by the number of voters.
The way that anti-Tory prejudice distorts the worldview of the Left never fails to astonish. That someone as intelligent and nice as Southam can defend indefensible bias is really remarkable.
To Labour supporters the Tories are so evil that anything that harms them must be morally the right thing to do. The justification comes from that starting point, they will literally argue that black is white and believe it too.
The idea that if the situation was reversed that Labour wouldn't be constantly screaming about how unfair it is, is completely laughable.
Also they seem to think that a system that has different number of voters and constituents is fairer than one that has an equal number of voters.
You said 'a very large hedge fund', not the 'commodity hedge funds reducing their exposure'. Your argument might have made more sense if you had said the latter.
In any case: the majority of hedge fund positions are in WTI, rather than Brent, and therefore we would expect that an unwinding of hedge fund long positions would widen the differential between the two. That has not happened - in fact at under $6, the WTI/Brent differential is at multi-year lows.
Look: I'm not denying that hedge fund long positions may have had an impact - but it is just one factor among many. Recent weakness was certainly not because 'one large hedge fund' cut their position. Simply: there is no hedge fund big enough to have that kind of impact.
Amaranth tried that already.
Whoops
Exactly :-) And that was in a lot, lot, lot smaller market
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
True, but he's a good communicator and a very credible candidate. I would have thought they'd want him to stand in one of the dozen or so of their best shots.
I had S Cambs as a seat where UKIP may do well, but not Cambridge...have to assume they know what theyre doing...
They are gifting the seat to an arch federalist.
Its the Kipper way !
Any seat that UKIP don't win goes to a pro EU/pro federalist party
@DavidL I am glad you are finally looking at the problem. Our idea of reskilling has for years been parking people for a year in a privately run training establishment, and handing out an NVQ2 at the end, I am not denigrating the qualification, I leave that to the employers, but we have a need for "proper skills", and a commitment to invest in manufacturing, or come the next financial crash, we are heading down the plughole. Burger flipping is not a great help in the export side of things.
I can never understand the obsession with the size of the manufacturing sector on this site. It is a GOOD THING that fewer people these days are employed in menial factory jobs. Services are the future of developed economy as globalization has put paid to manufacturing cheaply here. In any case, 3D printing will eliminate most of the manufacturing industry within the next 20 years.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
True, but he's a good communicator and a very credible candidate. I would have thought they'd want him to stand in one of the dozen or so of their best shots.
I had S Cambs as a seat where UKIP may do well, but not Cambridge...have to assume they know what theyre doing...
They are gifting the seat to an arch federalist.
Its the Kipper way !
Farage seems keen to give other senior figures difficult seats. One wonders why.
Does one really?! Yes maybe Farage is in sole control of who gets which seat and forces people to volunteer to stand in ones they dont want to, & wont win!!
Doesn't make a difference because of working tax credit withdrawal. It's why the Tories didn't pick the policy up for 2010. The only way to get real wages rising for low income people is to end corporate welfare like WTC and housing benefits for working people and force companies to pay their employees a proper wage. The state should not be involved with keeping unsustainable business practices in operation. Creative destruction.
Given that the stock of houses and flats is pretty much constant (the number being built is tiny compared with the existing stock), the payment of housing benefit can only have one effect: to raise rents. Nice for Buy-To-Let landlords, but not obviously beneficial to society as a whole.
@HurstLlama The same thing as has happened since Thatcher, The idea is sound in theory, but successive governments play the "shell game" instead of actually making it work. This, you would think, would become apparent to the public, but they dream up new formats, and carry on as before.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
Agree that it seems odd on the surface - I wonder if he is acting slightly sacrificially for the benefit of the wider party? Basically, if he is the Comms Director and will have a national profile, then he won't actually be in his own seat so why waste a genuine opportunity? Better to put yourself up in a 'high profile' seat that the media will cover a bit and make sure that you are seen nationally to help everywhere else. Or UKIP are just strategically inept - could be either.
I'd love to see the many PB faces that scoff, if O'Flynn actually won the seat.
While it's a difficult ask (in the European elections, UKIP trailed Labour, the Lib Dems, the Conservatives and the Greens...), this could be a seat where the LibDems, the Conservatives, and Labour are all in the twenties, and where the Greens are in the teens. It is possible (but not likely) that UKIP does manage to 'sneak through the middle'.
