politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories hold on against an SNP challenge in Scotland but lo
Comments
-
Very readable article. If Remainers are obliged to show respect to Leavers because they're in a majority are those who voted against Trump obliged to show respect to his supporters because they're in a majority?.....Read on the man's a c***.rcs1000 said:For those backing Trump to survive, this is an interesting article.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/michael-cohen-and-the-end-stage-of-the-trump-presidency
(I've laid lots of 2018 Trump exit, and a very small amount of 2019. I think laying at 10-1 on 2018 remains close to free money, but am increasingly nervous about 2019.)0 -
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Serious about doing what?Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.0 -
Prime Minister of Grenada, on behalf of the Carribean delegation, thanks and complements Theresa May on her distinguished leadership and conduct of the meetings of the group over the last two days.
He went on to say he looks forward to the next 2 years under the stewardship of the Prime Minister0 -
Yes CR means biennially (sp.?)Sandpit said:
Forgive my pedantry, but if it’s twice a year it is biannually.Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
0 -
How about Germany and Poland? Or Ireland and us?rcs1000 said:
Sure. But India and Pakistan actually hate each other in a way that - say - Germany and Greece do not.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
0 -
If it gets me off the hook, yes ;-)TheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes CR means biennially (sp.?)Sandpit said:
Forgive my pedantry, but if it’s twice a year it is biannually.Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.0 -
The 3.15 (to back) on Next President looks quite tempting to me (but have not backed). I backed similar levels a few months ago, but finished up flattening after one of the stories (I forget which). He is delivering something - it's hard to say what it is, but it is something. That might finish up as being quite popular. (cf Obama)rcs1000 said:For those backing Trump to survive, this is an interesting article.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/michael-cohen-and-the-end-stage-of-the-trump-presidency
(I've laid lots of 2018 Trump exit, and a very small amount of 2019. I think laying at 10-1 on 2018 remains close to free money, but am increasingly nervous about 2019.)
(Disclosure: All green, the only person I've backed was Caroline Kennedy - think that was a mistake really now)0 -
Problems caused by the difficulty in attracting and keeping agricultural workers.
Doubtless caused by 'hostile environment' and 'xenophobic lies'.
Except that this is in the Netherlands.
And those silly Dutch farmers haven't followed the Guardian's advice and demanded taxpayer subsidised indentured labours from the third world but have invested in new technology.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43813284
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-43824607/meet-the-robots-that-can-pick-and-plant-better-than-we-can0 -
BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
0 -
I don’t think the Commonwealth need to meet so often.
There are, besides, three or four Commonwealths: Caribbean; Sub-Saharan Africa; Middle East to South East Asia; and the Pacific. Local groupings could meet more often.
It should focus on democratic, cultural, judicial, professional and academic exchange, with a side order of trade promotion.
Could also be used to caucus for various global positions eg WTO and security council nominations. India apparently is waking up to the fact it provides it with a global forum free of China.
It could be more useful (to the U.K.) but we’d need to fund it properly - no one else will.0 -
The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
0 -
I think you said that purchasing an iPad with borrowed money adds more to UK GDP than the design and fabrication adds to the GDP of USA, Taiwan and China.rcs1000 said:The Singaporean Prime Minister has been reading my posts on the causes of trade deficits:
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/singapores-prime-minister-nobody-wants-a-trade-war/2018/04/18/64d9fa30-431e-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html?utm_term=.1fcde6c3c365
Now if the UK had increased its savings rate enough to have had a trade balance (or even more a current account balance) of zero during the last two decades how much would that have knocked off UK GDP ?
