Morning. Given that Labour have now chosen a sensible local candidate, they should really be the favourites to retain the seat. Still 2.6 on Betfair, against 1.8 for the Tories.
Yres, I've put £40 on her - she's down from 2.78 to 2.64 since yesterday and I expect the price to shift further.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effect in ancillary services: i.e. other businesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effect in ancillary services: i.e. other businesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
Although Scotland voted to REMAIN the reaction to May's proposals in the YouGov sub-sample, while less enthusiastic than total UK's are in the same direction:
Net right - Scotland (Total UK) Control Immigration: +45 (+62) Open Border Ireland: +61 (+63) Out of Single Market: +21 (+36) Out of Customs Union: +21 (+36) Mutual guarantee citizens rights: +77 (+71) Continue Security Cooperation: +80 (+83)
If achieved Deal would respect result of referendum (net): +39 (+49)
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effect in ancillary services: i.e. other businesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
We don't know what will happen. London before the EU was a rusty crumbling wreck. If the money goes it might go that way again. Equally, London might benefit from cooling down a bit. The people are currently being priced out, which can't be good long term.
I rather like Gillian Troughton's politics, and they seem not too far from my own, or Tim Farron for that matter!
I don't think it is so much that the 5 Labour candidates are anti Corbyn, but rather that all the 5 were genuinely local longstanding activists with local roots. These are the people that outperform the national party, as we also see in Bromsgrove tonight too.
This bodes well for the Labour party in the long run. Corbyn is allowing the grass roots to thrive, and deliberately so. He is killing the Spadocracy.
I think that's right - Southam is right that Momentum did try to influence the selection, but Corbyn and his immediate team (which doesn't include the Prescotts!) didn't.
My large local branch had its AGM this week - a number of new Corbynista members there, contrary to legend, but all the constituency nominations were made on the basis of competence rather thasn ideology, and agreed unanimously. It's possible to be both left-wing in leadership elections and pragmatic in everyday matters.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effect in ancillary services: i.e. other businesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
Although Scotland voted to REMAIN the reaction to May's proposals in the YouGov sub-sample, while less enthusiastic than total UK's are in the same direction:
Net right - Scotland (Total UK) Control Immigration: +45 (+62) Open Border Ireland: +61 (+63) Out of Single Market: +21 (+36) Out of Customs Union: +21 (+36) Mutual guarantee citizens rights: +77 (+71) Continue Security Cooperation: +80 (+83)
If achieved Deal would respect result of referendum (net): +39 (+49)
Interesting. Not a great base for the SNP to seek to build indignation from.
I rather like Gillian Troughton's politics, and they seem not too far from my own, or Tim Farron for that matter!
I don't think it is so much that the 5 Labour candidates are anti Corbyn, but rather that all the 5 were genuinely local longstanding activists with local roots. These are the people that outperform the national party, as we also see in Bromsgrove tonight too.
This bodes well for the Labour party in the long run. Corbyn is allowing the grass roots to thrive, and deliberately so. He is killing the Spadocracy.
I think that's right - Southam is right that Momentum did try to influence the selection, but Corbyn and his immediate team (which doesn't include the Prescotts!) didn't.
My large local branch had its AGM this week - a number of new Corbynista members there, contrary to legend, but all the constituency nominations were made on the basis of competence rather thasn ideology, and agreed unanimously. It's possible to be both left-wing in leadership elections and pragmatic in everyday matters.
The secret weapon of Labour has long been the ordinary union member. In my experience they just get on with it. Fee harder workers.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
Although Scotland voted to REMAIN the reaction to May's proposals in the YouGov sub-sample, while less enthusiastic than total UK's are in the same direction:
Net right - Scotland (Total UK) Control Immigration: +45 (+62) Open Border Ireland: +61 (+63) Out of Single Market: +21 (+36) Out of Customs Union: +21 (+36) Mutual guarantee citizens rights: +77 (+71) Continue Security Cooperation: +80 (+83)
If achieved Deal would respect result of referendum (net): +39 (+49)
Interesting. Not a great base for the SNP to seek to build indignation from.
In the Twitter echo chamber on the other hand.....
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effect in ancillary services: i.e. other businesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
London is London and rules. Stuff will always happen there. One small thing: within the next five years six of the 20 biggest sports stadiums in Europe - Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Arsenal, Wrst Ham and Chelsea - will be located there. An NFL franchise, too. Then there's Lord's & the Oval, plus various other smaller capacity venues. I doubt there is anything else like it in the world. We also have two of the 10 best universities in the world and Europe's biggest technology start-up community, as well as big established tech players setting up operations. And the City may get smaller, but it's not going away. The energy, the vision, the confidence, the sheer beauty of things happening everywhere all the time makes London utterly and wonderfully unique. And that's before you throw in the parks, the different villages that make it up, the river, the architecture, the museums, the galleries, the theatres, the music and everything else. London rules. London rocks. It's not London we have to worry about!
Although Scotland voted to REMAIN the reaction to May's proposals in the YouGov sub-sample, while less enthusiastic than total UK's are in the same direction:
Net right - Scotland (Total UK) Control Immigration: +45 (+62) Open Border Ireland: +61 (+63) Out of Single Market: +21 (+36) Out of Customs Union: +21 (+36) Mutual guarantee citizens rights: +77 (+71) Continue Security Cooperation: +80 (+83)
If achieved Deal would respect result of referendum (net): +39 (+49)
the yougov scottish subsample, the last refuge of the *
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effect in ancillary services: i.e. other businesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
London is London and rules. Stuff will always happen there. One small thing: within the next five years six of the 20 biggest sports stadiums in Europe - Wembley, Twickenham, Spurs, Arsenal, Wrst Ham and Chelsea - will be located there. An NFL franchise, too. Then there's Lord's & the Oval, plus various other smaller capacity venues. I doubt there is anything else like it in the world. We also have two of the 10 best universities in the world and Europe's biggest technology start-up community, as well as big established tech players setting up operations. And the City may get smaller, but it's not going away. The energy, the vision, the confidence, the sheer beauty of things happening everywhere all the time makes London utterly and wonderfully unique. And that's before you throw in the parks, the different villages that make it up, the river, the architecture, the museums, the galleries, the theatres, the music and everything else. London rules. London rocks. It's not London we have to worry about!
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
Like the prostate cancer news. Having a biopsy put me in hospital with, apparently life-threatening, septicaemia , after being told I wasn’t eligible for an MRI. Subsequently was given an MRI and cancer shown to be very limited.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not iack-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effeusinesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
We don't know what will happen. London before the EU was a rusty crumbling wreck. If the money goes it might go that way again. Equally, London might benefit from cooling down a bit. The people are currently being priced out, which can't be good long term.
London boomed in the 80s because of Thatcher and the Big Bang, low taxes, etc. Also because of English law, globalization, and so on. The EU has benefited london in terms of free movement, but the EU has not been crucial to the city's success.
Clearly leaving the EU will take some wind out of the city's sails. But I don't think it will damage it, long term.
