Corbyn would melt under the pressure and media spotlight in a GE campaign. If he thinks he's having it tough now wait until the papers start digging and let's be honest here they don't have to dig that deep.
For example there is bound to be front page headlines and pictures linked to his pacifist nature e.g. those Nato comments, trident, no drones, tell the world where the SAS are being deployed etc all developing a narrative that he can't defend us and won't do what it takes.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
We've mentioned on here about the theft of Eastern Europe's working age population by Western Europe.
The rise in immigration from Romania and Bulgaria is quite shocking. Those two countries alone account for 26% migration from the EU, compared to 25% for the A8 nations.
Wouldn't you if you were from Romania or Bulgaria? I was in Bucharest last year on a weekender, pretty much all the hotel and bar staff there were speaking good English and saving like mad to get to London. Their wages were something like €100 a month in Romania.
I don't think the wages are that bad, it's more like a €100 per week iirc! I agree with you though, I went to Romania recently as well all the waitresses are very pretty and speak English, service with a smile is expected and they seemed quite happy to me. I spoke to one waitress who asked me what London was like, I gave her the no holds-barred version of it being expensive and the minimum wage being tough to live on, but she was a student and didn't want to be a waitress forever and was interested in working for some kind of art stuff which is why she wanted to come. Apparently the opportunities for the arts in Romania are very limited so a year or so of working as a waitress in order to find an opportunity in London in her chosen field was worth it. She also knew that she'd end up living with five or six other girls in a two bedroom flat because her friends have already left for London, it didn't seem to bother her, but I noticed that they don't seem to bothered by a lack of personal space there.
It’s only relatively recently that we’ve had the amount of personal space in UK that we’ve had.
I dimly recall that families would be classed as homeless if kids had to share a bedroom. I sincerely hope that's an urban myth as it was routine for children of my generation.
There’ll be a Yorkshire person on here soon saying that in their youth there were 14 of them sharing a bed, and they had to take in turns to breathe!
Seriously though the scenes in programmes like Call the Midwife, showing Poplar in the 50’s weren’t untypical.
In the village where my paternal grandparents lived there was a popular story of one family where they put the children to bed in a rota and when they were asleep took them out and stacked them in the corner!
The rise in immigration from Romania and Bulgaria is quite shocking. Those two countries alone account for 26% migration from the EU, compared to 25% for the A8 nations.
Remember how we were smugly lectured on the first day of those nationalities being allowed into the UK how only one person from those countries had turned up at Stansted Airport? It was Keith Vaz, I recall.
The rise in immigration from Romania and Bulgaria is quite shocking. Those two countries alone account for 26% migration from the EU, compared to 25% for the A8 nations.
If you want to truly understand Labour's Jewish problem you should take a look at this. It isn't a simple matter of racism but what people don't want to talk about is that it's also a matter of internal Labour politics, particularly around money. I can't confirm the accuracy of the claims in this article but in some ways that's beside the point. The perception is enough.
Also, of course, fivethirtyeight.com is fairly accurate at producing predictions based on poll weighting and averaging - however by its nature it will NOT respond well to sudden changes (tipping points)
Handling sudden changes is exactly what it's designed for. Sometimes you get sudden changes because there's an actual sudden change, and sometimes you get them because of statistical noise. What these models are good at is working out the probability that it's one or the other.
Edit to add: What you tend to see is a couple of polls don't do much to it, but if they turn into a pattern then it'll move very quickly.
Light cannot escape because of the intense gravity. Yet light has no mass and shouldn't be affected by gravity. Ah, photons have kinetic energy which equals mass. But the photons are not moving because they're trapped by the gravity. Ah, but they must be travelling at the speed of light in a black hole which will be nil but ...
So is time passing for them?
Consider me to be Paddington Bear and explain accordingly, please. I suspect I've forgotten something very obvious. Oh and if relative time is non-existent to a photon does it pass in its own frame of reference?
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
Light cannot escape because of the intense gravity. Yet light has no mass and shouldn't be affected by gravity. Ah, photons have kinetic energy which equals mass. But the photons are not moving because they're trapped by the gravity. Ah, but they must be travelling at the speed of light in a black hole which will be nil but ...
So is time passing for them?
Consider me to be Paddington Bear and explain accordingly, please. I suspect I've forgotten something very obvious. Oh and if relative time is non-existent to a photon does it pass in its own frame of reference?
Time doesn't pass for photons, per the Lorentz transformations. Black holes are beyond my ken. My lay understanding is that photons are infinitely red-shifted.
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
The big news overnight was Farage's speech at a Trump rally in Mississippi where he was personally introduced by the Donald himself. BREXIT was big news in the U.S. and led most of the news the day after and Trump clearly intends to fight a similar anti establishment, white working class focused campaign. At the moment he is doing as well with non-college educated whites as vote Leave but a little worse with ethnic minorities and significantly worse with white college graduates. However Trump almost tied Hillary with white college graduates after the GOP convention and if he can get back to that level after the GOP convention he has a real chance
The default position seems to be for Clinton to have a small lead, provided she isn't hit by scandal, and Trump doesn't say something ridiculous. Assuming she wins, I don't think she'll have much in the way of coat-tails.
While that's true, the Democrats are defending 10 senate seats this November, and the Republicans 24, including a number (like Illinois) which are extremely vulnerable.
I think that each party will finish on 48-52 seats in the Senate.
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
I’m not sure that 2.1% can reasonably be described as a “dramatic fall"
If you can describe a 0.1% rise in inflation as a 'dramatic spike' or 'jump', 2.1% is right up there in 'cataclysmic' or 'catastrophic' land. Journalists are over-emotional innumerates.
