Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
Agreed, while Cameron and Osborne in charge I was prepared to vote Tory as long as I felt they could keep the fruity authoritarian/UKIP wing in check. Now, not so much. I'll be going back to the Lib Dems.
It was not all good of course. QE and the zero interest rate policy have driven asset inflation to the considerable benefit of the better off. Efforts to rebalance the economy have had disappointing effectiveness. The deflationary consequences of 2008 remain with us and depressed house building and the supply of credit. But within the parameters that he had to work Osborne achieved remarkable things.
I am concerned about May's authoritarian tendencies. This may prove unfair and simply a reflection of her role as Home Secretary but it worries me. I am also worried about the likes of David Davis and Fox in the government. We shall see.
Yes and yes. The changes in income distribution are small beer compared to the huge inequality in wealth (more specifically, the asset price gains of the wealthy and the rising debt of the rest, plus the reducing prospect of their obtaining a housing asset as the distribution of property ownserhip slowly regresses back to how it was in 1920), which is the real story of the past eight years.
With ongoing zero interest rates and more waves of QE waiting in the wings, there is little sign of this (or the underlying crisis in economics) ending any time soon. Unless Brexit brings everything crashing down, of course.
The charts in Frazer Nelson's piece are certainly worth a look, particularly the chart showing who gained and who lost under Cameron/Osborne. Basically all those up to the 70th percentile gained with the top 25% losing out, the top 5% most of all.
This is so different from the public perception. Osborne was exactly the sort of Chancellor that this country needed to address issues like inequality and unemployment. Will Hammond be able to keep up this remarkable record? Time will tell but I do not get the impression that he is driven by anything like the passion for fairness or helping the poor that Osborne showed.
I am still gutted that the Cameron/Osborne government has gone. Although I believe that Brexit was the right choice the price was extremely high. We have had the privilege of one of the best governments doing the right things for the whole country that we are likely to see.
Which piece by Nelson? It sounds interesting.
Though do remember that the heydey of Cameron/Osborne was when they were in Coalition rather than majority government. Increasingly the coalition will be seen as a golden era of sane government.
I completely agree about the Coalition and accept that Danny Alexander should get considerable credit for steering Osborne in the right direction.
Fraser's remark "Labour's trapped by its own cliches" was rather good. I like this example.
"It’s hard to imagine Mr Corbyn campaigning on this problem, or worrying about the marriage gap (the top social group are 50 per cent more likely to be married than those at the bottom). Or highlighting the unequal distribution of fathers (the poorest children are three times as likely not to have one at home). These are new, complicated and unfashionable issues. It’s far easier to ignore such things, and instead trot out the reliable old applause lines at rallies of the faithful."
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
The charts in Frazer Nelson's piece are certainly worth a look, particularly the chart showing who gained and who lost under Cameron/Osborne. Basically all those up to the 70th percentile gained with the top 25% losing out, the top 5% most of all.
This is so different from the public perception. Osborne was exactly the sort of Chancellor that this country needed to address issues like inequality and unemployment. Will Hammond be able to keep up this remarkable record? Time will tell but I do not get the impression that he is driven by anything like the passion for fairness or helping the poor that Osborne showed.
I am still gutted that the Cameron/Osborne government has gone. Although I believe that Brexit was the right choice the price was extremely high. We have had the privilege of one of the best governments doing the right things for the whole country that we are likely to see.
David, I have not seen it but given the fake numbers and Fraser Nelson being involved I am pretty certain it is horse manure. On some delusional charts it may appear nice but any fool knows that it is not teh rich that have suffered in the last 8 or so years, quite the contrary. I do not need some airhead Tory telling porkies to know that.
The charts in Frazer Nelson's piece are certainly worth a look, particularly the chart showing who gained and who lost under Cameron/Osborne. Basically all those up to the 70th percentile gained with the top 25% losing out, the top 5% most of all.
This is so different from the public perception. Osborne was exactly the sort of Chancellor that this country needed to address issues like inequality and unemployment. Will Hammond be able to keep up this remarkable record? Time will tell but I do not get the impression that he is driven by anything like the passion for fairness or helping the poor that Osborne showed.
I am still gutted that the Cameron/Osborne government has gone. Although I believe that Brexit was the right choice the price was extremely high. We have had the privilege of one of the best governments doing the right things for the whole country that we are likely to see.
Which piece by Nelson? It sounds interesting.
Though do remember that the heydey of Cameron/Osborne was when they were in Coalition rather than majority government. Increasingly the coalition will be seen as a golden era of sane government.
I completely agree about the Coalition and accept that Danny Alexander should get considerable credit for steering Osborne in the right direction.
Fraser's remark "Labour's trapped by its own cliches" was rather good. I like this example.
"It’s hard to imagine Mr Corbyn campaigning on this problem, or worrying about the marriage gap (the top social group are 50 per cent more likely to be married than those at the bottom). Or highlighting the unequal distribution of fathers (the poorest children are three times as likely not to have one at home). These are new, complicated and unfashionable issues. It’s far easier to ignore such things, and instead trot out the reliable old applause lines at rallies of the faithful."
But Corbyn is still there until the members stop clapping at his applause lines. For them, these are the ultimate high. Not 'LABOUR GAIN' flashing on their screens all night....
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
You can't expect May to do anything in less than a week. That issue will take a while to get right - hopefully we will see something about fake self-employment around the Autumn statement....
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
The rich are jsut stuffing their pockets full till it blows up. Not hard to see the Tories getting a bloody nose at next election.
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
The rich are jsut stuffing their pockets full till it blows up. Not hard to see the Tories getting a bloody nose at next election.
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
The rich are jsut stuffing their pockets full till it blows up. Not hard to see the Tories getting a bloody nose at next election.