Besides, all these negative prognoses ignore the possible upsides, and the extra flexibility Brexit brings. The City can happily kiss goodbye to the stupid EU banker bonus laws, for a start.
As with all things Brexit, the process is so huge, dynamic and unique it really is impossible to predict what will or won't happen 5 or 10 years down the line.
London's renaissance predates big bang, it started in the 70s. It continued in the 80s. It really accelerated around the millennium. Early 90s London was still very drab.
Many here interpret Brexit as an attack on London, it's international culture and it's dominance of the UK.
Although Scotland voted to REMAIN the reaction to May's proposals in the YouGov sub-sample, while less enthusiastic than total UK's are in the same direction:
Net right - Scotland (Total UK) Control Immigration: +45 (+62) Open Border Ireland: +61 (+63) Out of Single Market: +21 (+36) Out of Customs Union: +21 (+36) Mutual guarantee citizens rights: +77 (+71) Continue Security Cooperation: +80 (+83)
If achieved Deal would respect result of referendum (net): +39 (+49)
the yougov scottish subsample, the last refuge of the *
That's the equivalent of 4 new hospitals every week.
The entire financial sector is going to leave?
Not all of it. I'm sure the Co-op will stick around.
The overall tax take is very likely to go down though. It would be sensible to plan for -1 hospital/week, although it could feasibly be -2
I think the tax take will go down. But maybe not for the reasons you state. It might decline because we have to slash corp tax and the bank levy to persuade them to stay (or return). Either way a headache for Hammond.
I think the tax take will go down because the amount of profit financial services managed to gouge out of the real economy pre 2008 was completely unconscionable and needs a serious rebalancing. In the immediate aftermath of the crash there was huge amounts of work sorting out the mess that had been made but over time it would be a good thing if somewhat less of our GDP was made buying and selling financial instruments for very short term gain rather than to provide a service.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effect in ancillary services: i.e. other businesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
London is London and rules. Stuff will always happen there.
Before WW1 London was the global capital of film distribution, WW1 put the kybosh on that, but somehow London found other things to do....always had, always will.
As Bismark is reported to have said 'What a city to sack!'......
Our friends in the EU have a very acrimonious budget process ahead of them, after we've gone. While they may maintain a common front facing us, that will not survive indefinitely....
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not iack-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'llactivity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
We don't know what will happen. London before the EU was a rusty crumbling wreck. If the money goes it might go that way again. Equally, London might benefit from cooling down a bit. The people are currently being priced out, which can't be good long term.
London boomed in.
Clearly leaving the EU will take some wind out of the city's sails. But I don't think it will damage it, long term.
Besides, all these negative prognoses ignore the possible upsides, and the extra flexibility Brexit brings. The City can happily kiss goodbye to the stupid EU banker bonus laws, for a start.
As with all things Brexit, the process is so huge, dynamic and unique it really is impossible to predict what will or won't happen 5 or 10 years down the line.
London's renaissance predates big bang, it started in the 70s. It continued in the 80s. It really accelerated around the millennium. Early 90s London was still very drab.
Many here interpret Brexit as an attack on London, it's international culture and it's dominance of the UK.
London is profoundly disliked in many parts of the UK, as are Londoners. When I lived in Birmingham in the 1980s I learned to change my accent in certain pubs. Cockney Scum Gerrouta Brum was a popular refrain at the Blues and the Villa.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
5HS?
5 Hertford Street.
Where up and coming or already there sales traders go to look at Eastern European hookers.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The only place with, in the lingo, the same ecosystem (all ancillary and related services in the same place) is New York.
If bits move it will be a gradual blunting of London's preeminence rather than a collapse.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
Of course, it is the same point I made earlier. And they have every right to lobby for what their business needs to be a success in London. And we should listen very carefully to what they say and not inflict unintentional damage or create unnecessary problems. Helping them is a win win for the UK economy, beyond a doubt. But the "we're going to lose a hospital a week" nonsense on here this morning needs called out for the hysteria it is.
Thanks for that link, which includes this choice quote:
"Chief Executive of Teleperformance Portugal is Joao Cardoso. In 1994 he founded a call center that was later acquired by Teleperformance. His success, he says, is due entirely to the EU common market and the freedom of movement of EU citizens."
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
Heartless.
I'd ask the management if they have any offshore call centres. How is it possible that banking, telecoms and other industries have moved customer service, sales and other call centre based jobs to India but can't keep them in London?
It looks more like Brexit is being used as cover to save money by hiring Portuguese people for a third less money.
I mean, do you really believe that Jamie Oliver had to close those restaurants because of Brexit? If you do, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not iack-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'llactivity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
We don't know what will happen. ng term.
London boomed in.
Clearly leaving the EU will take some wind out of the city's sails. But I don't think it will damage it, long term.
Besides, all these negative prognoses ignore the possible upsides, and the extra flexibility Brexit brings. The City can happily kiss goodbye to the stupid EU banker bonus laws, for a start.
As with all things Brexit, the process is so huge, dynamic and unique it really is impossible to predict what will or won't happen 5 or 10 years down the line.
London's renaissance predates big bang, it started in the 70s. It continued in the 80s. It really accelerated around the millennium. Early 90s London was still very drab.
Many here interpret Brexit as an attack on London, it's international culture and it's dominance of the UK.
London is profoundly disliked in many parts of the UK, as are Londoners. When I lived in Birmingham in the 1980s I learned to change my accent in certain pubs. Cockney Scum Gerrouta Brum was a popular refrain at the Blues and the Villa.
Indeed. For many, you can easily substitute 'elite' for 'London'.
It's insane of course, like a body rejecting the dominance of its beating heart.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effect in ancillary services: i.e. other businesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
That's the equivalent of 4 new hospitals every week.
The entire financial sector is going to leave?
Not all of it. I'm sure the Co-op will stick around.
The overall tax take is very likely to go down though. It would be sensible to plan for -1 hospital/week, although it could feasibly be -2
I think the tax take will go down. But maybe not for the reasons you state. It might decline because we have to slash corp tax and the bank levy to persuade them to stay (or return). Either way a headache for Hammond.
Tax cuts for banks/bankers is going to be a very hard sell.
Like the prostate cancer news. Having a biopsy put me in hospital with, apparently life-threatening, septicaemia , after being told I wasn’t eligible for an MRI. Subsequently was given an MRI and cancer shown to be very limited.
Yes, excellent news. I have a family history of it. Still trying to avoid it by diet and lifestyle though ...
A relative had to have his prostate removed ... ugh.
In 2008, I asked the doctor for a PSA test. But these are now acknowledged to be of little use, so the NHS was right not to automatically test men after 40 or 50. The USA tests all men it seems which helps to explain why they spend 17%.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
5HS?
5 Hertford Street.
Where up and coming or already there sales traders go to look at Eastern European hookers.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The only place with, in the lingo, the same ecosystem (all ancillary and related services in the same place) is New York.
If bits move it will be a gradual blunting of London's preeminence rather than a collapse.