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
Remain voters were more likely to have sat in a reserved seat than leave voters, though it isn’t clear if this is because they are more likely to be seat thieves or just more likely to travel by train.
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
I’m not sure that 2.1% can reasonably be described as a “dramatic fall"
According to the BBC, the "dramatic fall" is largely due to an increase in retakes of maths and English GCSEs, so not particularly significant.
If you read further down the Guardian article it makes that very point. However as John M points out journalism and numeracy are not necessarily bedfellows.
Light cannot escape because of the intense gravity. Yet light has no mass and shouldn't be affected by gravity. Ah, photons have kinetic energy which equals mass. But the photons are not moving because they're trapped by the gravity. Ah, but they must be travelling at the speed of light in a black hole which will be nil but ...
So is time passing for them?
Consider me to be Paddington Bear and explain accordingly, please. I suspect I've forgotten something very obvious. Oh and if relative time is non-existent to a photon does it pass in its own frame of reference?
I think there are a number of misconceptions there but my physics is nowhere near good enough to put them right.
Light is definitely affected by gravity, and bends round black holes (which is the primary way of seeing them).
I'm not sure it's necessarily true to say that the photon's speed will be zero. It certainly won't be zero as it passes the event horizon or even just on the other side. After all, the energy the photon contains has to go *somewhere*.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
More than half of migrants return home within three years, though, which I think the key. They go with no skills and come back having learnt a lot.
If you can describe a 0.1% rise in inflation as a 'dramatic spike' or 'jump', 2.1% is right up there in 'cataclysmic' or 'catastrophic' land. Journalists are over-emotional innumerates.
Aye, there are a few good ones but the majority are as piss poor as you describe.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
I've not read him, but I wonder if Stiglitz's view is too simple? Emigrants don't usually leave and turn their backs on their home country forever. As well as sending money home while working, many return after a few years of seeking their fortune abroad, bringing back skills, expertise and attitude as well as their cash. Perhaps this mixing effect outweighs the temporary loss of their labour?
The rise in immigration from Romania and Bulgaria is quite shocking. Those two countries alone account for 26% migration from the EU, compared to 25% for the A8 nations.
How come nobody predicted this?
Nigel Farage did, but he was slapped down by Keith Vaz when no-one arrived on the first day.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
More than half of migrants return home within three years, though, which I think the key. They go with no skills and come back having learnt a lot.
bs, they come and go as they please taking coach trips.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
More than half of migrants return home within three years, though, which I think the key. They go with no skills and come back having learnt a lot.
Shouldn't immigration level out at some point then ?
Thanks. I was hoping for a non-mathematical explanation. I know that photons don't experience time so their 13.8 billions years pass in an instant. To be honest, I had my doubts about electromagnetic radiation even at school.
And as for Stephen (Black Hole) Hawking claiming that his analogy for time beginning at a point is like saying you can't go further South than the South Pole. Nope, you can drop off the Earth altogether. I prefer to think that C is a maximum otherwise we'd never be able to make sense of the universe. You could see a window break before the cricket ball was hit.
Perhaps time really is an illusion? Perhaps things do happen all at once.
Remain voters were more likely to have sat in a reserved seat than leave voters, though it isn’t clear if this is because they are more likely to be seat thieves or just more likely to travel by train.
I see someone's been expelled from Labour for saying they thought May was a better leader than Corbyn or Owen.
I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....
Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.
Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...
IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.
Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.
You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.
IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.
If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.
The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.
Yes it does. The biggest spending areas are Health and Welfare I believe, and Defence possibly next but some way back? Health has been officially ring-fenced (although you wouldn't know it because, of course, it never has enough money and no reorganisation seems able to make it run more efficiently), and no matter how much chaff there is in other departments, or whole departments that are not needed, with a deficit as large as ours at some point you will need to cut into the area of largest expenditure in a much bigger way, or massively raise taxes.
No one is prepared to do either. They do enough to get by, and then the public get tired of it and as now austerity is abandoned. Until the next crisis.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
While it is counter-intuitive, Western Europe largely prospered in the 19thC while experiencing fairly substantial emigtation to N America and Australasia (yes I know some of the migrants to Australia were involuntary!)
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
I've not read him, but I wonder if Stiglitz's view is too simple? Emigrants don't usually leave and turn their backs on their home country forever. As well as sending money home while working, many return after a few years of seeking their fortune abroad, bringing back skills, expertise and attitude as well as their cash. Perhaps this mixing effect outweighs the temporary loss of their labour?
It's possible that high levels of net emigration are adversely affecting some Eastern European economies, but this is more than offset by the beneficial economic impact of the reforms that followed the end of communism.
Where these reforms haven't occurred (eg the Ukraine) there seems little doubt that high levels of emigration have weakened the country.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
There are quite a lot, however the ones I find most persuasive are:
1. Temporary migrants come back better skilled. The best example I can think of is a former Resolver Systems employee from Krakow, who came to London, learnt a lot about selling technology to hedge funds, and then returned to Poland to set up a shop selling development into the City from Poland.
2. The departure of migrants pushes up wages for those who remain. (Simulatenously, it presumably pushes down the cost of housing.) So, those who remain are better paid and can spend more of it.
3. Those who are away remit money back home, boosting the effective domestic savings rate.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
More than half of migrants return home within three years, though, which I think the key. They go with no skills and come back having learnt a lot.
Many Eastern Europeans, especially Poles, do seem to have settled more or less permanently in the UK (that may not be true of other countries). That would be of concern to me if I were a member of an Eastern European government.
And scientists have detected what they think could be a "second Earth", after using the latest technology to look deep into space and picking up faint audio waves from light years away of another life form laughing at the mess the Labour Party is in.
