I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
The SQE will likely change that. 2 years of paralegalling and 2 passed exams and you're qualified as a solicitor - no training contract required.
I wonder if the 'trainee' role will eventually disappear altogether and paralegals will become what 'trainees' currently are.
How did your interview go yesterday?
It went pretty well I think, thank you. I should find out relatively quickly if I'm through to the final stage.
One of the first questions in the interview was "which historical figure do you most admire" and I had a complete mind blank and blurted out "Tony Blair". I had to then come up with some bollocks about "changing country for the better". 🤦♂️ The interviewer clearly didn't agree with me but I think I saved it further down the line!
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
The SQE will likely change that. 2 years of paralegalling and 2 passed exams and you're qualified as a solicitor - no training contract required.
I wonder if the 'trainee' role will eventually disappear altogether and paralegals will become what 'trainees' currently are.
How did your interview go yesterday?
It went pretty well I think, thank you. I should find out relatively quickly if I'm through to the final stage.
One of the first questions in the interview was "which historical figure do you most admire" and I had a complete mind blank and blurted out "Tony Blair". I had to then come up with some bollocks about "changing country for the better". 🤦♂️ The interviewer clearly didn't agree with me but I think I saved it further down the line!
good luck (a little late, but better late than never)
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
What’s the point of leaving to follow their rules?
What is the point in arbitrarily changing our rules just to be different? Again, if we want to trade with them, our stuff has to be compliant, just as the toys made in China for the UK market have to be compliant with our rules.
We can do whatever we want with our standards. And the EU can do what they want and if that means we're no longer compliant they won't let us in. Sovereignty works both ways.
You’re contradicting yourself. Two markets don’t need to have the same rules in order to trade..
Indeed. When did I say that they did?
“If… we're no longer compliant they won't let us in”
Why do you think we need to adopt their rules domestically if you don’t believe this?
When did I say that we had to adopt their rules domestically? I said that exporters have to make compliant products as they do for any market.
Mind, Le Hotel Merde is not a good advertisement for Edinburgh's WHS status.
They might think its an improvement on the St James centre. It is funny that it's being called the Jobby though.
Urgh, I've just gone and remembered that incredibly tacky bridge from St J C spoiling the view down towards Leith (not the better looking but just as in-the-way replacement of recent years). But SJC was just crappy grey concrete. The Turd Hotel, by contrast ...
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
I have had the odd fresh faced graduate in computer science under my wing throughout my working life, I can certainly say there is a decline not necessarily in them but what they are taught. Last guy I had in fact under my wing wasnt even a gradutate he was on work experience from school. First day I looked over his work and called him over and went why is every method returning a string array? His reply was "Oh well all the ones we write at school do so". End of his placement his teacher came in and I took her through what he had written in his 6 weeks with us. She was oh we don't teach any of that till degree level. FFS we are writing in an object oriented language he is being taught in one as a procedural language where all return values have to be string arrays
I'm surprised he didn't say:
"Well Grandpa, the chances are that this is going to end up part of a web service, so anything else would be a bit 1997."
We were writing webservice style stuff....doesnt mean it should only return string arrays. Json etc is a little bit better than that
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
What’s the point of leaving to follow their rules?
What is the point in arbitrarily changing our rules just to be different? Again, if we want to trade with them, our stuff has to be compliant, just as the toys made in China for the UK market have to be compliant with our rules.
We can do whatever we want with our standards. And the EU can do what they want and if that means we're no longer compliant they won't let us in. Sovereignty works both ways.
You’re contradicting yourself. Two markets don’t need to have the same rules in order to trade..
Indeed. When did I say that they did?
“If… we're no longer compliant they won't let us in”
Why do you think we need to adopt their rules domestically if you don’t believe this?
When did I say that we had to adopt their rules domestically? I said that exporters have to make compliant products as they do for any market.
Then why do you advocate joining the EEA? Do you know what it is?
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
I have had the odd fresh faced graduate in computer science under my wing throughout my working life, I can certainly say there is a decline not necessarily in them but what they are taught. Last guy I had in fact under my wing wasnt even a gradutate he was on work experience from school. First day I looked over his work and called him over and went why is every method returning a string array? His reply was "Oh well all the ones we write at school do so". End of his placement his teacher came in and I took her through what he had written in his 6 weeks with us. She was oh we don't teach any of that till degree level. FFS we are writing in an object oriented language he is being taught in one as a procedural language where all return values have to be string arrays
I'm surprised he didn't say:
"Well Grandpa, the chances are that this is going to end up part of a web service, so anything else would be a bit 1997."
We were writing webservice style stuff....doesnt mean it should only return string arrays. Json etc is a little bit better than that
The last time I was returning objects like that, I was writing GPU code and used struct to return data.
The NVIDIA guys were actually interested by the fact that worked (very, very early CUDA) - I wondered why it *wouldn't* given how simple a struct is....
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I think thats sort of the point I was trying to make
There are x jobs in the country Y% are good jobs Z% are menial jobs
If the people qualified to do y jobs in society are greater than the number of y jobs then some of them will end up in z jobs. Keeping the wages of z jobs artificially low by using an infinite labour pool does those only able to get Z jobs whether through lack of skills or lack of luck getting a y job does them no favours.
The place where you and I disagree is the "keeping wages artificially low". I am fully onboard that unlimited immigration increases demand on scarce resources like housing, schools, etc., and therefore creates negative externalities.
However, if wages were driving down the cost of labour across the board, you'd expect to see a number of things:
(1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates (2) The profit share of GDP grow relative to countries where immigration was lower (3) Lower wage growth than countries where immigration was lower
But (1) is a definite "no", (2) is also "no", with the UK's dropping behind most other EU and developed world countries for profit share, and (3) is at best is mixed (albeit, you would expect that countries with higher wage growth would attract more immigration, so it is chicken and egg).
I struggle to see how - given an increasing proportion of jobs can be delivered remotely or across national borders - wages in the medium term exceed international norms. Now, that may not be true of Starbucks or your local hairdresser, but it's probably true of pretty much every graduate level job.
Ok for starters 1) is false. It would be true if lower wages in equal situations. However the uk has not invested in automation and has instead used low priced labour so the countries competing are in fact a lot more equal than you claim they merely had an upfront cost to automate which year by year gets cheaper
2) GDP per capita in the uk has declined over the last 20 years to the point we are now 29th
3) Wage growth in this country is misleading if you stripped out the uprating of minimum wage and the excesses of the top 10% wage growth is minimal
You've literally ignored all my points and responded to entirely different ones.
You made 3 points I responded to them...
How do you just for example think I didnt respond to point 1
you said "(1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates"
I replied " But (1) is a definite "no",
That is entirely pertinent
You produce 10 cars and use 20 peoples labour can be equal to the cost of producing 10 cars with 1 persons labour and automation when you amortize the cost of automation over a long enough period.
Many countries have automated....we threw cheap labour at it rather than invest
Does no sub or page editor get sacked these days for writing that "experts" say this and "experts" say that half a dozen times in an article, while repeatedly referring to the country by the name of the monarchist regime?
Looks as though Powellites and Daily Mail readers are going to have one hell of an enjoyable summer.
Recall that Dominic Cummings reckons Labour could walk the next general election if they focus on "violent crime".
Isn't the country called the UK?
No. Do you call France the Fifth Republic?
I don't know how old you are, Rob, but I can tell you that when I was growing up the weathermen didn't say e.g. it will be sunny over the south of the UK today, as they do now. And it was "British government", not "UK government".
Well, the last time we had a summer of riots in England, they were very much called the "UK riots" by the BBC.
In fact it got to the point that foreign gmts were telling their citizens not to travel to the whole of the UK. Scotland, NI and Wales - and for that matter NE England - were losing out touristically. The Scottish Gmt protested and the BBC had to tell its own staff to change their wording to 'English riots'.
they are trying hard to promote it as one country , usual underhand Tory arsewipe unionist tricks. They will not succeed , we are not stupid they can go swivel.
