(I've laid lots of 2018 Trump exit, and a very small amount of 2019. I think laying at 10-1 on 2018 remains close to free money, but am increasingly nervous about 2019.)
Very readable article. If Remainers are obliged to show respect to Leavers because they're in a majority are those who voted against Trump obliged to show respect to his supporters because they're in a majority?.....Read on the man's a c***.
53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block either
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
Serious about doing what?
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.
Prime Minister of Grenada, on behalf of the Carribean delegation, thanks and complements Theresa May on her distinguished leadership and conduct of the meetings of the group over the last two days.
He went on to say he looks forward to the next 2 years under the stewardship of the Prime Minister
(I've laid lots of 2018 Trump exit, and a very small amount of 2019. I think laying at 10-1 on 2018 remains close to free money, but am increasingly nervous about 2019.)
The 3.15 (to back) on Next President looks quite tempting to me (but have not backed). I backed similar levels a few months ago, but finished up flattening after one of the stories (I forget which). He is delivering something - it's hard to say what it is, but it is something. That might finish up as being quite popular. (cf Obama)
(Disclosure: All green, the only person I've backed was Caroline Kennedy - think that was a mistake really now)
Problems caused by the difficulty in attracting and keeping agricultural workers.
Doubtless caused by 'hostile environment' and 'xenophobic lies'.
Except that this is in the Netherlands.
And those silly Dutch farmers haven't followed the Guardian's advice and demanded taxpayer subsidised indentured labours from the third world but have invested in new technology.
BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
I don’t think the Commonwealth need to meet so often.
There are, besides, three or four Commonwealths: Caribbean; Sub-Saharan Africa; Middle East to South East Asia; and the Pacific. Local groupings could meet more often.
It should focus on democratic, cultural, judicial, professional and academic exchange, with a side order of trade promotion.
Could also be used to caucus for various global positions eg WTO and security council nominations. India apparently is waking up to the fact it provides it with a global forum free of China.
It could be more useful (to the U.K.) but we’d need to fund it properly - no one else will.
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
The Singaporean Prime Minister has been reading my posts on the causes of trade deficits:
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
I think you said that purchasing an iPad with borrowed money adds more to UK GDP than the design and fabrication adds to the GDP of USA, Taiwan and China.
Now if the UK had increased its savings rate enough to have had a trade balance (or even more a current account balance) of zero during the last two decades how much would that have knocked off UK GDP ?
BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
It was right at the heart of Corbyn's and labours attack and now it has been admitted by Alan Johnson it was under labour it is dropped as an issue by labour and to their embarrassment
BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
It was right at the heart of Corbyn's and labours attack and now it has been admitted by Alan Johnson it was under labour it is dropped as an issue by labour and to their embarrassment
It was a silly attack line that Corbyn used at PMQs, but the main thrust of Labour’s attack generally focuses on the hostile environment policy. Labour have already had their major embarrassment over this on Wednesday, and it was mainly limited to Wednesday afternoon. The evening news on Wednesday wasn’t bad for them with the exception of C4 news (and that was because of the antisemitism scandal). Right now it looks their latest attack centres on those ‘go home vans’ on (see Twitter and Corbyn’s account) and TMay’s involvement in that decision. And the reason why Labour have that info to attack with government with is largely down to Nick Timothy, whose defence of TMay led to reports which directly contradicted his account.
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
The Singaporean Prime Minister has been reading my posts on the causes of trade deficits:
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
I think you said that purchasing an iPad with borrowed money adds more to UK GDP than the design and fabrication adds to the GDP of USA, Taiwan and China.
Now if the UK had increased its savings rate enough to have had a trade balance (or even more a current account balance) of zero during the last two decades how much would that have knocked off UK GDP ?
Interestingly, I'm doing a little video on that. If you don't mind, I'll send it to you ahead of time and get your feedback.
53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block either
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
Serious about doing what?
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.
Do you think Pakistan is particularly interested in "coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles"?
