While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
We need some comparative polling to see how people feel about conventional elections. But on the face of it it’s not good to have the validity of an election doubted by such a high proportion of the electorate.
What NHS cuts? The NHS was ringfenced from cuts in 2010 and has received an extra £8 billion over the course of this Parliament
You got any idea how absurdly expensive the current NHS structure is to run? Contracts piled on contracts, GPs forming themselves into businesses to tender for services and to tender out healthcare for their patients? It's both true that the Tories have spent more cash on the NHS as a total and that you have starved front line medicine of the cash required to do the job.
It would be interesting to know how many homicides have occurred so far this year in the UK excluding Greater London, but it seems to be difficult to get hold of any figures on the subject.
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
It would be interesting to know how many homicides have occurred so far this year in the UK excluding Greater London, but it seems to be difficult to get hold of any figures on the subject.
Remainers seem to disregard the entirely legitimate (yet entirely one-sided and indefensible) use of £9m taxpayers' money for a pro-Remain propaganda piece shortly before the spending limits began.
I'm slightly surprise the figure is as high as 45% for Remainers, although a recent survey had some 57% or so remembering [ahem] they voted Leave. If that reflects not an unbalanced sample but false recall, then it'd indicate a shift in perception for some, meaning softer Remain types may have jumped the fence (psychologically, at least).
There have been a few stories murmuring about unfairness, cheating etc. I suppose Remain would've got away with it too, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids.
It would be interesting to know how many homicides have occurred so far this year in the UK excluding Greater London, but it seems to be difficult to get hold of any figures on the subject.
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
If you pose political questions in those terms you'll ruin everything. You'll be asking for evidence next. How can people pontificate on forums like this one if they have to define what the goals are and what success and failure look like?
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
What if their common goal benefit from his unpalatable views?
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Interesting set of hypotheticals. My view is that even though the changes required are enabled, they often take time to fed through. A lot of France still works 35 hours a week and takes the whole of August off.
One change that should feed through relatively quickly is a drop in unemployment, as it becomes easier for companies to make redundancies or fire poor performers.
IMO a decade down the line France will be in a better place for these reforms, but then so will Britain when freed from the inward-looking and protectionist EU to trade more with the world. Some people may have a different opinion on that last point
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
Thinking about it I think it wasn’t 3 star but more overall. I think it may be that Michelin changed its methodology after it happened and Paris leapt ahead! (This was a few years ago)
FWIW most 3 star restaurants are pretentious and overpriced. You’ll get far better at a 1 star
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
What if their common goal benefit from his unpalatable views?
I am sure there are people who vote Tory that I would disagree with on many things.
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
I think if those unpalatable views are relevant to the aim of the platform then that is fair game. Ie if say a Brexiter thought gay people were sinners then yes agree. If however he hated foreigners and stated elsewhere that he didn’t want more of them then that’s different.
Foxy...you should know better than using these kind of anecdotes.....it's what stops us being honest about what are the right choices towards the end of life....
for every 95 year old who is enjoying themselves, how many other over 90's are depressed, lost their minds, in terrible health and riddled with pain, and causing anguish and anxiety for their loved ones....
I don't know what the answers are...but I expect better (much better) from a medic who resorts to Pollyanna like anecdotes....
I think Foxy was right to discourage a sense of pervasive gloom about age, though your own family experience sounds awful. My impression from canvassing a very large number of people in and out of care homes is that it's common for the elderly to have a physical or (perhaps more rarely) mental problem, but unusual, though horrifying when it happens, for it to be an acute source of misery.
Only 3% of the population over 65 are actually in care homes:
and although there are lots of people who probably ought to be in care and are just hanging on to their homes with family help, it also wouldn't be true to say that most people in care are obviously miserable.