Its underhanded for people to think the UK is a country? Have you got a screw loose?
Why is it honourable to believe in your vision for the country but dishonourable for others to have a different vision? Or for the legal position of the union to be underhanded if referred to. Can we not respect different views?
You're not a parody malc, theres no need to try so hard.
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I think thats sort of the point I was trying to make
There are x jobs in the country Y% are good jobs Z% are menial jobs
If the people qualified to do y jobs in society are greater than the number of y jobs then some of them will end up in z jobs. Keeping the wages of z jobs artificially low by using an infinite labour pool does those only able to get Z jobs whether through lack of skills or lack of luck getting a y job does them no favours.
The place where you and I disagree is the "keeping wages artificially low". I am fully onboard that unlimited immigration increases demand on scarce resources like housing, schools, etc., and therefore creates negative externalities.
However, if wages were driving down the cost of labour across the board, you'd expect to see a number of things:
(1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates (2) The profit share of GDP grow relative to countries where immigration was lower (3) Lower wage growth than countries where immigration was lower
But (1) is a definite "no", (2) is also "no", with the UK's dropping behind most other EU and developed world countries for profit share, and (3) is at best is mixed (albeit, you would expect that countries with higher wage growth would attract more immigration, so it is chicken and egg).
I struggle to see how - given an increasing proportion of jobs can be delivered remotely or across national borders - wages in the medium term exceed international norms. Now, that may not be true of Starbucks or your local hairdresser, but it's probably true of pretty much every graduate level job.
Ok for starters 1) is false. It would be true if lower wages in equal situations. However the uk has not invested in automation and has instead used low priced labour so the countries competing are in fact a lot more equal than you claim they merely had an upfront cost to automate which year by year gets cheaper
2) GDP per capita in the uk has declined over the last 20 years to the point we are now 29th
3) Wage growth in this country is misleading if you stripped out the uprating of minimum wage and the excesses of the top 10% wage growth is minimal
You've literally ignored all my points and responded to entirely different ones.
You made 3 points I responded to them...
How do you just for example think I didnt respond to point 1
you said "(1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates"
I replied " But (1) is a definite "no",
That is entirely pertinent
You produce 10 cars and use 20 peoples labour can be equal to the cost of producing 10 cars with 1 persons labour and automation when you amortize the cost of automation over a long enough period.
Many countries have automated....we threw cheap labour at it rather than invest
Firstly, where's your evidence? Secondly, it also entirely misses the point. A company that both invests and has cheap labor will do better.
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I think thats sort of the point I was trying to make
There are x jobs in the country Y% are good jobs Z% are menial jobs
If the people qualified to do y jobs in society are greater than the number of y jobs then some of them will end up in z jobs. Keeping the wages of z jobs artificially low by using an infinite labour pool does those only able to get Z jobs whether through lack of skills or lack of luck getting a y job does them no favours.
The place where you and I disagree is the "keeping wages artificially low". I am fully onboard that unlimited immigration increases demand on scarce resources like housing, schools, etc., and therefore creates negative externalities.
However, if wages were driving down the cost of labour across the board, you'd expect to see a number of things:
(1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates (2) The profit share of GDP grow relative to countries where immigration was lower (3) Lower wage growth than countries where immigration was lower
But (1) is a definite "no", (2) is also "no", with the UK's dropping behind most other EU and developed world countries for profit share, and (3) is at best is mixed (albeit, you would expect that countries with higher wage growth would attract more immigration, so it is chicken and egg).
I struggle to see how - given an increasing proportion of jobs can be delivered remotely or across national borders - wages in the medium term exceed international norms. Now, that may not be true of Starbucks or your local hairdresser, but it's probably true of pretty much every graduate level job.
Ok for starters 1) is false. It would be true if lower wages in equal situations. However the uk has not invested in automation and has instead used low priced labour so the countries competing are in fact a lot more equal than you claim they merely had an upfront cost to automate which year by year gets cheaper
2) GDP per capita in the uk has declined over the last 20 years to the point we are now 29th
3) Wage growth in this country is misleading if you stripped out the uprating of minimum wage and the excesses of the top 10% wage growth is minimal
You've literally ignored all my points and responded to entirely different ones.
You made 3 points I responded to them...
How do you just for example think I didnt respond to point 1
you said "(1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates"
I replied " But (1) is a definite "no",
That is entirely pertinent
You produce 10 cars and use 20 peoples labour can be equal to the cost of producing 10 cars with 1 persons labour and automation when you amortize the cost of automation over a long enough period.
Many countries have automated....we threw cheap labour at it rather than invest
Firstly, where's your evidence? Secondly, it also entirely misses the point. A company that both invests and has cheap labor will do better.
And, thirdly, investment (I suspect) is highly correlated to the proportion of economic activity that is manufacturing and resource extraction.
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
I have had the odd fresh faced graduate in computer science under my wing throughout my working life, I can certainly say there is a decline not necessarily in them but what they are taught. Last guy I had in fact under my wing wasnt even a gradutate he was on work experience from school. First day I looked over his work and called him over and went why is every method returning a string array? His reply was "Oh well all the ones we write at school do so". End of his placement his teacher came in and I took her through what he had written in his 6 weeks with us. She was oh we don't teach any of that till degree level. FFS we are writing in an object oriented language he is being taught in one as a procedural language where all return values have to be string arrays
I'm surprised he didn't say:
"Well Grandpa, the chances are that this is going to end up part of a web service, so anything else would be a bit 1997."
We were writing webservice style stuff....doesnt mean it should only return string arrays. Json etc is a little bit better than that
The last time I was returning objects like that, I was writing GPU code and used struct to return data.
The NVIDIA guys were actually interested by the fact that worked (very, very early CUDA) - I wondered why it *wouldn't* given how simple a struct is....
Nothing wrong with a struct, sadly he was writing code that returned things like "1","2","3" and then parsing the ints from strings the other side. He really didnt know you couldn't just return an array of ints....this was a gcse student not a graduate. return everything as an array of strings was what he was taught. Sadly we werent passing json so it had to be parsed
I hope Trump doesn't win again for many many reasons, but I wouldn't want him to ruin Cleveland's record as the only President to serve non consecutive terms. And Cleveland won the popular vote three times to boot.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
The "Birmingham Phoenix Men" sound like a Butlins act
The names are as bad as the graphics....
I feel like graphics are only noticed if they are really good or really bad. They are very glaring which must be intentional - the clips that are shown with text running along the edges look very 90s.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
What’s the point of leaving to follow their rules?
What is the point in arbitrarily changing our rules just to be different? Again, if we want to trade with them, our stuff has to be compliant, just as the toys made in China for the UK market have to be compliant with our rules.
We can do whatever we want with our standards. And the EU can do what they want and if that means we're no longer compliant they won't let us in. Sovereignty works both ways.
You’re contradicting yourself. Two markets don’t need to have the same rules in order to trade..
Indeed. When did I say that they did?
“If… we're no longer compliant they won't let us in”
Why do you think we need to adopt their rules domestically if you don’t believe this?
When did I say that we had to adopt their rules domestically? I said that exporters have to make compliant products as they do for any market.
Then why do you advocate joining the EEA? Do you know what it is?
Oh dear God. We should join the EEA because we benefit from Free Trade. A massive Free Trade Area is a Good Thing.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
What’s the point of leaving to follow their rules?
What is the point in arbitrarily changing our rules just to be different? Again, if we want to trade with them, our stuff has to be compliant, just as the toys made in China for the UK market have to be compliant with our rules.
We can do whatever we want with our standards. And the EU can do what they want and if that means we're no longer compliant they won't let us in. Sovereignty works both ways.
You’re contradicting yourself. Two markets don’t need to have the same rules in order to trade..
Indeed. When did I say that they did?