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
True, but he's a good communicator and a very credible candidate. I would have thought they'd want him to stand in one of the dozen or so of their best shots.
I had S Cambs as a seat where UKIP may do well, but not Cambridge...have to assume they know what theyre doing...
They are gifting the seat to an arch federalist.
Its the Kipper way !
Any seat that UKIP don't win goes to a pro EU/pro federalist party
Unless AIFE wins a seat.
And I don't reckon George Galloway is much of a pro-European. (Although I could be wrong. I'm not really sure what his politics are beyond division.)
@DavidL I am glad you are finally looking at the problem. Our idea of reskilling has for years been parking people for a year in a privately run training establishment, and handing out an NVQ2 at the end, I am not denigrating the qualification, I leave that to the employers, but we have a need for "proper skills", and a commitment to invest in manufacturing, or come the next financial crash, we are heading down the plughole. Burger flipping is not a great help in the export side of things.
I can never understand the obsession with the size of the manufacturing sector on this site. It is a GOOD THING that fewer people these days are employed in menial factory jobs. Services are the future of developed economy as globalization has put paid to manufacturing cheaply here. In any case, 3D printing will eliminate most of the manufacturing industry within the next 20 years.
Completely disagree. Those employed in our car industry, for example, are not employed in "menial factory jobs" but are amongst the most productive and value added employees in the country. I also would not buy a car produced by a 3D printer until their quality has changed out of all recognition.
Services are of course very important but they ultimately require something to service. The clue is in the name.
"I’ve never voted Conservative in my life, and I can say with certainty that I never will. I joined the Labour party four years ago, so you’d think I was quite happy with this state of affairs. But I’m not. A Conservative party that ignores non-white voters, and a Labour party that sometimes takes them for granted, is not for our democracy or those voters.
What’s clear is that the much-touted ‘modernisation project’ that David Cameron started in 2005 was dealt its final nail in the coffin when Sayeeda Warsi resigned last week. Even she admitted, a bit politely, that the Tories had “left it a little too late to take [ethnic minority voters] seriously.”
This raises an important question: why would a party choose to ignore voters who, if they voted like whites, would have helped them win outright in 2010? At the last election they earned the vote of just 16% of ethnic minorities. As Tim Wigmore points out, in 2015 there will be 50 Tory seats where their margin of victory is smaller than the number of ethnic minorities living there."
@DavidL I am glad you are finally looking at the problem. Our idea of reskilling has for years been parking people for a year in a privately run training establishment, and handing out an NVQ2 at the end, I am not denigrating the qualification, I leave that to the employers, but we have a need for "proper skills", and a commitment to invest in manufacturing, or come the next financial crash, we are heading down the plughole. Burger flipping is not a great help in the export side of things.
I can never understand the obsession with the size of the manufacturing sector on this site. It is a GOOD THING that fewer people these days are employed in menial factory jobs. Services are the future of developed economy as globalization has put paid to manufacturing cheaply here. In any case, 3D printing will eliminate most of the manufacturing industry within the next 20 years.
Completely disagree. Those employed in our car industry, for example, are not employed in "menial factory jobs" but are amongst the most productive and value added employees in the country. I also would not buy a car produced by a 3D printer until their quality has changed out of all recognition.
Services are of course very important but they ultimately require something to service. The clue is in the name.
The workers at Intel's chip fabrication plant in Dublin are classified as 'factory workers'. The average wage is something like €170,000 and 60% of them have PhDs.
@DavidL I am glad you are finally looking at the problem. Our idea of reskilling has for years been parking people for a year in a privately run training establishment, and handing out an NVQ2 at the end, I am not denigrating the qualification, I leave that to the employers, but we have a need for "proper skills", and a commitment to invest in manufacturing, or come the next financial crash, we are heading down the plughole. Burger flipping is not a great help in the export side of things.
I can never understand the obsession with the size of the manufacturing sector on this site. It is a GOOD THING that fewer people these days are employed in menial factory jobs. Services are the future of developed economy as globalization has put paid to manufacturing cheaply here. In any case, 3D printing will eliminate most of the manufacturing industry within the next 20 years.
Completely disagree. Those employed in our car industry, for example, are not employed in "menial factory jobs" but are amongst the most productive and value added employees in the country. I also would not buy a car produced by a 3D printer until their quality has changed out of all recognition.
Services are of course very important but they ultimately require something to service. The clue is in the name.
