UK Politics - summer edition

[VarysTheSpider]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

In addition, "technical unemployment" - now almost a meaningless statistic - has not risen but underemployment has risen in the last two years (or rather it's risen significantly in the last six years, cresting 7% with no sign of slowing down). If the underemployment figures were evened out with unemployment, they would show a crisis in employment in the UK resulting from austerity which Brexit has done nothing to solve.

A questionable methodology, though, considering the number of people overemployed outnumber those underemployed. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/underemploymentandoveremploymentemp16/current/emp16nov2017.xls

[Werthead]

Quote

 

Unemployment of 1.5m is certainly not close to full employment

 

The current OECD estimate of structural full employment in the UK is 6.9%, so on that measure we're actually well below full employment. If we really were at full employment, of course, we would not be seeing wage stagnation and outright real-times wage deflation on the level we are witnessing and wages would be increasing.

Or, to put it more succinctly, underemployment is now taking over the role of unemployment and because the government likes to pretend that underemployment is Not A Thing and utterly ignores it, it allows them to produce bollocks statements that everything is awesome.

21 minutes ago, VarysTheSpider said:

A questionable methodology, though, considering the number of people overemployed outnumber those underemployed. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/underemploymentandoveremploymentemp16/current/emp16nov2017.xls

Indeed.

"Overemployed" people are people lucky enough to have a full-time job and in ideal circumstances would like to switch to a less stressful one but can't because of financial commitments or they could theoretically take a moderate pay cut for less hours but those jobs are not available. They are stuck in that position because if they left their job they would, by definition, then end up underemployed. The two figures are complimentary, which is why they're on the report together. Overemployed people also tend to be in higher-skilled sectors with a limited ability to bring in other works to reduce the hours or stress whilst underemployed people tend to be in lower-skilled sectors where they can be replaced at a moment's notice so have no power.

What the ONS figures do show is that underemployment is now replacing the role of unemployment figures, the official employment figure is actually meaningless, and that if you even out the underemployment figures the correct figure is at least twice the official government figures (and may be closer to four times, although that seems swinging too far in the opposite direction).

The continued use of "unemployment" figures is very useful because the government can use them to present the illusion of success, rather than analysing all the information together which would expose a much greater crisis in employment resulting directly from austerity, the rollback of workers' rights and the failure to legislate to protect workers in the new gig economy.

[Werthead]

The budget is interesting, particularly the bit on getting tough on land-banking by forcing developers to "use it or lose it". When Ed Miliband suggested that in 2013, Boris accused him of a Zimbabwe-style land grab.

If the Tories are going to keep stealing Miliband's ideas, they probably should give him credit for it. Only fair, after all.

Meanwhile, the budget increase for Brexit preparations appears to be higher than what it is for the NHS. I don't recall this being spelled out on the side of the red bus.

[mormont]

20 hours ago, Eggegg said:

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21701950-areas-lots-migrants-voted-mainly-remain-or-did-they-britains-immigration-paradox

 

That's an interesting analysis. It doesn't have anything to do with the point at hand, though. It is not concerned with and does not discuss areas with low immigration, which - as noted - voted Leave in very high numbers. It only draws a distinction between two different types of areas with high immigration, explaining why some of those voted Remain and others voted Leave.

The point therefore remains that the notion the Brexit was about the reaction of those facing increased immigration is untrue. In some areas that may have been a factor, but overall, the vote was swung by Leave voters who live in areas where there is minimal immigration. 

20 hours ago, Eggegg said:

I happen to know a few Romanians , 2 of which work on a building site. I know they are often paid cash in hand and I don't imagine this is a very rare occurrence. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25880354. The black market has surely taken advantage of this cheap labour, plus we know of the evils of Zero hours contracts.
 

I'm not sure if you think this is somehow a refutation of what I was saying, but... it isn't. 

Paying people cash in hand on building sites is bad practice but is and was widespread independent of immigration levels. But legally, it makes no difference - you still have to pay minimum wage. It might be easier to hide a failure to do so if you pay cash in hand, but it's still illegal. Your anecdata here only tells us something that we already knew, that has nothing to do with immigration. 

