Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!
The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.
I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?
As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.
It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.
Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.
So our elected representatives did have power?
Yeah, to implement what the EU told them.
To implement policies they'd helped to craft and signed off on in the Council of Ministers.
MPs sign off on the Council of Minsters decisions before they happen? since when?
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
Just another small example of how Charles is not part of the Establishment elite :-D
I was just trying to impress a very pretty left wing girl I fancied...
The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.
I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?
As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.
It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.
Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.
So our elected representatives did have power?
Yeah, to implement what the EU told them.
To implement policies they'd helped to craft and signed off on in the Council of Ministers.
How is the Council of Ministers any more democratic than Ministers alone?
Especially given our Parliament can sack any of our Ministers directly or indirectly but not the Council which could implement decisions by QMV that we had NOT signed off?
The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.
I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?
As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.
It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.
Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.
So our elected representatives did have power?
Yeah, to implement what the EU told them.
To implement policies they'd helped to craft and signed off on in the Council of Ministers.
MPs sign off on the Council of Minsters decisions before they happen? since when?
Mr. Sandpit, on pace, I agree McLaren are looking good. But I think they had a double DNF last time. Reliability remains shocking.
Unfortunately only a podium market will be available (top 4 would be nice, but can't have everything). Given current odds (Vettel favourite, Hamilton not far behind, and the other four closely clustered) I'd guess 2.5-3.5 will be the podium odds, maybe a little shorter.
It really has got beyond a joke now. I am flicking though Wilson's autobiography. When you look at the talent and administrative abilities of his Cabinet compared to today's pols - it is very startling.
The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.
I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?
As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.
It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.
Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.
So our elected representatives did have power?
Yeah, to implement what the EU told them.
To implement policies they'd helped to craft and signed off on in the Council of Ministers.
How is the Council of Ministers any more democratic than Ministers alone?
Especially given our Parliament can sack any of our Ministers directly or indirectly but not the Council which could implement decisions by QMV that we had NOT signed off?
Yep, on very rare occasions the UK has had to frame legislation implementing majority Council decisions it opposed. What would you say was the most egregious example of this?
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
So it was your idea then?
I agree that such an elegant compromise worked very well with pretty much all concerned.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings
Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)
This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!
Very good news imho.
The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.
The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.
That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.
You don't do it by handing over huge, unchecked power to the executive for a vaguely defined period of time:
It's defined explicitly in the bill, two years from exit day.
It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.
Who defines exit day?
The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.
According to the bill it is a Minister of the Crown by regulation. However, that does not mean they can postpone exit day indefinitely. It is the day on which the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed, i.e. the day on which we formally leave the EU.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!
I think canon law still dictates that it is not allowed.
It really has got beyond a joke now. I am flicking though Wilson's autobiography. When you look at the talent and administrative abilities of his Cabinet compared to today's pols - it is very startling.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Farron should have closed down the discussion by saying that he has his views but doesn’t wish to impose them on others. That he tried to dance around the subject was what did for him, even though some in the media might have pushed him too far.
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
He is opening himself up now to questions as to what he thinks about homosexuals generally now though and their equal rights.
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
He is opening himself up now to questions as to what he thinks about homosexuals generally now though and their equal rights.
Does he think homosexuality is a sin?
According to Catholics and Muslims the act is as distinguished from the person, as is any heterosexual extra marital sex
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
He is opening himself up now to questions as to what he thinks about homosexuals generally now though and their equal rights.
Does he think homosexuality is a sin?
I've no idea and don't really care.
I suspect he believes we are all sinners (including himself)
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
He is opening himself up now to questions as to what he thinks about homosexuals generally now though and their equal rights.
Does he think homosexuality is a sin?
According to Catholics and Muslims the act is as distinguished from the person, as is any heterosexual extra marital sex
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.
Absolutely disagree.
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.
Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
QE had a massive inflationary effect, making it positive at a time when inflation would otherwise have been negative.
It should have done but did it? I think the evidence is mixed at best. Different countries undertook significantly different levels of QE at different times and in no example was there a huge surge in inflation. Are we to believe that all these authorities somewhat magically managed to offset the deflationary forces brought about by the crash? That requires an unbelievable level of competence from people who got into that mess in the first place.
Carney talks about QE having been "neutralised" by the issuing of equivalent government debt at the same time but when this issued debt is held by the BoE who don't get paid any interest I struggle to see how that works. QE made sure that the Banks had enough cash for the ATMs, it made sure that credit did not dry up, it persuaded people that too big to fail really meant that reducing the panic and it does seem to have helped keep deflationary pressures at bay (the ECB was a late comer and the EZ did have deflation before it did). The way it actually affected the real economy and what would have happened without it, however, will keep monetarist economists hard at work for decades yet.
In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.
Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
There has been no inflation because we are in a liquidity trap. Banks hoard cash (because tbf they have been told to) and build up their reserves, hence businesses find it hard to obtain finance, hence don't make investments hence wages grow moderately. Household spending is up because household debt is up.