When I last saw the figures, they seemed to show that people don't generally go into steady decline as they get older, as used to be feared. Rather, they carry on much as before until something happens - an accident, a serious illnesss - and it then often goes downhill pretty relentlessly. As you imply, it's someimes harder on the family than it is for the individual - the zest for doing stuff often declines with the ability to do it, and quite a few people decline with something like equanimity, but it's grim for the family seeing the decline and helpless to do anything about it.
Btw OT great Johnathan Pie on gender pay gap as I see it’s leading the news.
Saw the video a couple of days back but not the news. Many valid points are made but I suspect he's read some American sources because here it is not enough to say men and women are paid differently because they do different jobs. Since the 1970s, we have had the concept of equal value -- it is what the Ford dispute (and film Made In Dagenham) was about.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
I think if those unpalatable views are relevant to the aim of the platform then that is fair game. Ie if say a Brexiter thought gay people were sinners then yes agree. If however he hated foreigners and stated elsewhere that he didn’t want more of them then that’s different.
Why is it different? I don’t hate foreigners, but I still wanted to leave the political structure known as the EU
Mr. Topping, indeed. The outrage over the gender pay gap is drunken madness from the innumerate with an irrational, ideological axe to grind (as per the Tesco shop workers who claim it's sexist that warehouse workers get paid more, despite male workers in shops getting paid the same as women in shops, and female workers in warehouses getting paid the same as men in warehouses).
OT speaking of leading the news, the BBC's news page leads on the Youtube shootings and not the London murders. This is the real bias with the BBC (and elsewhere) -- its staff spend all their time watching and following the American news channels.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
I think if those unpalatable views are relevant to the aim of the platform then that is fair game. Ie if say a Brexiter thought gay people were sinners then yes agree. If however he hated foreigners and stated elsewhere that he didn’t want more of them then that’s different.
Why is it different? I don’t hate foreigners, but I still wanted to leave the political structure known as the EU
I am saying that if the views are relevant to the particular platform then those on that platform can jointly be judged on those views.
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
Mr. Topping, indeed. The outrage over the gender pay gap is drunken madness from the innumerate with an irrational, ideological axe to grind (as per the Tesco shop workers who claim it's sexist that warehouse workers get paid more, despite male workers in shops getting paid the same as women in shops, and female workers in warehouses getting paid the same as men in warehouses).
I used to work in a Tesco warehouse on the clerical side for 10 years, We were all on the same pay grade.
Btw OT great Johnathan Pie on gender pay gap as I see it’s leading the news.
Saw the video a couple of days back but not the news. Many valid points are made but I suspect he's read some American sources because here it is not enough to say men and women are paid differently because they do different jobs. Since the 1970s, we have had the concept of equal value -- it is what the Ford dispute (and film Made In Dagenham) was about.
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Before the Thatcher reforms the UK had a lower GDP per capita than France and the Hollande malaise certainly helped expand London's lead over Paris
What NHS cuts? The NHS was ringfenced from cuts in 2010 and has received an extra £8 billion over the course of this Parliament
You got any idea how absurdly expensive the current NHS structure is to run? Contracts piled on contracts, GPs forming themselves into businesses to tender for services and to tender out healthcare for their patients? It's both true that the Tories have spent more cash on the NHS as a total and that you have starved front line medicine of the cash required to do the job.
What cuts? Go and ask a medical professional.
If you want to see real cuts go and ask a worker in local government
Btw OT great Johnathan Pie on gender pay gap as I see it’s leading the news.
Saw the video a couple of days back but not the news. Many valid points are made but I suspect he's read some American sources because here it is not enough to say men and women are paid differently because they do different jobs. Since the 1970s, we have had the concept of equal value -- it is what the Ford dispute (and film Made In Dagenham) was about.
Yes that film was set 40 years ago as you note.
Yes, and still the law, which the Pie video ignores because it is based on American critiques.
The problem with Brexit is the decision, not how it was arrived at. There's no getting away from the fact that the end state will be inferior to what we had before, we will have much less say over what happens to us, it will cost us more and will distract us from dealing with our real problems. I know we repeat ourselves ...