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
Even though most members think it's a good idea?
It’s a club with no obligations that meets twice a year. It doesn’t have sufficient substance to qualify as a bad idea.
Pincer movement by Brussels and British parliamentary oikophobes concerning Customs Union. Best to walk away and let the EU force Varadkar to erect a hard border to protect EU's feather-bedded businesses.
BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
It was right at the heart of Corbyn's and labours attack and now it has been admitted by Alan Johnson it was under labour it is dropped as an issue by labour and to their embarrassment
It was a silly attack line that Corbyn used at PMQs, but the main thrust of Labour’s attack generally focuses on the hostile environment policy. Labour have already had their major embarrassment over this on Wednesday, and it was mainly limited to Wednesday afternoon. The evening news on Wednesday wasn’t bad for them with the exception of C4 news (and that was because of the antisemitism scandal). Right now it looks their latest attack centres on those ‘go home vans’ on (see Twitter and Corbyn’s account) and TMay’s involvement in that decision. And the reason why Labour have that info to attack with government with is largely down to Nick Timothy, whose defence of TMay led to reports which directly contradicted his account.
In all of this the way it is now handled is key and tonights reports are promising with residency already granted to some on the help line.
The wider issue of dealing with illegal immigration is generally popular and labour first used the 'hostile' attitude word before the conservatives came into power. Also Lord Kerslake reference to Nazi Germany was crass but seems that is a regular theme with labour politicians
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
Even though most members think it's a good idea?
It’s a club with no obligations that meets twice a year. It doesn’t have sufficient substance to qualify as a bad idea.
Once every two years (which strengthens your already valid point).
The Singaporean Prime Minister has been reading my posts on the causes of trade deficits:
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
I think you said that purchasing an iPad with borrowed money adds more to UK GDP than the design and fabrication adds to the GDP of USA, Taiwan and China.
Now if the UK had increased its savings rate enough to have had a trade balance (or even more a current account balance) of zero during the last two decades how much would that have knocked off UK GDP ?
Interestingly, I'm doing a little video on that. If you don't mind, I'll send it to you ahead of time and get your feedback.
I'm honoured !!!
Two things I'm curious about are when the cult of GDP became so dominant and when the media stopped reporting the trade figures on the TV news.
53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block either
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
Serious about doing what?
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.
Do you think Pakistan is particularly interested in "coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles"?
I imagine its particularly interested in tapping up British ministers for some overseas aid money.
I would have thought that any British citizens who have been illegally deported to the third world by the Home Office will have a legal right to compensation.
53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block either
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
Serious about doing what?
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.
Do you think Pakistan is particularly interested in "coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles"?
Through bi-lateral professional and academic exchange, why not? And actually (to continue playing devils advocate) how else to support democracy in Pakistan?
I would have thought that any British citizens who have been illegally deported to the third world by the Home Office will have a legal right to compensation.
Who pays for the compensation? The British taxpayer? It ought to be the people responsible for the mess, whoever they are.
BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
Yes, It's a really odd story for them to lead with.
I would have thought that any British citizens who have been illegally deported to the third world by the Home Office will have a legal right to compensation.
Who pays for the compensation? The British taxpayer? It ought to be the people responsible for the mess, whoever they are.
That's about as likely as Olly Letwin reimbursing the taxpayer for the money given to Kids Company.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
Yes, It's a really odd story for them to lead with.
The Singaporean Prime Minister has been reading my posts on the causes of trade deficits:
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
Maybe, he [ or you ] could have added that a country's exports ultimately depend on quality and value for money.
Re: USA and China: China had reduced its trade surplus with the RoW from about 10% of GDP to under 2% in the last few years.
Why didn't the USA manage to export more to China ? Other countries must have done. The USA either exports military or technology/software kind of stuff which they do not want to export to China for understandable reasons. OR basic agricultural products like low population high yielding countries.
It will be interesting to see how China deals with Qualcomm buying NXP.