0 -
It was right at the heart of Corbyn's and labours attack and now it has been admitted by Alan Johnson it was under labour it is dropped as an issue by labour and to their embarrassmentThe_Apocalypse said:BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
0 -
It was a silly attack line that Corbyn used at PMQs, but the main thrust of Labour’s attack generally focuses on the hostile environment policy. Labour have already had their major embarrassment over this on Wednesday, and it was mainly limited to Wednesday afternoon. The evening news on Wednesday wasn’t bad for them with the exception of C4 news (and that was because of the antisemitism scandal). Right now it looks their latest attack centres on those ‘go home vans’ on (see Twitter and Corbyn’s account) and TMay’s involvement in that decision. And the reason why Labour have that info to attack with government with is largely down to Nick Timothy, whose defence of TMay led to reports which directly contradicted his account.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It was right at the heart of Corbyn's and labours attack and now it has been admitted by Alan Johnson it was under labour it is dropped as an issue by labour and to their embarrassmentThe_Apocalypse said:BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
0 -
Even though most members think it's a good idea?RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.0 -
biennially is once every two years and biannually is twice a yearCasino_Royale said:
If it gets me off the hook, yes ;-)TheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes CR means biennially (sp.?)Sandpit said:
Forgive my pedantry, but if it’s twice a year it is biannually.Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.0 -
-
we're missing a time axis. ten years ago, what was the equivalent %?Floater said:0 -
Interestingly, I'm doing a little video on that. If you don't mind, I'll send it to you ahead of time and get your feedback.another_richard said:
I think you said that purchasing an iPad with borrowed money adds more to UK GDP than the design and fabrication adds to the GDP of USA, Taiwan and China.rcs1000 said:The Singaporean Prime Minister has been reading my posts on the causes of trade deficits:
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/singapores-prime-minister-nobody-wants-a-trade-war/2018/04/18/64d9fa30-431e-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html?utm_term=.1fcde6c3c365
Now if the UK had increased its savings rate enough to have had a trade balance (or even more a current account balance) of zero during the last two decades how much would that have knocked off UK GDP ?0 -
Do you think Pakistan is particularly interested in "coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles"?Casino_Royale said:
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Serious about doing what?Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.0 -
It’s a club with no obligations that meets twice a year. It doesn’t have sufficient substance to qualify as a bad idea.AndyJS said:
Even though most members think it's a good idea?RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.0 -
Massive wow.Floater said:
"Two-thirds of millennials could not identify in the survey what Auschwitz was."
0 -
Pincer movement by Brussels and British parliamentary oikophobes concerning Customs Union.
Best to walk away and let the EU force Varadkar to erect a hard border to protect EU's feather-bedded businesses.0 -
In all of this the way it is now handled is key and tonights reports are promising with residency already granted to some on the help line.The_Apocalypse said:
It was a silly attack line that Corbyn used at PMQs, but the main thrust of Labour’s attack generally focuses on the hostile environment policy. Labour have already had their major embarrassment over this on Wednesday, and it was mainly limited to Wednesday afternoon. The evening news on Wednesday wasn’t bad for them with the exception of C4 news (and that was because of the antisemitism scandal). Right now it looks their latest attack centres on those ‘go home vans’ on (see Twitter and Corbyn’s account) and TMay’s involvement in that decision. And the reason why Labour have that info to attack with government with is largely down to Nick Timothy, whose defence of TMay led to reports which directly contradicted his account.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It was right at the heart of Corbyn's and labours attack and now it has been admitted by Alan Johnson it was under labour it is dropped as an issue by labour and to their embarrassmentThe_Apocalypse said:BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
The wider issue of dealing with illegal immigration is generally popular and labour first used the 'hostile' attitude word before the conservatives came into power. Also Lord Kerslake reference to Nazi Germany was crass but seems that is a regular theme with labour politicians0 -
0
-
Once every two years (which strengthens your already valid point).RoyalBlue said:
It’s a club with no obligations that meets twice a year. It doesn’t have sufficient substance to qualify as a bad idea.AndyJS said:
Even though most members think it's a good idea?RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.0 -
I'm honoured !!!rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, I'm doing a little video on that. If you don't mind, I'll send it to you ahead of time and get your feedback.another_richard said:
I think you said that purchasing an iPad with borrowed money adds more to UK GDP than the design and fabrication adds to the GDP of USA, Taiwan and China.rcs1000 said:The Singaporean Prime Minister has been reading my posts on the causes of trade deficits:
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/singapores-prime-minister-nobody-wants-a-trade-war/2018/04/18/64d9fa30-431e-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html?utm_term=.1fcde6c3c365
Now if the UK had increased its savings rate enough to have had a trade balance (or even more a current account balance) of zero during the last two decades how much would that have knocked off UK GDP ?
