One insider I spoke to yesterday said Labour was bankrupt, and it was only a matter of time before the creditors came knocking. A party official told me the funding crisis had become so great managers had expressed the hope that the Co-op bank – which has extended millions in loans to Labour – would go bust, so their debts could be written off.
But I'm sorely disappointed. I eagerly clicked on link number 11 - hoping in my naivety to discover in what way 'Scottish politics is fun again' - only to be directed to yet another 'Ed is crap' article.
A sign that things are not going well, is Ed Miliband now too weak to even carry out a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle? Twitter Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 10m Lab party says reshuffle not tonight. Wonder if the consultation with some Shad ministers underlines EdM's commitment to Cabinet govt...?
Tim Walker @ThatTimWalker 5m A hot, sweaty night for some: #Labour re-shuffle now under way, I hear. Will @Ed_Miliband do as Len McCluskey tells & sack the Blairites?
Going to be interesting to see if this Shadow Cabinet Reshuffle shores up Ed Miliband's Leadership, or if it ends up weakening him yet further in the run up to the Labour Conference. Twitter Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 3m Sources at Westminster say Labour's reshuffle is underway tonight, with Shad ministers being consulted about their teams. Full deets trmw?
But I'm sorely disappointed. I eagerly clicked on link number 11 - hoping in my naivety to discover in what way 'Scottish politics is fun again' - only to be directed to yet another 'Ed is crap' article.
Richard, oops, I've updated the link.
But you can view the fun Scottish politics link here as well
I generally distrust woolly "goodness of their heart" explanations. Bargaining power seems far more likely to be decisive. Union membership in the USA has declined dramatically, and (see graph in last post) that's something that has been going on for decades.
Decline of heavy industry might also play a role - that's a sector in which unions had more power, in the sense that it's easier to shut down a factory than to shut down an office. And given the skills and training of industrial workers, it may be more appealing for an employer to pay "efficiency wages" to reduce staff turnover.
Also I'd suggest having a look at migration statistics. There was a period of US history with quite strict immigration policy - now something which applies more in paper than in practice. In the lower rungs of unskilled work, there's undoubtedly a downwards pressure on wages.
One insider I spoke to yesterday said Labour was bankrupt, and it was only a matter of time before the creditors came knocking. A party official told me the funding crisis had become so great managers had expressed the hope that the Co-op bank – which has extended millions in loans to Labour – would go bust, so their debts could be written off.
"One union insider said: “It is not just the donations, unions have regularly been topping these up with considerable sums almost matching the amount given, but Unite and GMB have stopped these to concentrate on their own campaigns and political education. Labour could lose in the region of £9million.”
I've often wondered about this in central London. It certainly does do something in most places.
A few months ago my four-year-old told me about the spinny thing on the bottom for blind people. I've used the damn things for decades and had no clue it was even there. I was irrationally delighted to find out...
The interesting question is not so much why average wages have been crap in America since the 1970s, but why they weren't crap in the 1950s and 1960s...
Maybe it was because there was a sense of solidarity arising out of the war experience, with bosses prepared to give decent wages to employees because of those memories of working together in 1939-45.
Surely more to do with supply and demand, as it was elsewhere. The world and a strong domestic market wanted American goods, companies had to compete with each other to get the people to provide them. Wages rose across the then developed world, mass immigration began in Europe, unemployment was very low, mechanisation was in its infancy. All in all a good time to be an employee.
Mr. Tyndall, and yet had we not a genocide was certain.
It's a great shame Libya appears to be descending into chaos, but that does not make intervention in that instance wrong.
It is just one of a whole number of reasons why intervention is this instance is wrong. It is proof yet again that we are perfectly capable of dropping a few bombs on people but, even after the debacle of Iraq, are incapable of thinking through the consequences of our action and how to rebuild a country afterwards. If anything Syria will be worse than Libya as we already know the extremists are well established in the Opposition.
I think George Santayana said all we need to know about how the West has handled the successive interventions in the Middle East.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
It is not our job to rebuild countries after revolutions. We can assist peoples to overthrow their oppressors and support their rebuilding but in the final analysis they have to learn how to live together. And take a look at the many former colonies who, given all the opportunities and support after independence, are still fighting each other or wallowing in corruption, depriving the majority of their citizens of a decent life.
A sign that things are not going well, is Ed Miliband now too weak to even carry out a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle? Twitter Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 10m Lab party says reshuffle not tonight. Wonder if the consultation with some Shad ministers underlines EdM's commitment to Cabinet govt...?
Tim Walker @ThatTimWalker 5m A hot, sweaty night for some: #Labour re-shuffle now under way, I hear. Will @Ed_Miliband do as Len McCluskey tells & sack the Blairites?
Going to be interesting to see if this Shadow Cabinet Reshuffle shores up Ed Miliband's Leadership, or if it ends up weakening him yet further in the run up to the Labour Conference. Twitter Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 3m Sources at Westminster say Labour's reshuffle is underway tonight, with Shad ministers being consulted about their teams. Full deets trmw?
Or the tweets you are posting are ill informed, what do you think?
Be patient, tim. Ed may get it done by Christmas. What more could you want?
Wage growth in the last year. Accounted for by Osbornes gift to top rate taxpayers delaying bonuses
"total monthly pay had been broadly flat from April 2012 until March 2013 and then increased by 4.1% during April, before moderating in May and June. The increase in April 2013 can mainly be attributed to higher bonus payments."
Who is going to blink first? There does appear to be quite an organised and concerted effort to undermine Ed Miliband in the run up to the Labour party Conference, his own Shadow Cabinet doing sterling job neutering any signs that Ed Miliband is more than a Leader in name only.
One insider I spoke to yesterday said Labour was bankrupt, and it was only a matter of time before the creditors came knocking. A party official told me the funding crisis had become so great managers had expressed the hope that the Co-op bank – which has extended millions in loans to Labour – would go bust, so their debts could be written off.
"One union insider said: “It is not just the donations, unions have regularly been topping these up with considerable sums almost matching the amount given, but Unite and GMB have stopped these to concentrate on their own campaigns and political education. Labour could lose in the region of £9million.”
David Aaronovitch in the Times has down a Syria/Ed is crap piece, and concludes with
And though you can just about see how in a bad year Ed Miliband could become prime minister, what I cannot any longer pretend, after three years of his leadership, is that he would be a good one. On the contrary. I think he would be a disaster.
Ahem.
Well, quite.
From Labour's point of view, of course, it hardly matters that he'd be a disaster (this is after all the party that gave us Gordon Brown). But I'm surprised that they don't quite seem yet to have cottoned on to how unpopular he'd rapidly become.
Surely more to do with supply and demand, as it was elsewhere. The world and a strong domestic market wanted American goods, companies had to compete with each other to get the people to provide them. Wages rose across the then developed world, mass immigration began in Europe, unemployment was very low, mechanisation was in its infancy. All in all a good time to be an employee.
The biggest migration in Europe was not the mass immigration from overseas, but the migration from the fields to the cities. Even in 1950, most European countries had 20-40% of the working population employed in agriculture - in Britain it was 5%, but that's because we'd had the agricultural and industrial revolutions earlier. By 1970 these proportions had dropped massively. The ability of European industries to absorb surplus agricultural labour during the "Golden Age" was extraordinary.