Basically, Trump is trying to bully them and Japan into buying US produce when in a free market very few will buy them.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
Usually, it implies people are voluntarily unemployed. Like moving locations, jobs etc.
53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block either
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
Serious about doing what?
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.
Do you think Pakistan is particularly interested in "coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles"?
Through bi-lateral professional and academic exchange, why not? And actually (to continue playing devils advocate) how else to support democracy in Pakistan?
Pakistan is technically a democracy! Well, sort of.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
The point at which god, if unemployed, fails to get a job straight away. However practically that's not measureable - so the point at which a very talented person fails to get a job offer in a day. (you'd have to tune 'very talented' and 'a day')
I would have thought that any British citizens who have been illegally deported to the third world by the Home Office will have a legal right to compensation.
Who pays for the compensation? The British taxpayer? It ought to be the people responsible for the mess, whoever they are.
BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
It was right at the heart of Corbyn's and labours attack and now it has been admitted by Alan Johnson it was under labour it is dropped as an issue by labour and to their embarrassment
It was a silly attack line that Corbyn used at PMQs, but the main thrust of Labour’s attack generally focuses on the hostile environment policy. Labour have already had their major embarrassment over this on Wednesday, and it was mainly limited to Wednesday afternoon. The evening news on Wednesday wasn’t bad for them with the exception of C4 news (and that was because of the antisemitism scandal). Right now it looks their latest attack centres on those ‘go home vans’ on (see Twitter and Corbyn’s account) and TMay’s involvement in that decision. And the reason why Labour have that info to attack with government with is largely down to Nick Timothy, whose defence of TMay led to reports which directly contradicted his account.
I think this could become a big problem for Theresa May. Every time the government detain or deport a longstanding resident with links to a Commonwealth country (which they are pretty much doing all the time) it is going to windrush revisited. I think attitudes to immigration have possibly changed post Brexit (ironic, given that nothing has yet changed!), and the hostile environment policy is very much a pre Brexit policy associated with Theresa May. Basically, the only way around this is to stop deporting law abiding people who have a credible claim to remain in the UK, even if they can't get the paperwork together.
Pincer movement by Brussels and British parliamentary oikophobes concerning Customs Union. Best to walk away and let the EU force Varadkar to erect a hard border to protect EU's feather-bedded businesses.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
Usually, it implies people are voluntarily unemployed. Like moving locations, jobs etc.
To help with understanding what I am trying to ascertain; one of the arguments used against migration is the 'stealing our jobs' argument. Now I don't ascribe to that in the first place but I am wondering at what point we could reasonably say that unemployment is so low it is no longer a viable argument in any way.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
Thanks Richard. Very much the sort of answer I was looking for in terms of information.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I seem to recall 5% as a figure of full employment, but can’t find a primary source for it. There will always be people moving around and between jobs.
BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
Time for the usual BBC over-the-top eulogy of someone they barely knew.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
Thanks Richard. Very much the sort of answer I was looking for in terms of information.
The ONS regional labour market stats has unemployment at 3.4% in both the South-East and South-West regions:
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
Thanks Richard. Very much the sort of answer I was looking for in terms of information.
You might find this interesting - it gives unemployment by parliamentary constituency in January 2017:
BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
Time for the usual BBC over-the-top eulogy of someone they barely knew.
Wake me up when it’s all over.
The Cliff Richard ruling could be huge for the BBC, the broadcast and print media if the BBC loses.
The reporting of the alleged behaviour of the BBC reporter is not a good look
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
Thanks Richard. Very much the sort of answer I was looking for in terms of information.
You might find this interesting - it gives unemployment by parliamentary constituency in January 2017:
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I’d use NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) which is defined - I think it’s around 3-4%
BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
Time for the usual BBC over-the-top eulogy of someone they barely knew.
Wake me up when it’s all over.
The Cliff Richard ruling could be huge for the BBC, the broadcast and print media if the BBC loses.