Not totally correct. All QE does is swap long dated assets for cash - it makes the banks more liquid but does not increase their capital base. In the early part of QE certainly banks sat on reserves, but since then they have been lending at a great rate - unfortunately as usual to homeowners rather than business. The increases in assets prices are still inflation. However, as you say, lending to homeowners is not actually productive - it just creates inflation. If they lent to business it can drive genuine wealth creation. But banks just do what they are incentivised to do - the Government will bail them out if the housing market collapses, so why take the risks of lending to business?
The other part of the problem is that the City is not great at providing primary equity investment, it is much more interested in trading (secondary market). In reality the UK, like most countries, could use the vast amount of pensions money to drive business investment, but almost none of if it invested in business as primary investment, it is just traded. If you check the average pension fund hardly any of it is invested in the productive sectors of the economy.
Seems a reasonable solution so long as the people on the committee are sensible.
I'd suggest that it be an appointed committee of both houses as it is supposed to be practical. Worst outcome would be if it became politicised along Leave/Remain lines
Agreed. The principle would be that anything which significantly changed the law (irrespective of personal liking) would be subject to secondary legislation scrutiny, and anything that didn't (even if MPs didn't like it) would not. The agreed objective would be to make the Repeal Bill reflect current law except where MPs agreed it should not.
The example I quoted is the sort of thing that can arise. In recent years, statements of objectives have become more common in British law, but they are still the exception rather than the rule, since they open the door to Parliamentary challenge or judicial review. Specifically, if a European law currently recklessly disregards animal welfare, it can be challenged under Article 13 of the TFEU (if the explanatory notes look at animal welfare but explain that something else takes precedence, that's OK).
By dropping it, the Government avoids any future challenge of this kind. It's the kind of change which civil servants like (less hassle, less fuss in "giving regard" to animal welfare in the notes), but which is nonetheless a material change in practice. Michael Gove was asked in the last PQs before the recess if it would be included, and he said "Absolutely." However, DEFRA have since said that it is intended to drop it. It would be odd if that went through without debate.
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
He is opening himself up now to questions as to what he thinks about homosexuals generally now though and their equal rights.
Does he think homosexuality is a sin?
According to Catholics and Muslims the act is as distinguished from the person, as is any heterosexual extra marital sex
So, basically yes.
Yes but there are lots of sins beside that from sloth to greed to murder
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
He is opening himself up now to questions as to what he thinks about homosexuals generally now though and their equal rights.
Does he think homosexuality is a sin?
According to Catholics and Muslims the act is as distinguished from the person, as is any heterosexual extra marital sex
So, basically yes.
Yes but there are lots of sins beside that from sloth to greed to murder
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
QE does not cause a direct increase in the money supply - it is not 'printing money' as many people claim. It is the swapping of longer term financial assets for cash - that part has no effect on the money supply. The commercial banks then use this cash as reserves and expand the money supply via the process of fractional reserve banking. The overall effect is to increase the money supply.
The fact is that inflation is very high as a result. What has changed is the definitions - the CPI does NOT measure inflation. However, the press and Government says it does so people think it is true. The CPI in fact measures the amount of money needed to maintain a hypothetical standard of living for a hypothetical individual. As long as you assume (and they do) that this individual can substitute cheaper goods and services if prices rise and that their standard of living is unaffected, actual price inflation can be happily ignored.
If there were any monetarists left, they would remind us that there is no difference between inflation in consumer prices and inflation in asset prices - they are both caused by an increase in the money supply. However, if every tax and policy incentive encourages people to inflate asset prices and not consumer prices, then that is where the inflation created by QE will go. Which is, unfortunately, exactly the problem that caused the GFC.
Not directly related to your post, but....
The thing that gets me about #McStrike.
It's not that I do or don't support it - it's that I think they're picking the wrong target. Productive companies offering unskilled jobs at NMW will always exist. Mcdonalds's business edge comes from stuff like fantastic marketing, automation, location and complex accounting schemes - not from their chefs, cleaners or order-takers. Put the worlds most brilliant all-round worker into a frontline McJob and they're unlikely to be able to add much value. I doubt a single PB poster would be able to negotiate themselves a higher wage for one of those jobs. They will always be as low paid as they can legally can be. The skill is designed out of the job.
The real, but invisible problem #Mcstrikers face is housing costs in the areas around the Mcdonalds where they work. State support for housing for Mcjob'ers has been mostly withdrawn. IIRC, the average rent in the uk is now £700/mo. That's ~100% of a full time 20 year old McJob'ers take home wage.
The QE asset bubble has really screwed NMW workers - it's not at all surprising they're striking - particularly in places like Cambridge & London.
The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.
I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?
As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.
It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.
Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.
So our elected representatives did have power?
Yeah, to implement what the EU told them.
To implement policies they'd helped to craft and signed off on in the Council of Ministers.
How is the Council of Ministers any more democratic than Ministers alone?
Especially given our Parliament can sack any of our Ministers directly or indirectly but not the Council which could implement decisions by QMV that we had NOT signed off?
Yep, on very rare occasions the UK has had to frame legislation implementing majority Council decisions it opposed. What would you say was the most egregious example of this?
I think any example is egregious as a matter of principle.
Our ministers are accountable to us, foreign ministers are not. I don't see how you can be happy with foreign ministers making decisions but not domestic ones.
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
QE does not cause a direct increase in the money supply - it is not 'printing money' as many people claim. It is the swapping of longer term financial assets for cash - that part has no effect on the money supply. The commercial banks then use this cash as reserves and expand the money supply via the process of fractional reserve banking. The overall effect is to increase the money supply.