Morning Mr Wifflestick. I haven't understood how a court of law gets to adjudicate on the interpretation of the internal rulebook of a private organisation. How does the 'Jeremy is a candidate by default' argument get anywhere near a court?
Not read transcript, but seen media reports of the speech. It gives some clear clues as to how he will campaign: 'I am change', 'I am law and order' and most of all 'she won't change a thing'.
I really think Clinton has a hell of fight on her hands now.
Frank Luntz on Newsnight said basically if Trump can make the election about Hilary and her failings he can do it.
I'd add "I am your voice" and "I'm looking out for the those who've been left behind"
He appeals to the evangelicals re political campaigning speech restrictions, to the poor in Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago et al who are victims of increasing murder rates too. Covers a lot of bases. Blaming Hillary for overseas policy woes and that she's above the law is a big feature.
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
Good morning all.
I did a little digging into the employment stats - not much, as they're not particularly granular. The top line is fantastic. 4.9% unemployment is essentially full employment.
Let's look a little closer, dear reader. Due to population growth, 4.9% is 1.7 million. Then we have the 2 million long term sick. The 1.1 million people who retired before the state pension age. The 4.5 million self employed.
Whatever your views about people on long term sick, they are not going to be wealthy. Some of the retired people will be affluent boomers. However, I know several people in their late 50s who have just stopped looking for work, are too proud for JSA and live on tiny pensions and casual work.
Self employment covers a multitude of sins. No further breakdown given. Not necessarily all wealthy consultants, I'd wager.
Successive governments have managed unemployment figures for decades.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
The GCC already has an FTA with EFTA. There were (reasonably advanced) negotiations between the EU and the GCC a couple of years ago, but I think they stalled over demands that EU firms be allowed to directly own certain assets in the Gulf.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
snip This is so different from the public perception. Osborne was exactly the sort of Chancellor that this country needed to address issues like inequality and unemployment. Will Hammond be able to keep up this remarkable record? Time will tell but I do not get the impression that he is driven by anything like the passion for fairness or helping the poor that Osborne showed.
I am still gutted that the Cameron/Osborne government has gone. Although I believe that Brexit was the right choice the price was extremely high. We have had the privilege of one of the best governments doing the right things for the whole country that we are likely to see.
Which piece by Nelson? It sounds interesting.
Though do remember that the heydey of Cameron/Osborne was when they were in Coalition rather than majority government. Increasingly the coalition will be seen as a golden era of sane government.
I completely agree about the Coalition and accept that Danny Alexander should get considerable credit for steering Osborne in the right direction.
Fraser's remark "Labour's trapped by its own cliches" was rather good. I like this example.
"It’s hard to imagine Mr Corbyn campaigning on this problem, or worrying about the marriage gap (the top social group are 50 per cent more likely to be married than those at the bottom). Or highlighting the unequal distribution of fathers (the poorest children are three times as likely not to have one at home). These are new, complicated and unfashionable issues. It’s far easier to ignore such things, and instead trot out the reliable old applause lines at rallies of the faithful."
But Corbyn is still there until the members stop clapping at his applause lines. For them, these are the ultimate high. Not 'LABOUR GAIN' flashing on their screens all night....
I mentioned watching his full speech/pressa yesterday - he came across really rather well. Using a teleprompter helped a lot though he became pretty wooden about half way through.
If I'd been wobbly Corbynista, he'd have reassured me. I read a few ABCorbyn commentators who clearly watched in a parallel universe. There's so such heart vs head going on.
Owen Smith needs to do more than say he's Corbyn in a better suit. I think he'd say anything to get elected. That's fine if the most important thing is getting rid of Jezza - but he's got no substance.
Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
Morning Mr Wifflestick. I haven't understood how a court of law gets to adjudicate on the interpretation of the internal rulebook of a private organisation. How does the 'Jeremy is a candidate by default' argument get anywhere near a court?
@RodCrosby thinks it's going to go Corbyn's way - he's cited a landmark case a few times, and won his own case using it. Unfortunately he's banned at the mo so can't tell us more.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
That many MPs will break away in anger at how popular Corbyn is? Like hell. And since they still talk of how much the country needs labour rule, the instant Corbyn is gone they'd be back anyway, so no point leaving in the first place.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
Mr. Patrick, desperation from a PLP that shot itself in the foot and wants someone else to pay for the blood to be washed off their shoe?
Why don't they just have him rubbed out then? Maybe a 'cycling accident' or an 'undercooked bit of tofu gets stuck in beard and throat at the same time' or 'his body was no longer physically able to support the weight of Dianne Abbot' type event. It'd look innocent enough but we'd all know. Owen Smith could rule with an iron fist.
Labour's eco system. built up over a century and more, it is dying before our very eyes and there is little that can be done to stop it,...
Sadly you are right. This is how parties die. Labour's election winning coalition of the left is being dismantled by Corbyn.
It didn't win that many elections - three landslides, three narrowly outright, and three minorities in 115 years. And, apart from the creation of welfare capitalism after 1945 (which was also managed by centre-right governments across the Channel). what did it do with any of those victories?
Nothing its supporters have ever enthused about. Parliamentary socialism is a contradiction in terms.
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
Good morning all.
I did a little digging into the employment stats - not much, as they're not particularly granular. The top line is fantastic. 4.9% unemployment is essentially full employment.
Let's look a little closer, dear reader. Due to population growth, 4.9% is 1.7 million. Then we have the 2 million long term sick. The 1.1 million people who retired before the state pension age. The 4.5 million self employed.
Whatever your views about people on long term sick, they are not going to be wealthy. Some of the retired people will be affluent boomers. However, I know several people in their late 50s who have just stopped looking for work, are too proud for JSA and live on tiny pensions and casual work.
Self employment covers a multitude of sins. No further breakdown given. Not necessarily all wealthy consultants, I'd wager.