The reporting of the alleged behaviour of the BBC reporter is not a good look
Completely, the BBC have chosen the worst possible test case, so instead of arguing for freedom of the press they’re trying to defend some of the shittiest behaviour seen by their journalists in years.
Is this in front of a jury, or just a presiding judge? If the former I imagine they’re going to be in big trouble.
(BTW, “wake me up when it’s all over” is a reference to a song by the deceased Swedish DJ, but it seems no-one got it - obviously @TSE isn’t here tonight!).
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
Usually, it implies people are voluntarily unemployed. Like moving locations, jobs etc.
To help with understanding what I am trying to ascertain; one of the arguments used against migration is the 'stealing our jobs' argument. Now I don't ascribe to that in the first place but I am wondering at what point we could reasonably say that unemployment is so low it is no longer a viable argument in any way.
Well, funnily enough, at the height of the East European immigration unemployment kept on falling. Partly because new households were being created, new borrowings, spending [ great for IKEA , I suppose ] and also services like hairdressers etc. etc.
I think the "anger" was more because these immigrants kept wages lower than otherwise it might have been. Frankly, I have little sympathy. In London, a plumber could charge you over £100 !
I was reading in the FT today an opposite problem. Japan is losing population by about 1000 a day ! Think about it, 360,000 a year net ! Who will pay the taxes ?
But Japan is a r-country. They even hire private detectives if prospective in-laws have Korean blood !
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
Surely more non-ex-British colonies joining would dilute the one thing they have in common? It will just be a talking shop with a sports tournament.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I’d use NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) which is defined - I think it’s around 3-4%
Historically that has been so in which event we should have seen increasing wage pressure driving up inflation over the last year. Instead we have had wages falling in real terms for more than 12 months.
Conventional economics seems to me to be increasingly unconnected with the real world. It was built on economies that were very substantially sealed units. They did provide for exports and imports but the world of freedom of movement, no currency limits, free movement of capital and exports and imports being very high percentages of GDP is millions of miles away from what they were designed for. Who knows how low unemployment can go without inflation in an economy where the supply of labour is so elastic?
I suspect other constraints such as housing will be what calls time on the employment miracle. It really doesn’t look like wages will.
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).
Seriously? So because our laws said this 50+ years ago that let’s them off the hook in 2018?
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).
Seriously? So because our laws said this 50+ years ago that let’s them off the hook in 2018?
Indeed. That'd be like saying if we kept homosexuality illegal, well, it's grandfathered in, what can you do?
I don't have any antipathy for the Commonwealth as a whole though.
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I’d use NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) which is defined - I think it’s around 3-4%
Historically that has been so in which event we should have seen increasing wage pressure driving up inflation over the last year. Instead we have had wages falling in real terms for more than 12 months.
Conventional economics seems to me to be increasingly unconnected with the real world. It was built on economies that were very substantially sealed units. They did provide for exports and imports but the world of freedom of movement, no currency limits, free movement of capital and exports and imports being very high percentages of GDP is millions of miles away from what they were designed for. Who knows how low unemployment can go without inflation in an economy where the supply of labour is so elastic?
I suspect other constraints such as housing will be what calls time on the employment miracle. It really doesn’t look like wages will.
On the conventional criteria it would seem that the natural rate of unemployment is actually lower than the actual rate, and we find that difficult to take in because the actual rate is actually lower than anytime since the early 1970s.
I don't recognise the mismatch you describe in your second para. What you call conventional economics seems to refer to autarkies. It is true that some US-based literature was framed in terms of a closed economy. But there was also plenty of mainstream open economy macroeconomics incorporating floating currencies, inflationary expectations and so on. I think the question should be, why is the supply of labour so apparently elastic? You call it an employment miracle, which has echos of the post-war German miracle under Ludwig Erhard. The explanation for that was the combination of (i) refugees from East Germany, (ii) Gastarbeiter from Portugal, Greece and Turkey, (iii) large scale movement from rural to urban occupations, and (iv) increased female participation in the labour force. Part of the answer for us now is no doubt immigration. A new factor now is the "gig economy". Both of those make the supply of labour more elastic, but I agree it does not seem enough to explain this new phenomenon.