"Mechanisation was in its infancy" in the 1950s? I know what you mean SO, but I think a lot of people would take issue with that. It's not like there were no labour-saving devices about by then, and everything was handcrafted by artisans.
Something I wrote somewhere else before, in case anybody is interested:
In 1950 the agricultural employment share was 32.3% in Austria, 25.1% in Denmark, 46.0% in Finland, 31.5% in France, 48.2% in Greece, 39.6% in Ireland, 42.2% in Italy, 25.9% in Norway, 48.5% in Portugal and 48.4% in Spain. Some of the better-off, more industrialised, countries had lower shares, with 5.3% in the UK, 12.2% Belgium, 17.8% Netherlands, and 23.2% (still high enough to surprise me) in Germany.
By 1970 these numbers were well down: 13.0% (-19.3% points) in Austria, 9.6% (-15.5%) in Denmark, 16.3% (-29.7%!!) in Finland, 10.6% (-20.9%) in France, 36% (-12.2%) in Greece, 22.8% (-16.8%) in Ireland, 17.5% (-24.7%!!) in Italy, 10.6% (-15.3%) in Norway, 34.9% (-13.6%) in Portugal and 23.2% (-25.2%!!) in Spain. In the countries with less room for improvement, there was still movement of labour out of the agricultural sector: down to 2.8% (-2.5%) in the UK, 3.8% (-8.4%) Belgium, 5.7% (-12.1%) Netherlands, and 7.0% (-16.2%) (still a pretty hefty change) in Germany.
Wage growth in the last year. Accounted for by Osbornes gift to top rate taxpayers delaying bonuses
"total monthly pay had been broadly flat from April 2012 until March 2013 and then increased by 4.1% during April, before moderating in May and June. The increase in April 2013 can mainly be attributed to higher bonus payments."
Mow there's a surprise!! Didn't we discuss this on here a few weeks back?
We did, but I'm not sure the PB Chancellor fans expected such a large chunk of pay growth to be accounted for by Osbornes gift to the wealthiest in delayed bonuses. Never mind remember the PB Tory mantra "50% marginal rates bad, 70% marginal rates good"
The interesting question is not so much why average wages have been crap in America since the 1970s, but why they weren't crap in the 1950s and 1960s...
Maybe it was because there was a sense of solidarity arising out of the war experience, with bosses prepared to give decent wages to employees because of those memories of working together in 1939-45.
I don't know if this is relevant to this question, but it's a nice anecdote anyway - My Economics teacher at school had been in the Australian navy during WWII. One day, shortly after the war had ended, his ship passed a Pacific island, with rows and rows of US military logistical vehicles (bulldozers, jeeps etc) just left there to rot. On enquiring why they were not being put to use, he was told that it would be better for the factory workers back in the USA to build new ones. Another one of his anecdotes I remember - he explained the decline of the British shipbuilding industry by pointing out that at its peak it employed about 100,000 people, of whom only 40 had been to university.
The interesting question is not so much why average wages have been crap in America since the 1970s, but why they weren't crap in the 1950s and 1960s...
Maybe it was because there was a sense of solidarity arising out of the war experience, with bosses prepared to give decent wages to employees because of those memories of working together in 1939-45.
The reason for wage stagnation in the West is partly, and maybe primarily these days, Globalisation. A Chinaman or an Indian fella can make a solar panel or a plastic toy or a smartphone for $20 a day rather than $200. So, of course, low skilled wages in the West are going to stagnate as the 3rd world catches up.
Any company that tried to increase low-skilled wages in the West would go bust overnight, in the face of this competition. Unless we abolish free trade, which would eventually impoverish us all.
What is interesting is that people higher and higher up the food chain, in the west, are now being affected by Globalisation. The lower middle classes are now suffering, the middle middles will be next. Then....
I live in fear of the moment that someone works out you can get a smart Indonesian - or a computer - to write a thriller, or a stupidly provocative blog, using an established formula, for $5 an hour.
No politician can stop this.
But politicians are going to have to find solutions to deal with its consequences. A society in which most people see living standards stagnate or even fall is not sustainable. Strikes over pay and conditions - some very violent - are becoming much more frequent in China, even. People there, especially in the coastal cities, are beginning to have expectations.
Surely more to do with supply and demand, as it was elsewhere. The world and a strong domestic market wanted American goods, companies had to compete with each other to get the people to provide them. Wages rose across the then developed world, mass immigration began in Europe, unemployment was very low, mechanisation was in its infancy. All in all a good time to be an employee.
The biggest migration in Europe was not the mass immigration from overseas, but the migration from the fields to the cities. Even in 1950, most European countries had 20-40% of the working population employed in agriculture - in Britain it was 5%, but that's because we'd had the agricultural and industrial revolutions earlier. By 1970 these proportions had dropped massively. The ability of European industries to absorb surplus agricultural labour during the "Golden Age" was extraordinary.
"Mechanisation was in its infancy" in the 1950s? I know what you mean SO, but I think a lot of people would take issue with that. It's not like there were no labour-saving devices about by then, and everything was handcrafted by artisans.
Something I wrote somewhere else before, in case anybody is interested:
In 1950 the agricultural employment share was 32.3% in Austria, 25.1% in Denmark, 46.0% in Finland, 31.5% in France, 48.2% in Greece, 39.6% in Ireland, 42.2% in Italy, 25.9% in Norway, 48.5% in Portugal and 48.4% in Spain. Some of the better-off, more industrialised, countries had lower shares, with 5.3% in the UK, 12.2% Belgium, 17.8% Netherlands, and 23.2% (still high enough to surprise me) in Germany.
By 1970 these numbers were well down: 13.0% (-19.3% points) in Austria, 9.6% (-15.5%) in Denmark, 16.3% (-29.7%!!) in Finland, 10.6% (-20.9%) in France, 36% (-12.2%) in Greece, 22.8% (-16.8%) in Ireland, 17.5% (-24.7%!!) in Italy, 10.6% (-15.3%) in Norway, 34.9% (-13.6%) in Portugal and 23.2% (-25.2%!!) in Spain. In the countries with less room for improvement, there was still movement of labour out of the agricultural sector: down to 2.8% (-2.5%) in the UK, 3.8% (-8.4%) Belgium, 5.7% (-12.1%) Netherlands, and 7.0% (-16.2%) (still a pretty hefty change) in Germany.
All true, but also look at cross-border immigration - from southern to northern Europe; from Turkey to Germany; from the new Commonwealth and Ireland to the UK. Factories, shipyards, steel mills, mines and so on still relied heavily on bodies on the ground. And the stuff was only being produced in North America and Western Europe.
David Aaronovitch in the Times has down a Syria/Ed is crap piece, and concludes with
And though you can just about see how in a bad year Ed Miliband could become prime minister, what I cannot any longer pretend, after three years of his leadership, is that he would be a good one. On the contrary. I think he would be a disaster.
Ahem.
Well, quite.
From Labour's point of view, of course, it hardly matters that he'd be a disaster (this is after all the party that gave us Gordon Brown). But I'm surprised that they don't quite seem yet to have cottoned on to how unpopular he'd rapidly become.