Successive governments have managed unemployment figures for decades.
Self employment definitely covers a multiple of sins - delivery workers, care workers, even some warehouse staff... The fact it is growing in traditional low pay sectors where previously people were on minimum wage is definitely a sign of abuse. And its been visible for a while as a quick google search brings up
Labour's eco system. built up over a century and more, it is dying before our very eyes and there is little that can be done to stop it,...
Sadly you are right. This is how parties die. Labour's election winning coalition of the left is being dismantled by Corbyn.
People said the same of the Tories under IDS etc
Realistically there is no major challenger to replace Labour as official opposition. Even if Corbyn leads Labour to a worse defeat than Michael Foot did, what's going to happen next? Corbyn will have been shown to have failed, will leave in disgrace and be spoken about in similar tones to Foot. Labour will enter a period of rebuilding and eventually will, sadly, return to office.
Sensible Labour folks should sit down and stop being hysterical. Start planning your post-2020 rebuilding now.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
Yeh, Labour will survive, however hard the leadership try to sink the ship.
20% of the voters want a hard left party, and another 10% will vote Labour out of traditional loyalty.
Bingo. No one else seems poised to take advantage like in Scotland, the rabid corbynites do have some level if support among the labour base, so it's floor of support is high. They're going nowhere.
Morning Mr Wifflestick. I haven't understood how a court of law gets to adjudicate on the interpretation of the internal rulebook of a private organisation. How does the 'Jeremy is a candidate by default' argument get anywhere near a court?
When someone wants to pay enough money for the court to make a decision. Hopefully the answer why on earth are you asking me this the rule book is blindly clear cut (and I say that as someone who doesn't want Corbyn leading the Labour party as we need a decent opposition)..
That many MPs will break away in anger at how popular Corbyn is? Like hell. And since they still talk of how much the country needs labour rule, the instant Corbyn is gone they'd be back anyway, so no point leaving in the first place.
If Corbyn wins the leadership, most Labour MPs are facing losing their seats, either by deselection or losing on a Corbynist platform.
If they want to stay MPs, forming a new group in Parliament is a smart choice.
Morning Mr Wifflestick. I haven't understood how a court of law gets to adjudicate on the interpretation of the internal rulebook of a private organisation. How does the 'Jeremy is a candidate by default' argument get anywhere near a court?
@RodCrosby thinks it's going to go Corbyn's way - he's cited a landmark case a few times, and won his own case using it. Unfortunately he's banned at the mo so can't tell us more.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
That many MPs will break away in anger at how popular Corbyn is? Like hell. And since they still talk of how much the country needs labour rule, the instant Corbyn is gone they'd be back anyway, so no point leaving in the first place.
Corbyn is planning his successor, in the same was as they do in N Korea. Unswerving loyalty to the leader.. or you know what will happen. .if 172 MP's split there will be no going back, period.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
I wonder if a lot of investment decisions were delayed ahead of the referendum, and just getting certainty (of any kind) is good for business.
Just to add a touch of caution: my friend in the Hampstead estate agent business tells me that the last three weeks have been dead. (Although, it's also the start of the holidays, so I'm not sure how much you should read into that.)
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 8m8 minutes ago Calm down. Donald Trump is a poor man's Barry Goldwater. Hillary Clinton is going to obliterate him.
oh dear, my small wager on hilary just started looking poor.
Given Dan's record over the past few months its probably safe to put you house on Trump....
Dan may as well just jog around London naked wearing a Nigel Farage mask full-time, to be honest.
Since he moved to the Sunday Mail, I don't bother reading him. He went totally doolally over Brexit, changed his avatar to 48% and his tweets have lost their funny edge. He's clearly hurting. So is Michael Deacon - but at least he's getting some of his sense of humour back.
David Aaronovitch is still penning angry Remain columns a month later. He can be so good on other subjects, but golly what a hobbyhorse toddler he's become since 23rd June.
The charts in Frazer Nelson's piece are certainly worth a look, particularly the chart showing who gained and who lost under Cameron/Osborne. Basically all those up to the 70th percentile gained with the top 25% losing out, the top 5% most of all.
This is so different from the public perception. Osborne was exactly the sort of Chancellor that this country needed to address issues like inequality and unemployment. Will Hammond be able to keep up this remarkable record? Time will tell but I do not get the impression that he is driven by anything like the passion for fairness or helping the poor that Osborne showed.
I am still gutted that the Cameron/Osborne government has gone. Although I believe that Brexit was the right choice the price was extremely high. We have had the privilege of one of the best governments doing the right things for the whole country that we are likely to see.
I wouldn't be quite so effusive in praise of them, but I did think it a shame Brexit woukd mean they were brought down, as they did alright in many ways. Hopefully may will be a good follow up, and not as pitching for the hard brexiteers as it seems, but we shall see.
Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
I must just not have noticed for the UK because I've been tracking the other three. Weird.
Labour's eco system. built up over a century and more, it is dying before our very eyes and there is little that can be done to stop it,...
Sadly you are right. This is how parties die. Labour's election winning coalition of the left is being dismantled by Corbyn.
It didn't win that many elections - three landslides, three narrowly outright, and three minorities in 115 years. And, apart from the creation of welfare capitalism after 1945 (which was also managed by centre-right governments across the Channel). what did it do with any of those victories?
Nothing its supporters have ever enthused about. Parliamentary socialism is a contradiction in terms.
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
Hmmm. i'm not sure if there is a 'working class' anymore in that traditional sense. Even by 1997, it was morphing into more earning levels rather than classes.
Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
That's a HUGE difference, and one that correlates with US unemployment closer to 9%.
Now look at this: US unemployment vs US food stamps
Democrats deserve to lose for that graph alone.