Zero hours contracts have to be paid at minimum wage, the same as any other type of contract (and must include paid holidays proportionate to the actual hours worked). 

The argument here appears to be 'employers sometimes break the law something something mumble mutter immigration'. I can't make any sense of it at all. Are you claiming that if there were fewer immigrants, people who pay cash in hand would suddenly start up a payroll department? Are you claiming that it is the fault of people who are exploited, that they are being exploited? 

20 hours ago, Eggegg said:

There is also the bureaucracy issue, and while Britain is far from perfect in this regard, many businesses often complain about the level of red tape imposed by the EU:

Wait till they see the level of red tape they have to deal with to sell into EU countries from outside the EU, then. 

(Which, to be fair, most businesses are perfectly well aware of: they complained about EU red tape but they did not want to leave altogether.)

20 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Much of the economic downturn and business fears are based on uncertainty, of which there is a hell of a lot right now

Mmm. And if we had voted to Remain, there would be none. 

[Eggegg]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's an interesting analysis. It doesn't have anything to do with the point at hand, though. It is not concerned with and does not discuss areas with low immigration, which - as noted - voted Leave in very high numbers. It only draws a distinction between two different types of areas with high immigration, explaining why some of those voted Remain and others voted Leave.

The point therefore remains that the notion the Brexit was about the reaction of those facing increased immigration is untrue. In some areas that may have been a factor, but overall, the vote was swung by Leave voters who live in areas where there is minimal immigration. 

My original point was that people who have experienced a rapid increase in immigration into their area are perfectly entitled to feel aggrieved by it, especially if there is no democratic means to halt the flow. Which is why they voted Brexit. I know that you are trying to paint all Brexit voters as ignorant racists, but to me that just highlights the ignorance of the city dwelling 'mint tea drinkers'

( I will also state that I voted to Remain, and at the time I was one of those mint tea drinkers, and I decried the ignorant racists who voted for Brexit. However since that time I have done my best to try to understand their position and I don't think their fears and concerns are unfounded or based on lies, which is a convenient way to view the situation)
 

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

Paying people cash in hand on building sites is bad practice but is and was widespread independent of immigration levels. But legally, it makes no difference - you still have to pay minimum wage. It might be easier to hide a failure to do so if you pay cash in hand, but it's still illegal. Your anecdata here only tells us something that we already knew, that has nothing to do with immigration. 

Zero hours contracts have to be paid at minimum wage, the same as any other type of contract (and must include paid holidays proportionate to the actual hours worked). 

The argument here appears to be 'employers sometimes break the law something something mumble mutter immigration'. I can't make any sense of it at all. Are you claiming that if there were fewer immigrants, people who pay cash in hand would suddenly start up a payroll department? Are you claiming that it is the fault of people who are exploited, that they are being exploited? 

 

My original point again was about asking who was benefitting from the influx of cheap labour from EE. I used the term Slave labour as a glib reference to the low wages, and often illegal practices used by firms to cut costs. I think that is a perfectly legitimate point to make, if you went back and read it, please don't strawman what I'm saying. I'm saying that your average Brit is not benefitting massively from the increase in immigration, those who are doing well out of it as businesses willing to exploit the desperation of foreign workers. 

19 minutes ago, mormont said:

Wait till they see the level of red tape they have to deal with to sell into EU countries from outside the EU, then. 

(Which, to be fair, most businesses are perfectly well aware of: they complained about EU red tape but they did not want to leave altogether.)

Mmm. And if we had voted to Remain, there would be none. 

Yes I'm glad you are acknowledging the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU then. 

If we had voted remain then the situation we were in would not have changed and we'd be stuck in that mess probably forever. (of course for mint tea drinkers like us everything is fine and dandy, so we don't understand the problem)

[mormont]

56 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

My original point was that people who have experienced a rapid increase in immigration into their area are perfectly entitled to feel aggrieved by it, especially if there is no democratic means to halt the flow. Which is why they voted Brexit. I know that you are trying to paint all Brexit voters as ignorant racists, but to me that just highlights the ignorance of the city dwelling 'mint tea drinkers'

( I will also state that I voted to Remain, and at the time I was one of those mint tea drinkers, and I decried the ignorant racists who voted for Brexit. However since that time I have done my best to try to understand their position and I don't think their fears and concerns are unfounded or based on lies, which is a convenient way to view the situation)
 

Mint tea is shit.