“If… we're no longer compliant they won't let us in”
Why do you think we need to adopt their rules domestically if you don’t believe this?
When did I say that we had to adopt their rules domestically? I said that exporters have to make compliant products as they do for any market.
Then why do you advocate joining the EEA? Do you know what it is?
Oh dear God. We should join the EEA because we benefit from Free Trade. A massive Free Trade Area is a Good Thing.
But the only difference between the EEA and what we have with the TCA is that in the EEA we would have to follow their rules domestically with no say, whereas we can currently largely do what we want domestically.
But the only difference between the EEA and what we have with the TCA is that in the EEA we would have to follow their rules domestically with no say, whereas we can currently largely do what we want domestically.
I wanted the UK to rejoin EFTA - as such a powerful economy, we would and could have remade EFTA into a powerful counterpoint to the EU - a free trade alternative to the political convergence.
I'd have been happy for the UK to fully fund and organise EFTA with its headquarters and staff in London.
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Lots of empty seats at the cricket this evening....are there still restrictions on attendance?
Safe to say it hasn’t captured the public imagination
As I said on here the other day the Hundred won't work as it's a non standard format.
Test, 50 over and 20 twenty is established. The Hundred isn't.
👍
The Hundred might work.
But given the amount of backing its being given, a T20 series with the same publicity, same backing, same terrestrial coverage etc could have worked just as well.
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Uncontrolled shortages. What is says on the tin. Some places fine, other places screwed. And then the same in reverse randomly. Because its uncontrolled.
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Uncontrolled shortages. What is says on the tin. Some places fine, other places screwed. And then the same in reverse randomly. Because its uncontrolled.
Now that the pingdemic exception has been granted to the supermarket depots and supply chains then ultimately the poorly managed businesses that can't control their stocks should suffer and the well managed ones will do better.
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Uncontrolled shortages. What is says on the tin. Some places fine, other places screwed. And then the same in reverse randomly. Because its uncontrolled.
I was responding to a claim that a store was like last year. No evidence of that anywhere. It would be all over the news social media.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Uncontrolled shortages. What is says on the tin. Some places fine, other places screwed. And then the same in reverse randomly. Because its uncontrolled.
I was responding to a claim that a store was like last year. No evidence of that anywhere. It would be all over the news social media.
My local Tesco's was.
Though not due to the news, they'd suffered an instore refridgeration failure so there was essentially no cold stocks until they could get an engineer to fix it.
Brand new supermarket, only opened a couple of months ago, so that's embarrassing for them.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Uncontrolled shortages. What is says on the tin. Some places fine, other places screwed. And then the same in reverse randomly. Because its uncontrolled.
Now that the pingdemic exception has been granted to the supermarket depots and supply chains then ultimately the poorly managed businesses that can't control their stocks should suffer and the well managed ones will do better.
The pingdemic amplified the problem of a lack of drivers and vehicles. That latter problem is still real and not going away quickly.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
That was a ban on production. The import ban was only recently announced, and I'm not sure when it comes into effect.
Banning something because it couldn't be made in the UK is a non-tariff barrier.
Our government should be ashamed of themselves.
We had this discussion a while back - should whale meat imports be allowed from Iceland? If so then expect whales hunted to shoot up as a result if their meat was suddenly exported worldwide.
Foie gras can be made domestically, except its outlawed as cruelty. There's no reason to import cruelty, that's not a non-tariff barrier, that's animal standards and its to the EU's shame they don't have high enough standards surely?
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Uncontrolled shortages. What is says on the tin. Some places fine, other places screwed. And then the same in reverse randomly. Because its uncontrolled.
I was responding to a claim that a store was like last year. No evidence of that anywhere. It would be all over the news social media.
At its worst last year it was every store with no pasta or bog rolls etc. We're nowhere near that. But we are in a place of some stores having big gaps, bigger than last year and their neighbours being fine. And then vice versa.
The last thing we need is the notion of 202-style mass shortages as that would CREATE them!
Should have mentioned my trip to Sainsbury's in Ilford North yesterday, er, yesterday, but at any rate, saw very few shelves completely empty, namely Cornetto ice cream (as opposed to other brands), Pizza Express chilled pizzas (as opposed to any other brand), penne pasta (Fusili and other types OK), and ready to eat pasta pots in the sandwich section. Frozen peas (own brand) almost all gone - I bought the last bag! But plenty of Bird's Eye peas and own brand petit pois.
I think the UK will eventually agree a semi-free movement deal for under 35s from most EU countries on a bilateral basis. Similar to what we've just agreed with Australia. It suits all parties.
Does not suit me and I suspect doesn't suit those youngsters who are finally getting off rock bottom minimum wages due to not having an essentially infinite labour pool to draw on to keep wages at the bottom. Hospitality workers for example
That argument only works if you have significant unemployment, which was certainly not the case before covid.
If you have virtually full employment, and then you send away most of those doing menial jobs, the net effect is that more indigenous people end up doing menial jobs instead of more fulfilling work, albeit for somewhat higher wages than those who they replace. And everything gets more expensive.
For a lot of indigenous people especially the young menial work like stacking shelves and waiting tables is all they can get for a few years. If you can afford to go out for a meal you can afford to pay a little more. Maybe then the staff waiting on you can also afford to go out for a meal occasionally.
If the pay rises high enough due to staff shortages people from abroad will be able to get visa's under the points system to come do it.
For example my son, got a top class MsC from UCL in biochemistry....spent 3 years doing such menial jobs till he managed to find a non menial one, also know a friend of his that got a first in marine biology...still working in costa's after 8 years because he cant find a not hospitality job
Marine Biology and Philosophy have always had the highest graduate unemployment rates.
There's an interesting issue here, that's not related to Brexit. In the old days (say the mid-1990s), lots of big firms took in massive quantities of graduates and trained them up. Arthur Anderson or PWC would take in 1,000+ graduates each year, and places like Unilever would also take on very large numbers.
These days, the number of graduate training jobs is well down. And that's because hiring graduates is usually an altruistic pursuit. A 22 year old with little experience of work is going to cost you more in training (even before salary) than he's going to produce.
Firms, therefore, ended up wanting to employ people with a few years work experience under their belt. They wanted to make sure that people could turn up to work every day at 7am, that they'd know how to take instruction, etc. And yes, even a year at Costa Coffee was better than coming straight out of Manchester or UCL or the Sorbonne.
When I left Goldman at the beginning of 2000, this meant the average (i.e. the mean) age of someone on the graduate training programme was 27! Now some of this was because Germans left university earlier, but mostly it was because they expected a couple of years of real world experience before you joined.
And I think that's continued. Simply, we have a combination of many more graduates that in even 1995, combined with the fact that in today's economy, employers want someone with a bit more maturity.
I've noticed a big change in trainee intakes at my (law) firm. When I started (roughly 10 years ago), a large majority of the trainees with a legal background were straight out of law school/gap years. Now most of the trainees I see coming in seem to have spent at least some time as a paralegal first. I think being forced into paralegalling before a training contract was almost an indicator that you were probably not quite up to it back then (I'm not saying it's correct, just what I felt a lot of people's perception was), while it's certainly not the case now.
I have had the odd fresh faced graduate in computer science under my wing throughout my working life, I can certainly say there is a decline not necessarily in them but what they are taught. Last guy I had in fact under my wing wasnt even a gradutate he was on work experience from school. First day I looked over his work and called him over and went why is every method returning a string array? His reply was "Oh well all the ones we write at school do so". End of his placement his teacher came in and I took her through what he had written in his 6 weeks with us. She was oh we don't teach any of that till degree level. FFS we are writing in an object oriented language he is being taught in one as a procedural language where all return values have to be string arrays
I'm surprised he didn't say:
"Well Grandpa, the chances are that this is going to end up part of a web service, so anything else would be a bit 1997."