Two things I'm curious about are when the cult of GDP became so dominant and when the media stopped reporting the trade figures on the TV news.0 -
"Theresa May to consider compensation for Windrush migrants"
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-to-consider-compensation-for-windrush-migrants-113396250 -
I imagine its particularly interested in tapping up British ministers for some overseas aid money.rcs1000 said:
Do you think Pakistan is particularly interested in "coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles"?Casino_Royale said:
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Serious about doing what?Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.0 -
Canadian polls all over the place, from a 7 point Tory lead to a 12 point Liberal one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_federal_election0 -
I would have thought that any British citizens who have been illegally deported to the third world by the Home Office will have a legal right to compensation.AndyJS said:"Theresa May to consider compensation for Windrush migrants"
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-to-consider-compensation-for-windrush-migrants-113396250 -
Is the correct answer! The Commonwealth heads of government meet biennially, rather than biannually.TheWhiteRabbit said:
biennially is once every two years and biannually is twice a yearCasino_Royale said:
If it gets me off the hook, yes ;-)TheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes CR means biennially (sp.?)Sandpit said:
Forgive my pedantry, but if it’s twice a year it is biannually.Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.0 -
Through bi-lateral professional and academic exchange, why not? And actually (to continue playing devils advocate) how else to support democracy in Pakistan?rcs1000 said:
Do you think Pakistan is particularly interested in "coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles"?Casino_Royale said:
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Serious about doing what?Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.0 -
Who pays for the compensation? The British taxpayer? It ought to be the people responsible for the mess, whoever they are.another_richard said:
I would have thought that any British citizens who have been illegally deported to the third world by the Home Office will have a legal right to compensation.AndyJS said:"Theresa May to consider compensation for Windrush migrants"
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-to-consider-compensation-for-windrush-migrants-113396250 -
BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.0 -
The second EU referendum is shaping up to be our Macron v Le Pen election.LordWakefield said:UKIP about to go full on Le Pen?
0 -
Yes, It's a really odd story for them to lead with.Omnium said:BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
And #1 in 'Most watched' is a power station close to my heart:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-derbyshire-43823662/willington-power-station-still-towers-20-years-after-closing
I cannot believe that many people are interested in Willington A&B. ...0 -
That's about as likely as Olly Letwin reimbursing the taxpayer for the money given to Kids Company.AndyJS said:
Who pays for the compensation? The British taxpayer? It ought to be the people responsible for the mess, whoever they are.another_richard said:
I would have thought that any British citizens who have been illegally deported to the third world by the Home Office will have a legal right to compensation.AndyJS said:"Theresa May to consider compensation for Windrush migrants"
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-to-consider-compensation-for-windrush-migrants-113396250 -
Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.0 -
I'm all in for the box set over spending 10 seconds reading about this Swedish bloke.JosiasJessop said:
Yes, It's a really odd story for them to lead with.Omnium said:BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
And #1 in 'Most watched' is a power station close to my heart:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-derbyshire-43823662/willington-power-station-still-towers-20-years-after-closing
I cannot believe that many people are interested in Willington A&B. ...0 -
Maybe, he [ or you ] could have added that a country's exports ultimately depend on quality and value for money.rcs1000 said:The Singaporean Prime Minister has been reading my posts on the causes of trade deficits:
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/singapores-prime-minister-nobody-wants-a-trade-war/2018/04/18/64d9fa30-431e-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html?utm_term=.1fcde6c3c365
Re: USA and China: China had reduced its trade surplus with the RoW from about 10% of GDP to under 2% in the last few years.
Why didn't the USA manage to export more to China ? Other countries must have done. The USA either exports military or technology/software kind of stuff which they do not want to export to China for understandable reasons. OR basic agricultural products like low population high yielding countries.
It will be interesting to see how China deals with Qualcomm buying NXP.
Basically, Trump is trying to bully them and Japan into buying US produce when in a free market very few will buy them.0 -
Usually, it implies people are voluntarily unemployed. Like moving locations, jobs etc.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.0 -
Please don't bring it up. HYUFD is still waiting for the first round results.williamglenn said:
The second EU referendum is shaping up to be our Macron v Le Pen election.LordWakefield said:UKIP about to go full on Le Pen?
