politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If its Corbyn versus May again next time my money would be on
Options
Comments
-
Agree with thatTheWhiteRabbit said:
The eGuardian disagrees:Barnesian said:Slackbladder said:Well May just kicked nine shades of **** out of Corbyn there,
Funny. Corbyn speared her with six specific zingers on local councils quoting Tory Council leaders back at her. All she could do was her strange grimaces and usual blather.
Corbyn got what he wanted. It will be up on social media later today. It is focused on the local elections. He even had a slogan that he repeated three times. "The Tories - Get less. Pay more".
Well Corbyn just kicked nine shades of **** out of May there.
PMQs - Snap verdict: Elections always add an edge to political debate, and with the local elections only weeks away, Corbyn devoted all his questions to the state of local government. He started very, very well, flooring May with a question about Tory-run Northamptonshire county council effectively going bust...But Corbyn’s PMQs second half was not as bold as his opening, and May mounted a spirited, and largely successful, fightback... So, overall, they both scored some runs, but no one prevailed overall.0 -
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.0 -
0.1% is neither her nor there, but the gap will widen during the course of the year.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
0 -
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:0 -
And changing the narrativeSean_F said:
0.1% is neither her nor there, but the gap will widen during the course of the year.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!0 -
The problem with following the money is that it seems to lead back to the Conservative Party.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/liam_o_hare/status/9761822571605155840 -
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.0 -
The Labour voteshare fell about 5% from 2001 to 2005 after Iraq and then about 6% from 2005 to 2010 after the 2008 Crash so about the same decline.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
The Falklands War certainly boosted the Tory voteshare in 1983, the Seuz crisis forced Eden to resign in 1957 and Brexit was a key factor in many votes in 20170 -
They each kicked four and half shades of **** out of the other.Barnesian said:Slackbladder said:Well May just kicked nine shades of **** out of Corbyn there,
Funny. Corbyn speared her with six specific zingers on local councils quoting Tory Council leaders back at her. All she could do was her strange grimaces and usual blather.
Corbyn got what he wanted. It will be up on social media later today. It is focused on the local elections. He even had a slogan that he repeated three times. "The Tories - Get less. Pay more".
Well Corbyn just kicked nine shades of **** out of May there.
0 -
You quality of life improved since it was not dragged down by the meaningless shouting match that is PMQsTheScreamingEagles said:I missed PMQs, what happened?
0 -
The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?0 -
Food being only 1% cheaper than it was 5 years ago is apparently causing terrible hardship.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7c8/mm230 -
It was the downward pressure on wages from uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe without transition controls which put such pressure on wages and was such a key factor in the Brexit vote in the first placeGardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.0 -
Looks like there is a magic money tree after all!MarqueeMark said:The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?
Though fair enough nurses and porters deserve a pay rise and coupled with the new housebuilding programme and the scrapping of the dementia tax plans and the review of student fees most of the key lessons of the last general election campaign are being learned0 -
Partly a consequence of economic rebalancing.rottenborough said:Odd little factoid from the ONS figures:
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/976400970841296896
Female dominated employment sectors in retail and the public sector have had lower growth than male dominated employment sectors in manufacturing and construction.0 -
But there’s no evidence of that. Or, vanishingly little. There is *some* evidence to suggest that firms have relied on cheap labour rather than investing in capital and driving up productivity. In turn that might hold wages down. Perhaps that’s what you mean.HYUFD said:
It was the downward pressure on wages from uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe without transition controls which put such pressure on wages and was such a key factor in the Brexit vote in the first placeGardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.0 -
How about trying to live within our means instead of borrowing a couple of trillion to spend on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.
You could also try increasing productivity instead of using taxpayer subsidised low skilled immigrant labour.
And have affordable housing to help socioceconomic mobility.0 -
I agree that Brexit is at the very least a short and middle term drag on real wages (principal via the "real" not the "wages")Gardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.0 -
Snap election in the offing? ;-)HYUFD said:
Looks like there is a magic money tree after all!MarqueeMark said:The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?
Though fair enough nurses and porters deserve a pay rise and coupled with the new housebuilding programme and the scrapping of the dementia tax plans and the review of student fees most of the key lessons of the last general election campaign are being learned0 -
We've traded higher employment for lower average wage growth.Sean_F said:
The real oddity is that wages barely moved at all in 2008-09, when GDP per head fell by 8%. GDP per head has risen by 11% since 2010, but real wages are 3% lower. It seems that there's a lag between falls in GDP hitting wages, and that the growth since 2010 has shown up in very strong employment growth, more than in wage growth.Philip_Thompson said:
What that graph shows is th at while we are down from the peak of 2007 we are at the same rate as 2005/06 - and higher than every year before then.JonathanD said:
Something appears to have gone wrong with the wage recovery in 2016....TheWhiteRabbit said:
ONS figures say £471ppw to £459ppw regular pay in 2015 prices which is down 2.5%, not 10%.DavidL said:Sandpit said:
ThatFoxy said:
.Gardenwalker said:
We have had very low unemployment for a long time, coupled with very low interest rates. Is it a golden age?notme said:
Golden .swing_voter said:
The systemic problems of the U.K. economic remain - low productivity, a trade deficit, and a whole generation of under 45s who feel stiffed.