David "WMD" Aaronovitch is (obviously) right that Ed is a fairly bad choice as leader - it always amazes me how much my mum and my English babymother (two very different people, with different centrist/soft left politics) express personal hatred for Miliband. Like they met him and he personally insulted them. Which he didn't.
Miliband is uniquely non-persuasive on TV and singularly charmless in speech, despite the fact that he is, apparently, in person, rather personable.
But if Ed was elected? - I am unconvinced that he would necessarily be a calamitous PM. He would, for example, I am sure, avoid actual disasters like Iraq, out of caution and timidity. Instead he'd just be pragmatic, devious and boring: he would preside over gentle British decline in a Wilsonian way.
He would be very deeply mediocre - but probably no worse.
Mr. Tyndall, and yet had we not a genocide was certain.
It's a great shame Libya appears to be descending into chaos, but that does not make intervention in that instance wrong.
It is just one of a whole number of reasons why intervention is this instance is wrong. It is proof yet again that we are perfectly capable of dropping a few bombs on people but, even after the debacle of Iraq, are incapable of thinking through the consequences of our action and how to rebuild a country afterwards. If anything Syria will be worse than Libya as we already know the extremists are well established in the Opposition.
I think George Santayana said all we need to know about how the West has handled the successive interventions in the Middle East.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
It is not our job to rebuild countries after revolutions. We can assist peoples to overthrow their oppressors and support their rebuilding but in the final analysis they have to learn how to live together. And take a look at the many former colonies who, given all the opportunities and support after independence, are still fighting each other or wallowing in corruption, depriving the majority of their citizens of a decent life.
It is our job - or at least the job of our Government - to ensure we do not take action which makes those countries a greater threat to our security in the post revolutionary phase.
On a secondary basis it should also be the job of our government to ensure that whatever action we do take does not make the situation worse in those countries than it already is.
After all, why bother overthrowing oppressors if what you replace them with is no better. Kind of makes us killing all those innocent civilians in pursuit of our moral crusade rather pointless.
But if Ed was elected? - I am unconvinced that he would necessarily be a calamitous PM. He would, for example, I am sure, avoid actual disasters like Iraq, out of caution and timidity. Instead he'd just be pragmatic, devious and boring: he would preside over gentle British decline in a Wilsonian way.
He would be very deeply mediocre - but probably no worse.
Ah, now there we disagree. You see, the thing about Ed Miliband is his burning self-belief. Granted, he's devious and boring - potentially good qualities in a PM, as you imply - but I don't think he's pragmatic at all. He likes shaking things up, largely at random, and usually in a panic (see Funding, Labour, Unions' part in or Relationship, Special, 1940-2013 for more details). He's also given so many hostages to fortune that there's a shortage of rope left to tie them up.
The UNSC is the default but not the exclusive means of legitimising the response of the international community to a breach of international norms. In particular the UN "Responsibility to Protect" initiative confers a responsibility on the international community to intervene when a state fails in its own responsibilities to its citizens:
1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.
3. If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
The UN and its members are not decided on whether "the responsibility to intervene" can only arise from a UNSC resolution.
You are barking up the wrong tree once again on this issue Avery. The "responsibility to protect" doctrine arises from [138] and [139] of the 2005 World Summit Outcome (p. 31). That makes clear that military action pursuant to "R2P" cannot be invoked save under Chapter VII of the Charter. As such, R2P is no more than a guide to how the Security Council should use its powers, as opposed to a method of bypassing the Council. In any event, R2P cannot amend the UN Charter (save in accordance with that Charter or with the agreement of all the States Parties thereto) and is null and void to the extent to which it conflicts with the Charter.
Ed Miliband isn't scary to the public like some Labour leaders were, such as Foot and Kinnock. Someone who sits in the Test Match Special commentary box at tea time with Geoff Boycott and David Cameron doesn't exactly come across as a revolutionary.
Every now and again it does hit me - again - what an astonishingly bad choice for Labour leader EdM was. If Dave fails to see him off having failed to see off Brown that would be quite some achievement.
The interesting question is not so much why average wages have been crap in America since the 1970s, but why they weren't crap in the 1950s and 1960s...
Maybe it was because there was a sense of solidarity arising out of the war experience, with bosses prepared to give decent wages to employees because of those memories of working together in 1939-45.
The reason for wage stagnation in the West is partly, and maybe primarily these days, Globalisation. A Chinaman or an Indian fella can make a solar panel or a plastic toy or a smartphone for $20 a day rather than $200. So, of course, low skilled wages in the West are going to stagnate as the 3rd world catches up.
Any company that tried to increase low-skilled wages in the West would go bust overnight, in the face of this competition. Unless we abolish free trade, which would eventually impoverish us all.
What is interesting is that people higher and higher up the food chain, in the west, are now being affected by Globalisation. The lower middle classes are now suffering, the middle middles will be next. Then....
I live in fear of the moment that someone works out you can get a smart Indonesian - or a computer - to write a thriller, or a stupidly provocative blog, using an established formula, for $5 an hour.
No politician can stop this.
But politicians are going to have to find solutions to deal with its consequences. A society in which most people see living standards stagnate or even fall is not sustainable. Strikes over pay and conditions - some very violent - are becoming much more frequent in China, even. People there, especially in the coastal cities, are beginning to have expectations.
Who gives a F about "people's expectations"? Economics follows logic, it is Darwinian. Politicians can suspend reality for so long with money printing and deficit spending, but then this all collapses.
Relatively uneducated western (and Chinese coastal) people doing low-medium skilled jobs face a future of stagnant incomes for 20 years, as the BILLIONS of people on a dollar a day learn how to screw a nut in factories.
If you have an IQ under 100 in the West (and that is, by definition, half of society) you are f*cked if you expect a better lifestyle for you or even your kids. The only hope for these low-watt people, the bulk of Labour voters, is the glut of cheap energy from shales boosting EVERYONE'S income and making plasma screen TVs cheaper.
Every now and again it does hit me - again - what an astonishingly bad choice for Labour leader EdM was. If Dave fails to see him off having failed to see off Brown that would be quite some achievement.
Can you and others save your Ed is crap thoughts until the morning.
The interesting question is not so much why average wages have been crap in America since the 1970s, but why they weren't crap in the 1950s and 1960s...
Maybe it was because there was a sense of solidarity arising out of the war experience, with bosses prepared to give decent wages to employees because of those memories of working together in 1939-45.
The reason for wage stagnation in the West is partly, and maybe primarily these days, Globalisation. A Chinaman or an Indian fella can make a solar panel or a plastic toy or a smartphone for $20 a day rather than $200. So, of course, low skilled wages in the West are going to stagnate as the 3rd world catches up.
Any company that tried to increase low-skilled wages in the West would go bust overnight, in the face of this competition. Unless we abolish free trade, which would eventually impoverish us all.
What is interesting is that people higher and higher up the food chain, in the west, are now being affected by Globalisation. The lower middle classes are now suffering, the middle middles will be next. Then....
I live in fear of the moment that someone works out you can get a smart Indonesian - or a computer - to write a thriller, or a stupidly provocative blog, using an established formula, for $5 an hour.