We were writing webservice style stuff....doesnt mean it should only return string arrays. Json etc is a little bit better than that
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Uncontrolled shortages. What is says on the tin. Some places fine, other places screwed. And then the same in reverse randomly. Because its uncontrolled.
Now that the pingdemic exception has been granted to the supermarket depots and supply chains then ultimately the poorly managed businesses that can't control their stocks should suffer and the well managed ones will do better.
The pingdemic amplified the problem of a lack of drivers and vehicles. That latter problem is still real and not going away quickly.
The better managed companies will pay what they need to pay to deal with the latter. Any cheapskates that don't, deserve what they get.
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Uncontrolled shortages. What is says on the tin. Some places fine, other places screwed. And then the same in reverse randomly. Because its uncontrolled.
I was responding to a claim that a store was like last year. No evidence of that anywhere. It would be all over the news social media.
At its worst last year it was every store with no pasta or bog rolls etc. We're nowhere near that. But we are in a place of some stores having big gaps, bigger than last year and their neighbours being fine. And then vice versa.
The last thing we need is the notion of 202-style mass shortages as that would CREATE them!
Which is why a poster claiming that people are locked up in their houses (totally untrue as we have no legal restrictions) and the shops are in meltdown (not true, some supply issues in places) HAS to be challenged.
I don't think anyone told Amir there's supposed to be only 100 balls bowled in this style. A no ball followed three wides bowled consecutively. 😂
But still managed to get a wicket on the 9th delivery of his five ball over.
Do I lose some street cred if I admit I'm actually finding this entertaining? Even though I think T20s would be just as entertaining.
I think a cricket competition like this will have entertaining matches. It just doesnt seem like the gimmicks add to the entertainment, they're irrelevant.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Not really, unless hospitalisations are also up 4000%.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
As if the regulars aren’t perfectly capable of posting scare stories.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.
Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.
Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.
Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).
I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
"Had to be" is strong language.
Other parties didn't have to create all woman shortlists. Getting rid of misogyny and ensuring there are good female candidates ought to be enough.
So perhaps it is fair to say that, in order to achieve a balance between the genders it was necessary for Labour to use all-women shortlists, because the Conservative approach clearly has not worked.
Depends if all you're trying to do is achieve token artificial balance, or if you're trying to get the best and brightest who want to be MPs regardless of gender to the fore - and then bring them to the fore of your party too.
Labour has gotten more female MPs through, but then never been able to have any of them elected to being leader of the party. The Tories have had two female Prime Ministers (as much as I regret one of them).
Its not just at leadership level either than Labour are behind, of the 49 female Cabinet Ministers there have been throughout time according to Wikipedia, 23 of them have been Labour, 26 of them Tory, so in all time a majority of female Cabinet Ministers have come from the Tory Party, not the Labour Party. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01250/SN01250.pdf
Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with statistics would know that smaller sample sizes are more prone to random variation, so responding to my point about the gender balance among MPs with a point about the gender balance among party leaders is meaningless, and as for your point about cabinet minsters, without saying how many cabinet ministers there had been in total on Tory or Labour cabinets as a whole it is also equally meaningless.
You questioned whether all-women shortlists were required. We can see that they are if you want to achieve gender balance.
I think it should be seriously concerning to you that the Conservative party still fails - in 2021 - to have an equal balance of genders in its MPs. That implies a very large bias against women, most likely at several different stages of the process, and it's not good enough to try to handwave it away.
I don't think we should be seeking to acquire artificial "balance". Not if that then harms the women as being a "token woman" rather than taken seriously on their own merits - nor if it means a better candidate who just happened to be male is denied.
There is no guarantee that the party being disproportionately male is biased against women, it could be that more men than women are interested in politics and interested in running for office. It could be that Labour are denying better candidates for token women who are then ignored the second they're on the backbenches.
That the Tories have had more female Cabinet ministers than Labour have should really put paid to any ridiculous notion that what Labour is doing is working.
Are you honestly still trying to run with the argument that women simply aren't interested in politics and don't want to be MPs? In 2021?
There may well be better ways of fixing the problem than all-women shortlists - I certainly hope so, because I'm not a big fan of them. But you're never going to find better ways of fixing the problem if you refuse to admit that you have one.
Actually I am going to run with the argument that women are less interested in running for office and less women than men want to be MPs. In 2021. You only have to look at this site and the site is dominated primarily by males, females are very much a minority here. Does that mean that there's discrimination against women preventing women from coming to this site - or since registration is free to everyone does that simply reflect the fact fewer women want to join the site?
I don't have the facts for how many people apply to be prospective parliamentary candidates but hypothetically if there were 10 male applications for every one female one - and if hypothetically there were from that 4 males for every one female chosen, then each female applicant will have had 250% of the chance of being selected than every male one. Does that imply discrimination against women or not?
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
That is interesting, (sad also)
My take is that Delta is so transmissible even with the Approved vaccines, that you need a combination of a lot of people to have had it and a lot of vaccinations to fully get to heard immunity for the Delta variant, and Malta did not have that many caes, overall is amongst the lowest deaths/million in the EU. AIUI infection + vaccination gives an person more protection than just Vaccination.
That sead, its worth asking, which vaccines did Malta use, did they get ahead of the rest of the EU because they bought the Russian or Chines vaccines? and did how long did they space out there Jabbing?
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
i agree mate but if this is happening it makes the idea of vaccine passports quite ludicrous
Not really.
A surge in infections among young unvaccinated people is partly responsible for the soaring cases. One in four people with the virus are now students who came to Malta to study English.
Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.
Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.
Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.
Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).
I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
"Had to be" is strong language.
Other parties didn't have to create all woman shortlists. Getting rid of misogyny and ensuring there are good female candidates ought to be enough.
So perhaps it is fair to say that, in order to achieve a balance between the genders it was necessary for Labour to use all-women shortlists, because the Conservative approach clearly has not worked.
Depends if all you're trying to do is achieve token artificial balance, or if you're trying to get the best and brightest who want to be MPs regardless of gender to the fore - and then bring them to the fore of your party too.
Labour has gotten more female MPs through, but then never been able to have any of them elected to being leader of the party. The Tories have had two female Prime Ministers (as much as I regret one of them).
Its not just at leadership level either than Labour are behind, of the 49 female Cabinet Ministers there have been throughout time according to Wikipedia, 23 of them have been Labour, 26 of them Tory, so in all time a majority of female Cabinet Ministers have come from the Tory Party, not the Labour Party. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01250/SN01250.pdf
Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with statistics would know that smaller sample sizes are more prone to random variation, so responding to my point about the gender balance among MPs with a point about the gender balance among party leaders is meaningless, and as for your point about cabinet minsters, without saying how many cabinet ministers there had been in total on Tory or Labour cabinets as a whole it is also equally meaningless.
You questioned whether all-women shortlists were required. We can see that they are if you want to achieve gender balance.
I think it should be seriously concerning to you that the Conservative party still fails - in 2021 - to have an equal balance of genders in its MPs. That implies a very large bias against women, most likely at several different stages of the process, and it's not good enough to try to handwave it away.
I don't think we should be seeking to acquire artificial "balance". Not if that then harms the women as being a "token woman" rather than taken seriously on their own merits - nor if it means a better candidate who just happened to be male is denied.
There is no guarantee that the party being disproportionately male is biased against women, it could be that more men than women are interested in politics and interested in running for office. It could be that Labour are denying better candidates for token women who are then ignored the second they're on the backbenches.
That the Tories have had more female Cabinet ministers than Labour have should really put paid to any ridiculous notion that what Labour is doing is working.
Are you honestly still trying to run with the argument that women simply aren't interested in politics and don't want to be MPs? In 2021?
There may well be better ways of fixing the problem than all-women shortlists - I certainly hope so, because I'm not a big fan of them. But you're never going to find better ways of fixing the problem if you refuse to admit that you have one.