The workers at Intel's chip fabrication plant in Dublin are classified as 'factory workers'. The average wage is something like €170,000 and 60% of them have PhDs.
"I’ve never voted Conservative in my life, and I can say with certainty that I never will. I joined the Labour party four years ago, so you’d think I was quite happy with this state of affairs. But I’m not. A Conservative party that ignores non-white voters, and a Labour party that sometimes takes them for granted, is not for our democracy or those voters.
What’s clear is that the much-touted ‘modernisation project’ that David Cameron started in 2005 was dealt its final nail in the coffin when Sayeeda Warsi resigned last week. Even she admitted, a bit politely, that the Tories had “left it a little too late to take [ethnic minority voters] seriously.”
This raises an important question: why would a party choose to ignore voters who, if they voted like whites, would have helped them win outright in 2010? At the last election they earned the vote of just 16% of ethnic minorities. As Tim Wigmore points out, in 2015 there will be 50 Tory seats where their margin of victory is smaller than the number of ethnic minorities living there."
"A Conservative party that ignores non-white voters"
What does that mean? Not making specific policies based on race is ignoring people?
What on earth are UKIP thinking of in putting one of their highest-profile candidates up in Cambridge of all places?
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
High profile is a very relative term with regard to Flynn, isn't it?
True, but he's a good communicator and a very credible candidate. I would have thought they'd want him to stand in one of the dozen or so of their best shots.
I had S Cambs as a seat where UKIP may do well, but not Cambridge...have to assume they know what theyre doing...
They are gifting the seat to an arch federalist.
Its the Kipper way !
Farage seems keen to give other senior figures difficult seats. One wonders why.
Does one really?! Yes maybe Farage is in sole control of who gets which seat and forces people to volunteer to stand in ones they dont want to, & wont win!!
It does mean that the "winnable" UKIP seats will go to relative unknowns.
Faragist elements do seem capable of edging candidates out of power: Natrass, Sinclair, Andreason, that fellow he is standing against in Thanet South etc.
The Conservatives could have a Commons majority within their grasp if Boris Johnson were leading the party, a new poll reveals today.
The Ipsos-MORI survey for the Standard shows Tory support surging by a startling six points if Mr Johnson were to replace David Cameron at the helm.
But the poll found that having Chancellor George Osborne as leader would see the Conservatives suffering a grim 2015 general election with Labour storming to a big victory.
Home Secretary Theresa May taking the top job would make little difference to her party’s fortunes.
Conservatives will be buoyed by the headline figure showing the Tories gaining one point on last month to put them neck-and-neck, on 33 per cent, with Labour — which is down two points.
The Liberal Democrats slipped one point to a meagre seven per cent, while Ukip nudges up by a similar amount to 13 per cent.
The poll suggests that if the Mayor of London took over as Tory leader the Conservatives would see their support jump to 39 points among all voters — although election experts say that even this may leave the Tories short of a Commons majority, given variations in the population of constituencies, turnouts and tactical voting.
Comments
"By three to one, British people think the British Empire is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of – they also tend to think it left its colonies better off, and a third would like it to still exist
Britain has long found it difficult to evaluate its former empire. Imperial nostalgia on television has been shamed by historians, and modern prime ministers have expressed ‘deep sorrow’ for Britain’s role in slavery – but they have also called on British people to celebrate the legacy of the Empire.
Among the British public, feelings tend to be positive. A new YouGov survey finds that most think the British Empire is more something to be proud of (59%) rather than ashamed of (19%). 23% don't know. Young people are least likely to feel pride over shame when it comes to the Empire, though about half (48%) of 18-24 year olds do. In comparison, about two-thirds (65%) of over 60s feel mostly proud.
Economically, the British Empire invested in infrastructure, established trading routes and installed institutions – but it also extracted resources, oversaw famines and in some cases left behind instability. Though many (36%) are unsure, British people do tend to think that, overall, former British colonies are now better off for having been part of the empire, by 49-15%.
A third of British people (34%) also say they would like it if Britain still had an empire. Under half (45%) say they would not like the Empire to exist today. 20% don’t know."
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/26/britain-proud-its-empire/
1. The oil market is huge. Around 90 million barrels a day are produced, meaning than c. $9-10bn of oil is extracted every day. For one hedge fund to make a material difference, sustained over many days, in such a large market is implausible.