I’d happily trade some of those employment numbers for higher productivity and by extension higher wages.
https://twitter.com/BrexitWatch/status/865686580555640837?s=19
£507ppw to £488ppw inc bonuses which is down 3.8%.
https://twitter.com/stephenlclarke/status/976414244806823936
I don't know where the TUC gets a 10% drop in wages from.
Most people in full-time work in the private sector have seen modest real-terms wage rises since 2012. The public sector has had a long freeze. Government welfare reforms have pushed people off benefits and into low-paid entry jobs, which has driven up employment but has also pulled down real wage growth, and immigrants have also continued to arrive to do low-end jobs.
The alternative would be more flattering headline figures on real-wage growth, but higher unemployment figures, higher welfare claimant figures and higher borrowing figures, without public sector wage restraint.
It's probably better to have more people in work earning something, as we do in the UK, rather than fewer earning a bit more, as in France.0 -
In fairness come election time when the impartiality rules kick in I would expect that to change, which doesn't mean it is all the media's fault but they play a part.rottenborough said:To back up the thread header, these are good points:
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/976155911310934016
Inevitably the cultists who comment on it spend most of their time blaming the media.0 -
I think for society as a whole it is much better to have people in low paid work rather than unemployed.Casino_Royale said:
We've traded higher employment for lower average wage growth.Sean_F said:
The real oddity is that wages barely moved at all in 2008-09, when GDP per head fell by 8%. GDP per head has risen by 11% since 2010, but real wages are 3% lower. It seems that there's a lag between falls in GDP hitting wages, and that the growth since 2010 has shown up in very strong employment growth, more than in wage growth.Philip_Thompson said:
What that graph shows is th at while we are down from the peak of 2007 we are at the same rate as 2005/06 - and higher than every year before then.JonathanD said:
Something appears to have gone wrong with the wage recovery in 2016....TheWhiteRabbit said:
ONS figures say £471ppw to £459ppw regular pay in 2015 prices which is down 2.5%, not 10%.DavidL said:Sandpit said:
ThatFoxy said:
.Gardenwalker said:
We have had very low unemployment for a long time, coupled with very low interest rates. Is it a golden age?notme said:
Golden .
The systemic problems of the U.K. economic remain - low productivity, a trade deficit, and a whole generation of under 45s who feel stiffed.
I’d happily trade some of those employment numbers for higher productivity and by extension higher wages.
https://twitter.com/BrexitWatch/status/865686580555640837?s=19
£507ppw to £488ppw inc bonuses which is down 3.8%.
https://twitter.com/stephenlclarke/status/976414244806823936
I don't know where the TUC gets a 10% drop in wages from.
Most people in full-time work in the private sector have seen modest real-terms wage rises since 2012. The public sector has had a long freeze. Government welfare reforms have pushed people off benefits and into low-paid entry jobs, which has driven up employment but has also pulled down real wage growth, and immigrants have also continued to arrive to do low-end jobs.
The alternative would be more flattering headline figures on real-wage growth, but higher unemployment figures, higher welfare claimant figures and higher borrowing figures, without public sector wage restraint.
It's probably better to have more people in work earning something, as we do in the UK, rather than fewer earning a bit more, as in France.
But anyway, there is little more unemployment to be tapped. So now we'll see if the two are linked as much as we think.0 -
There isn't a magic money tree.HYUFD said:
Looks like there is a magic money tree after all!MarqueeMark said:The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?
Though fair enough nurses and porters deserve a pay rise and coupled with the new housebuilding programme and the scrapping of the dementia tax plans and the review of student fees most of the key lessons of the last general election campaign are being learned
The Conservatives argument will be that money needs to be earnt and, if you watch your pennies and are careful with public finances, the rewards can then be fairly and sustainably shared.0 -
Yes - a score draw. My comment was simply to balance the comment that "May just kicked nine shades of **** out of Corbyn there." Couldn't let it go unchallenged.MarqueeMark said:
They each kicked four and half shades of **** out of the other.Barnesian said:Slackbladder said:Well May just kicked nine shades of **** out of Corbyn there,
Funny. Corbyn speared her with six specific zingers on local councils quoting Tory Council leaders back at her. All she could do was her strange grimaces and usual blather.
Corbyn got what he wanted. It will be up on social media later today. It is focused on the local elections. He even had a slogan that he repeated three times. "The Tories - Get less. Pay more".
Well Corbyn just kicked nine shades of **** out of May there.