Actually I am going to run with the argument that women are less interested in running for office and less women than men want to be MPs. In 2021. You only have to look at this site and the site is dominated primarily by males, females are very much a minority here. Does that mean that there's discrimination against women preventing women from coming to this site - or since registration is free to everyone does that simply reflect the fact fewer women want to join the site?
I don't have the facts for how many people apply to be prospective parliamentary candidates but hypothetically if there were 10 male applications for every one female one - and if hypothetically there were from that 4 males for every one female chosen, then each female applicant will have had 250% of the chance of being selected than every male one. Does that imply discrimination against women or not?
At least in part this is down to women getting misogynistic abuse because a small but significant portion of the country does not like women in power or being active politically. The status quo is in no realistic sense selecting the best people for the job.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Could be many possible explanations.
Three weeks ago the vaccination rate was under 80% so given the 3 week lag for vaccines to work that's a fifth of the population unvaccinated effectively.
Plus does the data include tourists or other visitors? I believe Malta has a high transient population working on bases etc - if they count in the vaccine or case numerator but not the denominator then that can play havoc with percentages. No idea if this is true or not, just guessing.
One of the coolest catch -> throw up in the air -> jump over the fence -> jump back over the fence -> recatch the ball wickets I've seen in cricket just then. He managed to throw the ball so high up that by the time the ball came back down he was just completely calmly stood underneath waiting for the ball to land back in his hands.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.
Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.
Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.
Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).
I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
"Had to be" is strong language.
Other parties didn't have to create all woman shortlists. Getting rid of misogyny and ensuring there are good female candidates ought to be enough.
So perhaps it is fair to say that, in order to achieve a balance between the genders it was necessary for Labour to use all-women shortlists, because the Conservative approach clearly has not worked.
Depends if all you're trying to do is achieve token artificial balance, or if you're trying to get the best and brightest who want to be MPs regardless of gender to the fore - and then bring them to the fore of your party too.
Labour has gotten more female MPs through, but then never been able to have any of them elected to being leader of the party. The Tories have had two female Prime Ministers (as much as I regret one of them).
Its not just at leadership level either than Labour are behind, of the 49 female Cabinet Ministers there have been throughout time according to Wikipedia, 23 of them have been Labour, 26 of them Tory, so in all time a majority of female Cabinet Ministers have come from the Tory Party, not the Labour Party. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01250/SN01250.pdf
Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with statistics would know that smaller sample sizes are more prone to random variation, so responding to my point about the gender balance among MPs with a point about the gender balance among party leaders is meaningless, and as for your point about cabinet minsters, without saying how many cabinet ministers there had been in total on Tory or Labour cabinets as a whole it is also equally meaningless.
You questioned whether all-women shortlists were required. We can see that they are if you want to achieve gender balance.
I think it should be seriously concerning to you that the Conservative party still fails - in 2021 - to have an equal balance of genders in its MPs. That implies a very large bias against women, most likely at several different stages of the process, and it's not good enough to try to handwave it away.
I don't think we should be seeking to acquire artificial "balance". Not if that then harms the women as being a "token woman" rather than taken seriously on their own merits - nor if it means a better candidate who just happened to be male is denied.
There is no guarantee that the party being disproportionately male is biased against women, it could be that more men than women are interested in politics and interested in running for office. It could be that Labour are denying better candidates for token women who are then ignored the second they're on the backbenches.
That the Tories have had more female Cabinet ministers than Labour have should really put paid to any ridiculous notion that what Labour is doing is working.
Are you honestly still trying to run with the argument that women simply aren't interested in politics and don't want to be MPs? In 2021?
There may well be better ways of fixing the problem than all-women shortlists - I certainly hope so, because I'm not a big fan of them. But you're never going to find better ways of fixing the problem if you refuse to admit that you have one.
Actually I am going to run with the argument that women are less interested in running for office and less women than men want to be MPs. In 2021. You only have to look at this site and the site is dominated primarily by males, females are very much a minority here. Does that mean that there's discrimination against women preventing women from coming to this site - or since registration is free to everyone does that simply reflect the fact fewer women want to join the site?
I don't have the facts for how many people apply to be prospective parliamentary candidates but hypothetically if there were 10 male applications for every one female one - and if hypothetically there were from that 4 males for every one female chosen, then each female applicant will have had 250% of the chance of being selected than every male one. Does that imply discrimination against women or not?
At least in part this is down to women getting misogynistic abuse because a small but significant portion of the country does not like women in power or being active politically. The status quo is in no realistic sense selecting the best people for the job.
What evidence do you have for that?
If fewer women want to go into politics there's no guarantee that there's a discriminatory reason for that. If the women who do want to go into politics are discriminated against, or facing abuse, then that's unacceptable.
For instance a few years ago a Labour MP who would go on to become Labour Shadow Chancellor called for a Tory female MP to be "lynched" telling his supporters to "lynch" her. That kind of abuse is disgusting, although that MP who did that is still sitting in Westminster with the Labour whip.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
i agree mate but if this is happening it makes the idea of vaccine passports quite ludicrous
Not really.
A surge in infections among young unvaccinated people is partly responsible for the soaring cases. One in four people with the virus are now students who came to Malta to study English.
Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.
Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.
Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.
Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).
I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
"Had to be" is strong language.
Other parties didn't have to create all woman shortlists. Getting rid of misogyny and ensuring there are good female candidates ought to be enough.
So perhaps it is fair to say that, in order to achieve a balance between the genders it was necessary for Labour to use all-women shortlists, because the Conservative approach clearly has not worked.
Depends if all you're trying to do is achieve token artificial balance, or if you're trying to get the best and brightest who want to be MPs regardless of gender to the fore - and then bring them to the fore of your party too.
Labour has gotten more female MPs through, but then never been able to have any of them elected to being leader of the party. The Tories have had two female Prime Ministers (as much as I regret one of them).
Its not just at leadership level either than Labour are behind, of the 49 female Cabinet Ministers there have been throughout time according to Wikipedia, 23 of them have been Labour, 26 of them Tory, so in all time a majority of female Cabinet Ministers have come from the Tory Party, not the Labour Party. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01250/SN01250.pdf
Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with statistics would know that smaller sample sizes are more prone to random variation, so responding to my point about the gender balance among MPs with a point about the gender balance among party leaders is meaningless, and as for your point about cabinet minsters, without saying how many cabinet ministers there had been in total on Tory or Labour cabinets as a whole it is also equally meaningless.
You questioned whether all-women shortlists were required. We can see that they are if you want to achieve gender balance.
I think it should be seriously concerning to you that the Conservative party still fails - in 2021 - to have an equal balance of genders in its MPs. That implies a very large bias against women, most likely at several different stages of the process, and it's not good enough to try to handwave it away.
I don't think we should be seeking to acquire artificial "balance". Not if that then harms the women as being a "token woman" rather than taken seriously on their own merits - nor if it means a better candidate who just happened to be male is denied.
There is no guarantee that the party being disproportionately male is biased against women, it could be that more men than women are interested in politics and interested in running for office. It could be that Labour are denying better candidates for token women who are then ignored the second they're on the backbenches.
That the Tories have had more female Cabinet ministers than Labour have should really put paid to any ridiculous notion that what Labour is doing is working.
Are you honestly still trying to run with the argument that women simply aren't interested in politics and don't want to be MPs? In 2021?
There may well be better ways of fixing the problem than all-women shortlists - I certainly hope so, because I'm not a big fan of them. But you're never going to find better ways of fixing the problem if you refuse to admit that you have one.
Actually I am going to run with the argument that women are less interested in running for office and less women than men want to be MPs. In 2021. You only have to look at this site and the site is dominated primarily by males, females are very much a minority here. Does that mean that there's discrimination against women preventing women from coming to this site - or since registration is free to everyone does that simply reflect the fact fewer women want to join the site?
I don't have the facts for how many people apply to be prospective parliamentary candidates but hypothetically if there were 10 male applications for every one female one - and if hypothetically there were from that 4 males for every one female chosen, then each female applicant will have had 250% of the chance of being selected than every male one. Does that imply discrimination against women or not?