No politician can stop this.
But politicians are going to have to find solutions to deal with its consequences. A society in which most people see living standards stagnate or even fall is not sustainable. Strikes over pay and conditions - some very violent - are becoming much more frequent in China, even. People there, especially in the coastal cities, are beginning to have expectations.
Who gives a F about "people's expectations"? Economics follows logic, it is Darwinian. Politicians can suspend reality for so long with money printing and deficit spending, but then this all collapses.
Relatively uneducated western (and Chinese coastal) people doing low-medium skilled jobs face a future of stagnant incomes for 20 years, as the BILLIONS of people on a dollar a day learn how to screw a nut in factories.
If you have an IQ under 100 in the West (and that is, by definition, half of society) you are f*cked if you expect a better lifestyle for you or even your kids. The only hope for these low-watt people, the bulk of Labour voters, is the glut of cheap energy from shales boosting EVERYONE'S income and making plasma screen TVs cheaper.
Governments govern by the consent of the people. I'm afraid there's very little that can be done about that in a democracy. Obviously totalitarian regimes have more levers to work with, but even then they crumble in the end if they cannot deliver. It's all very well not giving a fuck, but eventually those who don't will drag us all down with them, unless the situation is managed.
But politicians are going to have to find solutions to deal with its consequences. A society in which most people see living standards stagnate or even fall is not sustainable. Strikes over pay and conditions - some very violent - are becoming much more frequent in China, even. People there, especially in the coastal cities, are beginning to have expectations.
SeanT's point is very strong, particularly for those goods - and increasingly, services - which can be exported easily. It's been a long time since the industrial work going overseas was just basic assembly and not the more sophisticated production of components, for instance. Having said that, a lot of "industrial decline" has been to do with increased efficiency and not just work being shipped abroad.
And not all work can be shifted overseas. Yet there are still a lot of very low-paid jobs in retail, in care work, in agriculture, in services like cleaning... which is an issue with space for political intervention. It is true that in many ways capital has doing rather better than labour lately (I think you and AndyJS might like to read http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/12/inequality-power-vs-human-capital.html - think this is one of the best things Chris Dillow has said on the matter, and surprisingly moderate for an avowed Marxist) and that's something that would require a political solution because it's to do with power structures as much as anything else.
Clearly globalization doesn't have to destroy living standards - it provides us with access to otherwise unaffordable access to goods and services after all - and the fact some people have got to do "crappy" jobs (in some sense, jobs with low productivity) doesn't mean they should be doomed to have rubbish wages too (Paul Krugman reckons that it's the average productivity of workers across the economy that matters for wage-setting). Within the context of the tax and benefit system, there are certainly things that can be done to help the low-paid.
But politicians are going to have to find solutions to deal with its consequences. A society in which most people see living standards stagnate or even fall is not sustainable. Strikes over pay and conditions - some very violent - are becoming much more frequent in China, even. People there, especially in the coastal cities, are beginning to have expectations.
SeanT's point is very strong, particularly for those goods - and increasingly, services - which can be exported easily. It's been a long time since the industrial work going overseas was just basic assembly and not the more sophisticated production of components, for instance. Having said that, a lot of "industrial decline" has been to do with increased efficiency and not just work being shipped abroad.
And not all work can be shifted overseas. Yet there are still a lot of very low-paid jobs in retail, in care work, in agriculture, in services like cleaning... which is an issue with space for political intervention. It is true that in many ways capital has doing rather better than labour lately (I think you and AndyJS might like to read http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/12/inequality-power-vs-human-capital.html - think this is one of the best things Chris Dillow has said on the matter, and surprisingly moderate for an avowed Marxist) and that's something that would require a political solution because it's to do with power structures as much as anything else.
Clearly globalization doesn't have to destroy living standards - it provides us with access to otherwise unaffordable access to goods and services after all - and the fact some people have got to do "crappy" jobs (in some sense, jobs with low productivity) doesn't mean they should be doomed to have rubbish wages too (Paul Krugman reckons that it's the average productivity of workers across the economy that matters for wage-setting). Within the context of the tax and benefit system, there are certainly things that can be done to help the low-paid.
Precisely. As a top rate taxpayer I believe a level of redistribution is not only just, but also very much in my own self interest. This is an immensely rich country, made so by the sweat and hard work of tens of millions of people. Living standards should reflect that. If they don't at some stage there will be trouble.
Tonight's nighthawks was written and published at the cinema, between films, so I couldn't give it my usual attention.
FYI - Riddick is so disappointing.
Really? I'm a fan of the first two films.
Yeah, and I too liked the first two films.
Even if the second film had the amusingly named Mindbenders
I thought they were Necromongers?
They were and mindbenders too
I watched Chronicles last week and can't remember them being referred to as Mindbenders.
Judi Dench as Aereon: They are an army unlike any other... crusading across the stars toward a place called UnderVerse, their promised land - a constellation of dark new worlds. Necromongers, they're called. And if they cannot convert you, they will kill you. Leading them, the Lord Marshal. He alone has made a pilgrimage to the gates of the UnderVerse... and returned a different being. Stronger. Stranger. Half alive and half... something else. If we are to survive, a new balance must be found. In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil.
Who gives a F about "people's expectations"? Economics follows logic, it is Darwinian.
remember that "survival of the fittest" means being most suited to the current environment. fitness can change when the environment changes. environment in this sense also includes the actions of all the other organisms in the ecosystem.
economics is not fixed- it changes, ooh every 30-50 years or so. for example- being based on the extraction of rare and precious metals to not being based on that so much. fiat currency. etc etc
it doesn't necessarily have to be so apocalyptic.
perhaps (being facetious) this kind of millenial thinking is a downside to counter all those upsides of the ol Christian faith....
Senate Committee votes 10-7 for the Syria attack, with some wanting to go further. But that's not a huge margin, and the Senate is the easier of the two Houses to swing.
"Edward Miliband devoted all six of his goes at PMQs to Syria. He wanted to retrieve ground, prove himself not entirely an isolationist, not a complete Michael Foot peacenik (the late Foot was in fact rather more supportive of Western military heft.)
Mr Miliband, feet splayed as he stood at the despatch box, repeated himself. He said the House was as one on the unacceptability of chemical weapons. ‘Nobody disagrees about that,’ he said, twice. But the House did disagree with Mr Miliband yesterday. The Labour benches heard him for much of the time in cold silence.
The Liberal Democrat and Conservative benches did not exactly heckle him, although one person shouted the word ‘shame!’"
"Labour backbenchers pressed Mr Cameron to be more conciliatory to Iran. Mr Cameron said that it would be a help if Iran stopped burning down our Teheran embassy.
Later there were exchanges on the (British) economy. Mr Cameron, noting a theme, said that Labour had played dishonest games on welfare reform.
He challenged Mr Miliband, for several seconds, to say if he would reverse some of the spending cuts. Mr Miliband froze, determined to neither nod or shake his head.
‘Absolutely nothing to say!’ concluded Mr Cameron. And he shot the motionless Miliband a look of withering scorn, more angry than any I have seen before."
"Edward Miliband devoted all six of his goes at PMQs to Syria. He wanted to retrieve ground, prove himself not entirely an isolationist, not a complete Michael Foot peacenik (the late Foot was in fact rather more supportive of Western military heft.)