The fact is that inflation is very high as a result. What has changed is the definitions - the the GFC.
Not directly related to your post, but....
The thing that gets me about #McStrike.
It's not that I do or don't support it - it's that I think they're picking the wrong target. Productive companies offering unskilled jobs at NMW will always exist. Mcdonalds's business edge comes from stuff like fantastic marketing, automation, location and complex accounting schemes - not from their chefs, cleaners or order-takers. Put the worlds most brilliant all-round worker into a frontline McJob and they're unlikely to be able to add much value. I doubt a single PB poster would be able to negotiate themselves a higher wage for one of those jobs. They will always be as low paid as they can legally can be. The skill is designed out of the job.
The real, but invisible problem #Mcstrikers face is housing costs in the areas around the Mcdonalds where they work. State support for housing for Mcjob'ers has been mostly withdrawn. IIRC, the average rent in the uk is now £700/mo. That's ~100% of a full time 20 year old McJob'ers take home wage.
The QE asset bubble has really screwed NMW workers - it's not at all surprising they're striking - particularly in places like Cambridge & London.
Given the minimum wage is now about £16k that is almost £10k more than an annual rent of £700k per month, that rent is also lower if renting with others in a shared house or a flat with a partner
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
He is opening himself up now to questions as to what he thinks about homosexuals generally now though and their equal rights.
Does he think homosexuality is a sin?
According to Catholics and Muslims the act is as distinguished from the person, as is any heterosexual extra marital sex
So, basically yes.
Yes but there are lots of sins beside that from sloth to greed to murder
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
QE does not cause a direct increase in the money supply - it is not 'printing money' as many people claim. It is the swapping of longer term financial assets for cash - that part has no effect on the money supply. The commercial banks then use this cash as reserves and expand the money supply via the process of fractional reserve banking. The overall effect is to increase the money supply.
The fact is that inflation is very high as a result. What has changed is the definitions - the the GFC.
Not directly related to your post, but....
The thing that gets me about #McStrike.
It's not that I do or don't support it - it's that I think they're picking the wrong target. Productive companies offering unskilled jobs at NMW will always exist. Mcdonalds's business edge comes from stuff like fantastic marketing, automation, location and complex accounting schemes - not from their chefs, cleaners or order-takers. Put the worlds most brilliant all-round worker into a frontline McJob and they're unlikely to be able to add much value. I doubt a single PB poster would be able to negotiate themselves a higher wage for one of those jobs. They will always be as low paid as they can legally can be. The skill is designed out of the job.
The real, but invisible problem #Mcstrikers face is housing costs in the areas around the Mcdonalds where they work. State support for housing for Mcjob'ers has been mostly withdrawn. IIRC, the average rent in the uk is now £700/mo. That's ~100% of a full time 20 year old McJob'ers take home wage.
The QE asset bubble has really screwed NMW workers - it's not at all surprising they're striking - particularly in places like Cambridge & London.
Given the minimum wage is now about £16k that is almost £10k more than an annual rent of £700k per month, that rent is also lower if renting with others in a shared house or a flat with a partner
It's £5.60/hr if you're 20.
In my experience, most frontline Mcjobbers are 16-20
There has been no inflation because we are in a liquidity trap. Banks hoard cash (because tbf they have been told to) and build up their reserves, hence businesses find it hard to obtain finance, hence don't make investments hence wages grow moderately. Household spending is up because household debt is up.
Not totally correct. All QE does is swap long dated assets for cash - it makes the banks more liquid but does not increase their capital base. In the early part of QE certainly banks sat on reserves, but since then they have been lending at a great rate - unfortunately as usual to homeowners rather than business. The increases in assets prices are still inflation. However, as you say, lending to homeowners is not actually productive - it just creates inflation. If they lent to business it can drive genuine wealth creation. But banks just do what they are incentivised to do - the Government will bail them out if the housing market collapses, so why take the risks of lending to business?
The other part of the problem is that the City is not great at providing primary equity investment, it is much more interested in trading (secondary market). In reality the UK, like most countries, could use the vast amount of pensions money to drive business investment, but almost none of if it invested in business as primary investment, it is just traded. If you check the average pension fund hardly any of it is invested in the productive sectors of the economy.
Disagree. The long dated assets are held by the BoE and are entirely notional. They won't be paid back and they don't accrue interest. The increase in the value of assets largely reflects very low interest rates and the rates of return available on those assets, not hidden inflation. The search for yield has driven prices higher.
Also the increased Basel capital requirements do mean that Banks have substantially increased their tier I and tier II capital making them more robust. They have not been "lending at a great rate" although there is some evidence (through CC junk mail etc) that this process is largely completed. Basel II certainly had a materially adverse effect on the ability of Banks to lend in the years after the crash.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.
Absolutely disagree.
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
QE does not cause a direct increase in the money supply - it is not 'printing money' as many people claim. It is the swapping of longer term financial assets for cash - that part has no effect on the money supply. The commercial banks then use this cash as reserves and expand the money supply via the process of fractional reserve banking. The overall effect is to increase the money supply.