The problem is that the solution proposed by Donald Trump - i.e. moving away from free trade - doesn't work.
Well, sure, medium term. But the US economy is only about 4% exposed to exports - it's biggest part in the global economy is as a massive consumer (I'm not sure I buy your "Pax Americana secures foreign markets" argument yesterday, to be honest; supply chains, sure). In the short term, there could be some benefits from a more protectionist stance. Horrible long term, though.
No question, the biggest issue is the labour participation rate, and the impact it will have on long term US growth rates. It's been a worry for a while, now; setting up barriers to trade to foster internal substitution might look like an appealing solution, like you I can't see it having a happy ending.
Trump sounds dangerous. His rhetoric is borderline fascist..
I don't use that devalued word lightly, but can't think of a better one.
One good bad thing about the hot weather is that I have woken up in the middle of the night and heard speeches from the convention, firstly Gingrich, and now Trump last night.
I heard almost all of Trump's speech. A few things struck me.
1. It was perhaps the most stilted delivery of a speech I have ever head. Trump shouted out lines with a constant cadence, barely varying pitch, volume, or meter. He also chose to pause at some odd places.
2. The poor delivery probably doesn't matter. The speech was essentially a list of shit American's are mad as hell about. Rabble-rousing was the goal, and in that regard I think the speech worked.
3. Despite Trump claiming that he would fix the things on the list he'd didn't explain how. I personally look forward to hearing how he will destroy ISIS, that should be good.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation. And, given that the start of this sudden rise coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution, we know why.
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 8m8 minutes ago Calm down. Donald Trump is a poor man's Barry Goldwater. Hillary Clinton is going to obliterate him.
oh dear, my small wager on hilary just started looking poor.
Given Dan's record over the past few months its probably safe to put you house on Trump....
Dan may as well just jog around London naked wearing a Nigel Farage mask full-time, to be honest.
Since he moved to the Sunday Mail, I don't bother reading him. He went totally doolally over Brexit, changed his avatar to 48% and his tweets have lost their funny edge. He's clearly hurting. So is Michael Deacon - but at least he's getting some of his sense of humour back.
David Aaronovitch is still penning angry Remain columns a month later. He can be so good on other subjects, but golly what a hobbyhorse toddler he's become since 23rd June.
You have to remember Dan is a arch Blarite. They've been taken such a huge kicking from labour and been the lowest of the low for the last 7 years.
Mr. Patrick, desperation from a PLP that shot itself in the foot and wants someone else to pay for the blood to be washed off their shoe?
Why don't they just have him rubbed out then? Maybe a 'cycling accident' or an 'undercooked bit of tofu gets stuck in beard and throat at the same time' or 'his body was no longer physically able to support the weight of Dianne Abbot' type event. It'd look innocent enough but we'd all know. Owen Smith could rule with an iron fist.
"decapitated by dangerously stacked manhole covers falling off high shelf in allotment shed"
Taking a broader view this week as work has been manic. The political dialogue has run on from 2015 so much. Now the Labour Party are not only seen as poor custodians of the public purse, but also now not seen as competent enough to tackle the issues it was set up to tackle. May's Conservatism is parked right on the centre ground - and Labour are left will little else but the ability to signal their virtue. Fraser Nelson has a good piece in today's Telegraph about it too.
Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
That's a HUGE difference, and one that correlates with US unemployment closer to 9%.
Now look at this: US unemployment vs US food stamps
Democrats deserve to lose for that graph alone.
The problem is that the solution proposed by Donald Trump - i.e. moving away from free trade - doesn't work.
Well, sure, medium term. But the US economy is only about 4% exposed to exports - it's biggest part in the global economy is as a massive consumer (I'm not sure I buy your "Pax Americana secures foreign markets" argument yesterday, to be honest; supply chains, sure). In the short term, there could be some benefits from a more protectionist stance. Horrible long term, though.
No question, the biggest issue is the labour participation rate, and the impact it will have on long term US growth rates. It's been a worry for a while, now; setting up barriers to trade to foster internal substitution might look like an appealing solution, like you I can't see it having a happy ending.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation. And, given that the start of this sudden rise coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution, we know why.
Wow! So what was it that humans were doing in 1560 that caused the start of the little ice age?
(As an aside, I am sympathetic to AGW, but correlation != causation.)
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
I've had tweets from them on these for more than a year - maybe more like 2yrs.
Morning Mr Wifflestick. I haven't understood how a court of law gets to adjudicate on the interpretation of the internal rulebook of a private organisation. How does the 'Jeremy is a candidate by default' argument get anywhere near a court?
@RodCrosby thinks it's going to go Corbyn's way - he's cited a landmark case a few times, and won his own case using it. Unfortunately he's banned at the mo so can't tell us more.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
That many MPs will break away in anger at how popular Corbyn is? Like hell. And since they still talk of how much the country needs labour rule, the instant Corbyn is gone they'd be back anyway, so no point leaving in the first place.
Corbyn is planning his successor, in the same was as they do in N Korea. Unswerving loyalty to the leader.. or you know what will happen. .if 172 MP's split there will be no going back, period.
I'd bet no more than a handful will go, if it is that many. There were reports this week f shadow cabinet members saying they'd serve Corbyn again if he wins.
If he does, so e will just not stand at the next GE by choice, others will just wait for deselection quietly being unwilling g to break away, and most will grab ankle. They believe in the party long term, even if it is currently going astray.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
I must just not have noticed for the UK because I've been tracking the other three. Weird.
They're going to be pretty grim. Sub 50 for both ofc.
Morning Mr Wifflestick. I haven't understood how a court of law gets to adjudicate on the interpretation of the internal rulebook of a private organisation. How does the 'Jeremy is a candidate by default' argument get anywhere near a court?