Mr Miliband, feet splayed as he stood at the despatch box, repeated himself. He said the House was as one on the unacceptability of chemical weapons. ‘Nobody disagrees about that,’ he said, twice. But the House did disagree with Mr Miliband yesterday. The Labour benches heard him for much of the time in cold silence.
The Liberal Democrat and Conservative benches did not exactly heckle him, although one person shouted the word ‘shame!’"
"Labour backbenchers pressed Mr Cameron to be more conciliatory to Iran. Mr Cameron said that it would be a help if Iran stopped burning down our Teheran embassy.
Later there were exchanges on the (British) economy. Mr Cameron, noting a theme, said that Labour had played dishonest games on welfare reform.
He challenged Mr Miliband, for several seconds, to say if he would reverse some of the spending cuts. Mr Miliband froze, determined to neither nod or shake his head.
‘Absolutely nothing to say!’ concluded Mr Cameron. And he shot the motionless Miliband a look of withering scorn, more angry than any I have seen before."
Well if Quentin Letts has turned against Ed Miliband the game is surely up. All it needs now is Dan Hodges to go for him and it will be Goodnight Vienna.
NP Indeed, the House is much more hostile and populist, with representatives being inundated with calls from constituents to vote no on those figures it looks like the House could well vote No!
You realise Hunt is carrying on with that, they've just moved the funding to different bodies.
I remember on here when Gove and IDS were the two transformational ministers according to the fanboys. IDS needs to be moved, he's not good enough
You're missing the point, and IDS is so transformational, just look at the evil impacts of the bedroom tax, so evil, that Labour looked like idiots when Cameron asked if they'd get rid of it if they got into power.
You realise Hunt is carrying on with that, they've just moved the funding to different bodies.
I remember on here when Gove and IDS were the two transformational ministers according to the fanboys. IDS needs to be moved, he's not good enough
You're missing the point, and IDS is so transformational, just look at the evil impacts of the bedroom tax, so evil, that Labour looked like idiots when Cameron asked if they'd get rid of it if they got into power.
You realise Hunt is carrying on with that, they've just moved the funding to different bodies.
I remember on here when Gove and IDS were the two transformational ministers according to the fanboys. IDS needs to be moved, he's not good enough
You're missing the point, and IDS is so transformational, just look at the evil impacts of the bedroom tax, so evil, that Labour looked like idiots when Cameron asked if they'd get rid of it if they got into power.
Well that's deep. The big flagship policy has gone - ironically Osborne would have had IDS out in the last reshuffle he did if Danny Finkelstein hadn't blurted it out on Newsnight
Sorry I can't be as deep as your Polzeath Porpoise posts.
You realise Hunt is carrying on with that, they've just moved the funding to different bodies.
I remember on here when Gove and IDS were the two transformational ministers according to the fanboys. IDS needs to be moved, he's not good enough
You're missing the point, and IDS is so transformational, just look at the evil impacts of the bedroom tax, so evil, that Labour looked like idiots when Cameron asked if they'd get rid of it if they got into power.
Well that's deep. The big flagship policy has gone - ironically Osborne would have had IDS out in the last reshuffle he did if Danny Finkelstein hadn't blurted it out on Newsnight
Sorry I can't be as deep as your Polzeath Porpoise posts.
Touting IDS' flagship for a couple of years when it was clearly as beached as the porpoise managed that
I know you think all Tories think the same, but I've not been a fan of universal credit.
I pointed out a few times, I had major concerns, inter alia, relating to moving to a monthly payment and making the payment to the head of the household, which came from conversations with people who will have to deal with it.
Just had a wee look at this blog, and it looks to be a very promising and useful tool in the run up to the GE. Hopefully PB can give it a traffic boost and help increase its profile among political anoraks.
" The visit - at the invitation of the Government - takes in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Manchester and will include sessions in local communities.
A UN spokesman pointed out that the UK was signed up to a number of international treaties which protect the right to adequate housing and non-discrimination.
The final report will be presented in Geneva by the Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014."
There was a fascinating documentary about automata on BBC4 today. For those who want a youtube-sized bite, here are three clips that I found extraordinary. Bear in mind that the technology is from the 18th century!
" The visit - at the invitation of the Government - takes in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Manchester and will include sessions in local communities.
A UN spokesman pointed out that the UK was signed up to a number of international treaties which protect the right to adequate housing and non-discrimination.
The final report will be presented in Geneva by the Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014."
Why didn't they get involved when it was introduced for private sector tenants?
The interesting question is not so much why average wages have been crap in America since the 1970s, but why they weren't crap in the 1950s and 1960s...
Maybe it was because there was a sense of solidarity arising out of the war experience, with bosses prepared to give decent wages to employees because of those memories of working together in 1939-45.
But politicians are going to have to find solutions to deal with its consequences. A society in which most people see living standards stagnate or even fall is not sustainable. Strikes over pay and conditions - some very violent - are becoming much more frequent in China, even. People there, especially in the coastal cities, are beginning to have expectations.
Why is "a society in which most people see living standards stagnate" unsustainable? So-called "stagnation" has been the experience of most of human beings for the vast majority of human history.
Living standards for most citizens during the Roman empire probably plateau'd quite early on, around 50BC, yet this era is regarded as a golden age of humankind. A time of great European peace. The Pax Romanica.
Similarly, living standards for 99% of Egyptians did not budge an inch during the 3000 years of Ancient Egypt, yet it was probably the longest lived civilisation in history: incredibly stable in retrospect.
The idea that humans require or demand ever-rising incomes and living standards is false and delusional, a modern western itch.
What most people really like is safety, security and stability: they want peace and civil order and a chance for their kids to grow up, nearby, with the same peace and order. They want "a good king" who rules wisely and benevolently and banishes the dragons, they don't want weird new stuff.
It's just the restless bored rootless urban elite who demand ever higher living standards.
indeed, on a global scale, stagnation is the best we can hopeful. it could also be called sustainability. a stable population living within the resources of the planet.
You are barking up the wrong tree once again on this issue Avery. The "responsibility to protect" doctrine arises from [138] and [139] of the 2005 World Summit Outcome (p. 31). That makes clear that military action pursuant to "R2P" cannot be invoked save under Chapter VII of the Charter. As such, R2P is no more than a guide to how the Security Council should use its powers, as opposed to a method of bypassing the Council. In any event, R2P cannot amend the UN Charter (save in accordance with that Charter or with the agreement of all the States Parties thereto) and is null and void to the extent to which it conflicts with the Charter.
Milord.
The UN "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" should not be seen in isolation but as an staging post in a fifty year trend within the UN towards the legitimacy of military intervention on humanitarian grounds.
Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, in their book on the late 20th century debate on intervention "give an account of the historical dichotomy between positive and natural law. They distinguish between 'restrictionists', who adhere to the dominant interpretation of positive law that prohibits intervention, and 'counter-restrictionists', who argue that state sovereignty is not absolute and intervention is allowed for the purpose of preventing atrocities, even when those atrocities occur within the borders of the responsible state." [Seybolt]
I fully recognise that you are a committed 'restrictionist' but I beg you to accept that it is political leaders and legislators who give birth to lawyers and judges, as well as laws and courts. And that international law on intervention - imperfectly documented, interpreted and enforced as it is - must follow from and adapt to changing political consensus and will. This applies as much to the UN itself as it does to individual sovereign states.