I think that Corbyn is faster on his feet than May (not a high bar) but Corbyn also has a script to follow for social media purposes that makes his live performance a little stilted. After suitable editing, and cut-ins of May's gurning, his performance will look fantastic.0 -
Partly that but see the wage growth figures from 2007 to 2015 too, France and Germany highest wage growth after Poland and both imposed transition controls, UK at bottom having not imposed transition controls on free movementGardenwalker said:
But there’s no evidence of that. Or, vanishingly little. There is *some* evidence to suggest that firms have relied on cheap labour rather than investing in capital and driving up productivity. In turn that might hold wages down. Perhaps that’s what you mean.HYUFD said:
It was the downward pressure on wages from uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe without transition controls which put such pressure on wages and was such a key factor in the Brexit vote in the first placeGardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.0 -
There will be an element of stagnation in growth until late 2020, when the final trade deal is agreed and business certainty is re-established, followed by a bit of a shakedown if trading conditions change substantively, which I doubt.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I agree that Brexit is at the very least a short and middle term drag on real wages (principal via the "real" not the "wages")Gardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.
The effects of both will diminish over time, as the new status quo is established, and will be virtually undetectable by 2024-2025,.0 -
I highly doubt it, current polling shows Tories would most likely still be largest party, not even sure of a majority let alone a landslideMarqueeMark said:
Snap election in the offing? ;-)HYUFD said:
Looks like there is a magic money tree after all!MarqueeMark said:The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?
Though fair enough nurses and porters deserve a pay rise and coupled with the new housebuilding programme and the scrapping of the dementia tax plans and the review of student fees most of the key lessons of the last general election campaign are being learned0 -
Which was similar to the argument made in the election campaign 9 months ago, there has been no vast change in the economic climate and public finances since then but a big change in the political climate which has been the main driver of this.Casino_Royale said:
There isn't a magic money tree.HYUFD said:
Looks like there is a magic money tree after all!MarqueeMark said:The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?
Though fair enough nurses and porters deserve a pay rise and coupled with the new housebuilding programme and the scrapping of the dementia tax plans and the review of student fees most of the key lessons of the last general election campaign are being learned
The Conservatives argument will be that money needs to be earnt and, if you watch your pennies and are careful with public finances, the rewards can then be fairly and sustainably shared.
Had it been a Tory landslide which was the result of the general election rather than largest party in a hung parliament I doubt nurses and porters would be getting a 6% pay rise0 -
The UK is very much a service-driven (i.e. people driven) economy.Gardenwalker said:
But there’s no evidence of that. Or, vanishingly little. There is *some* evidence to suggest that firms have relied on cheap labour rather than investing in capital and driving up productivity. In turn that might hold wages down. Perhaps that’s what you mean.HYUFD said:
ItGardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.
There was a good article I saw the other day, I can't remember where, that said that productivity numbers on this can be deceptive: you can't easily invest in new machinery to improve services productivity, but the productivity of staff in digital, professional, creative, management, legal or financial services can suddenly spike due to billable hours when the economy turns, as the employer didn't want to let go the knowledge and experience go when the economy was flatter when the staff member was largely just doing non-productive BD or research.0 -
No economic argument was made in the election argument 9 months ago.HYUFD said:
Which was similar to the argument made in the election campaign 9 months ago, there has been no vast change in the economic climate and public finances since then but a big change in the political climate which has been the main driver of this.Casino_Royale said:
There isn't a magic money tree.HYUFD said:
Looks like there is a magic money tree after all!MarqueeMark said:The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?
Though fair enough nurses and porters deserve a pay rise and coupled with the new housebuilding programme and the scrapping of the dementia tax plans and the review of student fees most of the key lessons of the last general election campaign are being learned
The Conservatives argument will be that money needs to be earnt and, if you watch your pennies and are careful with public finances, the rewards can then be fairly and sustainably shared.
Had it been a Tory landslide which was the result of the general election rather than largest party in a hung parliament I doubt nurses and porters would be getting a 6% pay rise
That was a large part of the problem.0 -
The economic argument was continued austerity and oh we will take your house to fund personal care if you get dementia too, the government has now u turned on the first to a large extent and u turned completely on the secondCasino_Royale said:
No economic argument was made in the election argument 9 months ago.HYUFD said:
Which was similar to the argument made in the election campaign 9 months ago, there has been no vast change in the economic climate and public finances since then but a big change in the political climate which has been the main driver of this.Casino_Royale said:
There isn't a magic money tree.HYUFD said:
Looks like there is a magic money tree after all!MarqueeMark said:The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?
Though fair enough nurses and porters deserve a pay rise and coupled with the new housebuilding programme and the scrapping of the dementia tax plans and the review of student fees most of the key lessons of the last general election campaign are being learned
The Conservatives argument will be that money needs to be earnt and, if you watch your pennies and are careful with public finances, the rewards can then be fairly and sustainably shared.
Had it been a Tory landslide which was the result of the general election rather than largest party in a hung parliament I doubt nurses and porters would be getting a 6% pay rise
That was a large part of the problem.0 -
That’s true to an extent, but where we *do* have high productivity is in London and the SE, which is dominated by high value add services such as finance, law, digital, etc.Casino_Royale said:
The UK is very much a service-driven (i.e. people driven) economy.Gardenwalker said:
But there’s no evidence of that. Or, vanishingly little. There is *some* evidence to suggest that firms have relied on cheap labour rather than investing in capital and driving up productivity. In turn that might hold wages down. Perhaps that’s what you mean.HYUFD said:
ItGardenwalker said:
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
There was a good article I saw the other day, I can't remember where, that said that productivity numbers on this can be deceptive: you can't easily invest in new machinery to improve services productivity, but the productivity of staff in digital, professional, creative, management, legal or financial services can suddenly spike due to billable hours when the economy turns, as the employer didn't want to let go the knowledge and experience go when the economy was flatter when the staff member was largely just doing non-productive BD or research.