The fact is that inflation is very high as a result. What has changed is the definitions - the the GFC.
Not directly related to your post, but....
The thing that gets me about #McStrike.
It's not that I do or don't support it - it's that I think they're picking the wrong target. Productive companies offering unskilled jobs at NMW will always exist. Mcdonalds's business edge comes from stuff like fantastic marketing, automation, location and complex accounting schemes - not from their chefs, cleaners or order-takers. Put the worlds most brilliant all-round worker into a frontline McJob and they're unlikely to be able to add much value. I doubt a single PB poster would be able to negotiate themselves a higher wage for one of those jobs. They will always be as low paid as they can legally can be. The skill is designed out of the job.
The real, but invisible problem #Mcstrikers face is housing costs in the areas around the Mcdonalds where they work. State support for housing for Mcjob'ers has been mostly withdrawn. IIRC, the average rent in the uk is now £700/mo. That's ~100% of a full time 20 year old McJob'ers take home wage.
The QE asset bubble has really screwed NMW workers - it's not at all surprising they're striking - particularly in places like Cambridge & London.
Given the minimum wage is now about £16k that is almost £10k more than an annual rent of £700k per month, that rent is also lower if renting with others in a shared house or a flat with a partner
It's £5.60/hr if you're 20.
Most frontline Mcjobbers are 16-20
And how many 20 year olds live on their own rather than sharing accomodation with housemates or parents?
Three 20 year olds working a minimum wage McJob for 40 hours a week would earn ~£35k per annum.
In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.
Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
There has been no inflation because we are in a liquidity trap. Banks hoard cash (because tbf they have been told to) and build up their reserves, hence businesses find it hard to obtain finance, hence don't make investments hence wages grow moderately. Household spending is up because household debt is up.
Not totally correct. All QE does is swap long dated assets for cash - it makes the banks more liquid but does not increase their capital base. In the early part of QE certainly banks sat on reserves, but since then they have been lending at a great rate - unfortunately as usual to homeowners rather than business. The increases in assets prices are still inflation. However, as you say, lending to homeowners is not actually productive - it just creates inflation. If they lent to business it can drive genuine wealth creation. But banks just do what they are incentivised to do - the Government will bail them out if the housing market collapses, so why take the risks of lending to business?
The other part of the problem is that the City is not great at providing primary equity investment, it is much more interested in trading (secondary market). In reality the UK, like most countries, could use the vast amount of pensions money to drive business investment, but almost none of if it invested in business as primary investment, it is just traded. If you check the average pension fund hardly any of it is invested in the productive sectors of the economy.
It is rare that I agree with you, but this is one of those times.
Investing in Bricks and mortar rather than productive business is a core part of the British disease.
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
QE does not cause a direct increase in the money supply - it is not 'printing money' as many people claim. It is the swapping of longer term financial assets for cash - that part has no effect on the money supply. The commercial banks then use this cash as reserves and expand the money supply via the process of fractional reserve banking. The overall effect is to increase the money supply.
The fact is that inflation is very high as a result. What has changed is the definitions - the the GFC.
Not directly related to your post, but....
The thing that gets me about #McStrike.
It's not that I do or don't support it - it's that I think they're picking the wrong target. Productive companies offering unskilled jobs at NMW will always exist. Mcdonalds's business edge comes from stuff like fantastic marketing, automation, location and complex accounting schemes - not from their chefs, cleaners or order-takers. Put the worlds most brilliant all-round worker into a frontline McJob and they're unlikely to be able to add much value. I doubt a single PB poster would be able to negotiate themselves a higher wage for one of those jobs. They will always be as low paid as they can legally can be. The skill is designed out of the job.
The real, but invisible problem #Mcstrikers face is housing costs in the areas around the Mcdonalds where they work. State support for housing for Mcjob'ers has been mostly withdrawn. IIRC, the average rent in the uk is now £700/mo. That's ~100% of a full time 20 year old McJob'ers take home wage.
The QE asset bubble has really screwed NMW workers - it's not at all surprising they're striking - particularly in places like Cambridge & London.
Given the minimum wage is now about £16k that is almost £10k more than an annual rent of £700k per month, that rent is also lower if renting with others in a shared house or a flat with a partner
It's £5.60/hr if you're 20.
In my experience, most frontline Mcjobbers are 16-20
And almost none of them are looking for their own places until perhaps the last year of that range at the earliest. Also bear in mind that legally children are not allowed to leave school until they are 18 unless they are going into a recognised apprenticeship or traineeship.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
QE does not cause a direct increase in the money supply - it is not 'printing money' as many people claim. It is the swapping of longer term financial assets for cash - that part has no effect on the money supply. The commercial banks then use this cash as reserves and expand the money supply via the process of fractional reserve banking. The overall effect is to increase the money supply.
The fact is that inflation is very high as a result. What has changed is the definitions - the the GFC.
Not directly related to your post, but....
The thing that gets me about #McStrike.
It's not that I do or don't support it - it's that I think they're picking the wrong target. Productive companies offering unskilled jobs at NMW will always exist. Mcdonalds's business edge comes from stuff like fantastic marketing, automation, location and complex accounting schemes - not from their chefs, cleaners or order-takers. Put the worlds most brilliant all-round worker into a frontline McJob and they're unlikely to be able to add much value. I doubt a single PB poster would be able to negotiate themselves a higher wage for one of those jobs. They will always be as low paid as they can legally can be. The skill is designed out of the job.