This keeps coming up. The answer is that's just the way it is. More precisely, there is a fundamental principle that contractual provisions which purport to oust the jurisdiction of the courts are void. If you think about it that has to be the case because otherwise every shyster in business would trade on contracts which said that the other party had no right to go to court.
The law being the law there are exceptions to the principle, which is why properly drawn arbitration clauses sometimes work. But that's the basic rule.
Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation.
Assuming we fiddle the figures to make that be the case, yes.
It's irrelevant, though. To take drastic action that would wreck our economy as the Greens want would require the following:
1) The world is warming 2) We are responsible 3) This is a bad thing 4) We can do something about it
AGW zealots are very keen on trying to prove (1) and (2) but show no interest in proving (3) and (4).
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
I must just not have noticed for the UK because I've been tracking the other three. Weird.
They're going to be pretty grim. Sub 50 for both ofc.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
I wonder if a lot of investment decisions were delayed ahead of the referendum, and just getting certainty (of any kind) is good for business.
Just to add a touch of caution: my friend in the Hampstead estate agent business tells me that the last three weeks have been dead. (Although, it's also the start of the holidays, so I'm not sure how much you should read into that.)
Well hopefully the prices in St John's wood start to go down, I'll need a place to live after Zurich.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation. And, given that the start of this sudden rise coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution, we know why.
Wow! So what was it that humans were doing in 1560 that caused the start of the little ice age?
(As an aside, I am sympathetic to AGW, but correlation != causation.)
I also think it will make the next forthcoming mini ice age a bit more bearable... I don't want to think what afterwards will be like though...
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation. And, given that the start of this sudden rise coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution, we know why.
I love that last sentence. Lots of people privately believe that correlation is causation and that post hoc implies propter hoc, but few have the moral courage to make their position clear like that.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation.
Assuming we fiddle the figures to make that be the case, yes.
It's irrelevant, though. To take drastic action that would wreck our economy as the Greens want would require the following:
1) The world is warming 2) We are responsible 3) This is a bad thing 4) We can do something about it
AGW zealots are very keen on trying to prove (1) and (2) but show no interest in proving (3) and (4).
We're #12 in the global EPI. We're slipping back relative to some others on the basis of our economic recovery outpacing our European partners. There's going to be another beneficial side effect from Brexit .
Trump sounds dangerous. His rhetoric is borderline fascist..
I don't use that devalued word lightly, but can't think of a better one.
One good bad thing about the hot weather is that I have woken up in the middle of the night and heard speeches from the convention, firstly Gingrich, and now Trump last night.
I heard almost all of Trump's speech. A few things struck me.
1. It was perhaps the most stilted delivery of a speech I have ever head. Trump shouted out lines with a constant cadence, barely varying pitch, volume, or meter. He also chose to pause at some odd places.
2. The poor delivery probably doesn't matter. The speech was essentially a list of shit American's are mad as hell about. Rabble-rousing was the goal, and in that regard I think the speech worked.
3. Despite Trump claiming that he would fix the things on the list he'd didn't explain how. I personally look forward to hearing how he will destroy ISIS, that should be good.
4. I'm starting to think Trump could win.
I think it's a bit stilted because he normally just talks off the top of his head at rallies. This was a big set piece and he's not used to the change of pace yet. Trying to go from aircraft hanger megaphoning to convention hall presidential was going to be tough.
I noted that delegates from Texas seemed a lot more convinced than they appeared before. "He sounded confident, not crazy" Cruz did himself no favours.
I don't know too much about Pence - but he comes across as genial, sensible and old style homegrown GOPer - not a Romney suit sort.
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 8m8 minutes ago Calm down. Donald Trump is a poor man's Barry Goldwater. Hillary Clinton is going to obliterate him.
oh dear, my small wager on hilary just started looking poor.
Given Dan's record over the past few months its probably safe to put you house on Trump....
Dan may as well just jog around London naked wearing a Nigel Farage mask full-time, to be honest.
Since he moved to the Sunday Mail, I don't bother reading him. He went totally doolally over Brexit, changed his avatar to 48% and his tweets have lost their funny edge. He's clearly hurting. So is Michael Deacon - but at least he's getting some of his sense of humour back.
David Aaronovitch is still penning angry Remain columns a month later. He can be so good on other subjects, but golly what a hobbyhorse toddler he's become since 23rd June.
I like Aaronovitch, but his Times columns over the past month have been a chore to chug through. Tim Montgomerie in the Times yesterday referred to "Remoaners", not a term I'd seen coined yet, but I thought that was a label which summed up Aaronovitch to a tee...
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
I must just not have noticed for the UK because I've been tracking the other three. Weird.
They're going to be pretty grim. Sub 50 for both ofc.
Well, we'll know in about 15 minutes.
Hmm, been doing some digging, I think I'm right. This is the first month Markit are doing preliminary data for the UK, at least I can't find any reference to a prior release of UK preliminary figures.
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
It's not Corbyn's views on economics that repel 70% of the population. It's his views on immigration, defence, terrorism, and foreign policy.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
I wonder if a lot of investment decisions were delayed ahead of the referendum, and just getting certainty (of any kind) is good for business.
Just to add a touch of caution: my friend in the Hampstead estate agent business tells me that the last three weeks have been dead. (Although, it's also the start of the holidays, so I'm not sure how much you should read into that.)
Well hopefully the prices in St John's wood start to go down, I'll need a place to live after Zurich.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation.
Assuming we fiddle the figures to make that be the case, yes.
It's irrelevant, though. To take drastic action that would wreck our economy as the Greens want would require the following:
1) The world is warming 2) We are responsible 3) This is a bad thing 4) We can do something about it
AGW zealots are very keen on trying to prove (1) and (2) but show no interest in proving (3) and (4).