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).
Seriously? So because our laws said this 50+ years ago that let’s them off the hook in 2018?
Not “let them off the hook” but perhaps be a little more circumspect in criticising them for something we imposed upon them in the first place.....possibly even admitting it’s source rather than pretending moral superiority....
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
I think that's right. But what would anyone hope to transform it in to? It isn't doing any harm being as it is.
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
And there was a lot of talk by TM about addressing climate change, education, and eliminating malaria
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
And for India it gives it a forum where it can lead (shortly to overtake the U.K. as largest economy) without China present....
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
I guess that is the reason why countries would want to join. Rwanda joined in 2009, although they were never ruled by the British, as far as I am aware.
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
Surely more non-ex-British colonies joining would dilute the one thing they have in common? It will just be a talking shop with a sports tournament.
Virtually all of them are. But I can see why you feel threatened by it.
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).
Seriously? So because our laws said this 50+ years ago that let’s them off the hook in 2018?
No, but nor is it an excuse for dissolving the Commonwealth or giving up British influence in it. Old laws about The Gays from decades ago is a pretty weak argument. We’ve only had gay marriage legal here for just over 4 years.
It’s a huge force for good overall and greatly to our, and the world’s, benefit.
The alternative is they all become socio-cultural vassals of China.
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
I guess that is the reason why countries would want to join. Rwanda joined in 2009, although they were never ruled by the British, as far as I am aware.
Mozambique is also now a member.
It doesmean that they have the right to vote here, while EU nationals do not.
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
I guess that is the reason why countries would want to join. Rwanda joined in 2009, although they were never ruled by the British, as far as I am aware.
Wasn't that, at least partly, about snubbing the french?
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
And there was a lot of talk by TM about addressing climate change, education, and eliminating malaria
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years
She does have the negative Midas touch, turning everything to base lead! Windrush dominating the news al week, with TM in the frame.
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
I think that's right. But what would anyone hope to transform it in to? It isn't doing any harm being as it is.
That's generally my take. At its best maybe it can do something useful, and even if it doesn't, I'm hard pressed to think why it is a problem, so let everyone have it - clearly for the moment the dozens of members see something worthwhile about it, it's not like anyone is forced to join the damn thing.
Historically that has been so in which event we should have seen increasing wage pressure driving up inflation over the last year. Instead we have had wages falling in real terms for more than 12 months.
Conventional economics seems to me to be increasingly unconnected with the real world. It was built on economies that were very substantially sealed units. They did provide for exports and imports but the world of freedom of movement, no currency limits, free movement of capital and exports and imports being very high percentages of GDP is millions of miles away from what they were designed for. Who knows how low unemployment can go without inflation in an economy where the supply of labour is so elastic?
I suspect other constraints such as housing will be what calls time on the employment miracle. It really doesn’t look like wages will.
On the conventional criteria it would seem that the natural rate of unemployment is actually lower than the actual rate, and we find that difficult to take in because the actual rate is actually lower than anytime since the early 1970s.
I don't recognise the mismatch you describe in your second para. What you call conventional economics seems to refer to autarkies. It is true that some US-based literature was framed in terms of a closed economy. But there was also plenty of mainstream open economy macroeconomics incorporating floating currencies, inflationary expectations and so on. I think the question should be, why is the supply of labour so apparently elastic? You call it an employment miracle, which has echos of the post-war German miracle under Ludwig Erhard. The explanation for that was the combination of (i) refugees from East Germany, (ii) Gastarbeiter from Portugal, Greece and Turkey, (iii) large scale movement from rural to urban occupations, and (iv) increased female participation in the labour force. Part of the answer for us now is no doubt immigration. A new factor now is the "gig economy". Both of those make the supply of labour more elastic, but I agree it does not seem enough to explain this new phenomenon.