The real, but invisible problem #Mcstrikers face is housing costs in the areas around the Mcdonalds where they work. State support for housing for Mcjob'ers has been mostly withdrawn. IIRC, the average rent in the uk is now £700/mo. That's ~100% of a full time 20 year old McJob'ers take home wage.
The QE asset bubble has really screwed NMW workers - it's not at all surprising they're striking - particularly in places like Cambridge & London.
Given the minimum wage is now about £16k that is almost £10k more than an annual rent of £700k per month, that rent is also lower if renting with others in a shared house or a flat with a partner
It's £5.60/hr if you're 20.
In my experience, most frontline Mcjobbers are 16-20
Most of whom will live at home still then, half of whom will still be at school and the remainder will be house sharing not renting on their own
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.
Absolutely disagree.
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.
In many parts of Europe civil marriage is the only legal form, though commonly there is a religious celebration after the registry office.
One of many ways that we could usefully copy and learn from pur continental fellow europeans.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
I would spoil by ballot. I simply could not vote for someone with those sort of extreme views. That applies equally but in different ways to both JRM and Corbyn.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
Corbyn isn't a bigot.
I beg to differ. He was happy to cheerlead for Sinn Fein, and he forced Sarah Champion to resign for her views on child abuse.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
There has been no infhold spending is up because household debt is up.
Not totally correct. All QE does is swap long dated assets for cash - it makes the banks more liquid but does not increase their capital base. In the early part of QE certainly banks sat on reserves, but since then they have been lending at a great rate - unfortunately as usual to homeowners rather than business. The increases in assets prices are still inflation. However, as you say, lending to homeowners is not actually productive - it just creates inflation. If they lent to business it can drive genuine wealth creation. But banks just do what they are incentivised to do - the Government will bail them out if the housing market collapses, so why take the risks of lending to business?
The other part of the problem is that the City is not great at providing primary equity investment, it is much more interested in trading (secondary market). In reality the UK, like most countries, could use the vast amount of pensions money to drive business investment, but almost none of if it invested in business as primary investment, it is just traded. If you check the average pension fund hardly any of it is invested in the productive sectors of the economy.
I think that is being harsh on the secondary equity markets. There is a trickle down effect for business investment if, say, a FTSE company issues equity for investment purposes (OK the FTSE 100 is not a great example, but for domestic-orientated FTSE 250 constituents).
As for QE, for it to work, there has to be demand. QE in a depressed economy, or one shall we say subdued, at the ZLB, it is, famously, pushing at a piece of string. I don't have latest figures to hand, but googled these for bank reserves which takes us to 2015, looking at the graph.
Apart from brand spanking new range rovers on the never never, aggregate demand is low. Mortgage approvals are running at around half pre-crisis levels but yes, still too high but what can you do...that's the way Brits see their wealth - in home ownership.
Mr. 619, we know Corbyn isn't a bigot. There was a completely objective report into Labour's alleged antisemitism by a woman whom Corbyn shortly thereafter sent to the House of Lords.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
My instinctive reaction is to agree with Richard on this but that is indeed the dilemma.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
My instinctive reaction is to agree with Richard on this but that is indeed the dilemma.
Tell me Tory MPs are not going to put him in the final two.
Our ministers are accountable to us, foreign ministers are not. I don't see how you can be happy with foreign ministers making decisions but not domestic ones.
Gabriel (German Foreign Secretary) or Boris deciding our foreign policy? Hmm.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
My instinctive reaction is to agree with Richard on this but that is indeed the dilemma.
Tell me Tory MPs are not going to put him in the final two.
I sincerely hope not. I can't see it if they are in government. If the Tories found themselves in opposition, however....
Mr. 619, we know Corbyn isn't a bigot. There was a completely objective report into Labour's alleged antisemitism by a woman whom Corbyn shortly thereafter sent to the House of Lords.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
I would spoil by ballot. I simply could not vote for someone with those sort of extreme views. That applies equally but in different ways to both JRM and Corbyn.
Which is why I still think it will be Boris v Corbyn in the end
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
My instinctive reaction is to agree with Richard on this but that is indeed the dilemma.
Tell me Tory MPs are not going to put him in the final two.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
My instinctive reaction is to agree with Richard on this but that is indeed the dilemma.
Tell me Tory MPs are not going to put him in the final two.
Our ministers are accountable to us, foreign ministers are not. I don't see how you can be happy with foreign ministers making decisions but not domestic ones.
Gabriel (German Foreign Secretary) or Boris deciding our foreign policy? Hmm.
One we can kick out, one we can't. What its all about really.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
I disagree. Gay marriage was recognition that gays are equal in our society and don't need some special status. That was and is important.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
I disagree. Gay marriage was recognition that gays are equal in our society and don't need some special status. That was and is important.
You don't disagree, actually. I didn't say it wasn't important, I said other things are more important, when it was bound to be enacted in the next 10 years anyway.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
I disagree. Gay marriage was recognition that gays are equal in our society and don't need some special status. That was and is important.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
I disagree. Gay marriage was recognition that gays are equal in our society and don't need some special status. That was and is important.