New York and Singapore is the real threat. I don't much like Sadiq, but he is right. If London loses business it won't be to Paris and Frankfurt, it will be to NYC and Singapore. From what I can tell arm's length locations are to be preferred for EUR transactions. Then again, if we are to lose business I'd rather lose it to non-EU countries anyway so I'm fairly relaxed about it.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
I'd heard 50%. Might explain why Woody quit. Seems odd to pull back ibanking to NY though. CS did it, but effectively because they'd given up on Europe. You won't get industry bankers in FFT, although the Goldman model is more senior banker focused so may be they can do the sector stuff from the US.
It's always been great, just in different ways. Growing up in London in the late 70s and early 80s was just fantastic. Even then it was completely different to other parts of England. I remember my first visits to cities like Brum, Coventry, Manchester and Liverpool; there was just nothing there compared to what London offered.
I would agree. I went to Med School in the early Eighties, and it was still pretty grotty. When I left in 1989 it was a very different place. In some ways better, in some ways worse. It all depends how you view crass consumerism and the worship of mammon.
Listening to Portillo talking about trade on This Week I'm reminded of why he did such a terrible job as Shadow Chancellor against Brown. He doesn't seem to have any deep understanding of what he's talking about.
He certainly seemed very keen on repeating that the EU was a protectionist rather than a free market as if it was the greatest piece of economic insight of the age.
It's common for commentators to use "protectionist" as a dirty word without saying what's wrong with a bit of market protection.
Protectionism moves power from the individual (to make their own choice about whom to buy from) to the group.
It also tends to lead to corporatism, where chosen industries are 'protected' from foreign competition, to the benefit of the owners of those businesses, and the detriment of consumers.
The next paragraph of that is that corporatism leads naturally to corruption, because there is now a lot of money in getting politicians to choose your industry to be protected from competition (while also forcing your suppliers to remain unprotected to keep your own costs down).
I'm not normally a Monbiot fan, but that's an excellent quote.
This is as old as story as the hills. Another way to assess the situation is to see which companies have large offices in the DC Metro area. Those that need to lobby are all here - those that don't are not.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effeusinesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
We don't know what will happen. London before the EU was a rusty crumbling wreck. If the money goes it might go that way again. Equally, London might benefit from cooling down a bit. The people are currently being priced out, which can't be good long term.
London boo
As with all things Brexit, the process is so huge, dynamic and unique it really is impossible to predict what will or won't happen 5 or 10 years down the line.
London's renaissance predates big bang, it started in the 70s. It continued in the 80s. It really accelerated around the millennium. Early 90s London was still very drab.
Many here interpret Brexit as an attack on London, it's international culture and it's dominance of the UK.
Simply wrong. London's population (the surest measure of a city's success) declined throughout the 1970s and early 80s, and bottomed out in the mid 80s. From the late 80s on it began to rise, just as Thatcher's reforms were kicking in, and it hasn't stopped climbing since.
The idea London enjoyed a "renaissance" in the 70s is deliciously ridiculous.
How much is London's 'renaissance' a central London thing ? There's no doubt lots of expensive flats, posh restaurants and trendy bars within three miles of Westminster but that's also happened in pretty much every other city centre as well.
From what I've seen it doesn't extend into the middle suburbia of the likes of Ealing and Croydon.
And the Conservatives have pretty much collapsed in many previous strongholds.
I think finance in Europe will become much more like the US - that is much more spread out, without one city having such complete dominance.
We'll probably most feel the negative effeusinesses that were headquartered in London so as to be near the source of so much financial services activity. (Accounting, law, etc.)
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
We don't know what will hapg term.
London boo
As with all things Brexit, the process is so huge, dynamic and unique it really is impossible to predict what will or won't happen 5 or 10 years down the line.
London's renaissance predates big bang, it started in the 70s. It continued in the 80s. It really accelerated around the millennium. Early 90s London was still very drab.
Many here interpret Brexit as an attack on London, it's international culture and it's dominance of the UK.
Simply wrong. London's population (the surest measure of a city's success) declined throughout the 1970s and early 80s, and bottomed out in the mid 80s. From the late 80s on it began to rise, just as Thatcher's reforms were kicking in, and it hasn't stopped climbing since.
The idea London enjoyed a "renaissance" in the 70s is deliciously ridiculous.
I said it started in the 70s, late 60s Culturally things like the south bank made a difference. New money enabled things like the Nat West tower to be built. New tube lines were built for the first time in decades. The credit card boom started in the 70s rejuvenating shopping. And people could more easily get to London because of better transport eg 125, Term3 and the EU.
Our current era started in the turmoil of the 70s.
Mr. T, by that definition, Mexico City is more successful than London. And Shanghai is more successful than Portugal.
Shanghai IS more successful than Portugal
Ha, ha - true enough. I imagine the average Portuguese has a much better quality of life than the average Shanghaier, though. I know where I'd rather live. At least you can breathe in Portugal.
Ask yourself equivalence with what and under the jurisdiction of which rule-making body?
It will still be the EU which grants it, rules over it, ensures it remains current (equivalence is only granted at a point in time and governs an existing set of rules rather than a regulatory environment) and, finally, enforces it.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
No one's going to reduce skilled immigration. Not even TMay. And the best estimates reckon migration will be brought down to 150,000-200,000. Still big big numbers by historical standards.
One way they will do this is by reclassifying unskilled migrants coming for agricultural/hospitality work as "seasonal workers", rather than actual immigrants. Etc etc. These people will get six month work permits and so forth, but not settlement rights and benefits.
That wont affect immigration numbers.
A seasonal worker arrives and they are classed as an immigrant, when they leave they are classed as an emigrant and so cancel out.
Merely trying to fiddle the numbers will only make people angrier - its the 'voices in the supermarket' that people notice re immigration.
Simply wrong. London's population (the surest measure of a city's success) declined throughout the 1970s and early 80s, and bottomed out in the mid 80s. From the late 80s on it began to rise, just as Thatcher's reforms were kicking in, and it hasn't stopped climbing since.
The idea London enjoyed a "renaissance" in the 70s is deliciously ridiculous.
In the 1970s, the Eurodollar market took off in London, mainly because it was not hampered by the American Glass-Steagall Act (which split domestic from investment banking in the US, and whose repeal is blamed by some for recent financial crises). Mrs Thatcher's 1980s Big Bang led to huge increases in capitalisation as American and other foreign banks bought the old British merchant banks, building societies turned into banks (what could possibly go wrong?) and so on.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The only place with, in the lingo, the same ecosystem (all ancillary and related services in the same place) is New York.
If bits move it will be a gradual blunting of London's preeminence rather than a collapse.
Though a lot depends on how the smalltown Trump voters support NYC financiers. I think that we will see the slow dispersion of financial engineering further East, particularly to Singapore.
Surely the East European hookers will be one of the secondary service industries that move to Frankfurt too...