At least in part this is down to women getting misogynistic abuse because a small but significant portion of the country does not like women in power or being active politically. The status quo is in no realistic sense selecting the best people for the job.
What evidence do you have for that?
If fewer women want to go into politics there's no guarantee that there's a discriminatory reason for that. If the women who do want to go into politics are discriminated against, or facing abuse, then that's unacceptable.
For instance a few years ago a Labour MP who would go on to become Labour Shadow Chancellor called for a Tory female MP to be "lynched" telling his supporters to "lynch" her. That kind of abuse is disgusting, although that MP who did that is still sitting in Westminster with the Labour whip.
But numbers alone aren't a proof of anything.
I am not making a partisan point here, there are abusive types across the political spectrum.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
i agree mate but if this is happening it makes the idea of vaccine passports quite ludicrous
Not really.
A surge in infections among young unvaccinated people is partly responsible for the soaring cases. One in four people with the virus are now students who came to Malta to study English.
sure but it is obviously also transmitting amongst vaccinated people though we can argue about the rates at which it is doing so
Is it obviously? I've not actually seen anything beyond assertion to back that up.
so you are saying no vaccinated people are getting covid in malta when cases have risen 4000% and 90% of the population is vaccinated. Its a view but statistically highly improbable. I suspect you are letting bias cloud your judgement
I'm just saying there has been no evidence presented. Your first post on this topic suggested it was worrying because of the high vaccination rate. Digging a bit deeper with a google search led me to evidence saying that a quarter of all new cases were from a tiny subset of people (visitors travelling to study English). That suggests to me an outbreak that is highly localised, concentrated amongst young people who are much more likely not to be vaccinated.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
You've lost me there.
Irrelevant.
England says to ma to. EU says to mae toe. You’re both right and you’re both wrong.
This is where trade is headed: blatant childishness.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
You've lost me there.
Irrelevant.
England says to ma to. EU says to mae toe. You’re both right and you’re both wrong.
This is where trade is headed: blatant childishness.
Banning foie gras is childishness? Can I say it's a view?
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
i agree mate but if this is happening it makes the idea of vaccine passports quite ludicrous
Not really.
A surge in infections among young unvaccinated people is partly responsible for the soaring cases. One in four people with the virus are now students who came to Malta to study English.
sure but it is obviously also transmitting amongst vaccinated people though we can argue about the rates at which it is doing so
Is it obviously? I've not actually seen anything beyond assertion to back that up.
so you are saying no vaccinated people are getting covid in malta when cases have risen 4000% and 90% of the population is vaccinated. Its a view but statistically highly improbable. I suspect you are letting bias cloud your judgement
90% of the population are not vaccinated though.
80% of the population were single vaccinated three weeks ago. That means one-fifth of the population have no vaccine produced immunity yet.
Plus as has been said, Malta has a lot of visitors to the country testing positive. Since they're not demanding vaxports from Europeans I believe, people can travel even if unvaccinated.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
i agree mate but if this is happening it makes the idea of vaccine passports quite ludicrous
Not really.
A surge in infections among young unvaccinated people is partly responsible for the soaring cases. One in four people with the virus are now students who came to Malta to study English.
sure but it is obviously also transmitting amongst vaccinated people though we can argue about the rates at which it is doing so
Is it obviously? I've not actually seen anything beyond assertion to back that up.
so you are saying no vaccinated people are getting covid in malta when cases have risen 4000% and 90% of the population is vaccinated. Its a view but statistically highly improbable. I suspect you are letting bias cloud your judgement
90% of the population are not vaccinated though.
80% of the population were single vaccinated three weeks ago. That means one-fifth of the population have no vaccine produced immunity yet.
Plus as has been said, Malta has a lot of visitors to the country testing positive. Since they're not demanding vaxports from Europeans I believe, people can travel even if unvaccinated.
How many are double-jabbed? That's the most relevant statistic.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
You've lost me there.
Irrelevant.
England says to ma to. EU says to mae toe. You’re both right and you’re both wrong.
This is where trade is headed: blatant childishness.
Banning foie gras is childishness? Can I say it's a view?
Yes, that’s a valid point of view. The French have a different point of view. And France has 26 pals; England has none.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
You've lost me there.
Irrelevant.
England says to ma to. EU says to mae toe. You’re both right and you’re both wrong.
This is where trade is headed: blatant childishness.
Banning foie gras is childishness? Can I say it's a view?
Yes, that’s a valid point of view. The French have a different point of view. And France has 26 pals; England has none.
I suspect the only reason it isn't banned in the EU is the French, rather than due to the support of their "pals".
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Interesting and difficult; but Brexit is not, I think, a complete free for all. I feel the central message was not 'Free for all' but 'Take back control'. And if something made elsewhere involves what we regard as animal cruelty then that seems to me to be the sort of thing people voted for the UK to be able to decide.
The trick with international trade is to minimise not maximise barriers. Our power to reduce/eliminate tariffs on, say agricultural products of poor countries is a bigger gain than foie gras is a loss (IMHO).
Someone who was not even a Tory MP was at times favourite to be next Tory leader - and he became Tory leader eventually albeit Theresa May was the leader in the interim in arguably the biggest mistake the Tory Party has made since it was founded.
Burnham has a clear path to being next Labour leader. Return to Parliament at the next election, which Starmer loses, then win the leadership contest.
Burnham as next Labour leader seems as likely as Starmer as next PM.
Both essentially require no change in leadership before the next election. Starmer bet wins then if Labour wins the election (unlikely), while Burnham wins if Labour loses the election (likely) and he wins the leadership contest (likely).
I concur. I think the next GE is Johnson v Starmer. Neither will be replaced before then. This means my long of Starmer Next PM at 8 is a Smug City position. It'll be trading at under 4 quite soon. But if the Cons win another majority Starmer will go and Burnham looks well placed to succeed him. Yes, he needs a seat, and he's not by any stretch a woman - which is a negative - nevertheless I wouldn't be laying him at the current 4.2. In fact it appeals (as per your logic) as a buy vs the Starmer bet. If this falls on a Con GE win, you'll probably see Burnham very short as next Lab leader. However I won't be doing this. Reason being it's a way off and much can happen in the meantime - eg Burnham loses interest, or goes off the boil, or we in Labour decide to grasp the nettle and actually elect a female leader instead of just musing about how terrific it would be to finally have one.
It it hard to see why it is a negative for a candidate to be male here. Labour selectorate consistently prefer men despite women standing. It may even be a big help if its 1 man vs several women again as it was for Starmer (ignoring Lewis who withdrew early on).
Wasn't that the reason why all woman shortlists had to be created? As even when you offered a choice of 4 women and 1 man, the man had way more than a 20% chance of getting selected..
"Had to be" is strong language.
Other parties didn't have to create all woman shortlists. Getting rid of misogyny and ensuring there are good female candidates ought to be enough.
So perhaps it is fair to say that, in order to achieve a balance between the genders it was necessary for Labour to use all-women shortlists, because the Conservative approach clearly has not worked.
Depends if all you're trying to do is achieve token artificial balance, or if you're trying to get the best and brightest who want to be MPs regardless of gender to the fore - and then bring them to the fore of your party too.
Labour has gotten more female MPs through, but then never been able to have any of them elected to being leader of the party. The Tories have had two female Prime Ministers (as much as I regret one of them).
Its not just at leadership level either than Labour are behind, of the 49 female Cabinet Ministers there have been throughout time according to Wikipedia, 23 of them have been Labour, 26 of them Tory, so in all time a majority of female Cabinet Ministers have come from the Tory Party, not the Labour Party. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01250/SN01250.pdf
Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with statistics would know that smaller sample sizes are more prone to random variation, so responding to my point about the gender balance among MPs with a point about the gender balance among party leaders is meaningless, and as for your point about cabinet minsters, without saying how many cabinet ministers there had been in total on Tory or Labour cabinets as a whole it is also equally meaningless.