You don't disagree, actually. I didn't say it wasn't important, I said other things are more important, when it was bound to be enacted in the next 10 years anyway.
Leaving it to the next non Tory government would have been an abrogation of responsibility and (frankly) a missed opportunity to make good some of the shameful history that the Tory Party had in this area. It was from a party political point of view an important part of the detoxification policy that delivered a majority in 2015 with the backing of a very large number of ex Lib Dems. But much more importantly it was the right thing to do and Cameron should be proud that he did it.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
Without the row over gay marriage, would Cameron have felt obliged to offer the EU referendum?
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
I disagree. Gay marriage was recognition that gays are equal in our society and don't need some special status. That was and is important.
I see that now. My opinions have changed.
I think nearly all our views have changed on this over the last 40 years if we are honest with ourselves. When I started work one of the partners in the firm was in a gay relationship with a local DJ. For reasons that completely escape me now that was a source of almost unending hilarity amongst us junior staff.
"Between 2007 and 2016, annual real wages grew 10.8 per cent in Germany, 9.5 per cent in France and 6.4 per cent on average across the countries of the OECD. In the UK, however, they fell by 2.6 per cent. Of 35 OECD countries, only in Greece, Mexico and Portugal were 2016 earnings even further behind 2007 than in the UK"
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
Without the row over gay marriage, would Cameron have felt obliged to offer the EU referendum?
I used to (devil's advocate) argue against gay marriage at the time because I didn't like the way that anyone who was opposed was labelled a bigot.
Of course, that led me, on occasion, to be labelled a bigot.
The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.
I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?
As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.
It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.
Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.
So our elected representatives did have power?
Yeah, to implement what the EU told them.
To implement policies they'd helped to craft and signed off on in the Council of Ministers.
How is the Council of Ministers any more democratic than Ministers alone?
Especially given our Parliament can sack any of our Ministers directly or indirectly but not the Council which could implement decisions by QMV that we had NOT signed off?
Yep, on very rare occasions the UK has had to frame legislation implementing majority Council decisions it opposed. What would you say was the most egregious example of this?
I think any example is egregious as a matter of principle.
Our ministers are accountable to us, foreign ministers are not. I don't see how you can be happy with foreign ministers making decisions but not domestic ones.
Fair enough - that's where you and I differ. I do not have a problem with pooling sovereignty and on very rare occasions not getting what you want because I strongly believe that overall the benefits of EU membership outweigh that. Sadly, though, not enough people agree with me and we are leaving. That I got over a long time ago,. What I find hard to stomach is just how badly the government is handling the withdrawal process.
"Between 2007 and 2016, annual real wages grew 10.8 per cent in Germany, 9.5 per cent in France and 6.4 per cent on average across the countries of the OECD. In the UK, however, they fell by 2.6 per cent. Of 35 OECD countries, only in Greece, Mexico and Portugal were 2016 earnings even further behind 2007 than in the UK"
Probably not helped by the influx of labour from the EU.
A compromising tape would be embarrassing for Donald Trump in its own right. Its release would beg the question what Russia had previously sought to get for its non-disclosure. And whether it had had any success.
That's the key thing.
Personally, I remain sceptical to the idea that Trump is vulnerable to such stings. The "he can't possibly survive this" bell has been rung dozens of times before.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
Without the row over gay marriage, would Cameron have felt obliged to offer the EU referendum?
Yes, in a word. The one issue is orders of magnitude bigger than the other; the problem being how little it took to tilt euref one way or the other.
Calm down, Mr. Sulphate. It's not like he admires the economics of a country that's imploding, or is friends with people who throw gay people and political rivals from rooftops.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?
I would spoil by ballot. I simply could not vote for someone with those sort of extreme views. That applies equally but in different ways to both JRM and Corbyn.
Which is why I still think it will be Boris v Corbyn in the end
It is a shame. I like JRM far more than Boris as a prospective leader. I think he is a far more genuine and far less self serving than Boris and also appears to be far more thoughtful and less inclined to random acts of idiocy. But like Boris I think he is the wrong person to lead the country and the addition of his staunch religious views make him completely unacceptable in my eyes.
Trump is going nowhere. He has his base and they will forgive him anything. The key to his electoral survival is the ability of Republican state legislatures to prevent Democrat-leaning US citizens from voting. They seem to be pretty good at it.
I still find it amazing that only a handful of US States have anything like our impartial Boundaries Commission. Some of the shenaginans that goes on in the USA with regard to voter registration, polling stations and boundaries are the sort of crap we expect to see in Africa.
And there is the small detail of most States taking at least a week to complete their results, often longer. The whole system is not fit for purpose and embarrasses the US every time there is a reasonably close election.
But I don't think the Kobach Commission is really looking to address that. Their job is to show that Trump really won the popular vote once those not allowed to vote are stripped out. A vanity project.
In the long-term, certainly at Presidential level, the current Republican model is doomed.
There simply aren't enough Gods, Guns and Gays voters out there for them to be regularly competitive in the 2020s and 2030s.
If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.
Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.
Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.
If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.
They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.
Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.
Calm down, Mr. Sulphate. It's not like he admires the economics of a country that's imploding, or is friends with people who throw gay people and political rivals from rooftops.