The UN, under Kofi Annan, did adapt and advance its position on intervention mainly in the years following the Kosovo intervention when it saw the threat of regional alliances such as NATO replacing, or at least bypassing, the role of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
In 1999 and 2000, Annan confronted the UN Assembly with calls to "forge unity" around basic principles of intervention in cases of extreme need:
"if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unaceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebenica - to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity? In essence the problem is one of responsibility in circumstances in which universally accepted human rights are being violated on a massive scale we have a responsibility to act."
Canada responded by setting up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty which initiated the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The key change was a move away from the rights of sovereign nations towards their duties and responsibilities and those of 'the international community'.
As Seybolt states the "point has now been reached where the just war principles have wide currency as a political and moral, but not legal, framework for judging the legitimacy of military intervention for human protection purposes. These guidelines are presented as a complement to positive law and the strong presumption of non-intervention".
This is the background to the claims of government legal officers in the US, UK and other western states, that intervention in exceptional and qualifying cases is, at least, legitimate and, arguably, lawful provided it meets the guidlelines developed and agreed in and around the UN over the past couple of decades.
This position won't meet the approval of the 'restrictionists' but it does have the current support of the powerful, both within and without the UN.
"Ed Balls was today forced to admit that Britain is on the road to recovery as the economy enjoyed its strongest growth spurt for more than 15 years.
In a clear climbdown, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor said it was ‘welcome news’ that ‘at last economic growth is returning’ in the UK, adding: ‘After three years of stagnation, any growth is better than no growth.’
Mr Balls has previously mocked David Cameron over the state of the economy during Prime Minister’s Questions by making ‘flatlining’ gestures with his hands while the Conservative leader addressed the house.
And despite his admission, he went on to attack the Government’s record on living standards, claiming any ‘talk of recovery’ will ‘ring hollow for ordinary families’.
But Mr Cameron said: ‘Of course we live in tough times because of the incredible mess we’ve had to clear up from Labour.’ He added: ‘I have to say Labour complaining about the economy, complaining about living standards, is like the arsonist complaining to the fire brigade.
‘Because it’s this Government which is turning the economy round and that’s the way we’ll get living standards up.’
The Shadow Chancellor’s climbdown comes after research group Markit said its barometer of activity across the main sectors of the economy hit its highest level since the survey began in January 1998.
And the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has nearly doubled its growth forecasts for the UK this year – from 0.8 per cent to 1.5 per cent.
It has also backed the British economy to outperform its rivals, including the US, Japan, Germany and France, over the coming few months."
indeed, on a global scale, stagnation is the best we can hopeful. it could also be called sustainability. a stable population living within the resources of the planet.
Sustainability isn't the same thing as stagnation - this is a common fallacy, I wonder whether it has a name? You can clearly still have economic growth, yet use less physical "stuff" (raw materials, energy, and so on). A lot of your wealth and wellbeing comes from the consumption of services rather than goods. The literature you read, the media you watch or listen to, the care and medical services you're likely to need in later life, are all clearly important components of the economy, but can increase in value without extra material consumption. And even when it comes to physical products, the trend doesn't have to be upwards - my first mobile phone was an absolute brick compared to my most recent one, which is more "sustainable"? And yet my new phone clearly adds more value.
" The visit - at the invitation of the Government - takes in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Manchester and will include sessions in local communities.
A UN spokesman pointed out that the UK was signed up to a number of international treaties which protect the right to adequate housing and non-discrimination.
The final report will be presented in Geneva by the Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014."
Why didn't they get involved when it was introduced for private sector tenants?
indeed, on a global scale, stagnation is the best we can hopeful. it could also be called sustainability. a stable population living within the resources of the planet.
Sustainability isn't the same thing as stagnation - this is a common fallacy, I wonder whether it has a name? You can clearly still have economic growth, yet use less physical "stuff" (raw materials, energy, and so on). A lot of your wealth and wellbeing comes from the consumption of services rather than goods. The literature you read, the media you watch or listen to, the care and medical services you're likely to need in later life, are all clearly important components of the economy, but can increase in value without extra material consumption. And even when it comes to physical products, the trend doesn't have to be upwards - my first mobile phone was an absolute brick compared to my most recent one, which is more "sustainable"? And yet my new phone clearly adds more value.
I agree with most of that. though suspect that yr smartphone still (as it stands) requires diggin of metal ores out of the ground?
indeed, on a global scale, stagnation is the best we can hopeful. it could also be called sustainability. a stable population living within the resources of the planet.
Sustainability isn't the same thing as stagnation - this is a common fallacy, I wonder whether it has a name? You can clearly still have economic growth, yet use less physical "stuff" (raw materials, energy, and so on). A lot of your wealth and wellbeing comes from the consumption of services rather than goods. The literature you read, the media you watch or listen to, the care and medical services you're likely to need in later life, are all clearly important components of the economy, but can increase in value without extra material consumption. And even when it comes to physical products, the trend doesn't have to be upwards - my first mobile phone was an absolute brick compared to my most recent one, which is more "sustainable"? And yet my new phone clearly adds more value.
I agree with most of that. though suspect that yr smartphone still (as it stands) requires diggin of metal ores out of the ground?
In theory you could reuse the ones in your old phone.
Yes, very interesting site! I was struck by his polling summary showing the massive shifts in opinion last month as he averaged no fewer than 36 polls:
"These are the August 2013 voting intention poll averages (with changes from July, where applicable). There were 36 polls last month in which the fieldwork ended on a date last month (comprising 21 YouGov, 8 Populus, 2 Opinium, 1 ComRes, 2 Survation, 1 ICM, 1 Ipsos-MORI).
All polls Lab 38 (=), Con 32 (=), UKIP 12 (=), LD 10 (=)"
All that excitement that we lavish on each poll...
Comments
Daily Mirror @DailyMirror 5m
Labour cash crisis with trade unions set to slash funding sparking fears of bankruptcy http://mirr.im/15ZKcRi via @MirrorPolitics http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10286614/Labour-is-broke-and-has-no-back-up-plan.html
Twitter
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 10m
Lab party says reshuffle not tonight. Wonder if the consultation with some Shad ministers underlines EdM's commitment to Cabinet govt...?
Tim Walker @ThatTimWalker 5m
A hot, sweaty night for some: #Labour re-shuffle now under way, I hear. Will @Ed_Miliband do as Len McCluskey tells & sack the Blairites?
But you can view the fun Scottish politics link here as well
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/independence-vote-scottish-politics-fun
I generally distrust woolly "goodness of their heart" explanations. Bargaining power seems far more likely to be decisive. Union membership in the USA has declined dramatically, and (see graph in last post) that's something that has been going on for decades.
Decline of heavy industry might also play a role - that's a sector in which unions had more power, in the sense that it's easier to shut down a factory than to shut down an office. And given the skills and training of industrial workers, it may be more appealing for an employer to pay "efficiency wages" to reduce staff turnover.