You questioned whether all-women shortlists were required. We can see that they are if you want to achieve gender balance.
I think it should be seriously concerning to you that the Conservative party still fails - in 2021 - to have an equal balance of genders in its MPs. That implies a very large bias against women, most likely at several different stages of the process, and it's not good enough to try to handwave it away.
I don't think we should be seeking to acquire artificial "balance". Not if that then harms the women as being a "token woman" rather than taken seriously on their own merits - nor if it means a better candidate who just happened to be male is denied.
There is no guarantee that the party being disproportionately male is biased against women, it could be that more men than women are interested in politics and interested in running for office. It could be that Labour are denying better candidates for token women who are then ignored the second they're on the backbenches.
That the Tories have had more female Cabinet ministers than Labour have should really put paid to any ridiculous notion that what Labour is doing is working.
Are you honestly still trying to run with the argument that women simply aren't interested in politics and don't want to be MPs? In 2021?
There may well be better ways of fixing the problem than all-women shortlists - I certainly hope so, because I'm not a big fan of them. But you're never going to find better ways of fixing the problem if you refuse to admit that you have one.
Actually I am going to run with the argument that women are less interested in running for office and less women than men want to be MPs. In 2021. You only have to look at this site and the site is dominated primarily by males, females are very much a minority here. Does that mean that there's discrimination against women preventing women from coming to this site - or since registration is free to everyone does that simply reflect the fact fewer women want to join the site?
I don't have the facts for how many people apply to be prospective parliamentary candidates but hypothetically if there were 10 male applications for every one female one - and if hypothetically there were from that 4 males for every one female chosen, then each female applicant will have had 250% of the chance of being selected than every male one. Does that imply discrimination against women or not?
At least in part this is down to women getting misogynistic abuse because a small but significant portion of the country does not like women in power or being active politically. The status quo is in no realistic sense selecting the best people for the job.
What evidence do you have for that?
If fewer women want to go into politics there's no guarantee that there's a discriminatory reason for that. If the women who do want to go into politics are discriminated against, or facing abuse, then that's unacceptable.
For instance a few years ago a Labour MP who would go on to become Labour Shadow Chancellor called for a Tory female MP to be "lynched" telling his supporters to "lynch" her. That kind of abuse is disgusting, although that MP who did that is still sitting in Westminster with the Labour whip.
But numbers alone aren't a proof of anything.
I am not making a partisan point here, there are abusive types across the political spectrum.
LostPassword was making a partisan point though, and you seemed to be joining in with it, sorry if I misread that.
You're right that abuse can exist across the spectrum but that's not just aimed at women. That doesn't necessarily explain why women as a whole are less interested in running for politics (or debating it online) than men are.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
i agree mate but if this is happening it makes the idea of vaccine passports quite ludicrous
Not really.
A surge in infections among young unvaccinated people is partly responsible for the soaring cases. One in four people with the virus are now students who came to Malta to study English.
sure but it is obviously also transmitting amongst vaccinated people though we can argue about the rates at which it is doing so
Is it obviously? I've not actually seen anything beyond assertion to back that up.
so you are saying no vaccinated people are getting covid in malta when cases have risen 4000% and 90% of the population is vaccinated. Its a view but statistically highly improbable. I suspect you are letting bias cloud your judgement
90% of the population are not vaccinated though.
80% of the population were single vaccinated three weeks ago. That means one-fifth of the population have no vaccine produced immunity yet.
Plus as has been said, Malta has a lot of visitors to the country testing positive. Since they're not demanding vaxports from Europeans I believe, people can travel even if unvaccinated.
How many are double-jabbed? That's the most relevant statistic.
Over 80% now.
But again, I'm curious about the numerator and denominator there how accurate it is.
this is worrying from malta Malta sees surge of over 4000% in COVID cases despite nearly 90% of its population having been vaccinated. Quote Tweet Dr Clare Craig @ClareCraigPath · Jul 22 Malta has vaccinated enough children that 88% of the total population are vaccinated.
Are you a troll? Just asking as it’s the classic newcomer to the site posting scare stories from elsewhere. I’d expect they have delta issues, like basically everywhere. Key metrics are NOT cases, but hospitalisation and deaths. Just like here.
i agree mate but if this is happening it makes the idea of vaccine passports quite ludicrous
Not really.
A surge in infections among young unvaccinated people is partly responsible for the soaring cases. One in four people with the virus are now students who came to Malta to study English.
sure but it is obviously also transmitting amongst vaccinated people though we can argue about the rates at which it is doing so
Is it obviously? I've not actually seen anything beyond assertion to back that up.
so you are saying no vaccinated people are getting covid in malta when cases have risen 4000% and 90% of the population is vaccinated. Its a view but statistically highly improbable. I suspect you are letting bias cloud your judgement
90% of the population are not vaccinated though.
80% of the population were single vaccinated three weeks ago. That means one-fifth of the population have no vaccine produced immunity yet.
Plus as has been said, Malta has a lot of visitors to the country testing positive. Since they're not demanding vaxports from Europeans I believe, people can travel even if unvaccinated.
How many are double-jabbed? That's the most relevant statistic.
Over 80% now.
But again, I'm curious about the numerator and denominator there how accurate it is.
The huge surge in Malta seems to be a grand total of 200 cases.
Roughly 400 per million in a population of half a million.
Hospital admissions in Malta this week are .. er .. two per day.
Calm down, dear. The Henny Penny stuff is premature.
I am fully vaccinated and support and encourage anybody who can go get vaccinated.
I say that as a starter because I have a sad, very sad story to tell, A few weeks ago ago a relative of mine died the day after he was vaccinated, he is the brother in law of my sister in law, but on the other side of her family, if that makes since. it was a Saturday and he was looing after the 5 year old daughter, as his wife was working, when he stated to feel unwell, he called his parents who live near and asked if they could come and help look after the lintel one, as he was feeling bad. when they got to the house they could see her but not her dad, so they brock the door and got in, to be tolled, 'daddy's asleep in the kitchen and he wont wake up' he was a really nice chap, I did not know him well, just met him at my brother stage do and a few other family events. He was 35 ish.
I mention this because today, in the city where I work, a young ish lady had a bad reaction to the viruses I cant remember the name of the condition but her body continually shakes and she has to walk with crutches. all of the young people I work with seem to have it on there phones and seem to have all decided that they are not getting the jab and those who have had one jab are not getting the second.
I thought I would try to talk about it rationally and shared the experience above and noted that I recognised there consenes but hear are some numbers and facts, ...... lots more people die form the virus than the vaccine and even while the risk of death to people your age is small you could still get long Covid, vaccines work, and this one has now been tested on billions of people around the would, far moor than in any laboratory test, and we know there is a risk from the virus and we also know its very very small.
I completely failed to make an impact, I just got tolled to look again at the bloody video. maybe the thought of being permanently disabled is more freighting than death? or more likely a video is a powerful way of sharing a message.
Can someone explain how we've got ourselves into a situation where we're all jabbed up but things are as bad they were at the the start of the pandemic with everyone under house arrest, empty shelves and the return of the dreaded bog roll panic buyers?
We're not. There are no legal restrictions applied to "everybody" 😕
Why are the shelves bare then?
I was in Tesco this morning and it was just like back in the "dark times" of April 2020!
My visit# to Iceland and Waitrose were both essentially fully stocked. I think there are issues in some places but this is NOT like last year. Plus there are no legal restrictions in England.
Apart from no salad leaves, no empty shelves in my local co-op. Plenty of bog roll too. Everyone apart from one shelfstacker wearing masks too.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
Three weeks ago the vaccination rate was under 80% so given the 3 week lag for vaccines to work that's a fifth of the population unvaccinated effectively.