Well you have to admire the brazen hypocrisy.
On topic if these tapes do exist, if Trump came out and fronted up and admitted it and said it makes no difference to his abilities as president and he certainly wouldn't let himself be blackmailed then I think he'd actually come out ahead.
If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.
Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.
Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.
If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.
They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.
Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.
The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.
I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?
As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.
It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.
Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.
So our elected representatives did have power?
Yeah, to implement what the EU told them.
To implement policies they'd helped to craft and signed off on in the Council of Ministers.
How is the Council of Ministers any more democratic than Ministers alone?
Especially given our Parliament can sack any of our Ministers directly or indirectly but not the Council which could implement decisions by QMV that we had NOT signed off?
Yep, on very rare occasions the UK has had to frame legislation implementing majority Council decisions it opposed. What would you say was the most egregious example of this?
I think any example is egregious as a matter of principle.
Our ministers are accountable to us, foreign ministers are not. I don't see how you can be happy with foreign ministers making decisions but not domestic ones.
Fair enough - that's where you and I differ. I do not have a problem with pooling sovereignty and on very rare occasions not getting what you want because I strongly believe that overall the benefits of EU membership outweigh that. Sadly, though, not enough people agree with me and we are leaving. That I got over a long time ago,. What I find hard to stomach is just how badly the government is handling the withdrawal process.
Any example will do so I can get an idea how important these things are
If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.
Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.
Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.
If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.
They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.
Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.
Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)
It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.
It's all well and good when applying the EU diktats!
(is that a compliment or an insult, btw? )
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
Scrutiny that is largely cosmetic.
If you mean "read it", and "debate it", then, yes. If you mean the ability to substantively amend, change or reject it, then no.
"Between 2007 and 2016, annual real wages grew 10.8 per cent in Germany, 9.5 per cent in France and 6.4 per cent on average across the countries of the OECD. In the UK, however, they fell by 2.6 per cent. Of 35 OECD countries, only in Greece, Mexico and Portugal were 2016 earnings even further behind 2007 than in the UK"
That rather begs the question of whether we were significantly overpaying ourselves in 2007. I think that there is compelling evidence that we were both in the financial services sector and overall as shown in the trade figures. We had the most severely unbalanced economy in the world already with consumption being funded by debt and borrowing.
Unfortunately, a decade on, there is not much improvement. We are still overpaying ourselves. The other countries mentioned (not sure about Mexico) have moved from trade deficit to surplus in that period and we have not. We are still borrowing too much both in the public and the private sector. We have largely avoided the sort of reset that Greece and Portugal have endured maintaining high employment with work subsidies and increasing asset prices but at a serious cost. Our "austerity" has been pretty notional although you wouldn't believe that from the moaning about it.
The Executive Summary seems to want motherhood and apple pie, namely higher wages and more productivity to pay for it. That may be unfair but anyone who thinks resetting the UK economy is going to be easy is deluding themselves. Maggie reset our economy but anyone who lived through those years knows how many casualties there were.
Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)
It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)
It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wrote ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.
I defended Tim Farron's right to express his moral opinions repeatedly, here.
I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Tony Blair was a (Charles I like) secret catholic, and so was IDS. Fallon was religious. Cameron/Theresa May are Christian, the latter probably more than the former.
Comments
Especially given our Parliament can sack any of our Ministers directly or indirectly but not the Council which could implement decisions by QMV that we had NOT signed off?
Unfortunately only a podium market will be available (top 4 would be nice, but can't have everything). Given current odds (Vettel favourite, Hamilton not far behind, and the other four closely clustered) I'd guess 2.5-3.5 will be the podium odds, maybe a little shorter.
"Those arent views shared by the majority of the country now (thankfully).Those views seem generally to be the purview of bigots."
Does that mean ... oh, the horror, that they are now those dreaded populist views?
I'm very relaxed about gay marriage, but surely progressives should now dismiss them because they are populist! Like Brexit?
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
I agree that such an elegant compromise worked very well with pretty much all concerned.
https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/905098253779206144
That's told me then!
Does he think homosexuality is a sin?
I suspect he believes we are all sinners (including himself)
He's a comedy toff version of Farron
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
Carney talks about QE having been "neutralised" by the issuing of equivalent government debt at the same time but when this issued debt is held by the BoE who don't get paid any interest I struggle to see how that works. QE made sure that the Banks had enough cash for the ATMs, it made sure that credit did not dry up, it persuaded people that too big to fail really meant that reducing the panic and it does seem to have helped keep deflationary pressures at bay (the ECB was a late comer and the EZ did have deflation before it did). The way it actually affected the real economy and what would have happened without it, however, will keep monetarist economists hard at work for decades yet.
The other part of the problem is that the City is not great at providing primary equity investment, it is much more interested in trading (secondary market). In reality the UK, like most countries, could use the vast amount of pensions money to drive business investment, but almost none of if it invested in business as primary investment, it is just traded. If you check the average pension fund hardly any of it is invested in the productive sectors of the economy.
The example I quoted is the sort of thing that can arise. In recent years, statements of objectives have become more common in British law, but they are still the exception rather than the rule, since they open the door to Parliamentary challenge or judicial review. Specifically, if a European law currently recklessly disregards animal welfare, it can be challenged under Article 13 of the TFEU (if the explanatory notes look at animal welfare but explain that something else takes precedence, that's OK).