What would they be laughing at that Labour was doing in early 2012?
And scientists have detected what they think could be a "second Earth", after using the latest technology to look deep into space and picking up faint audio waves from light years away of another life form laughing at the mess the Labour Party is in.
What would they be laughing at that Labour was doing in early 2012?
Pedant alert: if we heard about it, strictly speaking they would be laughing about what Labour was doing in 2008.
Which probably means they'd be laughing about Gordon Brown and the Glasgow East by-election.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
There are quite a lot, however the ones I find most persuasive are:
1. Temporary migrants come back better skilled. The best example I can think of is a former Resolver Systems employee from Krakow, who came to London, learnt a lot about selling technology to hedge funds, and then returned to Poland to set up a shop selling development into the City from Poland.
2. The departure of migrants pushes up wages for those who remain. (Simulatenously, it presumably pushes down the cost of housing.) So, those who remain are better paid and can spend more of it.
3. Those who are away remit money back home, boosting the effective domestic savings rate.
Point 2 sounds like a line Vote Leave could have used!
"Light is definitely affected by gravity, and bends round black holes (which is the primary way of seeing them)."
Indeed the 1919 vindication of General Relativity. But the light is travelling at C then so has kinetic energy = mass, and red-shifting will mean it's less energetic. So in a Black Hole, is it doing laps? or is it a field of energy.
There will be a mathematical explanation which will mean b*gger all to me.
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
I think the whole TrainGate thing is being slightly blown out of proportion. Most people won't remember it in a few months' time.
Very few people will have said otherwise, or denied it is in most ways trivial. Nevertheless, whether it hits his support or not Jeremy lied in order to make a point, and did so unnecessarily as it was an easy point to make without the lie. Him getting shirty about journalists asking about his lie instead of his own agenda will indeed probably play well with his supporters, but it still speaks poorly of him, and is him blaming them for his own mistake.
The press, particualrly when as hostile to him as it is, will seek out stories to hound him. BUt it is still his fault if he feeds them meat himself, and he cannot whinge about getting bite marks.
bs, they come and go as they please taking coach trips.
There are many different classes of immigrants. Many of the builders of Eastern Europe do exactly as you say, and live here in temporary accomadation and send money back home to their families. But the Polish workforce saw a gross return of 92,000 in 2014 (I don't have more recent data and that's from all countries to Poland), so your anecdote is clearly just that.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
More than half of migrants return home within three years, though, which I think the key. They go with no skills and come back having learnt a lot.
Shouldn't immigration level out at some point then ?
That's just it.
We're told students and economic migrants (which account for most of our net migration) eventually return home, yet net migration continues year after year and the population continues to grow.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that quite a number are not returning home.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
While it is counter-intuitive, Western Europe largely prospered in the 19thC while experiencing fairly substantial emigtation to N America and Australasia (yes I know some of the migrants to Australia were involuntary!)
At the same time, though, these countries' populations were growing very rapidly, so emigration offered a safety valve.
It's an interesting counter-factual to consider what would have happened if France's population had grown like England's throughout the 19th century. France would now have 200-250m people, making the country a superpower.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
Thanks. I was hoping for a non-mathematical explanation. I know that photons don't experience time so their 13.8 billions years pass in an instant. To be honest, I had my doubts about electromagnetic radiation even at school.
And as for Stephen (Black Hole) Hawking claiming that his analogy for time beginning at a point is like saying you can't go further South than the South Pole. Nope, you can drop off the Earth altogether. I prefer to think that C is a maximum otherwise we'd never be able to make sense of the universe. You could see a window break before the cricket ball was hit.
Perhaps time really is an illusion? Perhaps things do happen all at once.
"The Story of Your Life' by Ted Chiang is a lovely little novella about the nature of time and First Contact. It's been butchered into a film (Arrival) , but it still might be worth reading/watching.
FTL would indeed allow causality violations. I believe most deities and pretty much all universes have pretty strong feelings about this.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
I could see it not being a problem if you have a country (like Ireland in the 1960's and 1970's) which has a huge natural increase in the population. I'm more puzzled that such an exodus hasn't adversely affected Eastern European countries which don't have this natural increase. As the emigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, you would expect that to hit growth.
More than half of migrants return home within three years, though, which I think the key. They go with no skills and come back having learnt a lot.
Many Eastern Europeans, especially Poles, do seem to have settled more or less permanently in the UK (that may not be true of other countries). That would be of concern to me if I were a member of an Eastern European government.
Yes and no.
It also rids then of a domestic youth unemployment problem, albeit in Poland the economy seems in pretty good shape in general.
We're told students and economic migrants (which account for most of our net migration) eventually return home, yet net migration continues year after year and the population continues to grow.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that quite a number are not returning home.
That's one factor. The other is that while I suspect the growth in the number of Poles in the UK is increasing only very slowly now, the number of Romanians, Bulgarians and other 2014 accession countries is still growing very quickly.
I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....
Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.
Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...
IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.
Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.
You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.
IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.
If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.
The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.
Yes it does. The biggest spending areas are Health and Welfare I believe, and Defence possibly next but some way back? Health has been officially ring-fenced (although you wouldn't know it because, of course, it never has enough money and no reorganisation seems able to make it run more efficiently), and no matter how much chaff there is in other departments, or whole departments that are not needed, with a deficit as large as ours at some point you will need to cut into the area of largest expenditure in a much bigger way, or massively raise taxes.
No one is prepared to do either. They do enough to get by, and then the public get tired of it and as now austerity is abandoned. Until the next crisis.
Health and pensions (basically the core of the state for the retired) is what has been heavily protected at the expense of virtually everything else.
I think that's a social-economic mistake but politically the reasons are obvious.