I don't know about AGW zealots, but the scientists who study climate are virtually certain that the world is warming very rapidly and that the primary cause is the increase in greenhouse gas levels due to human activity.
If we were to stabilise the CO2 level at its current value of 400ppm, the future UK will look like this:
Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
That's a HUGE difference, and one that correlates with US unemployment closer to 9%.
Now look at this: US unemployment vs US food stamps
Panorama on Trumps Angry America was interesting this week. Bakersfield California was a pretty bleak place on both sides of the tracks: http://bbc.in/29QsuZc
I see the Donald has promised an end to crime and violence in the USA. That is even better than free owls!
Taken together with the promise of a wall between the US and Mexico, we've seen another quantum leap in the era of post-truth politics.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
I wonder if a lot of investment decisions were delayed ahead of the referendum, and just getting certainty (of any kind) is good for business.
Just to add a touch of caution: my friend in the Hampstead estate agent business tells me that the last three weeks have been dead. (Although, it's also the start of the holidays, so I'm not sure how much you should read into that.)
Well hopefully the prices in St John's wood start to go down, I'll need a place to live after Zurich.
NW8???
Who wants to live in NW8 when there's NW3?
Ah, I think the question you should be asking is who would live in NW3 when NW8 is on the cards!
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
Labour's eco system. built up over a century and more, it is dying before our very eyes and there is little that can be done to stop it,...
Sadly you are right. This is how parties die. Labour's election winning coalition of the left is being dismantled by Corbyn.
It didn't win that many elections - three landslides, three narrowly outright, and three minorities in 115 years. And, apart from the creation of welfare capitalism after 1945 (which was also managed by centre-right governments across the Channel). what did it do with any of those victories?
Nothing its supporters have ever enthused about. Parliamentary socialism is a contradiction in terms.
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
Hmmm. i'm not sure if there is a 'working class' anymore in that traditional sense. Even by 1997, it was morphing into more earning levels rather than classes.
60% still self identify as working class
Of course, the working class looks a bit different from that of the 50s and 60s, but not fundamentally so.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation. And, given that the start of this sudden rise coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution, we know why.
Wow! So what was it that humans were doing in 1560 that caused the start of the little ice age?
(As an aside, I am sympathetic to AGW, but correlation != causation.)
I also think it will make the next forthcoming mini ice age a bit more bearable... I don't want to think what afterwards will be like though...
Mini ice age! Strictly speaking an 'ice age' is a longish period of time (a few millions of years) during which there are icy periods (glacials) and relatively warmer periods (interglacials) during which the ice sheets retreat. We are in an ice age right now! At the end of an interglacial. The ice has come and retreated dozens of times in the last two million years on an average cycle of about 10,000 years of ice followed by about 10,000 years of 'not ice', plus or minus a very few thousand here or there. The current interglacial is about 11,000 years old - roughly aligning to the period of time during which humans have populated the North American continent. Step back from the noise about what is or is not happening on shorter timescales. On the ice age scale we are just about to enter the next glacial. Glacials come on very quickly, taking only a few decades for the temperature to drop very sharply. The ice takes a few hundreds of years to build up. So...we could just as likely be a decade or two away from seriously subzero temperatures in the northern hemisphere as we are from a hothouse. It's not possible to predict with accuracy.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation.
Assuming we fiddle the figures to make that be the case, yes.
It's irrelevant, though. To take drastic action that would wreck our economy as the Greens want would require the following:
1) The world is warming 2) We are responsible 3) This is a bad thing 4) We can do something about it
AGW zealots are very keen on trying to prove (1) and (2) but show no interest in proving (3) and (4).
I don't know about AGW zealots, but the scientists who study climate are virtually certain that the world is warming very rapidly and that the primary cause is the increase in greenhouse gas levels due to human activity.
If we were to stabilise the CO2 level at its current value of 400ppm, the future UK will look like this:
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation.
Assuming we fiddle the figures to make that be the case, yes.
It's irrelevant, though. To take drastic action that would wreck our economy as the Greens want would require the following:
1) The world is warming 2) We are responsible 3) This is a bad thing 4) We can do something about it
AGW zealots are very keen on trying to prove (1) and (2) but show no interest in proving (3) and (4).
I don't know about AGW zealots, but the scientists who study climate are virtually certain that the world is warming very rapidly and that the primary cause is the increase in greenhouse gas levels due to human activity.
If we were to stabilise the CO2 level at its current value of 400ppm, the future UK will look like this:
Most would argue that this is probably not desirable.
Science just doesn't run on assumptions that correlation implies causation, nor on propositions about what scientists "are virtually certain about", nor on links to speculative overlays of google maps. Plus, we only lose Norfolk as far as I can see.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
I wonder if a lot of investment decisions were delayed ahead of the referendum, and just getting certainty (of any kind) is good for business.
Just to add a touch of caution: my friend in the Hampstead estate agent business tells me that the last three weeks have been dead. (Although, it's also the start of the holidays, so I'm not sure how much you should read into that.)
Well hopefully the prices in St John's wood start to go down, I'll need a place to live after Zurich.
NW8???
Who wants to live in NW8 when there's NW3?
Ah, I think the question you should be asking is who would live in NW3 when NW8 is on the cards!
When you (if) have children, you'll find yourself having to trek into Hampstead to take the kids to school anyway. I think Hampstead is also much prettier, and has a better sense of community,
But St John's Wood has better restaurants, Lords, and the Jubilee line.
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 8m8 minutes ago Calm down. Donald Trump is a poor man's Barry Goldwater. Hillary Clinton is going to obliterate him.
oh dear, my small wager on hilary just started looking poor.
Given Dan's record over the past few months its probably safe to put you house on Trump....
Dan may as well just jog around London naked wearing a Nigel Farage mask full-time, to be honest.