0 -
Pakistan is technically a democracy! Well, sort of.Gardenwalker said:
Through bi-lateral professional and academic exchange, why not? And actually (to continue playing devils advocate) how else to support democracy in Pakistan?rcs1000 said:
Do you think Pakistan is particularly interested in "coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles"?Casino_Royale said:
Promoting trade, development, investment, growth in human capital, business and economic links and coordinating advancement of liberal democratic principles.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Serious about doing what?Casino_Royale said:
If the Commonwealth wants to be more serious it needs to meet as regularly as the European Council.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.
A 6-month horizon is a useful horizon for initiatives, projects and reports. Also keeps the momentum going. Every 2 years is a bit token.0 -
The point at which god, if unemployed, fails to get a job straight away. However practically that's not measureable - so the point at which a very talented person fails to get a job offer in a day. (you'd have to tune 'very talented' and 'a day')Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.0 -
AndyJS said:
Who pays for the compensation? The British taxpayer? It ought to be the people responsible for the mess, whoever they are.another_richard said:
I would have thought that any British citizens who have been illegally deported to the third world by the Home Office will have a legal right to compensation.AndyJS said:"Theresa May to consider compensation for Windrush migrants"
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-to-consider-compensation-for-windrush-migrants-11339625
I think this could become a big problem for Theresa May. Every time the government detain or deport a longstanding resident with links to a Commonwealth country (which they are pretty much doing all the time) it is going to windrush revisited. I think attitudes to immigration have possibly changed post Brexit (ironic, given that nothing has yet changed!), and the hostile environment policy is very much a pre Brexit policy associated with Theresa May. Basically, the only way around this is to stop deporting law abiding people who have a credible claim to remain in the UK, even if they can't get the paperwork together.The_Apocalypse said:
It was a silly attack line that Corbyn used at PMQs, but the main thrust of Labour’s attack generally focuses on the hostile environment policy. Labour have already had their major embarrassment over this on Wednesday, and it was mainly limited to Wednesday afternoon. The evening news on Wednesday wasn’t bad for them with the exception of C4 news (and that was because of the antisemitism scandal). Right now it looks their latest attack centres on those ‘go home vans’ on (see Twitter and Corbyn’s account) and TMay’s involvement in that decision. And the reason why Labour have that info to attack with government with is largely down to Nick Timothy, whose defence of TMay led to reports which directly contradicted his account.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It was right at the heart of Corbyn's and labours attack and now it has been admitted by Alan Johnson it was under labour it is dropped as an issue by labour and to their embarrassmentThe_Apocalypse said:BigG, the Alan Johnson story isn’t news at this stage. What he’s said was pretty much the clarification issued after TMay’s PMQs that made clear that the decision wasn’t a ministerial one (as opposed to the hostile environment policy). E.g: (From the link earlier on): Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency." This was said shortly after PMQs on Wednesday.
0 -
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.0 -
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.0 -
To help with understanding what I am trying to ascertain; one of the arguments used against migration is the 'stealing our jobs' argument. Now I don't ascribe to that in the first place but I am wondering at what point we could reasonably say that unemployment is so low it is no longer a viable argument in any way.surby said:
Usually, it implies people are voluntarily unemployed. Like moving locations, jobs etc.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.0 -
Thanks Richard. Very much the sort of answer I was looking for in terms of information.another_richard said:
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.0 -
I seem to recall 5% as a figure of full employment, but can’t find a primary source for it. There will always be people moving around and between jobs.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.0 -
Time for the usual BBC over-the-top eulogy of someone they barely knew.Omnium said:BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
Wake me up when it’s all over.0 -
The ONS regional labour market stats has unemployment at 3.4% in both the South-East and South-West regions:Richard_Tyndall said:
Thanks Richard. Very much the sort of answer I was looking for in terms of information.another_richard said:
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/regionallabourmarket/april2018#summary-of-latest-regional-labour-market-statistics0 -
You might find this interesting - it gives unemployment by parliamentary constituency in January 2017:Richard_Tyndall said:
Thanks Richard. Very much the sort of answer I was looking for in terms of information.another_richard said:
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7868#fullreport
The lowest are Stratford, Kenilworth, Hampshire NE, Cambridgeshire S and Henley (all affluent commuter areas) plus Westmoreland at 0.5% unemployment.