As far as I know, productivity growth continue apace in those clusters, look at the introduction of AI into law for example.
The problem seems to be a very long tail (bigger than the “dog”!) of low value add manufacturing and services which prefer to compete on price via low labour costs. Why this should be I don’t know. Unlimited labour from the EU might play a part, but the productivity conundrum seems to pre-date 1997 when the immigration taps were turned on.0 -
Shocking decision by the umpire.
That wasn't going to hit another set of stumps.0 -
We won't know in 2024 if we are 1% better off or 1% worse off than some alternate reality.Casino_Royale said:
There will be an element of stagnation in growth until late 2020, when the final trade deal is agreed and business certainty is re-established, followed by a bit of a shakedown if trading conditions change substantively, which I doubt.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I agree that Brexit is at the very least a short and middle term drag on real wages (principal via the "real" not the "wages")Gardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.
The effects of both will diminish over time, as the new status quo is established, and will be virtually undetectable by 2024-2025,.
What people will know is if they are 1% better off or 1% worse off then June 2016.0 -
There are quite a lot of unknowns between here and 2022 (assuming that is when the election is):
1. Will the leaders be Corbyn and May? (And could the LibDems be led by someone more competent, like, ooohhh... anyone?)
2. Will the UK have grown nicely, be in recession, or have had a recession and recovered?
3. Will Brexit be percieved as a success? A failure? Or a meh?
4. Will the winners from Brexit be mostly in Conservative seats? Or Labour seats? And what of the losers? (Even if it's net positive, the losers will still be sore.)
5. Will house prices have risen, supporting the wealth effect, but pricing the young out the market? Or could they have fallen, allowing the young to become home owners, but causing a bunch of oldies to feel poorer?
6. Will there still be (easy-ish) access to the UK labour market for those in the EU? Could this lead to a feeling of betrayal and rise of a UKIP-like party?
7. Will an explicitly anti-Muslim party arise?
8. Could there be a foreign policy crisis? Might we have to choose between Trump and AN Other?
And those are just the easy ones I can think of at 6:52am, just before I wake the kids up to take them to school. 0 -
Here's one you don't seem to have thought of:rcs1000 said:And those are just the easy ones I can think of at 6:52am, just before I wake the kids up to take them to school
.
Will Brexit have happened?0 -
EU going for turnover tax against the tech giants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43486403
Not sure if it's the right move - but I am intrigued.
I don't think the current taxation model works well for large businesses.0 -
That debate will go on forevermore.TheWhiteRabbit said:
We won't know in 2024 if we are 1% better off or 1% worse off than some alternate reality.Casino_Royale said:
There will be an element of stagnation in growth until late 2020, when the final trade deal is agreed and business certainty is re-established, followed by a bit of a shakedown if trading conditions change substantively, which I doubt.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I agree that Brexit is at the very least a short and middle term drag on real wages (principal via the "real" not the "wages")Gardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:The Tories could win the next election, but if they do it won't be down to foreign policy.
Elections are by-and-large won on bread and butter issues - the economy, public services, jobs, taxation, public spending etc. Hence why New Labour were never punished for the Iraq War, but rather for their record on economic management, hence why Labour won a landslide in 1945, hence the long Tory reigns of 1951-1964 and 1979-1997.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.
The effects of both will diminish over time, as the new status quo is established, and will be virtually undetectable by 2024-2025,.
What people will know is if they are 1% better off or 1% worse off then June 2016.0 -
Important news regarding customs:
CHIEF is being replaced by CDS.0 -
People talk about introducing AI into law, without being able to explain what it really means or give many examples. There is very little going on amongst my network.Gardenwalker said:
That’s true to an extent, but where we *do* have high productivity is in London and the SE, which is dominated by high value add services such as finance, law, digital, etc.Casino_Royale said:
The UK is very much a service-driven (i.e. people driven) economy.Gardenwalker said:
But mean.HYUFD said:
ItGardenwalker said:
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
terrible.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and what we know is that wages have been stagnant for a long time, and expected to continue that way until the next election.JSpring said:.
They WERE recovering rapidly, but Brexit put a stop to that.
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
There was a good article I saw the other day, I can't remember where, that said that productivity numbers on this can be deceptive: you can't easily invest in new machinery to improve services productivity, but the productivity of staff in digital, professional, creative, management, legal or financial services can suddenly spike due to billable hours when the economy turns, as the employer didn't want to let go the knowledge and experience go when the economy was flatter when the staff member was largely just doing non-productive BD or research.
As far as I know, productivity growth continue apace in those clusters, look at the introduction of AI into law for example.