2. OECD oil inventories increased around 90m barrels in the second quarter. That's not a hedge fund. With inventory levels now back near normal levels, it's not surprising that buying patterns have returned to more normal levels.
3. Production is up in Canada, the US, Libya and Saudi Arabia...
I could go on...
Also, a fact;
Every single Labour government has ended its term of office with unemployment higher than when it came in.
Labour, my arse.
It's very generous of them to help Julian Huppert, and I'm personally grateful, having bet on him, but otherwise it seems a really odd decision. Anyone know what their thinking is?
There was 5% leeway in the 2011 Act, so I doubt a discrepancy of 1,000 would be a huge problem.
I actually think it's hard to see another blue/yellow deal. What are they going to agree to? If Clegg tries to form another coalition with the Tories on the basis of having got PR for local government, I'd fear for his safety.
http://news.sky.com/story/1317852/wages-fall-for-first-time-in-five-years
So it is a local candidate will have a better idea of winning the seat approach I think.
But like you I'm grateful for them picking him for that seat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/david-blanchflower-dont-be-misled--the-fall-in-unemployment-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-coalitions-welfare-reforms-9660202.html
Miraculously.
In the same way, statistics such as the number of hours "worked" and the number of people in employment are probably far less rosy than they appear at headline level (though I would guess Conservatives would prefer people didn't think about the numbers too much).
One anecdotal observation is the number of pitches at shopping centres (not actual shop units but pitches in the main walkways) - these would be worked by the self-employed either aa franchise or son some form of commission. That means people working and hours being worked but how much is being earned.
This illustrates how the "statistics" aren't really telling the truth about what's happening in the real economy (let alone the black economy).
The Act sets out a number of Rules in Schedule 2
which are relevant to the detailed development of
proposals for individual constituencies.
Foremost among these is Rule 2, which provides that – apart
from four specified exceptions – every constituency
must have an electorate (as at the review date) that is
no less than 95% and no more than 105% of the ‘UK
electoral quota’. The UK electoral quota for the 2013
Review is, to the nearest whole number, 76,641.
Accordingly, every constituency in England must
have an electorate as at the review date that is
no smaller than 72,810 and no larger than 80,473
http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/406678_Guide-to-the-2013-Review_acc.pdf
Cameron has tried to modernise the Tories, but in doing so, has seen party membership fall by half. Quite a lot of these have moved to UKIP. Grant Shapps (Michael Green) may not appeal to many party members, as he was only moved into the role as chairman because he had knowledge of internet campaigning. Given the age of membership, this might not be that relevant.
Unless some of the over 65's decide to back the Tories instead of UKIP, then it would be very difficult for the Tories to win most seats. Then you have the Warsi issue that immigrants make up a sizeable portion of the electorate in some seats and the Tories won't stand a chance of winning these, if they say the wrong things on immigration, in trying to deal with UKIP.
2015 will be the election for Labour to lose by making mistakes, which cannot be ruled out. Not convinced that Balls can run a sensible campaign on economic issues without making errors, which might prove fatal.
It is getting very hard indeed to deny that IDS was right: restructuring the welfare system to remove perverse incentives which prevented people getting off benefits and into work (with all the attendant advantages both for themselves and for society as a whole) is really beginning to show results.
"The number of people claiming Jobseekers Allowance fell for the 21st month in a row in June, by 33,600 to 1.01 million."
Another interesting trend is that this is happening despite the continuing fall in public sector employment. The proportion of those working in the public sector is down from about 21% to 17.7%. The figures are distorted somewhat by various changes in classifications but the trend remains clear:http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/june-2014/sty-public-sector-employment.html
I could go on.
That gives 70547 electors/seat as the mean figure, the largest seat was the Isle of Wight with 110924, and the smallest Na h-Eileanan an Iar with 21837 electors.
The median constituency was Chorley with 71,333 electors (325th largest) &
The constituency closest to the mean was North Warwickshire with 70,544 electors (349th largest)
This means the seat distribution is slightly left skewed, but not much.
The Standard deviation was 7526 electors with Berwick Upon Tweed (628th largest, 55785 electorate) being 2 SDs below the mean and only Wirral West in England being smaller, but meanwhile 17 Welsh seats being more than 2 standard deviations below the mean.
There are 4 Scottish seats more than 2 SDs below the mean, but 3 of these have vast geographical areas in the Highlands. Glasgow North however certainly does not.