Also I'd suggest having a look at migration statistics. There was a period of US history with quite strict immigration policy - now something which applies more in paper than in practice. In the lower rungs of unskilled work, there's undoubtedly a downwards pressure on wages.
And take a look at the many former colonies who, given all the opportunities and support after independence, are still fighting each other or wallowing in corruption, depriving the majority of their citizens of a decent life.
Personally I'm looking forward to them going out of fashion again.
Well, quite.
From Labour's point of view, of course, it hardly matters that he'd be a disaster (this is after all the party that gave us Gordon Brown). But I'm surprised that they don't quite seem yet to have cottoned on to how unpopular he'd rapidly become.
The established parties in Germany must be trembling at the thought of them getting into Parliament.
That's why I rather hope it happens.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
"Mechanisation was in its infancy" in the 1950s? I know what you mean SO, but I think a lot of people would take issue with that. It's not like there were no labour-saving devices about by then, and everything was handcrafted by artisans.
----------------------------------------------------
Something I wrote somewhere else before, in case anybody is interested:
In 1950 the agricultural employment share was 32.3% in Austria, 25.1% in Denmark, 46.0% in Finland, 31.5% in France, 48.2% in Greece, 39.6% in Ireland, 42.2% in Italy, 25.9% in Norway, 48.5% in Portugal and 48.4% in Spain. Some of the better-off, more industrialised, countries had lower shares, with 5.3% in the UK, 12.2% Belgium, 17.8% Netherlands, and 23.2% (still high enough to surprise me) in Germany.
By 1970 these numbers were well down: 13.0% (-19.3% points) in Austria, 9.6% (-15.5%) in Denmark, 16.3% (-29.7%!!) in Finland, 10.6% (-20.9%) in France, 36% (-12.2%) in Greece, 22.8% (-16.8%) in Ireland, 17.5% (-24.7%!!) in Italy, 10.6% (-15.3%) in Norway, 34.9% (-13.6%) in Portugal and 23.2% (-25.2%!!) in Spain. In the countries with less room for improvement, there was still movement of labour out of the agricultural sector: down to 2.8% (-2.5%) in the UK, 3.8% (-8.4%) Belgium, 5.7% (-12.1%) Netherlands, and 7.0% (-16.2%) (still a pretty hefty change) in Germany.
Reduce the rate, increase the yield.
Laffing all the way to the bank.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/femen-man-topless-protests-victor-vyatski
My Economics teacher at school had been in the Australian navy during WWII. One day, shortly after the war had ended, his ship passed a Pacific island, with rows and rows of US military logistical vehicles (bulldozers, jeeps etc) just left there to rot. On enquiring why they were not being put to use, he was told that it would be better for the factory workers back in the USA to build new ones.
Another one of his anecdotes I remember - he explained the decline of the British shipbuilding industry by pointing out that at its peak it employed about 100,000 people, of whom only 40 had been to university.
FYI - Riddick is so disappointing.
'A sign that things are not going well, is Ed Miliband now too weak to even carry out a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle?'
Too many shadow cabinet members threatening to walk out like last week?
Twitter
The Times of London @thetimes 2m
Ed Miliband is no leader. He is a vulture, says @DAaronovitch http://thetim.es/17PAaoz
So why should there be a second vote, unless you think votes in the HoC should just be ignored?
Provided he uses his trusty knife on Ed Balls, the spendthrift has been!
On a secondary basis it should also be the job of our government to ensure that whatever action we do take does not make the situation worse in those countries than it already is.
After all, why bother overthrowing oppressors if what you replace them with is no better. Kind of makes us killing all those innocent civilians in pursuit of our moral crusade rather pointless.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8160/7615253042_c268b40f50_z.jpg
Even if the second film had the amusingly named Mindbenders
How is he going to give everyone a payrise?
Bring on the magic money tree! it will bloom again shortly...
There's going to be a thread about it.
SeanT's point is very strong, particularly for those goods - and increasingly, services - which can be exported easily. It's been a long time since the industrial work going overseas was just basic assembly and not the more sophisticated production of components, for instance. Having said that, a lot of "industrial decline" has been to do with increased efficiency and not just work being shipped abroad.
And not all work can be shifted overseas. Yet there are still a lot of very low-paid jobs in retail, in care work, in agriculture, in services like cleaning... which is an issue with space for political intervention. It is true that in many ways capital has doing rather better than labour lately (I think you and AndyJS might like to read http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/12/inequality-power-vs-human-capital.html - think this is one of the best things Chris Dillow has said on the matter, and surprisingly moderate for an avowed Marxist) and that's something that would require a political solution because it's to do with power structures as much as anything else.
Clearly globalization doesn't have to destroy living standards - it provides us with access to otherwise unaffordable access to goods and services after all - and the fact some people have got to do "crappy" jobs (in some sense, jobs with low productivity) doesn't mean they should be doomed to have rubbish wages too (Paul Krugman reckons that it's the average productivity of workers across the economy that matters for wage-setting). Within the context of the tax and benefit system, there are certainly things that can be done to help the low-paid.
"Minority election: could black voters swing it in UK in 2015?
In the next general election, 168 marginal seats could be decided by non-white voters."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/04/minority-election-black-voters-swing-uk-2015
And not all work can be shifted overseas. Yet there are still a lot of very low-paid jobs in retail, in care work, in agriculture, in services like cleaning... which is an issue with space for political intervention. It is true that in many ways capital has doing rather better than labour lately (I think you and AndyJS might like to read http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/12/inequality-power-vs-human-capital.html - think this is one of the best things Chris Dillow has said on the matter, and surprisingly moderate for an avowed Marxist) and that's something that would require a political solution because it's to do with power structures as much as anything else.
Clearly globalization doesn't have to destroy living standards - it provides us with access to otherwise unaffordable access to goods and services after all - and the fact some people have got to do "crappy" jobs (in some sense, jobs with low productivity) doesn't mean they should be doomed to have rubbish wages too (Paul Krugman reckons that it's the average productivity of workers across the economy that matters for wage-setting). Within the context of the tax and benefit system, there are certainly things that can be done to help the low-paid.
Precisely. As a top rate taxpayer I believe a level of redistribution is not only just, but also very much in my own self interest. This is an immensely rich country, made so by the sweat and hard work of tens of millions of people. Living standards should reflect that. If they don't at some stage there will be trouble.
Whoever runs this election website is doing their best to drum up interest, but I don't think they've had a single comment so far:
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/
Labor 32.7
Liberal 40.5
Nats 3.1
Greens 10
Katter 1.6
PUP 6.1
Other 6
Although some estimates suggest if PUP preferences flow the way Nielsen has suggested it could be 51-49, but take that with a pinch of salt!
http://www.reachtel.com.au/blog/7-news-national-poll-4september13
Judi Dench as Aereon: They are an army unlike any other... crusading across the stars toward a place called UnderVerse, their promised land - a constellation of dark new worlds. Necromongers, they're called. And if they cannot convert you, they will kill you. Leading them, the Lord Marshal. He alone has made a pilgrimage to the gates of the UnderVerse... and returned a different being. Stronger. Stranger. Half alive and half... something else. If we are to survive, a new balance must be found. In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil.
economics is not fixed- it changes, ooh every 30-50 years or so. for example- being based on the extraction of rare and precious metals to not being based on that so much. fiat currency. etc etc
it doesn't necessarily have to be so apocalyptic.
perhaps (being facetious) this kind of millenial thinking is a downside to counter all those upsides of the ol Christian faith....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/syria-senate-committee-vote-military-authorization-obama
http://www.google.co.uk/
"Edward Miliband devoted all six of his goes at PMQs to Syria. He wanted to retrieve ground, prove himself not entirely an isolationist, not a complete Michael Foot peacenik (the late Foot was in fact rather more supportive of Western military heft.)