Re Goldmans and the like, I think it's inevitable that London will lose its status as the only City in European finance. And, long-term, that's probably a positive for the UK economy. It means we'll be less reliant on a few mega-earners, trophy asset prices won't be so inflated, and we'll lose a boom-and-bust sector.
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
Ask yourself equivalence with what and under the jurisdiction of which rule-making body?
It will still be the EU which grants it, rules over it, ensures it remains current (equivalence is only granted at a point in time and governs an existing set of rules rather than a regulatory environment) and, finally, enforces it.
Some control.
ESMA?
I'm really not that fussed, I've said time and again trade is somewhere that compromise is acceptable, even desirable. The EU was and is about much more than trade, which is why I voted to leave and am happy that we are leaving.
Mr. Observer, that's an interesting point. Would PBers prefer to live in Portugal, or Shanghai? Reminds me a little of an eastern European country (might be Hungary, not sure) which tried regaining independence from the Soviets in the 1950s (maybe 60s, but I think it was 50s). The rebellion was crushed, and the country did see increased prosperity in the years that followed.
But the economic growth was coupled with a decline in life expectancy, which is a quite intriguing phenomenon.
Simply wrong. London's population (the surest measure of a city's success) declined throughout the 1970s and early 80s, and bottomed out in the mid 80s. From the late 80s on it began to rise, just as Thatcher's reforms were kicking in, and it hasn't stopped climbing since.
The idea London enjoyed a "renaissance" in the 70s is deliciously ridiculous.
In the 1970s, the Eurodollar market took off in London, mainly because it was not hampered by the American Glass-Steagall Act (which split domestic from investment banking in the US, and whose repeal is blamed by some for recent financial crises). Mrs Thatcher's 1980s Big Bang led to huge increases in capitalisation as American and other foreign banks bought the old British merchant banks, building societies turned into banks (what could possibly go wrong?) and so on.
Edit: removed screwed up quoting history.
Absolutely right re the Eurodollar market: it was matching Europeans' savings with America's thirst for capital.
Morning. Given that Labour have now chosen a sensible local candidate, they should really be the favourites to retain the seat. Still 2.6 on Betfair, against 1.8 for the Tories.
Copeland council have just spent a large sum on new offices while shutting care homes, so while Labour have avoided a Corbynista the Tories will try and link her to the council whole she will still be carrying the banner of the Corbyn Labour Party
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
No one's going to reduce skilled immigration. Not even TMay. And the best estimates reckon migration will be brought down to 150,000-200,000. Still big big numbers by historical standards.
One way they will do this is by reclassifying unskilled migrants coming for agricultural/hospitality work as "seasonal workers", rather than actual immigrants. Etc etc. These people will get six month work permits and so forth, but not settlement rights and benefits.
That wont affect immigration numbers.
A seasonal worker arrives and they are classed as an immigrant, when they leave they are classed as an emigrant and so cancel out.
Merely trying to fiddle the numbers will only make people angrier - its the 'voices in the supermarket' that people notice re immigration.
It will also add to the costs, as a premium will have to be paid because of lack of job security and Sterling devaluation.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
No one's going to reduce skilled immigration. Not even TMay. And the best estimates reckon migration will be brought down to 150,000-200,000. Still big big numbers by historical standards.
One way they will do this is by reclassifying unskilled migrants coming for agricultural/hospitality work as "seasonal workers", rather than actual immigrants. Etc etc. These people will get six month work permits and so forth, but not settlement rights and benefits.
There are other ways skilled immigration can reverse: people might choose to go somewhere else.
London, and Cambridge have been magnets for finance and technology. What if other places achieve magnet status?
As Sean_F pointed out, cities that get cut off from their Empire rarely thrive. London was capital of the British Empire and was then the commercial capital of the EU.
Re Goldmans and the like, I think it's inevitable that London will lose its status as the only City in European finance. And, long-term, that's probably a positive for the UK economy. It means we'll be less reliant on a few mega-earners, trophy asset prices won't be so inflated, and we'll lose a boom-and-bust sector.
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
It sounds like a recession which will hit London hardest and longest.
Its the recession which should have happened after 2008 but which a trillion pounds of borrowed money was used to stop.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The only place with, in the lingo, the same ecosystem (all ancillary and related services in the same place) is New York.
If bits move it will be a gradual blunting of London's preeminence rather than a collapse.
New York and Singapore is the real threat. I don't much like Sadiq, but he is right. If London loses business it won't be to Paris and Frankfurt, it will be to NYC and Singapore. From what I can tell arm's length locations are to be preferred for EUR transactions. Then again, if we are to lose business I'd rather lose it to non-EU countries anyway so I'm fairly relaxed about it.
HSBC are moving jobs to Paris, Goldman to Frankfurt etc. European cities will narrow the gap with London and NYC may start to pull ahead especially with the incoming Trump administration and the GOP Congress seen as pro business (though if the Democrats win the mid terms things may change a little)
Mr. Observer, that's an interesting point. Would PBers prefer to live in Portugal, or Shanghai? Reminds me a little of an eastern European country (might be Hungary, not sure) which tried regaining independence from the Soviets in the 1950s (maybe 60s, but I think it was 50s). The rebellion was crushed, and the country did see increased prosperity in the years that followed.
But the economic growth was coupled with a decline in life expectancy, which is a quite intriguing phenomenon.
I suspect at 24 you'd rather live in Shanghai, and at 65 in Lisbon.
THE senior STV journalist who was allegedly “gagged” by the SNP has resigned. Digital politics and comment editor Stephen Daisley is to leave his job later this month.
If only the BBC would have the guts to hire him - Daisley went after politicians of any stripe - and being in government the SNP more than most. The SNP also had the thinnest skins.....
Re Goldmans and the like, I think it's inevitable that London will lose its status as the only City in European finance. And, long-term, that's probably a positive for the UK economy. It means we'll be less reliant on a few mega-earners, trophy asset prices won't be so inflated, and we'll lose a boom-and-bust sector.
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
It sounds like a recession which will hit London hardest and longest.
Its the recession which should have happened after 2008 but which a trillion pounds of borrowed money was used to stop.
That's a fair assessment.
I'm glad I'm not leveraged long prime London property. Oh wait...
Mr. Observer, that's an interesting point. Would PBers prefer to live in Portugal, or Shanghai? Reminds me a little of an eastern European country (might be Hungary, not sure) which tried regaining independence from the Soviets in the 1950s (maybe 60s, but I think it was 50s). The rebellion was crushed, and the country did see increased prosperity in the years that followed.
But the economic growth was coupled with a decline in life expectancy, which is a quite intriguing phenomenon.
I suspect at 24 you'd rather live in Shanghai, and at 65 in Lisbon.
If you're living in Shanghai at 24, will you get to 65?
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
No one's going to reduce skilled immigration. Not even TMay. And the best estimates reckon migration will be brought down to 150,000-200,000. Still big big numbers by historical standards.
One way they will do this is by reclassifying unskilled migrants coming for agricultural/hospitality work as "seasonal workers", rather than actual immigrants. Etc etc. These people will get six month work permits and so forth, but not settlement rights and benefits.