The seats more than 2 SDs above the mean are as follows (85601 electorate)
Isle of Wight (Safe Con)
East Ham (Safe Labour)
Manchester Central (Safe Labour)
North West Cambridgeshire (Safe Con)
Ilford South (Safe Labour)
West Ham (Safe Labour)
Bury St Edmunds (Safe Con)
Kippers campaigning noisily ensuring an arch Federalist wins - a little microcosm of the 2015 GE.
"Answer: the UK took in a large influx of migrants, who have pushed down on wages, and older workers were forced back to work after the collapse of their pensions, increasing the labour supply.
Since the start of 2004, the number of non-UK born workers is up by two million, including a rise of 880,000 from the 10 Eastern European accession countries of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia (the A10). Since May 2010 there has been a rise of 715,000 in foreign-born workers, including 315,000 from the A10. This increase in migrant employment presumably also has zero to do with welfare reforms. "
And who is to blame for the collapse of Private Sector pensions and the increase in immigration? Noticeably DB does not comment.
Who says they aren't coming? Only UKIP speaks the truth.
My guess is they are putting local candidates in place, so they must think that parachuting is a turn off for the kind of people that might vote UKIP
Farage, O'Flynn, Suzanne Evans, Tim Aker are four of the more high profile kippers, and all standing in the constituency they were born in/grew up
The whole reaction of the Left to the excellent economic news is hilarious to behold. Working backwards from their conclusion that the Conservatives must by definition be wrong, they cast around for ever more implausible explanations for why things really cannot possibly be going well, despite what every statistic shows.
Mr. Carney promises jam tomorrow, or later.
"But the Bank has also slashed its forecast for wage growth in the UK.
It now expects wages to rise by just 1.25% in 2014, down from 2.5% previously.
It sees growth picking up to 3.25% in 2015, down from 3.5% before.
And in 2016, it reckons wages will rise by 4%, up from 3.75% previously."
As Richard has said it is the introduction of a million new workers over the last year into the employment market over the last year which is driving down average earnings as their earnings tend to be less than the average.
This does not mean the inability of labour to push through wage increases is not a remarkable feature of this surge in employment. I think that the level and scale of immigration together with the freedom of movement within the EU has fundamentally changed our job market.
Labour supply is now highly elastic which is very nice for employers but not so nice for the employed. This is quite a difficult problem to fix.
As many of the jobs created are at the low income level, the average wage figures will be depressed.
I could go on...
"The empirical literature from around the world suggests little or no evidence that
immigrants have had a major impact on native labour market outcomes such as wages
and unemployment. Recent work by a number of other authors for the UK is also
consistent with this view."
by DG Blanchflower - 2007 - No 2615, IZA Discussion Papers from Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Confused economist?
"As many of the jobs created are at the low income level, the average wage figures will be depressed. "
Yes, which leads to the need for those wages to be subsidized in the form of tax credits, and housing benefits.
Here's a good analysis by Jonathan Portes.
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/welfare-reform-and-jobs-miracle#.U-su-PldUiN
Don't forget people on the work programme who are only paid their benefits are counted as employed.
Not that muted for those at the top of the tree though, which tends to lower increases for those at the bottom when you look at the bare figures?
The key to our future prosperity is productivity and this requires training, skills and investment in our employees. This is another very interesting publication today: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/qualifications-and-labour-market-participation-in-england-and-wales/sty-qualifications-and-employment.html
The headline really says it all: fewer than half of those with no qualifications are in employment.
The need to reform an improve our education system was urgent and well worth Gove ruffling a few feathers. The current educational establishment simply fails too many of our citizens. It is the least able and the most poorly taught who suffer for past failures. It is the driving force for inequality. Blair had it right but unfortunately he was a coward.
Of course Labour always manage to find something bad to discount the good news, maybe unemployment is falling too quickly now?
I am glad you are finally looking at the problem. Our idea of reskilling has for years been parking people for a year in a privately run training establishment, and handing out an NVQ2 at the end,
I am not denigrating the qualification, I leave that to the employers, but we have a need for "proper skills", and a commitment to invest in manufacturing, or come the next financial crash, we are heading down the plughole.
Burger flipping is not a great help in the export side of things.
Yes, they mandated consituencies of equal size.
But were constituencies previously benchmarked against population or against registered voters. The allegation you are making is that they switched to registered voters because that favoured them. Is that true, or not?