By contrast Birmingham has 5 of the top 10 constituencies with the highest unemployment.0 -
“Nuclear armed adversaries”rcs1000 said:
Sure. But India and Pakistan actually hate each other in a way that - say - Germany and Greece do not.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
For a moment there I thought you were referring to Britain and France!0 -
The Cliff Richard ruling could be huge for the BBC, the broadcast and print media if the BBC loses.Sandpit said:
Time for the usual BBC over-the-top eulogy of someone they barely knew.Omnium said:BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
Wake me up when it’s all over.
The reporting of the alleged behaviour of the BBC reporter is not a good look0 -
Those numbers are for the claimant count - they need to be doubled to get the approximate ILO unemployment rate.another_richard said:
You might find this interesting - it gives unemployment by parliamentary constituency in January 2017:Richard_Tyndall said:
Thanks Richard. Very much the sort of answer I was looking for in terms of information.another_richard said:
I think 3% used to be regarded as effective zero unemployment on a national level although many local areas have had unemployment lower than that.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
There's always going to be some time between people losing their jobs and getting a new one plus a number of layabouts and unemployables.
The lowest ONS recorded unemployment was 3.4% the autumn of 1973 ie just as the Barber Boom was ended by the Yom Kippur War.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
I think unemployment would have been even lower than that at some points in the 1950s and 1960s but that was a time of overmanning and a much restricted female workforce.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7868#fullreport
The lowest are Stratford, Kenilworth, Hampshire NE, Cambridgeshire S and Henley (all affluent commuter areas) plus Westmoreland at 0.5% unemployment.
By contrast Birmingham has 5 of the top 10 constituencies with the highest unemployment.0 -
I’d use NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) which is defined - I think it’s around 3-4%Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.0 -
Completely, the BBC have chosen the worst possible test case, so instead of arguing for freedom of the press they’re trying to defend some of the shittiest behaviour seen by their journalists in years.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The Cliff Richard ruling could be huge for the BBC, the broadcast and print media if the BBC loses.Sandpit said:
Time for the usual BBC over-the-top eulogy of someone they barely knew.Omnium said:BBC News leading on the death of a 28yo Swedish DJ. I hope similar news obscures the BBC Director hung-drawn-and-quartered story in a couple of days time.
Still, I imagine that ten-year-old estate agents the world over are happy with their likely state funerals.
Wake me up when it’s all over.
The reporting of the alleged behaviour of the BBC reporter is not a good look
Is this in front of a jury, or just a presiding judge? If the former I imagine they’re going to be in big trouble.
(BTW, “wake me up when it’s all over” is a reference to a song by the deceased Swedish DJ, but it seems no-one got it - obviously @TSE isn’t here tonight!).0 -
Well, funnily enough, at the height of the East European immigration unemployment kept on falling. Partly because new households were being created, new borrowings, spending [ great for IKEA , I suppose ] and also services like hairdressers etc. etc.Richard_Tyndall said:
To help with understanding what I am trying to ascertain; one of the arguments used against migration is the 'stealing our jobs' argument. Now I don't ascribe to that in the first place but I am wondering at what point we could reasonably say that unemployment is so low it is no longer a viable argument in any way.surby said:
Usually, it implies people are voluntarily unemployed. Like moving locations, jobs etc.Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
I think the "anger" was more because these immigrants kept wages lower than otherwise it might have been. Frankly, I have little sympathy. In London, a plumber could charge you over £100 !
I was reading in the FT today an opposite problem. Japan is losing population by about 1000 a day ! Think about it, 360,000 a year net ! Who will pay the taxes ?
But Japan is a r-country. They even hire private detectives if prospective in-laws have Korean blood !0 -
Surely more non-ex-British colonies joining would dilute the one thing they have in common? It will just be a talking shop with a sports tournament.Casino_Royale said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.0 -
Man I love and miss London in the sunshine.
Good news though, I should be back permanently in September! Assuming all goes to plan.0 -
Well done. I knew you wouldn't want to be outside the EU for long.MaxPB said:Man I love and miss London in the sunshine.
Good news though, I should be back permanently in September! Assuming all goes to plan.