The problem seems to be a very long tail (bigger than the “dog”!) of low value add manufacturing and services which prefer to compete on price via low labour costs. Why this should be I don’t know. Unlimited labour from the EU might play a part, but the productivity conundrum seems to pre-date 1997 when the immigration taps were turned on.
More broadly, professionals need to move away from a billing-by-the-hour model to a value-add/value % model if they want to drive up revenue/profit and improve productivity.
Otherwise, you are left with little place to go other than working extra hours in a competitive market environment.0 -
It was completely non-existent. It was painful.HYUFD said:
The economic argument was continued austerity and oh we will take your house to fund personal care if you get dementia too, the government has now u turned on the first to a large extent and u turned completely on the secondCasino_Royale said:
No economic argument was made in the election argument 9 months ago.HYUFD said:
Which was similar to the argument made in the election campaign 9 months ago, there has been no vast change in the economic climate and public finances since then but a big change in the political climate which has been the main driver of this.Casino_Royale said:
There isn't a magic money tree.HYUFD said:
Looks like there is a magic money tree after all!MarqueeMark said:The NHS pay rises will utterly drown out any impact of today's PMQs (which would have been very limited anyway).
Nobody picked up on SeanT's suggestion to call Corbyn a traitor. Maybe next time, eh?
Though fair enough nurses and porters deserve a pay rise and coupled with the new housebuilding programme and the scrapping of the dementia tax plans and the review of student fees most of the key lessons of the last general election campaign are being learned
The Conservatives argument will be that money needs to be earnt and, if you watch your pennies and are careful with public finances, the rewards can then be fairly and sustainably shared.
Had it been a Tory landslide which was the result of the general election rather than largest party in a hung parliament I doubt nurses and porters would be getting a 6% pay rise
That was a large part of the problem.0 -
Mohammad bin Salman looks very uncomfortable with being used as a prop by Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sJgjGQ4qZI0 -
It’s a gentle step in the right direction.rkrkrk said:EU going for turnover tax against the tech giants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43486403
Not sure if it's the right move - but I am intrigued.
I don't think the current taxation model works well for large businesses.
In the long run, the cost of producing increasing amounts of the economy is tending toward zero. Think digital economy + 3D printing + globalised labour pool.
Meanwhile, tax avoidance on profit has been turned into a fine art.0 -
Oh dear. Cricket stopped for rain. Scotland behind on DLS, but would have been ahead if not for that dreeeeadful lbw call.
Hope they get back on...0 -
-
The government has released an updated position paper on principally the same issue, which all arises from the OECD. It proposes such a turnover tax as an "interim" measure, until profits can be secured back from tax-efficient locales.Gardenwalker said:
It’s a gentle step in the right direction.rkrkrk said:EU going for turnover tax against the tech giants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43486403
Not sure if it's the right move - but I am intrigued.
I don't think the current taxation model works well for large businesses.
In the long run, the cost of producing increasing amounts of the economy is tending toward zero. Think digital economy + 3D printing + globalised labour pool.
Meanwhile, tax avoidance on profit has been turned into a fine art.
The only country not playing ball is the US, who largely benefit from profits following the IP - a system introduced by the UK and France when it was to our benefit (and our colonies' detriment).
0 -
So basically like VAT?rkrkrk said:EU going for turnover tax against the tech giants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43486403
Not sure if it's the right move - but I am intrigued.
I don't think the current taxation model works well for large businesses.0 -
UKIP voters going to the Conservatives, leaving the EU, and the continual march left by the Labour Party will undoubtedly all play to the Conservatives advantage. A Conservative majority at the next election is undoubtedly more than highly likely IMO.0
-
Mr. Roy, welcome to PB. Given recent events, I'd be very wary of trying to predict the next election.0
-
Welcome Mr Roy.BillRoy said:UKIP voters going to the Conservatives, leaving the EU, and the continual march left by the Labour Party will undoubtedly all play to the Conservatives advantage. A Conservative majority at the next election is undoubtedly more than highly likely IMO.
You can get 3.05 on Betfair on a Tory majority. That is 2/1 against or a 33% chance.0 -
No I think it's different.Philip_Thompson said:
So basically like VAT?rkrkrk said:EU going for turnover tax against the tech giants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43486403
Not sure if it's the right move - but I am intrigued.
I don't think the current taxation model works well for large businesses.
Businesses can reclaim VAT on the cost of things they used to make their product.
Facebook/Amazon won't be able to do that - they are just going to pay 3% of all their revenue.0 -
A courageous first postBillRoy said:UKIP voters going to the Conservatives, leaving the EU, and the continual march left by the Labour Party will undoubtedly all play to the Conservatives advantage. A Conservative majority at the next election is undoubtedly more than highly likely IMO.