One of the most interesting points arising from A Neil's programme last night, was that in view of the multi-party promises to Scotland, that even if NO wins, then it is very likely that the WLQ will be sorted out and that measures will have to be put in place if Scotland, Wales and NI, control more of their policies and some taxation.
This would mean for England (even if EdM did not abort on his promises) that if Labour wins in 2015, he may well not have a majority in the HoC on English-only matters.
Perhaps the Ministers for Education, Health and Environment would have to come from the 'Opposition' benches?
Also it was conjectured that probably there would be a realigning of the Left and Right in England to meet this eventuality.
The other interesting detail is that the streams are about to cross, the average wage in the private sector is about to go above the average wage in the public sector. That is something that hasn't been seen since the late 90s before Labour gave the public sector a massive bung to keep voting Labour. The rebalancing from public to private needs to go further.
Otherwise the good news on employment keeps coming, but productivity is still an issue, we need to bring high productivity areas like shale gas online to make up for the falls in productivity that comes with declining oil and gas output.
'Put away the tissues my friends, and have a look at wage growth. It tells a story that very few on here notice or understand'
According to the Resolution Foundation-Commission on Living Standards,a very similar picture to the period 2003 - 2008, but we did have cheap loans, self certified mortgages etc to give an illusion of better living standards,however,we then had to return to the real world.
'The period from 2003 onwards has seen median wages stagnate, and then fall in the aftermath
of the 2008-09 recession. From 2003 to 2008, median wages were stagnant. Despite growth
in GDP of 11 percent over the period, median earnings fell by an annual average of 0.2% percent
for men, and for women rose by 0.3 percent a year. Put simply, a middle earner in 2008
did not earn noticeably more than a middle earner in 2003.'
The key to real improvements in prosperity has to be productivity and innovation, without those we are merely shuffling around the same ever shrinking pool of money. To improve on those requires, as Mr. Observer has noted many times on these pages, far better management of UK companies and that in turn as, has also been noted here umpteen times, better rules of corporate governance. It also requires our education system be rescued from the vested interests that have kept it skewed away from the needs of the majority of the population since it was first set up in the 19th century.
"Bank of England press conference - Q&A session begins
Onto questions -- Ben Chu of the Independent asks why the Bank has lowered its forecasts for productivity growth.
Mark Carney explains that firms have been taking on workers rather than investing in new equipment, as labour is cheaper than capital.
That process should end once cheap labour has been mopped up, meaning workers demand higher wages, and encouraging firms to invest in new equipment that will boost productivity. That process is taking longer than thought."
Which is all well and good, except Carney admits he has no idea of the slack
A dairy farm local to me has recruited 2 new Romanians to replace the two Romanians who have left to build their own home back in Romania on money earned in the UK.
The jobs were advertised at the local Job Agency but nobody wanted to be available for milking at 5am (transported is provided). So perhaps John Major has a point regarding willingness to work etc.
I do not expect that those who refused these unskilled jobs have had their benefits affected.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/722387.html
Live commentary:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/5livesportsextra
Its the Kipper way !
In any case: the majority of hedge fund positions are in WTI, rather than Brent, and therefore we would expect that an unwinding of hedge fund long positions would widen the differential between the two. That has not happened - in fact at under $6, the WTI/Brent differential is at multi-year lows.
Look: I'm not denying that hedge fund long positions may have had an impact - but it is just one factor among many. Recent weakness was certainly not because 'one large hedge fund' cut their position. Simply: there is no hedge fund big enough to have that kind of impact.
They didn't change this, therefore they are wicked people.
So your solution is?
http://www.chforum.org/library/choice12.shtml
And dare I say, a fox with a whiskey hangover may be particularly argumentative
Any idea how many "job seeker sanctions" were handed out in the last set of figures?
When you look at them (as I am sure you will) you will find out why "self employment" backed by tax subsidies suddenly seems like a very good idea.......creative accountancy is no longer the preserve of the rich.
Of course, after the election, changes will be made throwing a lot of those already self employed back on the dole, and hindering those that want to create a business rather than those who merely want to keep a roof over their heads.
But you know that already? As you have your eyes on the future legislation.
"For example, it says, 94,000 people were trained in beauty and hair for just 18,000 jobs, while only 123,000 were trained in the construction and engineering sectors for an advertised 275,000 jobs."