There are other ways skilled immigration can reverse: people might choose to go somewhere else.
London, and Cambridge have been magnets for finance and technology. What if other places achieve magnet status?
As Sean_F pointed out, cities that get cut off from their Empire rarely thrive. London was capital of the British Empire and was then the commercial capital of the EU.
London's problem is that it has let itself get cut off from it's immediate hinterland. Not physically - though the RMT give it a go - but ideologically. It's because it thought that the sticks were irrelevant it finds itself facing Brexit. It's a faultline the country still needs to repair.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The only place with, in the lingo, the same ecosystem (all ancillary and related services in the same place) is New York.
If bits move it will be a gradual blunting of London's preeminence rather than a collapse.
New York and Singapore is the real threat. I don't much like Sadiq, but he is right. If London loses business it won't be to Paris and Frankfurt, it will be to NYC and Singapore. From what I can tell arm's length locations are to be preferred for EUR transactions. Then again, if we are to lose business I'd rather lose it to non-EU countries anyway so I'm fairly relaxed about it.
HSBC are moving jobs to Paris, Goldman to Frankfurt etc. European cities will narrow the gap with London and NYC may start to pull ahead especially with the incoming Trump administration and the GOP Congress seen as pro business (though if the Democrats win the mid terms things may change a little)
Re Goldmans and the like, I think it's inevitable that London will lose its status as the only City in European finance. And, long-term, that's probably a positive for the UK economy. It means we'll be less reliant on a few mega-earners, trophy asset prices won't be so inflated, and we'll lose a boom-and-bust sector.
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
It sounds like a recession which will hit London hardest and longest.
Its the recession which should have happened after 2008 but which a trillion pounds of borrowed money was used to stop.
That's a fair assessment.
I'm glad I'm not leveraged long prime London property. Oh wait...
Mr. 1000, if the economic picture goes as you suggest, it would have the impact of entrenching the consensus views in both the recession hit areas (south-east) and those less affected that they were right after all. That could deepen and sustain divisions for longer, making it more difficult for compromise candidates to prosper.
London is Labourland, but the south-east (excluding London) is very blue. Storm clouds after (or during) 2020?
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The only place with, in the lingo, the same ecosystem (all ancillary and related services in the same place) is New York.
If bits move it will be a gradual blunting of London's preeminence rather than a collapse.
New York and Singapore is the real threat. I don't much like Sadiq, but he is right. If London loses business it won't be to Paris and Frankfurt, it will be to NYC and Singapore. From what I can tell arm's length locations are to be preferred for EUR transactions. Then again, if we are to lose business I'd rather lose it to non-EU countries anyway so I'm fairly relaxed about it.
HSBC are moving jobs to Paris, Goldman to Frankfurt etc. European cities will narrow the gap with London and NYC may start to pull ahead especially with the incoming Trump administration and the GOP Congress seen as pro business (though if the Democrats win the mid terms things may change a little)
HSBC say Paris, GS might say Frankfurt. In reality it would be Singapore and NYC respectively.
Re Goldmans and the like, I think it's inevitable that London will lose its status as the only City in European finance. And, long-term, that's probably a positive for the UK economy. It means we'll be less reliant on a few mega-earners, trophy asset prices won't be so inflated, and we'll lose a boom-and-bust sector.
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
It sounds like a recession which will hit London hardest and longest.
Its the recession which should have happened after 2008 but which a trillion pounds of borrowed money was used to stop.
That's a fair assessment.
I'm glad I'm not leveraged long prime London property. Oh wait...
Re Goldmans and the like, I think it's inevitable that London will lose its status as the only City in European finance. And, long-term, that's probably a positive for the UK economy. It means we'll be less reliant on a few mega-earners, trophy asset prices won't be so inflated, and we'll lose a boom-and-bust sector.
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
It sounds like a recession which will hit London hardest and longest.
Its the recession which should have happened after 2008 but which a trillion pounds of borrowed money was used to stop.
That's a fair assessment.
I'm glad I'm not leveraged long prime London property. Oh wait...
I rather like Gillian Troughton's politics, and they seem not too far from my own, or Tim Farron for that matter!
I don't think it is so much that the 5 Labour candidates are anti Corbyn, but rather that all the 5 were genuinely local longstanding activists with local roots. These are the people that outperform the national party, as we also see in Bromsgrove tonight too.
This bodes well for the Labour party in the long run. Corbyn is allowing the grass roots to thrive, and deliberately so. He is killing the Spadocracy.
I think that's right - Southam is right that Momentum did try to influence the selection, but Corbyn and his immediate team (which doesn't include the Prescotts!) didn't.
My large local branch had its AGM this week - a number of new Corbynista members there, contrary to legend, but all the constituency nominations were made on the basis of competence rather thasn ideology, and agreed unanimously. It's possible to be both left-wing in leadership elections and pragmatic in everyday matters.
I don't think that Labour is as disconnected from its roots as some on here opine. There always has been a London intellectual strand in the weave of the party*. The media and Westminster bubble tends to focus on these people, because of their own bias, but there is lots going on elsewhere. Labour does have a London weighted membership, but the ex-metropolis LP is still by some distance larger in membership than any other English party. There are lots of grassroots out there.
*Incidentally @GillTroughton did her Med School in London in the Eighties, so clearly not a country mouse antithetic to the Smoke.
As the Daily Mail reminds us of ultra-vile child abuse in Belgium (by "Europe's elite"), indicating that the Battle for Brexit will be extremely dirty (which isn't to say the elite in Belgium haven't got it coming to them), it also publishes a piece by perjurer Jonathan Aitken proclaiming that "Donald Trump will be our number one ally". So Britain's pulling out of NATO then? Because that treaty says Poland, Turkey, etc., are Britain's allies, not its "number two" allies.
When I read that "Donald Trump will be our number one ally", I have the image of a supplicant holding onto someone's trouser leg declaring "I'm your best friend".
That's because you're immature. It's been policy for almost the entire post war period that the UK and USA have a Special Relationship over and above NATO. See intelligence sharing aka Five Eyes for where this is meaningfully put into action and not just words.
Should we withdraw from Five Eyes and other agreements we have had for decades so that we can treat Turkey as an equitably number one ally?
"Immature" indeed That's not an alliance; that's a protectorate. Only one of the two countries put its nuclear weapons on the other's territory, and only one keeps two enormous electronic spy bases (perhaps mature people call them something different?) on the other's territory too - in one case clicking their fingers and having the indigenous population evacuated, although that wasn't considered necessary to do in North Yorkshire.
I'd love to see Britain withdraw from both NATO and UKUSA. The latter was only officially admitted to exist nearly 60 years after it was agreed - talk about ignominy! Britain to the US may have been number one poodle for a time; now I don't think it's even that, for all the importance of the money-laundering network centred on the City of London and with an infrastructure spanning many outposts. The attitude in the Foreign Office has long been that the Yanks have the tech and can sling guns whereas the Brits have the brains and can understand the fuzzywuzzies' and tribal leaders' minds. Strange then that most countries' elites mostly prefer to send their brats to Ivy League universities rather than to Britain's two, if they get the chance. Who laughs at whom behind whose backs? Where we agree is that the relationship involves far more than NATO, but I wouldn't call it an "alliance".