Plus does the data include tourists or other visitors? I believe Malta has a high transient population working on bases etc - if they count in the vaccine or case numerator but not the denominator then that can play havoc with percentages. No idea if this is true or not, just guessing.
It's yet another example of the weaponising of statistics, numbers, graphics and the like.
Information is not presented objectively by anyone, anywhere, any more - it's laid out or presented or reported to make a point, emphasise a message, confirm an argument or viewpoint.
I know it didn't start with the pandemic but it's been one of the unfortunate by-products.
The interpretation of statistics and micro-analysis of data has descended into near-lunacy.
If a poll has the Conservatives down a point and Labour up a point, it's a crisis for Johnson.
Er, no, it's called margin of error.
If a poll has the Conservatives up a point and Labour down a point, it's a crisis for Starmer.
Asked how a number of politicians would have fared if they were in charge, the rating was -6 for Tony Blair, -12 for Mr Cameron, -14 for Theresa May, -7 for Sir Keir Starmer and -27 for Jeremy Corbyn. Only Rishi Sunak, with a rating of +5 is seen as likely to have performed better than the Prime Minister.
Three weeks ago the vaccination rate was under 80% so given the 3 week lag for vaccines to work that's a fifth of the population unvaccinated effectively.
Plus does the data include tourists or other visitors? I believe Malta has a high transient population working on bases etc - if they count in the vaccine or case numerator but not the denominator then that can play havoc with percentages. No idea if this is true or not, just guessing.
It's yet another example of the weaponising of statistics, numbers, graphics and the like.
Information is not presented objectively by anyone, anywhere, any more - it's laid out or presented or reported to make a point, emphasise a message, confirm an argument or viewpoint.
I know it didn't start with the pandemic but it's been one of the unfortunate by-products.
The interpretation of statistics and micro-analysis of data has descended into near-lunacy.
If a poll has the Conservatives down a point and Labour up a point, it's a crisis for Johnson.
Er, no, it's called margin of error.
If a poll has the Conservatives up a point and Labour down a point, it's a crisis for Starmer.
Er, no, it's called margin of error.
Actually the first is an outlier, and the second represents the work of a gold standard pollster.
Comments
One of the first questions in the interview was "which historical figure do you most admire" and I had a complete mind blank and blurted out "Tony Blair". I had to then come up with some bollocks about "changing country for the better". 🤦♂️ The interviewer clearly didn't agree with me but I think I saved it further down the line!
I don't know - scientific papers with diagrams that mortals can read...... Nature will never public something like that.... {insert old-man-rant-here}
In the last seven days the UK government has flailed from one controversy or misstep to the next.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/france-fiasco-pingdemic-u-turn-boris-johnson-week-of-chaos
The NVIDIA guys were actually interested by the fact that worked (very, very early CUDA) - I wondered why it *wouldn't* given how simple a struct is....
How do you just for example think I didnt respond to point 1
you said "(1) UK export growth exceed peers, as we'd have lower wage rates"
I replied "
But (1) is a definite "no",
That is entirely pertinent
You produce 10 cars and use 20 peoples labour can be equal to the cost of producing 10 cars with 1 persons labour and automation when you amortize the cost of automation over a long enough period.
Many countries have automated....we threw cheap labour at it rather than invest
Why is it honourable to believe in your vision for the country but dishonourable for others to have a different vision? Or for the legal position of the union to be underhanded if referred to. Can we not respect different views?
You're not a parody malc, theres no need to try so hard.
Secondly, it also entirely misses the point. A company that both invests and has cheap labor will do better.
Our government should be ashamed of themselves.
I'd have been happy for the UK to fully fund and organise EFTA with its headquarters and staff in London.
Test, 50 over and 20 twenty is established. The Hundred isn't.
👍
But still managed to get a wicket on the 9th delivery of his five ball over.
Do I lose some street cred if I admit I'm actually finding this entertaining? Even though I think T20s would be just as entertaining.
But given the amount of backing its being given, a T20 series with the same publicity, same backing, same terrestrial coverage etc could have worked just as well.
Though not due to the news, they'd suffered an instore refridgeration failure so there was essentially no cold stocks until they could get an engineer to fix it.
Brand new supermarket, only opened a couple of months ago, so that's embarrassing for them.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Foie gras can be made domestically, except its outlawed as cruelty. There's no reason to import cruelty, that's not a non-tariff barrier, that's animal standards and its to the EU's shame they don't have high enough standards surely?
The last thing we need is the notion of 202-style mass shortages as that would CREATE them!
I don't have the facts for how many people apply to be prospective parliamentary candidates but hypothetically if there were 10 male applications for every one female one - and if hypothetically there were from that 4 males for every one female chosen, then each female applicant will have had 250% of the chance of being selected than every male one. Does that imply discrimination against women or not?
Unless you want to claim that foie gras is just a goose liver made in a different way, I suppose. Which would be just about supportable.
My take is that Delta is so transmissible even with the Approved vaccines, that you need a combination of a lot of people to have had it and a lot of vaccinations to fully get to heard immunity for the Delta variant, and Malta did not have that many caes, overall is amongst the lowest deaths/million in the EU. AIUI infection + vaccination gives an person more protection than just Vaccination.
That sead, its worth asking, which vaccines did Malta use, did they get ahead of the rest of the EU because they bought the Russian or Chines vaccines? and did how long did they space out there Jabbing?
A surge in infections among young unvaccinated people is partly responsible for the soaring cases. One in four people with the virus are now students who came to Malta to study English.
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/malta-slips-in-eu-covid-rate-list.888352
Three weeks ago the vaccination rate was under 80% so given the 3 week lag for vaccines to work that's a fifth of the population unvaccinated effectively.
Plus does the data include tourists or other visitors? I believe Malta has a high transient population working on bases etc - if they count in the vaccine or case numerator but not the denominator then that can play havoc with percentages. No idea if this is true or not, just guessing.
If fewer women want to go into politics there's no guarantee that there's a discriminatory reason for that. If the women who do want to go into politics are discriminated against, or facing abuse, then that's unacceptable.
For instance a few years ago a Labour MP who would go on to become Labour Shadow Chancellor called for a Tory female MP to be "lynched" telling his supporters to "lynch" her. That kind of abuse is disgusting, although that MP who did that is still sitting in Westminster with the Labour whip.
But numbers alone aren't a proof of anything.
England says to ma to. EU says to mae toe. You’re both right and you’re both wrong.
This is where trade is headed: blatant childishness.
80% of the population were single vaccinated three weeks ago. That means one-fifth of the population have no vaccine produced immunity yet.
Plus as has been said, Malta has a lot of visitors to the country testing positive. Since they're not demanding vaxports from Europeans I believe, people can travel even if unvaccinated.
The trick with international trade is to minimise not maximise barriers. Our power to reduce/eliminate tariffs on, say agricultural products of poor countries is a bigger gain than foie gras is a loss (IMHO).
You're right that abuse can exist across the spectrum but that's not just aimed at women. That doesn't necessarily explain why women as a whole are less interested in running for politics (or debating it online) than men are.
But again, I'm curious about the numerator and denominator there how accurate it is.
Roughly 400 per million in a population of half a million.
Hospital admissions in Malta this week are .. er .. two per day.
Calm down, dear. The Henny Penny stuff is premature.
We did this before.
I’m getting really good feedback from partners on the work that I’ve done so far so hopefully that counts for something too.
Information is not presented objectively by anyone, anywhere, any more - it's laid out or presented or reported to make a point, emphasise a message, confirm an argument or viewpoint.
I know it didn't start with the pandemic but it's been one of the unfortunate by-products.
The interpretation of statistics and micro-analysis of data has descended into near-lunacy.
If a poll has the Conservatives down a point and Labour up a point, it's a crisis for Johnson.
Er, no, it's called margin of error.
If a poll has the Conservatives up a point and Labour down a point, it's a crisis for Starmer.
Er, no, it's called margin of error.