0 -
'I know smarter *camels*'.williamglenn said:Mohammad bin Salman looks very uncomfortable with being used as a prop by Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sJgjGQ4qZI0 -
This is an unimpressive question: https://twitter.com/Survation/status/976464064552501249
Too long, too complicated, and essentially asks voters if they back something fictional but lovely. Would you pat a unicorn?0 -
So to you or me that will look just like 23% VAT? Or 3% on books, I suppose. Doesn't really work for Facebook in that they don't deliver anything other than your private data to shady third-parties.rkrkrk said:
No I think it's different.Philip_Thompson said:
So basically like VAT?rkrkrk said:EU going for turnover tax against the tech giants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43486403
Not sure if it's the right move - but I am intrigued.
I don't think the current taxation model works well for large businesses.
Businesses can reclaim VAT on the cost of things they used to make their product.
Facebook/Amazon won't be able to do that - they are just going to pay 3% of all their revenue.
Where to draw the line between a normal company and a 'giant' though? How to stop them fragmenting their companies to avoid paying it?0 -
Well that’s Brexit in a nut shell isn’t it.Morris_Dancer said:This is an unimpressive question: https://twitter.com/Survation/status/976464064552501249
Too long, too complicated, and essentially asks voters if they back something fictional but lovely. Would you pat a unicorn?
Too long, too complicated and essentially asking voters to back something fictional but lovely.0 -
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:0 -
From the article it's global annual turnover of 750m euro.Anorak said:
So to you or me that will look just like 23% VAT? Or 3% on books, I suppose. Doesn't really work for Facebook in that they don't deliver anything other than your private data to shady third-parties.rkrkrk said:
No I think it's different.Philip_Thompson said:
So basically like VAT?rkrkrk said:EU going for turnover tax against the tech giants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43486403
Not sure if it's the right move - but I am intrigued.
I don't think the current taxation model works well for large businesses.
Businesses can reclaim VAT on the cost of things they used to make their product.
Facebook/Amazon won't be able to do that - they are just going to pay 3% of all their revenue.
Where to draw the line between a normal company and a 'giant' though? How to stop them fragmenting their companies to avoid paying it?
So they would need to fragment a lot to avoid it!
For you and me I don't think there will be a difference for facebook or google since we are the product not the customer - advertisers might have to pay them more or those the tech giants might just absorb it.
Amazon I'm not sure since I thought their margins were very slim... we might see a rise in costs of books online for instance - and maybe therefore a bit of a boost to physical shops?0 -
Mr. Eagles, except that the question pertains to remaining in the customs union, not leaving it.
Leaving the EU would be less difficult had successive politicians, who had made crowd-pleasingly sceptical noises in opposition, been less gleeful in office when it came to handing over vetoes and deepening integration.0 -
Oh, poor Scotland. HARSH.0
-
It quite clearly states a modified/new customs unions.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, except that the question pertains to remaining in the customs union, not leaving it.
Leaving the EU would be less difficult had successive politicians, who had made crowd-pleasingly sceptical noises in opposition, been less gleeful in office when it came to handing over vetoes and deepening integration.
There’s a difference between THE customs union and A customs union.
As for making crowd pleasing noises then u turning I cite Michael Gove and his pledge to leave the CFP in March 2019.0 -
If there was a trivial persuits question 'Which person was responsible for losing $50 billion in a day?' How many would know it was a whitleblower from Campbridge Analytica0
-
Mr. Eagles, wasn't that as part of a leadership bid he lost?0
-
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:0 -
No it was part of his Vote Leave campaign and in a press release the Scottish Tories issued last week.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, wasn't that as part of a leadership bid he lost?
0 -
Mr. Eagles, fair enough. Though I'm still waiting for the total collapse of Western civilisation raised by Tusk.0
-
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.0 -
Watched by how many floating voters? A number bigger than zero? Really?Barnesian said:I think that Corbyn is faster on his feet than May (not a high bar) but Corbyn also has a script to follow for social media purposes that makes his live performance a little stilted. After suitable editing, and cut-ins of May's gurning, his performance will look fantastic.
0 -
Wasn't it OGH, when that wrong poll got posted and caused a run on the pound or something?Sean_F said:
I'd have said Sir Fred the Shred.Roger said:If there was a trivial persuits question 'Which person was responsible for losing $50 billion in a day?' How many would know it was a whitleblower from Campbridge Analytica
0 -
Scotland has been Scotlanded once again.Anorak said:Oh, poor Scotland. HARSH.
0 -
Fecking bag of shite Umpire has cost Scotland a place in the world cup.0
-
Still, the thought of the Calcutta Cup must keep you warm.Theuniondivvie said:
Scotland has been Scotlanded once again.Anorak said:Oh, poor Scotland. HARSH.
0 -
Scotland - or the Windies - which do you want at the World Cup? Hmmmmmmm......let me think.....TheScreamingEagles said:Fecking bag of shite Umpire has cost Scotland a place in the world cup.
0 -
Scotland.MarqueeMark said:
Scotland - or the Windies - which do you want at the World Cup? Hmmmmmmm......let me think.....TheScreamingEagles said:Fecking bag of shite Umpire has cost Scotland a place in the world cup.
The Windies have given up on 50 over and Test cricket.0 -
Something like 25% of rough sleepers in London are from Romania, Poland and Lithuania, and less than half overall are U.K. nationals.Anorak said:
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.