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
I think the whole TrainGate thing is being slightly blown out of proportion. Most people won't remember it in a few months' time.
Very few people will have said otherwise, or denied it is in most ways trivial. Nevertheless, whether it hits his support or not Jeremy lied in order to make a point, and did so unnecessarily as it was an easy point to make without the lie. Him getting shirty about journalists asking about his lie instead of his own agenda will indeed probably play well with his supporters, but it still speaks poorly of him, and is him blaming them for his own mistake.
The press, particualrly when as hostile to him as it is, will seek out stories to hound him. BUt it is still his fault if he feeds them meat himself, and he cannot whinge about getting bite marks.
Interesting that in YouGov a plurality of Labour voters believed him although given the large don't knows it probably doesn't give more than an indication of his rock solid base (39%) vs Smith.
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
I’m not sure that 2.1% can reasonably be described as a “dramatic fall"
Most interesting is this, how is this when poverty is supposed to be the biggest factor in determining how well a student does?
"In England alone the A*-C pass rate dropped from 68.8% in 2015 to 66.6%.
Northern Ireland – where education is dominated by grammar schools, the subject of debate in England – bucked the national trend with a rise in A*s and As as well as a rise in the headline pass rate to 79.1%."
Perhaps if photons are captured or produced, they are instantly obliterated (converted to another form of energy) because it would mess up the maths. In the same way, you can't time-travel to the past and kill your grannie before she gave birth to your Dad?
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
I’m not sure that 2.1% can reasonably be described as a “dramatic fall"
Most interesting is this, how is this when poverty is supposed to be the biggest factor in determining how well a student does?
"In England alone the A*-C pass rate dropped from 68.8% in 2015 to 66.6%.
Northern Ireland – where education is dominated by grammar schools, the subject of debate in England – bucked the national trend with a rise in A*s and As as well as a rise in the headline pass rate to 79.1%."
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
I’m not sure that 2.1% can reasonably be described as a “dramatic fall"
Most interesting is this, how is this when poverty is supposed to be the biggest factor in determining how well a student does?
"In England alone the A*-C pass rate dropped from 68.8% in 2015 to 66.6%.
Northern Ireland – where education is dominated by grammar schools, the subject of debate in England – bucked the national trend with a rise in A*s and As as well as a rise in the headline pass rate to 79.1%."
Isn't Northern Ireland poorer than England in the round ?
"Light is definitely affected by gravity, and bends round black holes (which is the primary way of seeing them)."
Indeed the 1919 vindication of General Relativity. But the light is travelling at C then so has kinetic energy = mass, and red-shifting will mean it's less energetic. So in a Black Hole, is it doing laps? or is it a field of energy.
There will be a mathematical explanation which will mean b*gger all to me.
I always find it interesting to think what it would be like in a black hole. Presumably you would be dead as it would be impossible for the heart to pump the blood away from the hole (for example), but if you weren't then presumably your vision of the outside would be a highly blue-shifted fish-eye lens perspective.
Thanks. I was hoping for a non-mathematical explanation. I know that photons don't experience time so their 13.8 billions years pass in an instant. To be honest, I had my doubts about electromagnetic radiation even at school.
And as for Stephen (Black Hole) Hawking claiming that his analogy for time beginning at a point is like saying you can't go further South than the South Pole. Nope, you can drop off the Earth altogether. I prefer to think that C is a maximum otherwise we'd never be able to make sense of the universe. You could see a window break before the cricket ball was hit.
Perhaps time really is an illusion? Perhaps things do happen all at once.
"The Story of Your Life' by Ted Chiang is a lovely little novella about the nature of time and First Contact. It's been butchered into a film (Arrival) , but it still might be worth reading/watching. (Snip)
The trailer for Arrival gave me goose bumps. I'm really looking forward to it.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
While it is counter-intuitive, Western Europe largely prospered in the 19thC while experiencing fairly substantial emigtation to N America and Australasia (yes I know some of the migrants to Australia were involuntary!)
At the same time, though, these countries' populations were growing very rapidly, so emigration offered a safety valve.
It's an interesting counter-factual to consider what would have happened if France's population had grown like England's throughout the 19th century. France would now have 200-250m people, making the country a superpower.
It didn't of course because France had nothing like the same level of industrial revolution as England and was beset by political strife throughout much of the 19th C.
France in WWI was quite backward in many places, and had made only moderate progress by WWII (whilst acquiring a national culture of moral bankruptcy at the same time)
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
There are quite a lot, however the ones I find most persuasive are:
1. Temporary migrants come back better skilled. The best example I can think of is a former Resolver Systems employee from Krakow, who came to London, learnt a lot about selling technology to hedge funds, and then returned to Poland to set up a shop selling development into the City from Poland.
2. The departure of migrants pushes up wages for those who remain. (Simulatenously, it presumably pushes down the cost of housing.) So, those who remain are better paid and can spend more of it.
3. Those who are away remit money back home, boosting the effective domestic savings rate.
Interesting. I was suprised you Voted Leave, was there any data that convinced you to vote this way?
We're told students and economic migrants (which account for most of our net migration) eventually return home, yet net migration continues year after year and the population continues to grow.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that quite a number are not returning home.
That's one factor. The other is that while I suspect the growth in the number of Poles in the UK is increasing only very slowly now, the number of Romanians, Bulgarians and other 2014 accession countries is still growing very quickly.
Yes, and that too will inevitably level off. Given that there are no more large countries set to join the EU in the near future, net EU immigration to the UK will almost certainly fall naturally over the coming years, regardless of Brexit. Whenever I've tried to make this point, though, I've just been accused of wishful thinking
Thanks. I was hoping for a non-mathematical explanation. I know that photons don't experience time so their 13.8 billions years pass in an instant. To be honest, I had my doubts about electromagnetic radiation even at school.