So the mask slips from claiming that the alliance is nothing special to it is special but bad with plain old anti-Americanism. I don't agree that our most important post war alliance has been a bad thing.
Ask yourself equivalence with what and under the jurisdiction of which rule-making body?
It will still be the EU which grants it, rules over it, ensures it remains current (equivalence is only granted at a point in time and governs an existing set of rules rather than a regulatory environment) and, finally, enforces it.
Some control.
ESMA?
I'm really not that fussed, I've said time and again trade is somewhere that compromise is acceptable, even desirable. The EU was and is about much more than trade, which is why I voted to leave and am happy that we are leaving.
ESMA is tasked by the EU to implement its will.
But that's fine, I understand your viewpoing. Now some people, even can you imagine some PB Leavers, were all exercised about sovereignty. It is transparently obvious that whatever situation we reach with financial services that we will give up sovereignty to another body, the ECJ, say. But if all Leavers are happy to cede sovereignty to the ECJ then who am I to argue.
Just that one does wonder what all the fuss was about and what it was all for if we are back under the oppressive yoke of the EU.
I wouldn't like to be long prime London property. Oops.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
We don't know what will happen. London before the EU was a rusty crumbling wreck. If the money goes it might go that way again. Equally, London might benefit from cooling down a bit. The people are currently being priced out, which can't be good long term.
London boo
As with down the line.
London's
Many here interpret Brexit as an attack on London, it's international culture and it's dominance of the UK.
Simply 70s is deliciously ridiculous.
How much is London's 'renaissance' a central London thing ? There's no doubt lots of expensive flats, posh restaurants and trendy bars within three miles of Westminster but that's also happened in pretty much every other city centre as well.
From what I've seen it doesn't extend into the middle suburbia of the likes of Ealing and Croydon.
And the Conservatives have pretty much collapsed in many previous strongholds.
Some outer suburban areas have declined, especially in places like Brent. But in general yes, there has been a huge renaissance. Vast areas of the city, especially in the east and south which were impoverished and grim, are now affluent, or at least speedily gentrifying. Docklands has gone from wasteland to Hong Kong, an incredible change. Ditto Borough, Brixton, King's Cross, Islington, Hackney, Wapping, Camden, Bermondsey, Hoxton... even New Cross and Tottenham are getting makeovers.
And Paddington. Went to a meetng with Microsoft last week. First time in Paddington for ages. Lord it's glitzy and developed. I think that the Olympics also had a major effect on London from 2009 onwards. One of the very few games to see a financial result and where we get to enjoy a major tidy up and infrastructure spend largely paid for by visitors.
Re Goldmans and the like, I think it's inevitable that London will lose its status as the only City in European finance. And, long-term, that's probably a positive for the UK economy. It means we'll be less reliant on a few mega-earners, trophy asset prices won't be so inflated, and we'll lose a boom-and-bust sector.
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
It sounds like a recession which will hit London hardest and longest.
Its the recession which should have happened after 2008 but which a trillion pounds of borrowed money was used to stop.
That's a fair assessment.
I'm glad I'm not leveraged long prime London property. Oh wait...
Clearly now is the time to come to Zurich.
I'm possibly heading to LA...
showbiz beckons ?
From a health perspective, I think it might be better to hang out on muscle beach rather than PB...
THE senior STV journalist who was allegedly “gagged” by the SNP has resigned. Digital politics and comment editor Stephen Daisley is to leave his job later this month.
Daisley was a turnip of the highest order, calling him a journalist is like calling Farage a Statesman. He was promoting his politics and hates rather than doing his job. Next you will be lauding policemen for robbing banks.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
No one's going to reduce skilled immigration. Not even TMay. And the best estimates reckon migration will be brought down to 150,000-200,000. Still big big numbers by historical standards.
One way they will do this is by reclassifying unskilled migrants coming for agricultural/hospitality work as "seasonal workers", rather than actual immigrants. Etc etc. These people will get six month work permits and so forth, but not settlement rights and benefits.
There are other ways skilled immigration can reverse: people might choose to go somewhere else.
London, and Cambridge have been magnets for finance and technology. What if other places achieve magnet status?
As Sean_F pointed out, cities that get cut off from their Empire rarely thrive. London was capital of the British Empire and was then the commercial capital of the EU.
London's problem is that it has let itself get cut off from it's immediate hinterland. Not physically - though the RMT give it a go - but ideologically. It's because it thought that the sticks were irrelevant it finds itself facing Brexit. It's a faultline the country still needs to repair.
I think it's brilliant that PB Leavers have now gone from wanting to leave the EU to predicting with satisfaction the demise of the great city of London.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
5HS?
5 Hertford Street.
Where up and coming or already there sales traders go to look at Eastern European hookers.
Re Goldmans and the like, I think it's inevitable that London will lose its status as the only City in European finance. And, long-term, that's probably a positive for the UK economy. It means we'll be less reliant on a few mega-earners, trophy asset prices won't be so inflated, and we'll lose a boom-and-bust sector.
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
It sounds like a recession which will hit London hardest and longest.
Its the recession which should have happened after 2008 but which a trillion pounds of borrowed money was used to stop.
That's a fair assessment.
I'm glad I'm not leveraged long prime London property. Oh wait...
Clearly now is the time to come to Zurich.
I'm possibly heading to LA...
showbiz beckons ?
From a health perspective, I think it might be better to hang out on muscle beach rather than PB...
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
5HS?
5 Hertford Street.
Where up and coming or already there sales traders go to look at Eastern European hookers.
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
5HS?
5 Hertford Street.
Where up and coming or already there sales traders go to look at Eastern European hookers.
As for cities that lose empires necessarily becoming less important, that is rather belied by the incredible success of Singapore and Hong Kong, which thrive as big, free trading English language cities on the periphery of (but not within) vast economic powers.
If Londoners are nimble enough, there will be opportunities aplenty post Brexit, and RCS can stop having a breakdown.
If you think Hong Kong operates outside the PRC you have a woeful understanding of the country you have, so you say, been enthusiastically promoting for the past 10 years.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
No one's going to reduce skilled immigration. Not even TMay. And the best estimates reckon migration will be brought down to 150,000-200,000. Still big big numbers by historical standards.
One way they will do this is by reclassifying unskilled migrants coming for agricultural/hospitality work as "seasonal workers", rather than actual immigrants. Etc etc. These people will get six month work permits and so forth, but not settlement rights and benefits.
There are other ways skilled immigration can reverse: people might choose to go somewhere else.
London, and Cambridge have been magnets for finance and technology. What if other places achieve magnet status?
As Sean_F pointed out, cities that get cut off from their Empire rarely thrive. London was capital of the British Empire and was then the commercial capital of the EU.