I'm sorry, but you have made multiple points in this area and if you now want to stick only to that one, that's fine: but the point I was making remains. The Leave vote was characterised by large numbers of people who have little or no experience of immigration voting to leave. The idea that it was the consequence of people who have experienced a lot of immigration feeling aggrieved is a one-eyed view at best. 

If you want to say that this is me trying to 'paint all Brexit voters as ignorant racists', I feel you have not yet fully learned how to appreciate the position of someone who disagrees with you.

Quote

My original point again was about asking who was benefitting from the influx of cheap labour from EE. I used the term Slave labour as a glib reference to the low wages, and often illegal practices used by firms to cut costs. I think that is a perfectly legitimate point to make, if you went back and read it, please don't strawman what I'm saying. I'm saying that your average Brit is not benefitting massively from the increase in immigration, those who are doing well out of it as businesses willing to exploit the desperation of foreign workers. 

'Employers sometimes break the law something something mumble mutter immigration'.

I am none the wiser.

Quote

Yes I'm glad you are acknowledging the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU then. 

Is there more, or less, bureaucracy when selling to EU countries from within the union, or from outside it?

Is there more, or less, bureaucracy when selling to China than there is when selling within the EU?

Clue: the answer to both is 'more'. 

ps - bonus question. When, in history, have business organisations not complained about there being too much bureaucracy?

The answer to that one is 'never'. 

[Werthead]

 

Quote

 

Yes I'm glad you are acknowledging the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU then. 

 

Number of bureaucrats working for the European Union (population 512 million): 46,356

Number of bureaucrats working for the United Kingdom (population 65 million): 418,343

Having worked in the UK civil service, I can confirm that one of these bodies has far more bloat, time-wasting, unfireable staff than the other (hint: it's not the EU).

It's worth noting that Birmingham City Council employs 33,477 people by itself to deal with just 1.1 million, although that includes many people who aren't civil servants or bureaucrats in the same way.

 

 

 

 

[Eggegg]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

Number of bureaucrats working for the European Union (population 512 million): 46,356

Number of bureaucrats working for the United Kingdom (population 65 million): 418,343

Having worked in the UK civil service, I can confirm that one of these bodies has far more bloat, time-wasting, unfireable staff than the other (hint: it's not the EU).

It's worth noting that Birmingham City Council employs 33,477 people by itself to deal with just 1.1 million, although that includes many people who aren't civil servants or bureaucrats in the same way.

 

 

 

 

Yes I agree. The UK has a large bloated public sector. 

[Werthead]

The budget forecast for the coming years makes for pretty grim reading.

People will be worse off in 2022 than they were in 2008. At current projections, the debt level will not start falling in real terms (rather than just the deficit) until the 2060s. Britain is headed for what could be the longest decline in national living standards seen in centuries. In fact, productivity growth is now at the lowest level it's been since the Napoleonic Wars.

And note that none of this has anything to do with Brexit, it's the consequence of the (mostly avoidable) impact of a decade of austerity undertaken for political purposes by the Coalition and Conservative governments. If Brexit goes badly, than all of these problems will be massively exacerbated.

For ultimate giggles, the government forecasts continue to utterly ignore the coming head-on freight train collision of postcapitalism, even as they pass laws allowing for it (such as permitting self-driving cars onto the roads). How Britain deals with millions of people whose jobs abruptly disappear thanks to automation and AI is not even remotely on the radar, despite it now being an imminent issue.

Cheers.

[Eggegg]

Shots have been fired in oxford street, the police are telling people to get into buildings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-circus-live-london-latest-updates-incident-news-police-central-today-reports-a8074581.html?twitter

[polishgenius]

36 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Shots have been fired in oxford street, the police are telling people to get into buildings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-circus-live-london-latest-updates-incident-news-police-central-today-reports-a8074581.html?twitter

The article literally says that we don't know if shots were fired yet.