0 -
It will only be six months until I'm out of it again.williamglenn said:
Well done. I knew you wouldn't want to be outside the EU for long.MaxPB said:Man I love and miss London in the sunshine.
Good news though, I should be back permanently in September! Assuming all goes to plan.0 -
Or any of them and Vince Cable.Charles said:
“Nuclear armed adversaries”rcs1000 said:
Sure. But India and Pakistan actually hate each other in a way that - say - Germany and Greece do not.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Agree but I would hardly concur the EU are a cohesive block eitherrcs1000 said:
Although the two largest Commonwealth countries are nuclear armed adversaries, so I wouldn't overdo the Commonwealth as a cohesive block.Big_G_NorthWales said:53 Commonwealth Countries of 1.5 billion peoples puts the EU half billion as much less importance in the context of going global
For a moment there I thought you were referring to Britain and France!
Arf!0 -
Historically that has been so in which event we should have seen increasing wage pressure driving up inflation over the last year. Instead we have had wages falling in real terms for more than 12 months.Charles said:
I’d use NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) which is defined - I think it’s around 3-4%Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
Conventional economics seems to me to be increasingly unconnected with the real world. It was built on economies that were very substantially sealed units. They did provide for exports and imports but the world of freedom of movement, no currency limits, free movement of capital and exports and imports being very high percentages of GDP is millions of miles away from what they were designed for. Who knows how low unemployment can go without inflation in an economy where the supply of labour is so elastic?
I suspect other constraints such as housing will be what calls time on the employment miracle. It really doesn’t look like wages will.0 -
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?Casino_Royale said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.0 -
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).DavidL said:
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?Casino_Royale said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.0 -
Seriously? So because our laws said this 50+ years ago that let’s them off the hook in 2018?CarlottaVance said:
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).DavidL said:
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?Casino_Royale said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.0 -
The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.0
-
Just catching up on last night's Question Time. Not too many Chesterfield accents in the audience.0
-
Indeed. That'd be like saying if we kept homosexuality illegal, well, it's grandfathered in, what can you do?DavidL said:
Seriously? So because our laws said this 50+ years ago that let’s them off the hook in 2018?CarlottaVance said:
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).DavidL said:
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?Casino_Royale said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
I don't have any antipathy for the Commonwealth as a whole though.0 -
On the conventional criteria it would seem that the natural rate of unemployment is actually lower than the actual rate, and we find that difficult to take in because the actual rate is actually lower than anytime since the early 1970s.DavidL said:
Historically that has been so in which event we should have seen increasing wage pressure driving up inflation over the last year. Instead we have had wages falling in real terms for more than 12 months.Charles said:
I’d use NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) which is defined - I think it’s around 3-4%Richard_Tyndall said:Serious question, if off topic at the moment, but thinking forward for a number of future discussions.
Assuming that zero unemployment does not actually mean absolutely no one out of work, at what point does the panel think that we have effective zero unemployment? Is this defined anywhere?
I do not in any way mean this as a leading question. I am genuinely interested in what people think because of course it has implications for all sorts of things, not least the whole argument over immigration.
Conventional economics seems to me to be increasingly unconnected with the real world. It was built on economies that were very substantially sealed units. They did provide for exports and imports but the world of freedom of movement, no currency limits, free movement of capital and exports and imports being very high percentages of GDP is millions of miles away from what they were designed for. Who knows how low unemployment can go without inflation in an economy where the supply of labour is so elastic?
I suspect other constraints such as housing will be what calls time on the employment miracle. It really doesn’t look like wages will.
I don't recognise the mismatch you describe in your second para. What you call conventional economics seems to refer to autarkies. It is true that some US-based literature was framed in terms of a closed economy. But there was also plenty of mainstream open economy macroeconomics incorporating floating currencies, inflationary expectations and so on. I think the question should be, why is the supply of labour so apparently elastic?
You call it an employment miracle, which has echos of the post-war German miracle under Ludwig Erhard. The explanation for that was the combination of (i) refugees from East Germany, (ii) Gastarbeiter from Portugal, Greece and Turkey, (iii) large scale movement from rural to urban occupations, and (iv) increased female participation in the labour force.