London's problem is that it has let itself get cut off from it's immediate hinterland. Not physically - though the RMT give it a go - but ideologically. It's because it thought that the sticks were irrelevant it finds itself facing Brexit. It's a faultline the country still needs to repair.
I think it's brilliant that PB Leavers have now gone from wanting to leave the EU to predicting with satisfaction the demise of the great city of London.
THE senior STV journalist who was allegedly “gagged” by the SNP has resigned. Digital politics and comment editor Stephen Daisley is to leave his job later this month.
If only the BBC would have the guts to hire him - Daisley went after politicians of any stripe - and being in government the SNP more than most. The SNP also had the thinnest skins.....
Heard tonight a friend's daughter is losing her job because her call centre is being relocated to Lisbon following Brexit.
Real jobs, real lives.
Post hoc proctor hoc
I think you missed an 'ergo' in there.
Yesterday, I heard a story (whether true or not is another matter) that Goldman was going to substantially reduce its London footprint. The European back-office was going to Warsaw, sales & trading for the bulk of European clients would go to Frankfurt, and a number of investment banking jobs would be moved back to the US.
I don't know the veracity of the story, although the source is a plausible one.
Sales and trading to Frankfurt???
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
5HS?
5 Hertford Street.
Where up and coming or already there sales traders go to look at Eastern European hookers.
Reminds me a little of an eastern European country (might be Hungary, not sure) which tried regaining independence from the Soviets in the 1950s (maybe 60s, but I think it was 50s).
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
No one's going to reduce skilled immigration. Not even TMay. And the best estimates reckon migration will be brought down to 150,000-200,000. Still big big numbers by historical standards.
One way they will do this is by reclassifying unskilled migrants coming for agricultural/hospitality work as "seasonal workers", rather than actual immigrants. Etc etc. These people will get six month work permits and so forth, but not settlement rights and benefits.
There are other ways skilled immigration can reverse: people might choose to go somewhere else.
London, and Cambridge have been magnets for finance and technology. What if other places achieve magnet status?
As Sean_F pointed out, cities that get cut off from their Empire rarely thrive. London was capital of the British Empire and was then the commercial capital of the EU.
London's problem is that it has let itself get cut off from it's immediate hinterland. Not physically - though the RMT give it a go - but ideologically. It's because it thought that the sticks were irrelevant it finds itself facing Brexit. It's a faultline the country still needs to repair.
I think it's brilliant that PB Leavers have now gone from wanting to leave the EU to predicting with satisfaction the demise of the great city of London.
youre sort of making that up now arent you ?
"London's problem"...."a faultline the country still needs to repair"...
I am, while we're on the subject of London, currently 5,907th in the queue to get tickets for Angels in America at the National. It will be a blessed relief when this faultline is repaired because that I'm sure will mean theatre tickets are easier to get.
Yeah but those people in Goldmans would much rather live in Frankfurt, honest.
@rcs1000 may have a good line on GS, but Frankfurt is unlikely. Amsterdam would have been more believable. A lot of this is going to be lobbying manoeuvres to try and get the government to soften on immigration so the City can keep the passport or have some equivalent status.
The government has no choice but to soften. It's not just the City, it's high-tech too, as wellas pharma, the universities, the health service and so on. Reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands will have a devastating affect on high-skill job recruitment and will do immense damage.
No one's going to reduce skilled immigration. Not even TMay. And the best estimates reckon migration will be brought down to 150,000-200,000. Still big big numbers by historical standards.
One way they will do this is by reclassifying unskilled migrants coming for agricultural/hospitality work as "seasonal workers", rather than actual immigrants. Etc etc. These people will get six month work permits and so forth, but not settlement rights and benefits.
There are other ways skilled immigration can reverse: people might choose to go somewhere else.
London, and Cambridge have been magnets for finance and technology. What if other places achieve magnet status?
As Sean_F pointed out, cities that get cut off from their Empire rarely thrive. London was capital of the British Empire and was then the commercial capital of the EU.
Our Empire is the English language, more than the EU.
You're far too pessimistic about London. I suspect this is because you are heavily invested in London property and you're understandably having an attack of the collywobbles, as it is confirmed we are leaving the Single Market.
Ask yourself equivalence with what and under the jurisdiction of which rule-making body?
It will still be the EU which grants it, rules over it, ensures it remains current (equivalence is only granted at a point in time and governs an existing set of rules rather than a regulatory environment) and, finally, enforces it.
Some control.
ESMA?
I'm really not that fussed, I've said time and again trade is somewhere that compromise is acceptable, even desirable. The EU was and is about much more than trade, which is why I voted to leave and am happy that we are leaving.
ESMA is tasked by the EU to implement its will.
But that's fine, I understand your viewpoing. Now some people, even can you imagine some PB Leavers, were all exercised about sovereignty. It is transparently obvious that whatever situation we reach with financial services that we will give up sovereignty to another body, the ECJ, say. But if all Leavers are happy to cede sovereignty to the ECJ then who am I to argue.
Just that one does wonder what all the fuss was about and what it was all for if we are back under the oppressive yoke of the EU.
Again, trade is an area where we have already ceded sovereignty to the WTO. I'm not particularly bothered about that either.
London will take a hit, and then it will recover. It always does. It's in the DNA of the place.
It was the biggest city north of the Alps in the 2nd century AD.
We don't know what will happen. London before the EU was a rusty crumbling wreck. If the money goes it might go that way again. Equally, London might benefit from cooling down a bit. The people are currently being priced out, which can't be good long term.
London boo
As with down the line.
London's
Many here interpret Brexit as an attack on London, it's international culture and it's dominance of the UK.
Simply 70s is deliciously ridiculous.
How much is London's 'renaissance' a central London thing ? There's no doubt lots of expensive flats, posh restaurants and trendy bars within three miles of Westminster but that's also happened in pretty much every other city centre as well.
From what I've seen it doesn't extend into the middle suburbia of the likes of Ealing and Croydon.
And the Conservatives have pretty much collapsed in many previous strongholds.
Some outer suburban areas have declined, especially in places like Brent. But in general yes, there has been a huge renaissance. Vast areas of the city, especially in the east and south which were impoverished and grim, are now affluent, or at least speedily gentrifying. Docklands has gone from wasteland to Hong Kong, an incredible change. Ditto Borough, Brixton, King's Cross, Islington, Hackney, Wapping, Camden, Bermondsey, Hoxton... even New Cross and Tottenham are getting makeovers.
All those places are in Inner London (perhaps not Tottenham depending on the definition) and all are in strongly Remain boroughs - so pretty much in my 'within three miles of Westminster' suggestion.
If London had been having a true 'renaissance' then the outer suburban areas wouldn't have declined.
What I suggest has happened in London has been a concentration of wealth (financial and cultural) in Inner London. And indeed only in parts of Inner London - I doubt the numerous council estates have had their share of this increased wealth. This concentration of wealth has had a corresponding concentration of inequality. Which is hardly something to be celebrated.