And as for Stephen (Black Hole) Hawking claiming that his analogy for time beginning at a point is like saying you can't go further South than the South Pole. Nope, you can drop off the Earth altogether. I prefer to think that C is a maximum otherwise we'd never be able to make sense of the universe. You could see a window break before the cricket ball was hit.
Perhaps time really is an illusion? Perhaps things do happen all at once.
"The Story of Your Life' by Ted Chiang is a lovely little novella about the nature of time and First Contact. It's been butchered into a film (Arrival) , but it still might be worth reading/watching. (Snip)
The trailer for Arrival gave me goose bumps. I'm really looking forward to it.
I also like the fact that one of the places the aliens land is 'Devon, UK'
The story collection it comes from is well worth a read. I love Ted Chiang. He writes interesting and challenging stuff without descending into pseud's territory.
The novella is a genuinely touching yet haunting love story about two people who have yet to meet. I'll leave it at that.
Time for my daily plug of Stiglitz. He doesn't confine himself to the Euro, he also gives a relatively rare non-UK take on freedom of movement.
We are incredibly selfish in this country. We argue endlessly about immigration, without much thought for the effect on source countries.
I'm sure there's some fancy phrase for the looting of human capital from less-developed countries, but it's ultimately a more subtle form of beggar-thy-neighbour.
As an aside, I think this is area where I think Stiglitz is actually completely wrong.
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
That is really counter-intuitive, but only fools argue with data. Have any explanations been offered as to why?
While it is counter-intuitive, Western Europe largely prospered in the 19thC while experiencing fairly substantial emigtation to N America and Australasia (yes I know some of the migrants to Australia were involuntary!)
At the same time, though, these countries' populations were growing very rapidly, so emigration offered a safety valve.
It's an interesting counter-factual to consider what would have happened if France's population had grown like England's throughout the 19th century. France would now have 200-250m people, making the country a superpower.
It didn't of course because France had nothing like the same level of industrial revolution as England and was beset by political strife throughout much of the 19th C.
France in WWI was quite backward in many places, and had made only moderate progress by WWII (whilst acquiring a national culture of moral bankruptcy at the same time)
The wars of 1789-1815 were pretty devastating for France, in the end. As well as losing huge numbers of young men, the country de-industrialised, even as war stimulated industrialisation in the UK.
Thanks. I was hoping for a non-mathematical explanation. I know that photons don't experience time so their 13.8 billions years pass in an instant. To be honest, I had my doubts about electromagnetic radiation even at school.
And as for Stephen (Black Hole) Hawking claiming that his analogy for time beginning at a point is like saying you can't go further South than the South Pole. Nope, you can drop off the Earth altogether. I prefer to think that C is a maximum otherwise we'd never be able to make sense of the universe. You could see a window break before the cricket ball was hit.
Perhaps time really is an illusion? Perhaps things do happen all at once.
"The Story of Your Life' by Ted Chiang is a lovely little novella about the nature of time and First Contact. It's been butchered into a film (Arrival) , but it still might be worth reading/watching. (Snip)
The trailer for Arrival gave me goose bumps. I'm really looking forward to it.
I also like the fact that one of the places the aliens land is 'Devon, UK'
The story collection it comes from is well worth a read. I love Ted Chiang. He writes interesting and challenging stuff without descending into pseud's territory.
The novella is a genuinely touching yet haunting love story about two people who have yet to meet. I'll leave it at that.
Interesting. I was suprised you Voted Leave, was there any data that convinced you to vote this way?
My argument has always been that the UK has a very different legal, and political systems to the rest of the EU (common law and FPTP, versus Roman, PR and coalitions). Our historical perspectives are different too: simply, tanks have never rolled through the British countryside, unlike all of our European neighbours.
We are not culturally suited to the EU, and we will always be unhappy members. We diminish ourselves, and the rest of Europe by being members. We should leave and wish them the best of luck.
We're told students and economic migrants (which account for most of our net migration) eventually return home, yet net migration continues year after year and the population continues to grow.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that quite a number are not returning home.
That's one factor. The other is that while I suspect the growth in the number of Poles in the UK is increasing only very slowly now, the number of Romanians, Bulgarians and other 2014 accession countries is still growing very quickly.
Yes, and that too will inevitably level off. Given that there are no more large countries set to join the EU in the near future, net EU immigration to the UK will almost certainly fall naturally over the coming years, regardless of Brexit. Whenever I've tried to make this point, though, I've just been accused of wishful thinking
Economics works. Things naturally rebalance. It can take some time for this to be apparent, however.
For F1 fans out there. This weekend could be quite tasty excluding Mercedes. McLaren have spent 7 tokens on their PU, 3 on the ICE, 2 on the turbo and 2 on the compressor. They are also bringing a fuel and lubricant upgrade courtesy of Exxon. Rumours say that the fuel is worth 20hp and the PU upgrade is worth ~35hp, at Spa 7hp is worth a tenth of a second. The PU upgrade so far have brought 20hp worth of performance gains plus additional hybrid deployment. If these upgrades turn out to be genuine then it puts the Honda PU level with Renault and not too far behind Ferrari.
Hopefully it means Alonso and Button will be up near the top fighting with the Ferraris and Red Bulls rather than trying to hold off Force India and Williams.
For F1 fans out there. This weekend could be quite tasty excluding Mercedes. McLaren have spent 7 tokens on their PU, 3 on the ICE, 2 on the turbo and 2 on the compressor. They are also bringing a fuel and lubricant upgrade courtesy of Exxon. Rumours say that the fuel is worth 20hp and the PU upgrade is worth ~35hp, at Spa 7hp is worth a tenth of a second. The PU upgrade so far have brought 20hp worth of performance gains plus additional hybrid deployment. If these upgrades turn out to be genuine then it puts the Honda PU level with Renault and not too far behind Ferrari.