The joys of free movement.0 -
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?TheScreamingEagles said:
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:0 -
It’s a bit like those that flock to see two bit pop bands who only ever had a couple of hits when do a reunion tour....It's a tradegy...Anorak said:
He only really does "angry, shouty socialist at a rally", repeating the same 20 stock phrases like a greyer version of Rick from the Young Ones. To be fair, he does that very well. But he's no debater, and he can't think on his feet.Scott_P said:How is it possible that thousands of people flock to hear Corbyn speak?
At PMQs he can barely string a sentence together.0 -
Something to do with Cambridge Analytica?PClipp said:
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?TheScreamingEagles said:
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:
This is the sort of thing you'd expect in France.
What have the Brexiteers and the DUP got to hide?
It wasn't from a Putin crony was it?0 -
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.PClipp said:
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?TheScreamingEagles said:
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.0 -
Mr. Divvie, not watching the cricket. Can't be as bad as the rugby world cup versus Australia, though, right?0
-
It'll have to.Anorak said:
Still, the thought of the Calcutta Cup must keep you warm.Theuniondivvie said:
Scotland has been Scotlanded once again.Anorak said:Oh, poor Scotland. HARSH.
Murray off the boil and even the wummin curlers gone to shite.0 -
It's not a happy chart. But we are still talking less than 5k rough sleepers in a country of 55m people, that is approximately 0.0001%. The government should be doing more and it is undeniable that this problem is actually small enough that some genuine will to sort it really should work. To suggest that Big Issue sellers are the backbone of the 400K or so increase in employment in the last year, however, is, well, overblown.Anorak said:
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.0 -
Certainly a number bigger than zero.MarqueeMark said:
Watched by how many floating voters? A number bigger than zero? Really?Barnesian said:I think that Corbyn is faster on his feet than May (not a high bar) but Corbyn also has a script to follow for social media purposes that makes his live performance a little stilted. After suitable editing, and cut-ins of May's gurning, his performance will look fantastic.
Also some wobbly Tories suffering local cuts might be persuaded to stay at home and sit on their hands.
Plus Labour supporters who will be further motivated to come out and vote.
I wouldn't underestimate the power of targeted social media.
EDIT: If you are not one of these three groups (and I suspect you're not) then you will never see it or be aware of it.0 -
That was indeed harsh and unfair, especially after our best batsman who got us into this position in the first place was out in the first over. A really solid effort but just short of the final hurdle, again.Theuniondivvie said:
Scotland has been Scotlanded once again.Anorak said:Oh, poor Scotland. HARSH.
0 -
Wrong.RoyalBlue said:
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.PClipp said:
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?TheScreamingEagles said:
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden0 -
Could have been worse, earlier on this month, my teams lost to Manchester United and France in the same afternoon.Theuniondivvie said:
It'll have to.Anorak said:
Still, the thought of the Calcutta Cup must keep you warm.Theuniondivvie said:
Scotland has been Scotlanded once again.Anorak said:Oh, poor Scotland. HARSH.
Murray off the boil and even the wummin curlers gone to shite.
I cried like a disgraced televangelist.0 -
So, complying with the law as it stands.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wrong.RoyalBlue said:
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.PClipp said:
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?TheScreamingEagles said:
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden0 -
Rough sleepers from Romania are not covered by freedom of movement under any sane interpretation of EU rules.RoyalBlue said:
Something like 25% of rough sleepers in London are from Romania, Poland and Lithuania, and less than half overall are U.K. nationals.Anorak said:
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.
The joys of free movement.0 -
Nope, there's plenty of evidence that said it would be applied from 2014.Sean_F said:
So, complying with the law as it stands.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wrong.RoyalBlue said:
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.PClipp said:
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?TheScreamingEagles said:
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden
I'll have to check to make sure it wasn't the serial liar Gove who made that promise.0 -
I think that is 0.01%. One in every 11,000 people is a rough sleeper.DavidL said:
It's not a happy chart. But we are still talking less than 5k rough sleepers in a country of 55m people, that is approximately 0.0001%. The government should be doing more and it is undeniable that this problem is actually small enough that some genuine will to sort it really should work. To suggest that Big Issue sellers are the backbone of the 400K or so increase in employment in the last year, however, is, well, overblown.Anorak said:
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.0 -
Except they won't, on a like-for-like basis. Over something like eight years, people occupy a different place in the employment market. Some join or re-join, some retire, some go on maternity, some go part-time or full-time from part-time. And most of the rest will either change jobs or find some sort of progression within their existing one. So they won't be able to compare their current pay against the equivalent in 2016 (or vice versa). In fact, the net effect for most people in work will be to see an increase above the average. Those losing out will be those who've dropped out of the labout market - but for most of them (redundancies excepted, perhaps), that'll be mainly down to lifestyle choices they themselves have made.TheWhiteRabbit said:
We won't know in 2024 if we are 1% better off or 1% worse off than some alternate reality.Casino_Royale said:
There will be an element of stagnation in growth until late 2020, when the final trade deal is agreed and business certainty is re-established, followed by a bit of a shakedown if trading conditions change substantively, which I doubt.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I agree that Brexit is at the very least a short and middle term drag on real wages (principal via the "real" not the "wages")Gardenwalker said:
I’m not falling into that trap.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Quite. But, 0.1% over and over is significant, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that 0.1% declines are terrible and 0.1% rises are nothing.Gardenwalker said:
Oh, get real.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday - inflation at 2.7%
Today - wage rises at 2.8%
And expected inflation at 2% later this year with wage increases well above inflation
0.1%.