The most persistent rumour on twitter is that there was a gang fight on the platforms of the station, but there's no official confirmation of anything so far.

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

The article literally says that we don't know if shots were fired yet.

The most persistent rumour on twitter is that there was a gang fight on the platforms of the station, but there's no official confirmation of anything so far.

I'm seeing news that the reports are unsubstantiated. Might be ok.

[Denvek]

Police confirmed no casualties and no evidence of any shots fired.

[Werthead]

There were no shots fired. There were two guys getting into an argument and then a fight on a station platform and it got blown out of all proportion because people started posting stuff online without waiting for hard information.

What was excellent was the police response: they had the entire area shut down and evacuated within minutes, with armed anti-terror units on the scene very quickly. So in that sense it showed that the police are on the ball.

[Which Tyler]

Overall... I good training exercise

[Werthead]

Word is that Jeremy Hunt thinks he can be a leadership contender when May stands down.

Hahaha. No. The only reason Hunt is in his job is so that at moment when the government needs to appease doctors and nurses, they can fire him and put someone more competent in his place (like, say, a brick) and then pretend that's fixed the problem (similar to what they did with Gove over education). The notion that Hunt thinks he can be a credible PM is ludicrous.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Word is that Jeremy Hunt thinks he can be a leadership contender when May stands down.

Hahaha. No. The only reason Hunt is in his job is so that at moment when the government needs to appease doctors and nurses, they can fire him and put someone more competent in his place (like, say, a brick) and then pretend that's fixed the problem (similar to what they did with Gove over education). The notion that Hunt thinks he can be a credible PM is ludicrous.

Which Tory could/should take over? From outside the UK the least horrible Tory seems to be Rudd, and she is awful in her own way. Just not in the same category of horrible as Johnson, Gove, Fox, or Hunt.

[Werthead]

Entertainingly, Fox has drawn a red line and said that the Irish border will not be discussed until Phase 2 and the Irish have told him to fuck off, it's going to be discussed now or there won't be a Phase 2 (the Republic has a veto in the discussions, which Fox forgot about). The DUP have shot down the border in the Irish Sea idea, but it's been made clear to them that this is the only serious option that the Republic and the EU will countenance, there is absolutely no other workable solution. If the UK government moves to meet that idea, the DUP could topple them.

This would be far more amusing if the rest of the country wasn't going to get screwed over in the middle of it all.

4 hours ago, Notone said:

Which Tory could/should take over? From outside the UK the least horrible Tory seems to be Rudd, and she is awful in her own way. Just not in the same category of horrible as Johnson, Gove, Fox, or Hunt.

No-one. They have no credible alternatives at all. If the Tories go out of power then that might be it (although, horrifyingly, Boris is young enough that he could lead a fightback in another 10 years). But yeah, Rudd is almost as bloody awful as the rest of them.

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, Notone said:

Which Tory could/should take over? From outside the UK the least horrible Tory seems to be Rudd, and she is awful in her own way. Just not in the same category of horrible as Johnson, Gove, Fox, or Hunt.

She might be marginally better than the others you listed, although she does have a problem that she's got a wafer thin majority after the last election so if there was an election soon she might lose her own seat.

In the medium-long term I expect Ruth Davidson will try to run at some point, but she's too vocally pro-European to be acceptable to the Tory base while Brexit is being negotiated, and she'd have to switch parliaments first.

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

Entertainingly, Fox has drawn a red line and said that the Irish border will not be discussed until Phase 2 and the Irish have told him to fuck off, it's going to be discussed now or there won't be a Phase 2 (the Republic has a veto in the discussions, which Fox forgot about).

This isn't quite right. The Irish have said that there needs to be substantial progress on a border deal before the trade negotiations start, because they don't want the Tories to think they can keep kicking this can down the road. Which is fair enough. In response, Fox said that there will be no final deal before trade negotiations start, because a final deal is impossible until we know what the trade arrangements look like. This is also fair enough, and not strictly incompatible with what the Irish have said. 

Fox is clearly trying to signal to the Eurosceptics, yes, and the UK government have no answers that are likely to satisfy the Irish, yes. But Fox has been careful to leave himself some wiggle room.