Hopefully it means Alonso and Button will be up near the top fighting with the Ferraris and Red Bulls rather than trying to hold off Force India and Williams.
A question: I thought F1 fuel had to be the same for all teams, and obtained from a source local to the race. It was to stop the stupid situation we had in the 1980s when teams were using some very exotic additives in their fuel?
Am I misremembering, or has that rule been relaxed?
Thanks. I was hoping for a non-mathematical explanation. I know that photons don't experience time so their 13.8 billions years pass in an instant. To be honest, I had my doubts about electromagnetic radiation even at school.
And as for Stephen (Black Hole) Hawking claiming that his analogy for time beginning at a point is like saying you can't go further South than the South Pole. Nope, you can drop off the Earth altogether. I prefer to think that C is a maximum otherwise we'd never be able to make sense of the universe. You could see a window break before the cricket ball was hit.
Perhaps time really is an illusion? Perhaps things do happen all at once.
"The Story of Your Life' by Ted Chiang is a lovely little novella about the nature of time and First Contact. It's been butchered into a film (Arrival) , but it still might be worth reading/watching. (Snip)
The trailer for Arrival gave me goose bumps. I'm really looking forward to it.
I also like the fact that one of the places the aliens land is 'Devon, UK'
The story collection it comes from is well worth a read. I love Ted Chiang. He writes interesting and challenging stuff without descending into pseud's territory.
The novella is a genuinely touching yet haunting love story about two people who have yet to meet. I'll leave it at that.
For F1 fans out there. This weekend could be quite tasty excluding Mercedes. McLaren have spent 7 tokens on their PU, 3 on the ICE, 2 on the turbo and 2 on the compressor. They are also bringing a fuel and lubricant upgrade courtesy of Exxon. Rumours say that the fuel is worth 20hp and the PU upgrade is worth ~35hp, at Spa 7hp is worth a tenth of a second. The PU upgrade so far have brought 20hp worth of performance gains plus additional hybrid deployment. If these upgrades turn out to be genuine then it puts the Honda PU level with Renault and not too far behind Ferrari.
Hopefully it means Alonso and Button will be up near the top fighting with the Ferraris and Red Bulls rather than trying to hold off Force India and Williams.
A question: I thought F1 fuel had to be the same for all teams, and obtained from a source local to the race. It was to stop the stupid situation we had in the 1980s when teams were using some very exotic additives in their fuel?
Am I misremembering, or has that rule been relaxed?
Additives are regulated, but fuel development is allowed.
Mr. Max, that's very interesting info. Would you mind if I copied and pasted it into my pre-qualifying article?
Go for it. The information is from Autosport, if you want a source!
Edit, there are also rumours about aero parts as well, but nothing confirmed and no word on the kind of gain they might bring.
There are also rumours that Ferrari wanted to recruit Eric Boullier but Ron told them where to go. Boullier's management has changed the structure of McLaren beyond recognition, there was an interesting interview he gave about in season aero development, I'll see if I can find it.
For F1 fans out there. This weekend could be quite tasty excluding Mercedes. McLaren have spent 7 tokens on their PU, 3 on the ICE, 2 on the turbo and 2 on the compressor. They are also bringing a fuel and lubricant upgrade courtesy of Exxon. Rumours say that the fuel is worth 20hp and the PU upgrade is worth ~35hp, at Spa 7hp is worth a tenth of a second. The PU upgrade so far have brought 20hp worth of performance gains plus additional hybrid deployment. If these upgrades turn out to be genuine then it puts the Honda PU level with Renault and not too far behind Ferrari.
Hopefully it means Alonso and Button will be up near the top fighting with the Ferraris and Red Bulls rather than trying to hold off Force India and Williams.
A question: I thought F1 fuel had to be the same for all teams, and obtained from a source local to the race. It was to stop the stupid situation we had in the 1980s when teams were using some very exotic additives in their fuel?
Am I misremembering, or has that rule been relaxed?
Additives are regulated, but fuel development is allowed.
Ah thanks. I'm probably out of date then. I'm thinking back to the time around when refuelling was reintroduced, and might even be wrong about that.
Those who like to play identity politics had better think about which groups they pander to in future, as their assumptions may be wrong.
People will play identity politics until hell freezes over as long as there is a personal virtue premium to be gained by doing so, and the recourse to those who object is "your mask has slipped".
It allows people to mark themselves out as a better person, and feel very good about it, and anyone who objects just volunteers to provide themselves as a further benchmark for that.
We're told students and economic migrants (which account for most of our net migration) eventually return home, yet net migration continues year after year and the population continues to grow.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that quite a number are not returning home.
That's one factor. The other is that while I suspect the growth in the number of Poles in the UK is increasing only very slowly now, the number of Romanians, Bulgarians and other 2014 accession countries is still growing very quickly.
Yes, and that too will inevitably level off. Given that there are no more large countries set to join the EU in the near future, net EU immigration to the UK will almost certainly fall naturally over the coming years, regardless of Brexit. Whenever I've tried to make this point, though, I've just been accused of wishful thinking
Economics works. Things naturally rebalance. It can take some time for this to be apparent, however.
I think you mean "economies work". The dismal science certainly doesn't
This really is Thick of It stuff. What's amazing is that after a year of this kind of nonsense, no-one seems to have learned anything.
You only have to watch the Vice piece to know what a shambles they are. They manage to take a guy who is a self confessed Jeremy supporter, alienate him, get in a grump with him for daring to ask one hard-ish question, ultimately throw him out and generally appear to make the Thick of It spinners look like top class professionals.