Simply wrong. London's population (the surest measure of a city's success) declined throughout the 1970s and early 80s, and bottomed out in the mid 80s. From the late 80s on it began to rise, just as Thatcher's reforms were kicking in, and it hasn't stopped climbing since.
The idea London enjoyed a "renaissance" in the 70s is deliciously ridiculous.
In the 1970s, the Eurodollar market took off in London, mainly because it was not hampered by the American Glass-Steagall Act (which split domestic from investment banking in the US, and whose repeal is blamed by some for recent financial crises). Mrs Thatcher's 1980s Big Bang led to huge increases in capitalisation as American and other foreign banks bought the old British merchant banks, building societies turned into banks (what could possibly go wrong?) and so on.
Edit: removed screwed up quoting history.
Wasn't it in the1960s, driven by Kennedy's introduction of withholding tax?
Glass-Steagall dated from the 1930s (and was arguably falling apart by the 1970s as Morgan Guarantee developed into JP Morgan
Comments
They'll have to rip the annual membership of 5HS from their cold dead hands.
I wouldn't like to be Philip Hammond;
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/research-publications/Documents/research 2016/total-tax-leaflet.pdf
That's the equivalent of 4 new hospitals every week.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html
Net right - Scotland (Total UK)
Control Immigration: +45 (+62)
Open Border Ireland: +61 (+63)
Out of Single Market: +21 (+36)
Out of Customs Union: +21 (+36)
Mutual guarantee citizens rights: +77 (+71)
Continue Security Cooperation: +80 (+83)
If achieved Deal would respect result of referendum (net): +39 (+49)
My large local branch had its AGM this week - a number of new Corbynista members there, contrary to legend, but all the constituency nominations were made on the basis of competence rather thasn ideology, and agreed unanimously. It's possible to be both left-wing in leadership elections and pragmatic in everyday matters.
The overall tax take is very likely to go down though. It would be sensible to plan for -1 hospital/week, although it could feasibly be -2
* insert descriptor here
Many here interpret Brexit as an attack on London, it's international culture and it's dominance of the UK.
As Bismark is reported to have said 'What a city to sack!'......
Our friends in the EU have a very acrimonious budget process ahead of them, after we've gone. While they may maintain a common front facing us, that will not survive indefinitely....
Where up and coming or already there sales traders go to look at Eastern European hookers.
If bits move it will be a gradual blunting of London's preeminence rather than a collapse.
It looks more like Brexit is being used as cover to save money by hiring Portuguese people for a third less money.
I mean, do you really believe that Jamie Oliver had to close those restaurants because of Brexit? If you do, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
It's insane of course, like a body rejecting the dominance of its beating heart.
Did anyone think this brexit thing through?
Still trying to avoid it by diet and lifestyle though ...
A relative had to have his prostate removed ... ugh.
In 2008, I asked the doctor for a PSA test. But these are now acknowledged to be of little use, so the NHS was right not to automatically test men after 40 or 50. The USA tests all men it seems which helps to explain why they spend 17%.
Mr. T, by that definition, Mexico City is more successful than London. And Shanghai is more successful than Portugal.
What happens to Farringdon?
From what I've seen it doesn't extend into the middle suburbia of the likes of Ealing and Croydon.
And the Conservatives have pretty much collapsed in many previous strongholds.
Our current era started in the turmoil of the 70s.
Ask yourself equivalence with what and under the jurisdiction of which rule-making body?
It will still be the EU which grants it, rules over it, ensures it remains current (equivalence is only granted at a point in time and governs an existing set of rules rather than a regulatory environment) and, finally, enforces it.
Some control.
A seasonal worker arrives and they are classed as an immigrant, when they leave they are classed as an emigrant and so cancel out.
Merely trying to fiddle the numbers will only make people angrier - its the 'voices in the supermarket' that people notice re immigration.
Edit: removed screwed up quoting history.
Surely the East European hookers will be one of the secondary service industries that move to Frankfurt too...
Now this doesn't mean London won't be bigger or more significant than Frankfurt or Paris or Dublin. It just means that more finance will happen in these other places. Other places will reach critical mass.
The biggest near term consequence of this will be that property prices will be pressured - first in London, then the South East, then countrywide. (Again, this is a long term good thing.) Falling UK property prices will reduce the UK wealth effect, and drive up the savings rate.
And this will be the Brexit recession.
A necessary rebalancing of the UK economy. Albeit an incredibly painful one. And one that will likely cause massive recriminations.
I'm really not that fussed, I've said time and again trade is somewhere that compromise is acceptable, even desirable. The EU was and is about much more than trade, which is why I voted to leave and am happy that we are leaving.
But the economic growth was coupled with a decline in life expectancy, which is a quite intriguing phenomenon.
London, and Cambridge have been magnets for finance and technology. What if other places achieve magnet status?
As Sean_F pointed out, cities that get cut off from their Empire rarely thrive. London was capital of the British Empire and was then the commercial capital of the EU.
Its the recession which should have happened after 2008 but which a trillion pounds of borrowed money was used to stop.
I'm glad I'm not leveraged long prime London property. Oh wait...
If you're living in Shanghai at 24, will you get to 65?
London is Labourland, but the south-east (excluding London) is very blue. Storm clouds after (or during) 2020?
*Incidentally @GillTroughton did her Med School in London in the Eighties, so clearly not a country mouse antithetic to the Smoke.
But that's fine, I understand your viewpoing. Now some people, even can you imagine some PB Leavers, were all exercised about sovereignty. It is transparently obvious that whatever situation we reach with financial services that we will give up sovereignty to another body, the ECJ, say. But if all Leavers are happy to cede sovereignty to the ECJ then who am I to argue.
Just that one does wonder what all the fuss was about and what it was all for if we are back under the oppressive yoke of the EU.
I admit the fact that I have a large house with a large mortgage in one of the most overpriced parts of London may be affecting my judgement.
I think that the Olympics also had a major effect on London from 2009 onwards. One of the very few games to see a financial result and where we get to enjoy a major tidy up and infrastructure spend largely paid for by visitors.
Did winning the 2012 olympics make Brexit possible?
By demonstrating that Brtain could actually win something, Blair laid to rest some doubts about what the country could achieve alone.
How long has she been working there?
*ducks and runs for cover*
That's the one deal my Dad regrets most of all - he seriously considered keeping the place.
I am, while we're on the subject of London, currently 5,907th in the queue to get tickets for Angels in America at the National. It will be a blessed relief when this faultline is repaired because that I'm sure will mean theatre tickets are easier to get.
If London had been having a true 'renaissance' then the outer suburban areas wouldn't have declined.
What I suggest has happened in London has been a concentration of wealth (financial and cultural) in Inner London. And indeed only in parts of Inner London - I doubt the numerous council estates have had their share of this increased wealth. This concentration of wealth has had a corresponding concentration of inequality. Which is hardly something to be celebrated.
Glass-Steagall dated from the 1930s (and was arguably falling apart by the 1970s as Morgan Guarantee developed into JP Morgan