Since he moved to the Sunday Mail, I don't bother reading him. He went totally doolally over Brexit, changed his avatar to 48% and his tweets have lost their funny edge. He's clearly hurting. So is Michael Deacon - but at least he's getting some of his sense of humour back.
David Aaronovitch is still penning angry Remain columns a month later. He can be so good on other subjects, but golly what a hobbyhorse toddler he's become since 23rd June.
I like Aaronovitch, but his Times columns over the past month have been a chore to chug through. Tim Montgomerie in the Times yesterday referred to "Remoaners", not a term I'd seen coined yet, but I thought that was a label which summed up Aaronovitch to a tee...
I've got into the habit of reading the headline and skipping to the comments - been doing that with Parris for several months. If the comments have something nice to say, I'll read the column. Niall Ferguson is another one who needs to up his game.
For someone with a big brain, he pens some shockingly lazy stuff on Sundays.
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
It's not Corbyn's views on economics that repel 70% of the population. It's his views on immigration, defence, terrorism, and foreign policy.
Which is Labour's problem more broadly.
Blairites are 'unsound' on at least two of those, foreign policy and immigration, defence was unfunded willy-waving, and preferred authoritarianism on terrorism rather than trying to tackle the cultural root causes.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
I must just not have noticed for the UK because I've been tracking the other three. Weird.
They're going to be pretty grim. Sub 50 for both ofc.
Well, we'll know in about 15 minutes.
Hmm, been doing some digging, I think I'm right. This is the first month Markit are doing preliminary data for the UK, at least I can't find any reference to a prior release of UK preliminary figures.
Ouch.
John_M was right. They are quite ugly. Composite from 52.4 to 47.7.
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation. And, given that the start of this sudden rise coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution, we know why.
Wow! So what was it that humans were doing in 1560 that caused the start of the little ice age?
(As an aside, I am sympathetic to AGW, but correlation != causation.)
As you are surely aware, it is a logical fallacy to assume that because human activities are affecting the climate, only human activities can affect the climate. Prior to substantial human activity, the global climate was probably gradually cooling as the Earth moves towards the end of the current interglacial period. The LIA may have been related to this process. In any case, the rate of cooling at this time was far less than the currently observe rate of increase.
Edit: And yes, by itself, correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is an indicator, and in this case the argument is strongly supported by the existence of an obvious mechanism for causation: the radiative properties of CO2.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
I must just not have noticed for the UK because I've been tracking the other three. Weird.
They're going to be pretty grim. Sub 50 for both ofc.
Well, we'll know in about 15 minutes.
Hmm, been doing some digging, I think I'm right. This is the first month Markit are doing preliminary data for the UK, at least I can't find any reference to a prior release of UK preliminary figures.
Ouch.
John_M was right. They are quite ugly. Composite from 52.4 to 47.7.
There could well be a disconnect between actual results and market confidence, until, at least, confidence feeds back into actual results.
Trump's speech last night was strong and powerful and tough on immigration and national security and firmly protectionist. However he also had some moments of 'compassion' including promising to protect LGBTQ voters, for which he was applauded in a rare Cameron style moment. Overall though it was more Nixon 1968 than Reagan 1980. Nonetheless the convention has certainly delivered much of the drama and showbiz Trump promised in contrast to the dull and boring convention he felt Romney delivered in 2012
Yes, almost certainly given the global record temperatures so far this year. The next few years will probably not be record breakers after the 2015/16 El Niño, but the underlying upward trend from AGW will continue until the next El Niño sets new records. Until then, 2016 will become the new 1998 for the reality deniers.
It's so sweet how 130-odd years is considered a useful length of time to consider "records" within.
That's just the instrument record. We know from proxies such as ice core data, tree rings and the like that the global temperature is currently rising far faster than at any time since the start of human civilisation.
Assuming we fiddle the figures to make that be the case, yes.
It's irrelevant, though. To take drastic action that would wreck our economy as the Greens want would require the following:
1) The world is warming 2) We are responsible 3) This is a bad thing 4) We can do something about it
AGW zealots are very keen on trying to prove (1) and (2) but show no interest in proving (3) and (4).
I don't know about AGW zealots, but the scientists who study climate are virtually certain that the world is warming very rapidly and that the primary cause is the increase in greenhouse gas levels due to human activity.
If we were to stabilise the CO2 level at its current value of 400ppm, the future UK will look like this:
Most would argue that this is probably not desirable.
Science just doesn't run on assumptions that correlation implies causation, nor on propositions about what scientists "are virtually certain about", nor on links to speculative overlays of google maps. Plus, we only lose Norfolk as far as I can see.
So you don't accept there is any link between smoking and lung cancer then?
"However, new export business rose for the second straight month and to the greatest extent for almost two years. This was mainly linked to the sharp drop in the sterling exchange rate.
The downside of the exchange rate was a steep rise in manufacturers’ input prices, mainly due to higher import costs. The rate of purchase price inflation hit a five-year record, with the extent of the acceleration among the steepest in the survey history."
From the report, upside and downside of depreciating the currency in two sentences.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
At this stage, I'd expect 20-30 gains for the Cons at Labour's expense. I can't see the Lib Dems doing better than about a dozen.
I could see the LDs doing a little better than that: they should gain Edinburgh West based on the Holyrood vote. Other like gains are Twickenham, and Cambridge. In fact SW London - where there was a high Remain vote and Vince Cable is not standing again - should be a fairly fertile area for them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up on 14-18. But it all depends on their vote share, of course.
Comments
With ongoing zero interest rates and more waves of QE waiting in the wings, there is little sign of this (or the underlying crisis in economics) ending any time soon. Unless Brexit brings everything crashing down, of course.