Part of the answer for us now is no doubt immigration. A new factor now is the "gig economy". Both of those make the supply of labour more elastic, but I agree it does not seem enough to explain this new phenomenon.0 -
Not “let them off the hook” but perhaps be a little more circumspect in criticising them for something we imposed upon them in the first place.....possibly even admitting it’s source rather than pretending moral superiority....DavidL said:
Seriously? So because our laws said this 50+ years ago that let’s them off the hook in 2018?CarlottaVance said:
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).DavidL said:
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?Casino_Royale said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.0 -
-
Breaking
Donald Trump to visit UK this summer0 -
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.0 -
Ooh! that should be fun!Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking
Donald Trump to visit UK this summer0 -
No-one is a scratch on Matt.Scott_P said:0 -
I think that's right. But what would anyone hope to transform it in to? It isn't doing any harm being as it is.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
0 -
And there was a lot of talk by TM about addressing climate change, education, and eliminating malariaFoxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years0 -
And for India it gives it a forum where it can lead (shortly to overtake the U.K. as largest economy) without China present....Foxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.0 -
Nobody from Stop the War will be protesting because they only try to influence their own government.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking
Donald Trump to visit UK this summer
End sarcasm mode0 -
I guess that is the reason why countries would want to join. Rwanda joined in 2009, although they were never ruled by the British, as far as I am aware.Foxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.0 -
0
-
Virtually all of them are. But I can see why you feel threatened by it.williamglenn said:
Surely more non-ex-British colonies joining would dilute the one thing they have in common? It will just be a talking shop with a sports tournament.Casino_Royale said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.0 -
No, but nor is it an excuse for dissolving the Commonwealth or giving up British influence in it. Old laws about The Gays from decades ago is a pretty weak argument. We’ve only had gay marriage legal here for just over 4 years.DavidL said:
Seriously? So because our laws said this 50+ years ago that let’s them off the hook in 2018?CarlottaVance said:
In fairness a lot of that is inherited from British Colonial law - take South East Asia - ex-British Singapore and Malaysia maintain colonial era statutes, neighbouring Indonesia (Dutch) never had them in the first place (though unfortunately in Aceh newly has some).DavidL said:
How many Commonwealth countries say homosexuality is illegal? Was it 37? What do we have in common exactly?Casino_Royale said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this.RoyalBlue said:The Commonwealth is a phantasm. The original mistake was to allow India to remain a member, despite becoming a republic. It was a great example of our establishment refusing to recognise that granting independence to the colonies did not mean the conversion of British power into influence, but in reality its utter collapse. Other delusions followed, most noticeably granting the privileges of citizenship to people from states that had rejected meaningful association and cooperation with the U.K.
It is fantastical nonsense, and it should be wound up when the Queen dies.
I think it’s a powerful network of a family of nations that share much in common that will become of increasing relevance and importance as time goes on, which explains why non-ex British colonies are interested in joining.
It’s a huge force for good overall and greatly to our, and the world’s, benefit.
The alternative is they all become socio-cultural vassals of China.0 -
Mozambique is also now a member.nielh said:
I guess that is the reason why countries would want to join. Rwanda joined in 2009, although they were never ruled by the British, as far as I am aware.Foxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
It doesmean that they have the right to vote here, while EU nationals do not.0 -
Wasn't that, at least partly, about snubbing the french?nielh said:
I guess that is the reason why countries would want to join. Rwanda joined in 2009, although they were never ruled by the British, as far as I am aware.Foxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.0 -
She does have the negative Midas touch, turning everything to base lead! Windrush dominating the news al week, with TM in the frame.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And there was a lot of talk by TM about addressing climate change, education, and eliminating malariaFoxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years0 -
That's generally my take. At its best maybe it can do something useful, and even if it doesn't, I'm hard pressed to think why it is a problem, so let everyone have it - clearly for the moment the dozens of members see something worthwhile about it, it's not like anyone is forced to join the damn thing.nielh said:
I think that's right. But what would anyone hope to transform it in to? It isn't doing any harm being as it is.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
0 -
I wasn’t talking about autarkies but about economies where the rules of cause and effect break down. Labour is only 1 example. How does an increase in investment push up the cost of borrowing when the supply of capital is infinite? How does a government increase domestic demand when so much can leak away into imports? When goods are increasingly virtual how do you create a shortage or drive up prices? The conventional tools to control an economy are increasingly redundant.geoffw said:
On the conventional criteria it would seem that the natural rate of unemployment is actually lower than the actual rate, and we find that difficult to take in because the actual rate is actually lower than anytime since the early 1970s.DavidL said:
Historically that has been so in which event we should have seen increasing wage pressure driving up inflation over the last year. Instead we have had wages falling in real terms for more than 12 months.Charles said:
3-4%Richard_Tyndall said:.