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
I think if those unpalatable views are relevant to the aim of the platform then that is fair game. Ie if say a Brexiter thought gay people were sinners then yes agree. If however he hated foreigners and stated elsewhere that he didn’t want more of them then that’s different.
Why is it different? I don’t hate foreigners, but I still wanted to leave the political structure known as the EU
I am saying that if the views are relevant to the particular platform then those on that platform can jointly be judged on those views.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
One of my sons worked with (sort of) Farage for a while back in the 90’s. Described him as a nasty piece of work, and was glad he wasn’t any nearer.
I have to say from personal experience Farage has a certain charisma and a remarkable ability to remember people. I met him once briefly in a bar in Strasbourg and the second time a few years later in Westminster and he remembered me
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
Mr. Topping, indeed. The outrage over the gender pay gap is drunken madness from the innumerate with an irrational, ideological axe to grind (as per the Tesco shop workers who claim it's sexist that warehouse workers get paid more, despite male workers in shops getting paid the same as women in shops, and female workers in warehouses getting paid the same as men in warehouses).
Re Tesco -- first, you'd need to establish that warehouse staff were more valuable than shop staff. Second, though separately, you'd also want to check if there are barriers to the recruitment or employment of male shop staff or female warehouse staff -- and if so, can these be removed? Look at Foxy's game, and see how many more female doctors there are now than in 1980. Look at MPs. One day there might even be a woman Prime Minister!
The problem with Brexit is the decision, not how it was arrived at. There's no getting away from the fact that the end state will be inferior to what we had before, we will have much less say over what happens to us, it will cost us more and will distract us from dealing with our real problems. I know we repeat ourselves ...
You can make a respectable case we will be poorer than before, but to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
One of my sons worked with (sort of) Farage for a while back in the 90’s. Described him as a nasty piece of work, and was glad he wasn’t any nearer.
I have to say from personal experience Farage has a certain charisma and a remarkable ability to remember people. I met him once briefly in a bar in Strasbourg and the second time a few years later in Westminster and he remembered me
That’s pretty impressive for a guy who’s usually on the sauce by lunchtime.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
I think if those unpalatable views are relevant to the aim of the platform then that is fair game. Ie if say a Brexiter thought gay people were sinners then yes agree. If however he hated foreigners and stated elsewhere that he didn’t want more of them then that’s different.
Why is it different? I don’t hate foreigners, but I still wanted to leave the political structure known as the EU
I am saying that if the views are relevant to the particular platform then those on that platform can jointly be judged on those views.
Btw OT great Johnathan Pie on gender pay gap as I see it’s leading the news.
Saw the video a couple of days back but not the news. Many valid points are made but I suspect he's read some American sources because here it is not enough to say men and women are paid differently because they do different jobs. Since the 1970s, we have had the concept of equal value -- it is what the Ford dispute (and film Made In Dagenham) was about.
Yes that film was set 40 years ago as you note.
Yes, and still the law, which the Pie video ignores because it is based on American critiques.
She said it is illegal here to pay people different rates for the same job based on gender. Was she right?
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
One of my sons worked with (sort of) Farage for a while back in the 90’s. Described him as a nasty piece of work, and was glad he wasn’t any nearer.
I have to say from personal experience Farage has a certain charisma and a remarkable ability to remember people. I met him once briefly in a bar in Strasbourg and the second time a few years later in Westminster and he remembered me
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
Mr. L, the argument being made is that differing pay rates are sexist (for warehouse versus shop employees). That's clearly nonsense, even if you buy into the 'equal value' line of thinking.
UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
Bollocks
Buying Chlorinated chicken from the US is not "completely in the UK’s interest"
We are begging for scraps, and the Brexiteers know it.
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
How do we compete with Spanish orange-growers? Come to that the annual production of Italian wine is geater than British.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
I think if those unpalatable views are relevant to the aim of the platform then that is fair game. Ie if say a Brexiter thought gay people were sinners then yes agree. If however he hated foreigners and stated elsewhere that he didn’t want more of them then that’s different.