Our colleges are just not responsive to the jobs market in the way they need to be. Add in the lack of rigour in their exam systems and many who attend become less employable not more. I would like major local employers to have much more input into what was taught. I would like their concerns about or approbation of the skills of their trainees to be positively fed back into the colleges. I think work placements are more useful than an unfocussed course leading to a general but discredited qualification.
I think we also need to incentivise our employers to invest in their work forces. At a time when the supply of labour is so flexible this probably requires tax incentives such as 125% allowances on money spent on training.
There is much to do in this area but as with the schools we cannot allow current vested interests to get in the way.
The way that anti-Tory prejudice distorts the worldview of the Left never fails to astonish. That someone as intelligent and nice as Southam can defend indefensible bias is really remarkable.
The Conservative approach is to avoid change unless it is an improvement. It's not clear that there is an improvement in changing the time-honoured system that has worked very well to date
The number of people in work rose by 167,000 in the quarter to 30.6 million, with most of the rise coming from full-time jobs, Nick Palmer* of the ONS says.
* I presume not our Nick Palmer!
Whoops
As private firms run a great deal of the training providers, you would think they would be responsive to "market forces". However, it is a nice little earner for a modicum of outlay, and as long as the job centers send enough bodies (usually under threat of sanction), the standard of training is a mere sideshow.
All that was supposed to have happened more than a decade ago. There were quangos set up to see that it would and lots more money provided for FE colleges to provide what local employers were demanding. In fact you comment could have been taken almost directly as a lift from the guff that was coming out of central government at the time. I wonder what happened to those initiatives and quangos.
The idea that if the situation was reversed that Labour wouldn't be constantly screaming about how unfair it is, is completely laughable.
Also they seem to think that a system that has different number of voters and constituents is fairer than one that has an equal number of voters.
The same thing as has happened since Thatcher, The idea is sound in theory, but successive governments play the "shell game" instead of actually making it work.
This, you would think, would become apparent to the public, but they dream up new formats, and carry on as before.
And I don't reckon George Galloway is much of a pro-European. (Although I could be wrong. I'm not really sure what his politics are beyond division.)
Services are of course very important but they ultimately require something to service. The clue is in the name.
"I’ve never voted Conservative in my life, and I can say with certainty that I never will. I joined the Labour party four years ago, so you’d think I was quite happy with this state of affairs. But I’m not. A Conservative party that ignores non-white voters, and a Labour party that sometimes takes them for granted, is not for our democracy or those voters.
What’s clear is that the much-touted ‘modernisation project’ that David Cameron started in 2005 was dealt its final nail in the coffin when Sayeeda Warsi resigned last week. Even she admitted, a bit politely, that the Tories had “left it a little too late to take [ethnic minority voters] seriously.”
This raises an important question: why would a party choose to ignore voters who, if they voted like whites, would have helped them win outright in 2010? At the last election they earned the vote of just 16% of ethnic minorities. As Tim Wigmore points out, in 2015 there will be 50 Tory seats where their margin of victory is smaller than the number of ethnic minorities living there."
What does that mean? Not making specific policies based on race is ignoring people?
Faragist elements do seem capable of edging candidates out of power: Natrass, Sinclair, Andreason, that fellow he is standing against in Thanet South etc.
Perhaps they could not be relied upon.
The Conservatives could have a Commons majority within their grasp if Boris Johnson were leading the party, a new poll reveals today.
The Ipsos-MORI survey for the Standard shows Tory support surging by a startling six points if Mr Johnson were to replace David Cameron at the helm.
But the poll found that having Chancellor George Osborne as leader would see the Conservatives suffering a grim 2015 general election with Labour storming to a big victory.
Home Secretary Theresa May taking the top job would make little difference to her party’s fortunes.
Conservatives will be buoyed by the headline figure showing the Tories gaining one point on last month to put them neck-and-neck, on 33 per cent, with Labour — which is down two points.
The Liberal Democrats slipped one point to a meagre seven per cent, while Ukip nudges up by a similar amount to 13 per cent.
The poll suggests that if the Mayor of London took over as Tory leader the Conservatives would see their support jump to 39 points among all voters — although election experts say that even this may leave the Tories short of a Commons majority, given variations in the population of constituencies, turnouts and tactical voting.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-could-lead-tories-to-victory-exclusive-poll-reveals-9666012.html?origin=internalSearch