I wasn’t talking about autarkies but about economies where the rules of cause and effect break down. Labour is only 1 example. How does an increase in investment push up the cost of borrowing when the supply of capital is infinite? How does a government increase domestic demand when so much can leak away into imports? When goods are increasingly virtual how do you create a shortage or drive up prices? The conventional tools to control an economy are increasingly redundant.
Another five people shot dead by Israelis in Gaza. One aged 15. That's now 35 without a single Israeli injury. You'd be forgiven for thinking Israelis don't give a shit about Palestinian lives.
The row is significant because it suggests that the EU is not willing to forge a trusting security relationship with the UK after Brexit, in spite of an “unconditional” offer from Theresa May of a defence and security pact.
What price “unconditional guarantees” on citizens rights?
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
And there was a lot of talk by TM about addressing climate change, education, and eliminating malaria
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years
She does have the negative Midas touch, turning everything to base lead! Windrush dominating the news al week, with TM in the frame.
A rather silly attempt at an analogy given, until this Windrush business, May had had a couple of uncommonly good months by her standards since the GE, showing not everything she touches turns to base lead. On Windrush, given the scale of the problems I don't think any leader could have avoided it running in the cycle for at least a week, the test for May is if it keeps on running, drip feeds of what are sure to be some more emotional negative stories, and whether she can get to grips with things, if she even wants to.
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
And there was a lot of talk by TM about addressing climate change, education, and eliminating malaria
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years
She does have the negative Midas touch, turning everything to base lead! Windrush dominating the news al week, with TM in the frame.
Yes but I doubt it has made much difference just as Corbyn's running out of the debate on anti semitic attitudes in his party, as his female mps sob in distress
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
I guess that is the reason why countries would want to join. Rwanda joined in 2009, although they were never ruled by the British, as far as I am aware.
Wasn't that, at least partly, about snubbing the french?
That shows they have uncommonly good sense and good values.
Ah good, we can restart the soul searching comments about how this shows what a husk of a country we are, how we are aligning with this monster and the world will judge us for that. Not sure how Macron has survived as long as he has, given he has hosted Trump already.
Comments
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.
He went on to say he looks forward to the next 2 years under the stewardship of the Prime Minister
(Disclosure: All green, the only person I've backed was Caroline Kennedy - think that was a mistake really now)
Doubtless caused by 'hostile environment' and 'xenophobic lies'.
Except that this is in the Netherlands.
And those silly Dutch farmers haven't followed the Guardian's advice and demanded taxpayer subsidised indentured labours from the third world but have invested in new technology.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43813284
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-43824607/meet-the-robots-that-can-pick-and-plant-better-than-we-can
There are, besides, three or four Commonwealths: Caribbean; Sub-Saharan Africa; Middle East to South East Asia; and the Pacific. Local groupings could meet more often.
It should focus on democratic, cultural, judicial, professional and academic exchange, with a side order of trade promotion.
Could also be used to caucus for various global positions eg WTO and security council nominations. India apparently is waking up to the fact it provides it with a global forum free of China.
It could be more useful (to the U.K.) but we’d need to fund it properly - no one else will.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
Now if the UK had increased its savings rate enough to have had a trade balance (or even more a current account balance) of zero during the last two decades how much would that have knocked off UK GDP ?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/holocaust-study-millennials/
"Two-thirds of millennials could not identify in the survey what Auschwitz was."
Best to walk away and let the EU force Varadkar to erect a hard border to protect EU's feather-bedded businesses.
The wider issue of dealing with illegal immigration is generally popular and labour first used the 'hostile' attitude word before the conservatives came into power. Also Lord Kerslake reference to Nazi Germany was crass but seems that is a regular theme with labour politicians
https://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/987358634861613056?s=19
Two things I'm curious about are when the cult of GDP became so dominant and when the media stopped reporting the trade figures on the TV news.