Conventional economics seems to me to be increasingly unconnected with the real world. It was built on economies that were very substantially sealed units. They did provide for exports and imports but the world of freedom of movement, no currency limits, free movement of capital and exports and imports being very high percentages of GDP is millions of miles away from what they were designed for. Who knows how low unemployment can go without inflation in an economy where the supply of labour is so elastic?
I suspect other constraints such as housing will be what calls time on the employment miracle. It really doesn’t look like wages will.
I don't recognise the mismatch you describe in your second para. What you call conventional economics seems to refer to autarkies. It is true that some US-based literature was framed in terms of a closed economy. But there was also plenty of mainstream open economy macroeconomics incorporating floating currencies, inflationary expectations and so on. I think the question should be, why is the supply of labour so apparently elastic?
You call it an employment miracle, which has echos of the post-war German miracle under Ludwig Erhard. The explanation for that was the combination of (i) refugees from East Germany, (ii) Gastarbeiter from Portugal, Greece and Turkey, (iii) large scale movement from rural to urban occupations, and (iv) increased female participation in the labour force.
Part of the answer for us now is no doubt immigration. A new factor now is the "gig economy". Both of those make the supply of labour more elastic, but I agree it does not seem enough to explain this new phenomenon.0 -
Another five people shot dead by Israelis in Gaza. One aged 15. That's now 35 without a single Israeli injury. You'd be forgiven for thinking Israelis don't give a shit about Palestinian lives.0
-
https://www.ft.com/content/7ef540a0-44b3-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b
The row is significant because it suggests that the EU is not willing to forge a trusting security relationship with the UK after Brexit, in spite of an “unconditional” offer from Theresa May of a defence and security pact.
What price “unconditional guarantees” on citizens rights?0 -
A rather silly attempt at an analogy given, until this Windrush business, May had had a couple of uncommonly good months by her standards since the GE, showing not everything she touches turns to base lead. On Windrush, given the scale of the problems I don't think any leader could have avoided it running in the cycle for at least a week, the test for May is if it keeps on running, drip feeds of what are sure to be some more emotional negative stories, and whether she can get to grips with things, if she even wants to.Foxy said:
She does have the negative Midas touch, turning everything to base lead! Windrush dominating the news al week, with TM in the frame.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And there was a lot of talk by TM about addressing climate change, education, and eliminating malariaFoxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years0 -
Yes but I doubt it has made much difference just as Corbyn's running out of the debate on anti semitic attitudes in his party, as his female mps sob in distressFoxy said:
She does have the negative Midas touch, turning everything to base lead! Windrush dominating the news al week, with TM in the frame.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And there was a lot of talk by TM about addressing climate change, education, and eliminating malariaFoxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.
She seems to have been received well by the leaders and of course, the UK host the organisation for the next two years0 -
That shows they have uncommonly good sense and good values.Rhubarb said:
Wasn't that, at least partly, about snubbing the french?nielh said:
I guess that is the reason why countries would want to join. Rwanda joined in 2009, although they were never ruled by the British, as far as I am aware.Foxy said:
The Commonwealths only real links are historical with the British, and that not always salubrious. It is not a trading block.Ishmael_Z said:The succession after HMQ offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to rejig the Commonwealth into anything other than a piece of ceremonial fustian. The acceptance of Charlie boy nem. con. as next in line suggests that there is not even a minority faction within the membership with any interest in transforming it into something useful.
Mind you, a social talking shop has its merits, for some of these countries it is their only moment on an international stage.0 -
Ah good, we can restart the soul searching comments about how this shows what a husk of a country we are, how we are aligning with this monster and the world will judge us for that. Not sure how Macron has survived as long as he has, given he has hosted Trump already.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking
Donald Trump to visit UK this summer0