By dropping it, the Government avoids any future challenge of this kind. It's the kind of change which civil servants like (less hassle, less fuss in "giving regard" to animal welfare in the notes), but which is nonetheless a material change in practice. Michael Gove was asked in the last PQs before the recess if it would be included, and he said "Absolutely." However, DEFRA have since said that it is intended to drop it. It would be odd if that went through without debate.
The thing that gets me about #McStrike.
It's not that I do or don't support it - it's that I think they're picking the wrong target. Productive companies offering unskilled jobs at NMW will always exist. Mcdonalds's business edge comes from stuff like fantastic marketing, automation, location and complex accounting schemes - not from their chefs, cleaners or order-takers. Put the worlds most brilliant all-round worker into a frontline McJob and they're unlikely to be able to add much value. I doubt a single PB poster would be able to negotiate themselves a higher wage for one of those jobs. They will always be as low paid as they can legally can be. The skill is designed out of the job.
The real, but invisible problem #Mcstrikers face is housing costs in the areas around the Mcdonalds where they work. State support for housing for Mcjob'ers has been mostly withdrawn. IIRC, the average rent in the uk is now £700/mo. That's ~100% of a full time 20 year old McJob'ers take home wage.
The QE asset bubble has really screwed NMW workers - it's not at all surprising they're striking - particularly in places like Cambridge & London.
Our ministers are accountable to us, foreign ministers are not. I don't see how you can be happy with foreign ministers making decisions but not domestic ones.
In my experience, most frontline Mcjobbers are 16-20
Also the increased Basel capital requirements do mean that Banks have substantially increased their tier I and tier II capital making them more robust. They have not been "lending at a great rate" although there is some evidence (through CC junk mail etc) that this process is largely completed. Basel II certainly had a materially adverse effect on the ability of Banks to lend in the years after the crash.
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
Three 20 year olds working a minimum wage McJob for 40 hours a week would earn ~£35k per annum.
Investing in Bricks and mortar rather than productive business is a core part of the British disease.
One of many ways that we could usefully copy and learn from pur continental fellow europeans.
As for QE, for it to work, there has to be demand. QE in a depressed economy, or one shall we say subdued, at the ZLB, it is, famously, pushing at a piece of string. I don't have latest figures to hand, but googled these for bank reserves which takes us to 2015, looking at the graph.
Apart from brand spanking new range rovers on the never never, aggregate demand is low. Mortgage approvals are running at around half pre-crisis levels but yes, still too high but what can you do...that's the way Brits see their wealth - in home ownership.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Who'd have thunk it?
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
p15 https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-09/cej-interim-report.pdf
"Between 2007 and 2016, annual real wages grew 10.8 per cent in Germany, 9.5 per cent in France and 6.4 per cent on average across the countries of the OECD. In the UK, however, they fell by 2.6 per cent. Of 35 OECD countries, only in Greece, Mexico and Portugal were 2016 earnings even further behind 2007 than in the UK"
Of course, that led me, on occasion, to be labelled a bigot.
Personally, I remain sceptical to the idea that Trump is vulnerable to such stings. The "he can't possibly survive this" bell has been rung dozens of times before.
Corbyn supported the IRA as they were blowing us up and that isn't important apparently.
Also I'm sure Khan isn't exactly in favour of gay marriage, but these questions only apply to Christians for some reason.
There simply aren't enough Gods, Guns and Gays voters out there for them to be regularly competitive in the 2020s and 2030s.
On topic if these tapes do exist, if Trump came out and fronted up and admitted it and said it makes no difference to his abilities as president and he certainly wouldn't let himself be blackmailed then I think he'd actually come out ahead.
If you mean "read it", and "debate it", then, yes. If you mean the ability to substantively amend, change or reject it, then no.
His personal views shouldn't stop JRM winning GQ's politician of the year either should it ?
Unfortunately, a decade on, there is not much improvement. We are still overpaying ourselves. The other countries mentioned (not sure about Mexico) have moved from trade deficit to surplus in that period and we have not. We are still borrowing too much both in the public and the private sector. We have largely avoided the sort of reset that Greece and Portugal have endured maintaining high employment with work subsidies and increasing asset prices but at a serious cost. Our "austerity" has been pretty notional although you wouldn't believe that from the moaning about it.
The Executive Summary seems to want motherhood and apple pie, namely higher wages and more productivity to pay for it. That may be unfair but anyone who thinks resetting the UK economy is going to be easy is deluding themselves. Maggie reset our economy but anyone who lived through those years knows how many casualties there were.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638
"The EU's top court has rejected a challenge by eastern European countries to a migrant relocation deal drawn up at the peak of the crisis in 2015.
The European Court of Justice overruled Hungary and Slovakia's objections to the compulsory fixed-quota scheme"
"The court's ruling is final and cannot be appealed."
And Southam is worried about Westminster having too much power...
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11878/sadiq_khan/tooting/divisions?policy=826
Tony Blair was a (Charles I like) secret catholic, and so was IDS. Fallon was religious. Cameron/Theresa May are Christian, the latter probably more than the former.
Doesn't bother me.