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-to-consider-compensation-for-windrush-migrants-11339625
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_federal_election
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
And #1 in 'Most watched' is a power station close to my heart:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-derbyshire-43823662/willington-power-station-still-towers-20-years-after-closing
I cannot believe that many people are interested in Willington A&B. ...
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
Re: USA and China: China had reduced its trade surplus with the RoW from about 10% of GDP to under 2% in the last few years.
Why didn't the USA manage to export more to China ? Other countries must have done. The USA either exports military or technology/software kind of stuff which they do not want to export to China for understandable reasons. OR basic agricultural products like low population high yielding countries.
It will be interesting to see how China deals with Qualcomm buying NXP.
Basically, Trump is trying to bully them and Japan into buying US produce when in a free market very few will buy them.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
Wake me up when it’s all over.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/regionallabourmarket/april2018#summary-of-latest-regional-labour-market-statistics
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7868#fullreport
The lowest are Stratford, Kenilworth, Hampshire NE, Cambridgeshire S and Henley (all affluent commuter areas) plus Westmoreland at 0.5% unemployment.
By contrast Birmingham has 5 of the top 10 constituencies with the highest unemployment.
For a moment there I thought you were referring to Britain and France!
The reporting of the alleged behaviour of the BBC reporter is not a good look
Is this in front of a jury, or just a presiding judge? If the former I imagine they’re going to be in big trouble.
(BTW, “wake me up when it’s all over” is a reference to a song by the deceased Swedish DJ, but it seems no-one got it - obviously @TSE isn’t here tonight!).
I think the "anger" was more because these immigrants kept wages lower than otherwise it might have been. Frankly, I have little sympathy. In London, a plumber could charge you over £100 !
I was reading in the FT today an opposite problem. Japan is losing population by about 1000 a day ! Think about it, 360,000 a year net ! Who will pay the taxes ?
But Japan is a r-country. They even hire private detectives if prospective in-laws have Korean blood !
Good news though, I should be back permanently in September! Assuming all goes to plan.
Arf!
Conventional economics seems to me to be increasingly unconnected with the real world. It was built on economies that were very substantially sealed units. They did provide for exports and imports but the world of freedom of movement, no currency limits, free movement of capital and exports and imports being very high percentages of GDP is millions of miles away from what they were designed for. Who knows how low unemployment can go without inflation in an economy where the supply of labour is so elastic?
I suspect other constraints such as housing will be what calls time on the employment miracle. It really doesn’t look like wages will.
I don't have any antipathy for the Commonwealth as a whole though.
I don't recognise the mismatch you describe in your second para. What you call conventional economics seems to refer to autarkies. It is true that some US-based literature was framed in terms of a closed economy. But there was also plenty of mainstream open economy macroeconomics incorporating floating currencies, inflationary expectations and so on. I think the question should be, why is the supply of labour so apparently elastic?
You call it an employment miracle, which has echos of the post-war German miracle under Ludwig Erhard. The explanation for that was the combination of (i) refugees from East Germany, (ii) Gastarbeiter from Portugal, Greece and Turkey, (iii) large scale movement from rural to urban occupations, and (iv) increased female participation in the labour force.
Part of the answer for us now is no doubt immigration. A new factor now is the "gig economy". Both of those make the supply of labour more elastic, but I agree it does not seem enough to explain this new phenomenon.
Donald Trump to visit UK this summer
https://twitter.com/ClarenceHouse/status/987424496054362115?s=20
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years
End sarcasm mode
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/987437748196990977?s=20
It’s a huge force for good overall and greatly to our, and the world’s, benefit.
The alternative is they all become socio-cultural vassals of China.
It doesmean that they have the right to vote here, while EU nationals do not.
The row is significant because it suggests that the EU is not willing to forge a trusting security relationship with the UK after Brexit, in spite of an “unconditional” offer from Theresa May of a defence and security pact.
What price “unconditional guarantees” on citizens rights?