People will play identity politics until hell freezes over as long as there is a personal virtue premium to be gained by doing so, and the recourse to those who object is "your mask has slipped".
It allows people to mark themselves out as a better person, and feel very good about it, and anyone who objects just volunteers to provide themselves as a further benchmark for that.
Oh I don't expect identity politics to end, but it is interesting that the demographics are changing so fast. The assumptions made about campaigning and natural allegiances of various groups may be quite wrong.
McLaren will also benefit, more next year, by getting Prodromou a little while ago. With Newey in a backseat, if not out of the car altogether, and Allison seemingly out of the game, that'll be a relative benefit to the team as well.
I think I said a few weeks ago that McLaren would be where I'd focus for a potential long odds title bet next year. I'll also, if I go ahead with spread-betting, be looking at them closely.
Ferrari's treatment of staff (Allison seems an exception, due to family circumstances) by tossing them overboard so easily hasn't made recruiting any easier for them.
McLaren will also benefit, more next year, by getting Prodromou a little while ago. With Newey in a backseat, if not out of the car altogether, and Allison seemingly out of the game, that'll be a relative benefit to the team as well.
I think I said a few weeks ago that McLaren would be where I'd focus for a potential long odds title bet next year. I'll also, if I go ahead with spread-betting, be looking at them closely.
Ferrari's treatment of staff (Allison seems an exception, due to family circumstances) by tossing them overboard so easily hasn't made recruiting any easier for them.
Well the other issue Ferrari have is that they now have a mechanical engineer in charge of aerodynamic development. Doesn't seem like a very smart move to me. I wouldn't ve surprised if Vettel makes the jump to Mercedes or McLaren in 2018 once his contract runs out. Ferrari seem to be having trouble treading water.
On RBR the majority of design work for Ben Ainslie's boat seems to be done, I'd read that Newey will be taking a leading role for the 2017 car as it will be based on new regulations which he finds interesting.
Comments
For example there is bound to be front page headlines and pictures linked to his pacifist nature e.g. those Nato comments, trident, no drones, tell the world where the SAS are being deployed etc all developing a narrative that he can't defend us and won't do what it takes.
@chris__curtis: YouGov's full polling on Corbyn's Branson Pickle #TrainGate
https://twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/768745828768972800
Sussex Police believes that five people who died in the sea at #CamberSands were in their late teens and early 20s and from Greater London
Probably misadventure.
Edit to add: What you tend to see is a couple of polls don't do much to it, but if they turn into a pattern then it'll move very quickly.
Light cannot escape because of the intense gravity. Yet light has no mass and shouldn't be affected by gravity. Ah, photons have kinetic energy which equals mass. But the photons are not moving because they're trapped by the gravity. Ah, but they must be travelling at the speed of light in a black hole which will be nil but ...
So is time passing for them?
Consider me to be Paddington Bear and explain accordingly, please. I suspect I've forgotten something very obvious. Oh and if relative time is non-existent to a photon does it pass in its own frame of reference?
If he were right, countries which saw exoduses of their higher skilled citizens, would suffer lower GDP per capita growth in the subsequent decades. Departing population would lower economic growth, and create a negative feedback loop.
Unfortunately, the data on this tells exactly the opposite story. The European country with the largest exodus of higher educated citizens in the period 1965 to 1980 was Ireland. The country with the highest per capita GDP growth from 1980 to 1995 was... Ireland.
There's a similar story - on a lesser scale - in the UK. We had net emigration through to about 1985. Our going forward GDP per capita growth was excellent.
The same is true more latterly of Eastern Europe: the countries with the greatest exoduses of people as a percentage of population (the Baltics, Poland), have been the ones with the fastest economic growth. Most recently, Spain saw its working age population shrink by 1.3m in the five years to September 2015. And it's now the fastest growing economy in Western Europe.
There are a lot of scholarly pieces looking at the effect of migration on places people have left, and the data is pretty unambigious. Working age people leaving doesn't lower the prospects for those who remain, in fact it has the opposite effect.
First para reads:
"National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
(https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/aug/25/gcse-results-dramatic-decline-grades)
I’m not sure that 2.1% can reasonably be described as a “dramatic fall"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/why-ill-keep-cheering-for-caster-semenya/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=201600827_Weekly_Highlights_34_everyone
"One African who does not boast about having a very large penis is the South-African gold medallist in the 800 metres, Caster Semenya. This is because Caster is a woman, probably. "
Remain voters were more likely to have sat in a reserved seat than leave voters, though it isn’t clear if this is because they are more likely to be seat thieves or just more likely to travel by train.
Light is definitely affected by gravity, and bends round black holes (which is the primary way of seeing them).
I'm not sure it's necessarily true to say that the photon's speed will be zero. It certainly won't be zero as it passes the event horizon or even just on the other side. After all, the energy the photon contains has to go *somewhere*.
You are George Osborne and I claim my £5
Thanks. I was hoping for a non-mathematical explanation. I know that photons don't experience time so their 13.8 billions years pass in an instant. To be honest, I had my doubts about electromagnetic radiation even at school.
And as for Stephen (Black Hole) Hawking claiming that his analogy for time beginning at a point is like saying you can't go further South than the South Pole. Nope, you can drop off the Earth altogether. I prefer to think that C is a maximum otherwise we'd never be able to make sense of the universe. You could see a window break before the cricket ball was hit.
Perhaps time really is an illusion? Perhaps things do happen all at once.
I see someone's been expelled from Labour for saying they thought May was a better leader than Corbyn or Owen.