Mr Miliband, feet splayed as he stood at the despatch box, repeated himself. He said the House was as one on the unacceptability of chemical weapons. ‘Nobody disagrees about that,’ he said, twice.
But the House did disagree with Mr Miliband yesterday. The Labour benches heard him for much of the time in cold silence.
The Liberal Democrat and Conservative benches did not exactly heckle him, although one person shouted the word ‘shame!’"
"Labour backbenchers pressed Mr Cameron to be more conciliatory to Iran. Mr Cameron said that it would be a help if Iran stopped burning down our Teheran embassy.
Later there were exchanges on the (British) economy. Mr Cameron, noting a theme, said that Labour had played dishonest games on welfare reform.
He challenged Mr Miliband, for several seconds, to say if he would reverse some of the spending cuts. Mr Miliband froze, determined to neither nod or shake his head.
‘Absolutely nothing to say!’ concluded Mr Cameron. And he shot the motionless Miliband a look of withering scorn, more angry than any I have seen before."
Christ, what amateurs.
Now this is a successful government IT project
NHS told to abandon delayed IT project
£12.7bn computer scheme to create patient record system is to be scrapped after years of delays
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/sep/22/nhs-it-project-abandoned
I pointed out a few times, I had major concerns, inter alia, relating to moving to a monthly payment and making the payment to the head of the household, which came from conversations with people who will have to deal with it.
" The visit - at the invitation of the Government - takes in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Manchester and will include sessions in local communities.
A UN spokesman pointed out that the UK was signed up to a number of international treaties which protect the right to adequate housing and non-discrimination.
The final report will be presented in Geneva by the Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b0229pbp/?t=14m38s (the robotic singing bird is rather cool)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b0229pbp/?t=29m50s (with neater handwriting than mine)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b0229pbp/?t=42m54s (I watched this bit and gaped, never seen a piece of silver move so fluidly)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsC_SARyPzk
You are barking up the wrong tree once again on this issue Avery. The "responsibility to protect" doctrine arises from [138] and [139] of the 2005 World Summit Outcome (p. 31). That makes clear that military action pursuant to "R2P" cannot be invoked save under Chapter VII of the Charter. As such, R2P is no more than a guide to how the Security Council should use its powers, as opposed to a method of bypassing the Council. In any event, R2P cannot amend the UN Charter (save in accordance with that Charter or with the agreement of all the States Parties thereto) and is null and void to the extent to which it conflicts with the Charter.
Milord.
The UN "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" should not be seen in isolation but as an staging post in a fifty year trend within the UN towards the legitimacy of military intervention on humanitarian grounds.
Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, in their book on the late 20th century debate on intervention "give an account of the historical dichotomy between positive and natural law. They distinguish between 'restrictionists', who adhere to the dominant interpretation of positive law that prohibits intervention, and 'counter-restrictionists', who argue that state sovereignty is not absolute and intervention is allowed for the purpose of preventing atrocities, even when those atrocities occur within the borders of the responsible state." [Seybolt]
I fully recognise that you are a committed 'restrictionist' but I beg you to accept that it is political leaders and legislators who give birth to lawyers and judges, as well as laws and courts. And that international law on intervention - imperfectly documented, interpreted and enforced as it is - must follow from and adapt to changing political consensus and will. This applies as much to the UN itself as it does to individual sovereign states.
The UN, under Kofi Annan, did adapt and advance its position on intervention mainly in the years following the Kosovo intervention when it saw the threat of regional alliances such as NATO replacing, or at least bypassing, the role of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
In 1999 and 2000, Annan confronted the UN Assembly with calls to "forge unity" around basic principles of intervention in cases of extreme need:
"if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unaceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebenica - to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity? In essence the problem is one of responsibility in circumstances in which universally accepted human rights are being violated on a massive scale we have a responsibility to act."
Canada responded by setting up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty which initiated the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The key change was a move away from the rights of sovereign nations towards their duties and responsibilities and those of 'the international community'.
As Seybolt states the "point has now been reached where the just war principles have wide currency as a political and moral, but not legal, framework for judging the legitimacy of military intervention for human protection purposes. These guidelines are presented as a complement to positive law and the strong presumption of non-intervention".
This is the background to the claims of government legal officers in the US, UK and other western states, that intervention in exceptional and qualifying cases is, at least, legitimate and, arguably, lawful provided it meets the guidlelines developed and agreed in and around the UN over the past couple of decades.
This position won't meet the approval of the 'restrictionists' but it does have the current support of the powerful, both within and without the UN.
"Ed Balls was today forced to admit that Britain is on the road to recovery as the economy enjoyed its strongest growth spurt for more than 15 years.
In a clear climbdown, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor said it was ‘welcome news’ that ‘at last economic growth is returning’ in the UK, adding: ‘After three years of stagnation, any growth is better than no growth.’
Mr Balls has previously mocked David Cameron over the state of the economy during Prime Minister’s Questions by making ‘flatlining’ gestures with his hands while the Conservative leader addressed the house.
And despite his admission, he went on to attack the Government’s record on living standards, claiming any ‘talk of recovery’ will ‘ring hollow for ordinary families’.
But Mr Cameron said: ‘Of course we live in tough times because of the incredible mess we’ve had to clear up from Labour.’ He added: ‘I have to say Labour complaining about the economy, complaining about living standards, is like the arsonist complaining to the fire brigade.
‘Because it’s this Government which is turning the economy round and that’s the way we’ll get living standards up.’
The Shadow Chancellor’s climbdown comes after research group Markit said its barometer of activity across the main sectors of the economy hit its highest level since the survey began in January 1998.
And the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has nearly doubled its growth forecasts for the UK this year – from 0.8 per cent to 1.5 per cent.
It has also backed the British economy to outperform its rivals, including the US, Japan, Germany and France, over the coming few months."
Yesterday's app was -31 with a Labour lead of 4!
Only one internal:
Do you support or oppose the Con/LD coalition?
Support: 29 (+1)
Oppose:60(-2)
BUT for the Cons:
Support: 53
Oppose: 42
which is less support than the LibDems:
Support: 67
Oppose: 30
"These are the August 2013 voting intention poll averages (with changes from July, where applicable). There were 36 polls last month in which the fieldwork ended on a date last month (comprising 21 YouGov, 8 Populus, 2 Opinium, 1 ComRes, 2 Survation, 1 ICM, 1 Ipsos-MORI).
All polls
Lab 38 (=), Con 32 (=), UKIP 12 (=), LD 10 (=)"
All that excitement that we lavish on each poll...