"It’s hard to imagine Mr Corbyn campaigning on this problem, or worrying about the marriage gap (the top social group are 50 per cent more likely to be married than those at the bottom). Or highlighting the unequal distribution of fathers (the poorest children are three times as likely not to have one at home). These are new, complicated and unfashionable issues. It’s far easier to ignore such things, and instead trot out the reliable old applause lines at rallies of the faithful."
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
Owen who?
He appeals to the evangelicals re political campaigning speech restrictions, to the poor in Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago et al who are victims of increasing murder rates too. Covers a lot of bases. Blaming Hillary for overseas policy woes and that she's above the law is a big feature.
I did a little digging into the employment stats - not much, as they're not particularly granular. The top line is fantastic. 4.9% unemployment is essentially full employment.
Let's look a little closer, dear reader. Due to population growth, 4.9% is 1.7 million. Then we have the 2 million long term sick. The 1.1 million people who retired before the state pension age. The 4.5 million self employed.
Whatever your views about people on long term sick, they are not going to be wealthy. Some of the retired people will be affluent boomers. However, I know several people in their late 50s who have just stopped looking for work, are too proud for JSA and live on tiny pensions and casual work.
Self employment covers a multitude of sins. No further breakdown given. Not necessarily all wealthy consultants, I'd wager.
Successive governments have managed unemployment figures for decades.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
If I'd been wobbly Corbynista, he'd have reassured me. I read a few ABCorbyn commentators who clearly watched in a parallel universe. There's so such heart vs head going on.
Owen Smith needs to do more than say he's Corbyn in a better suit. I think he'd say anything to get elected. That's fine if the most important thing is getting rid of Jezza - but he's got no substance.
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
http://www.rbs.com/content/dam/rbs/Documents/News/2013/02/self-employment-in-the-UK.pdf
with self employment growth rates of 18% in transport and 19% in health (read social care)
If they want to stay MPs, forming a new group in Parliament is a smart choice.
.if 172 MP's split there will be no going back, period.
Just to add a touch of caution: my friend in the Hampstead estate agent business tells me that the last three weeks have been dead. (Although, it's also the start of the holidays, so I'm not sure how much you should read into that.)
David Aaronovitch is still penning angry Remain columns a month later. He can be so good on other subjects, but golly what a hobbyhorse toddler he's become since 23rd June.
The full pic reveals that the Mace is standing on two steps, albeit Ms Truss has a height of heel on with which Mr Bercow could not easily get away.
No question, the biggest issue is the labour participation rate, and the impact it will have on long term US growth rates. It's been a worry for a while, now; setting up barriers to trade to foster internal substitution might look like an appealing solution, like you I can't see it having a happy ending.
I heard almost all of Trump's speech. A few things struck me.
1. It was perhaps the most stilted delivery of a speech I have ever head. Trump shouted out lines with a constant cadence, barely varying pitch, volume, or meter. He also chose to pause at some odd places.
2. The poor delivery probably doesn't matter. The speech was essentially a list of shit American's are mad as hell about. Rabble-rousing was the goal, and in that regard I think the speech worked.
3. Despite Trump claiming that he would fix the things on the list he'd didn't explain how. I personally look forward to hearing how he will destroy ISIS, that should be good.
4. I'm starting to think Trump could win.
(As an aside, I am sympathetic to AGW, but correlation != causation.)
If he does, so e will just not stand at the next GE by choice, others will just wait for deselection quietly being unwilling g to break away, and most will grab ankle. They believe in the party long term, even if it is currently going astray.
The law being the law there are exceptions to the principle, which is why properly drawn arbitration clauses sometimes work. But that's the basic rule.
It's irrelevant, though. To take drastic action that would wreck our economy as the Greens want would require the following:
1) The world is warming
2) We are responsible
3) This is a bad thing
4) We can do something about it
AGW zealots are very keen on trying to prove (1) and (2) but show no interest in proving (3) and (4).
I noted that delegates from Texas seemed a lot more convinced than they appeared before. "He sounded confident, not crazy" Cruz did himself no favours.
I don't know too much about Pence - but he comes across as genial, sensible and old style homegrown GOPer - not a Romney suit sort.
Jez warns MPs to get behind the party and warns them they face a battle for their seats
(That's the Jez that voted against his own party 500 times plus)
Edit - I wonder if he means that's fight for seats in an election, from re-selection or perhaps even both?
Who wants to live in NW8 when there's NW3?
If we were to stabilise the CO2 level at its current value of 400ppm, the future UK will look like this:
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=54.6916,-4.1358&m=20
If we continue to burn all the fossil fuel that we can reach and push CO2 the level above 1000ppm, it'll look something like this:
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=54.6916,-4.1358&m=60
Most would argue that this is probably not desirable.
(I took my daughter to Lords last night to watch the Twenty20, and she absolutely loved it. She's demanding to go back next Thursday
Of course, the working class looks a bit different from that of the 50s and 60s, but not fundamentally so.
But St John's Wood has better restaurants, Lords, and the Jubilee line.
They're both fabulous places to live, tbh.
For someone with a big brain, he pens some shockingly lazy stuff on Sundays.
Blairites are 'unsound' on at least two of those, foreign policy and immigration, defence was unfunded willy-waving, and preferred authoritarianism on terrorism rather than trying to tackle the cultural root causes.
John_M was right. They are quite ugly. Composite from 52.4 to 47.7.
Edit: And yes, by itself, correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is an indicator, and in this case the argument is strongly supported by the existence of an obvious mechanism for causation: the radiative properties of CO2.
The report if anyone wants to read it.
The downside of the exchange rate was a steep rise in manufacturers’ input prices, mainly due to higher import costs. The rate of purchase price inflation hit a five-year record, with the extent of the acceleration among the steepest in the survey
history."
From the report, upside and downside of depreciating the currency in two sentences.
I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up on 14-18. But it all depends on their vote share, of course.