No one is prepared to do either. They do enough to get by, and then the public get tired of it and as now austerity is abandoned. Until the next crisis.
Where these reforms haven't occurred (eg the Ukraine) there seems little doubt that high levels of emigration have weakened the country.
Mr. CD13, we don't serve faster than light particles here, the barman said. A tachyon entered the bar.
1. Temporary migrants come back better skilled. The best example I can think of is a former Resolver Systems employee from Krakow, who came to London, learnt a lot about selling technology to hedge funds, and then returned to Poland to set up a shop selling development into the City from Poland.
2. The departure of migrants pushes up wages for those who remain. (Simulatenously, it presumably pushes down the cost of housing.) So, those who remain are better paid and can spend more of it.
3. Those who are away remit money back home, boosting the effective domestic savings rate.
Which probably means they'd be laughing about Gordon Brown and the Glasgow East by-election.
Hail showers forecast in Sydney tomorrow. Must be unusual.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2147714?day=1
"Light is definitely affected by gravity, and bends round black holes (which is the primary way of seeing them)."
Indeed the 1919 vindication of General Relativity. But the light is travelling at C then so has kinetic energy = mass, and red-shifting will mean it's less energetic. So in a Black Hole, is it doing laps? or is it a field of energy.
There will be a mathematical explanation which will mean b*gger all to me.
The press, particualrly when as hostile to him as it is, will seek out stories to hound him. BUt it is still his fault if he feeds them meat himself, and he cannot whinge about getting bite marks.
That clears up where the "jam" in "jam-packed" disappeared to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/aides-unable-to-reach-jeremy-corbyn-during-traingate-row-because/
We're told students and economic migrants (which account for most of our net migration) eventually return home, yet net migration continues year after year and the population continues to grow.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that quite a number are not returning home.
It's an interesting counter-factual to consider what would have happened if France's population had grown like England's throughout the 19th century. France would now have 200-250m people, making the country a superpower.
FTL would indeed allow causality violations. I believe most deities and pretty much all universes have pretty strong feelings about this.
It also rids then of a domestic youth unemployment problem, albeit in Poland the economy seems in pretty good shape in general.
They are very keen on free movement.
I think that's a social-economic mistake but politically the reasons are obvious.
"In England alone the A*-C pass rate dropped from 68.8% in 2015 to 66.6%.
Northern Ireland – where education is dominated by grammar schools, the subject of debate in England – bucked the national trend with a rise in A*s and As as well as a rise in the headline pass rate to 79.1%."
Thanks for the suggestions, they've been helpful.
Perhaps if photons are captured or produced, they are instantly obliterated (converted to another form of energy) because it would mess up the maths. In the same way, you can't time-travel to the past and kill your grannie before she gave birth to your Dad?
EXCL Former Labour adviser expelled over alleged 'support for the Conservative party'
https://t.co/XbYLgaCLGi https://t.co/JSuSbS1XQT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFMo3UJ4B4g
I also like the fact that one of the places the aliens land is 'Devon, UK'
France in WWI was quite backward in many places, and had made only moderate progress by WWII (whilst acquiring a national culture of moral bankruptcy at the same time)
Now here's a thing. Lord Sainsbury gave more than £2m to Labour AND the Lib Dems between April and June. https://t.co/FNETga1vdm
The novella is a genuinely touching yet haunting love story about two people who have yet to meet. I'll leave it at that.
https://mathisgasser.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/ted-chiang_story-of-your-life_2000.pdf
I've not read it, but Mrs J has. She's a great sci-fi fan.
We are not culturally suited to the EU, and we will always be unhappy members. We diminish ourselves, and the rest of Europe by being members. We should leave and wish them the best of luck.
British footwear designer - 2
Hopefully it means Alonso and Button will be up near the top fighting with the Ferraris and Red Bulls rather than trying to hold off Force India and Williams.
Am I misremembering, or has that rule been relaxed?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37183733
Those who like to play identity politics had better think about which groups they pander to in future, as their assumptions may be wrong.
Edit, there are also rumours about aero parts as well, but nothing confirmed and no word on the kind of gain they might bring.
There are also rumours that Ferrari wanted to recruit Eric Boullier but Ron told them where to go. Boullier's management has changed the structure of McLaren beyond recognition, there was an interesting interview he gave about in season aero development, I'll see if I can find it.
It allows people to mark themselves out as a better person, and feel very good about it, and anyone who objects just volunteers to provide themselves as a further benchmark for that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-37185261
But it's alright in Burnham's eyes: Liverpudlians deserve endless public inquiries, whilst Staffordonians shouldn't know the truth.
You know, because the truth might cause the NHS reputational harm ...
Andy Burnham is scum (tm).
They are driven by blinkered thinking and (misplaced) loyalty to ideas and people - even when they have long since been discredited.
It is a post-logic position...
Watch @Nigel_Farage 's phenomenal speech from tonight's Mississippi Trump rally.
https://t.co/8hlQsvaEyp
5 areas in London have over 50% residents born outside the UK https://t.co/DCR8IBnAaq
McLaren will also benefit, more next year, by getting Prodromou a little while ago. With Newey in a backseat, if not out of the car altogether, and Allison seemingly out of the game, that'll be a relative benefit to the team as well.
I think I said a few weeks ago that McLaren would be where I'd focus for a potential long odds title bet next year. I'll also, if I go ahead with spread-betting, be looking at them closely.
Ferrari's treatment of staff (Allison seems an exception, due to family circumstances) by tossing them overboard so easily hasn't made recruiting any easier for them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37168678
On RBR the majority of design work for Ben Ainslie's boat seems to be done, I'd read that Newey will be taking a leading role for the 2017 car as it will be based on new regulations which he finds interesting.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.