On £30,000 that’s equivalent to £30.
Quick - to Lidl before the champagne stocks run out!
The ONS reckon the entire squeeze on wages has been 0.03% pm which the TUC think is terrible.
Although it would take 15 or 20 years of 0.1% improvements to make make much difference to people’s living standards.
We can do better than that. Or could have, if it wasn’t for Brexit. As it is, we are restricting access to our main export market and turning our back on the economies of scale present in a market of half a billion people.
We urgently need a government with a sane theory of economic growth, and plan to deliver it.
The effects of both will diminish over time, as the new status quo is established, and will be virtually undetectable by 2024-2025,.
What people will know is if they are 1% better off or 1% worse off then June 2016.0 -
They might have entered the UK legally, and overstayed, which is of course what a non-EU national could also do - but they'd be less likely to get a "speculative" visa in the first place.Pulpstar said:
Rough sleepers from Romania are not covered by freedom of movement under any sane interpretation of EU rules.RoyalBlue said:
Something like 25% of rough sleepers in London are from Romania, Poland and Lithuania, and less than half overall are U.K. nationals.Anorak said:
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.
The joys of free movement.0 -
5k/55m = 0.00009091. I rounded it up to 0.0001.Barnesian said:
I think that is 0.01%. One in every 11,000 people is a rough sleeper.DavidL said:
It's not a happy chart. But we are still talking less than 5k rough sleepers in a country of 55m people, that is approximately 0.0001%. The government should be doing more and it is undeniable that this problem is actually small enough that some genuine will to sort it really should work. To suggest that Big Issue sellers are the backbone of the 400K or so increase in employment in the last year, however, is, well, overblown.Anorak said:
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.0 -
If everyone thought it was supposed to be brought in in 2014, surely in 2015 and 2016 there should have been a lot of pressure?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, there's plenty of evidence that said it would be applied from 2014.Sean_F said:
So, complying with the law as it stands.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wrong.RoyalBlue said:
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.PClipp said:
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?TheScreamingEagles said:
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden
I'll have to check to make sure it wasn't the serial liar Gove who made that promise.0 -
I'm sure the Russians will love the comparison
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/9764792640307732480 -
You said % not fraction.DavidL said:
5k/55m = 0.00009091. I rounded it up to 0.0001.Barnesian said:
I think that is 0.01%. One in every 11,000 people is a rough sleeper.DavidL said:
It's not a happy chart. But we are still talking less than 5k rough sleepers in a country of 55m people, that is approximately 0.0001%. The government should be doing more and it is undeniable that this problem is actually small enough that some genuine will to sort it really should work. To suggest that Big Issue sellers are the backbone of the 400K or so increase in employment in the last year, however, is, well, overblown.Anorak said:
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.0 -
Let's put it another way. If the DUP have broken the law as it is (not the law as you would like it to be) then they can be prosecuted. If they haven't, then they can't be..TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, there's plenty of evidence that said it would be applied from 2014.Sean_F said:
So, complying with the law as it stands.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wrong.RoyalBlue said:
Just to clarify, by ‘covering up’ you mean complying with British law.PClipp said:
I don`t know, Mr Eagles. Why is the Conservative government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?TheScreamingEagles said:
Which reminds me, why is the government covering up that DUP Brexit donation?Scott_P said:
We have different rules in Northern Ireland for a reason. Perhaps you don’t agree with that, but don’t say refusing to go beyond legal requirements is a cover-up.
Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the Democratic Unionist party to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 would not be made public.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden
I'll have to check to make sure it wasn't the serial liar Gove who made that promise.0 -
Which is 0.01%.DavidL said:
5k/55m = 0.00009091. I rounded it up to 0.0001.Barnesian said:
I think that is 0.01%. One in every 11,000 people is a rough sleeper.DavidL said:
It's not a happy chart. But we are still talking less than 5k rough sleepers in a country of 55m people, that is approximately 0.0001%. The government should be doing more and it is undeniable that this problem is actually small enough that some genuine will to sort it really should work. To suggest that Big Issue sellers are the backbone of the 400K or so increase in employment in the last year, however, is, well, overblown.Anorak said:
I was sceptical. Then I looked at this:Roger said:
Much worsenotme said:
You think homelessness is worse than it was pre crisis?Roger said:
Does that figure include Big Issue sellers?TheScreamingEagles said:
Hurrah for George Osborne.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682001/Rough_Sleeping_Autumn_2017_Statistical_Release_-_revised.pdf
Chart on page 4. Not good. At all.0
This discussion has been closed.