Why is it different? I don’t hate foreigners, but I still wanted to leave the political structure known as the EU
I am saying that if the views are relevant to the particular platform then those on that platform can jointly be judged on those views.
And I am saying they can’t.
Your turn.
We will have to submit this to the court of PB.
But I am right, obvs.
Evidently since you believe that nonsense your judgement is flawed so even if you were right you’d reach the wrong conclusion. Obvs
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Before the Thatcher reforms the UK had a lower GDP per capita than France and the Hollande malaise certainly helped expand London's lead over Paris
Before -- and after -- the Thatcher reforms! That's the point, these things that should have made a difference, that everyone believes made a difference, had no discernible effect overall. Incidentally, remember North Sea Oil -- perhaps Mrs Thatcher's reforms made things worse and we were bailed out by black gold and the City.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
What if their common goal benefit from his unpalatable views?
I am sure there are people who vote Tory that I would disagree with on many things.
Politics can only be done on the basis that one works with people one disagrees with in order to achieve common goals.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
One of my sons worked with (sort of) Farage for a while back in the 90’s. Described him as a nasty piece of work, and was glad he wasn’t any nearer.
I have to say from personal experience Farage has a certain charisma and a remarkable ability to remember people. I met him once briefly in a bar in Strasbourg and the second time a few years later in Westminster and he remembered me
That’s pretty impressive for a guy who’s usually on the sauce by lunchtime.
On-topic. Isn't the 45% Remain opinion based on entitlement. The Poshos aren't used to losing - there must have been cheating, especially as they know what's best for people. It's a 'Wind in the Willows' scenario - you can't have the weasels and stoats having a say.
I can only say that anecdotally, the Remainers around here (the Northwest) have generally reached the acceptance stage.
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
How do we compete with Spanish orange-growers? Come to that the annual production of Italian wine is geater than British.
Trade deals are in the round. For example if the EU negotiators traded the regional protection of the “Scotch Whisky” label to preserve protection for “ Champagne” that might not be in our interest
The problem with Brexit is the decision, not how it was arrived at. There's no getting away from the fact that the end state will be inferior to what we had before, we will have much less say over what happens to us, it will cost us more and will distract us from dealing with our real problems. I know we repeat ourselves ...
You can make a respectable case we will be poorer than before, but to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
If we stick with the EU rule system, which we will do, we self evidently have more say as voting members than as simple rule takers. This will translate into getting less of what we want. It isn't abstract principle.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
One of my sons worked with (sort of) Farage for a while back in the 90’s. Described him as a nasty piece of work, and was glad he wasn’t any nearer.
I have to say from personal experience Farage has a certain charisma and a remarkable ability to remember people. I met him once briefly in a bar in Strasbourg and the second time a few years later in Westminster and he remembered me
Did you buy him a drink?
No sadly he already had a rather large one of his own unsurprisingly
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
How do we compete with Spanish orange-growers? Come to that the annual production of Italian wine is geater than British.
The point is that tariffs protect the interests of domestic producers but raise the prices of imported goods for consumers. So what benefits EU producers of oranges and wine etc damages us as consumers.
On-topic. Isn't the 45% Remain opinion based on entitlement. The Poshos aren't used to losing - there must have been cheating, especially as they know what's best for people. It's a 'Wind in the Willows' scenario - you can't have the weasels and stoats having a say.
I can only say that anecdotally, the Remainers around here (the Northwest) have generally reached the acceptance stage.
Indeed. The Leave victory was the first time a majority of working class voters beat a majority of middle class voters since Wilson's narrow victories over Heath in 1974
Mr. L, the argument being made is that differing pay rates are sexist (for warehouse versus shop employees). That's clearly nonsense, even if you buy into the 'equal value' line of thinking.
No, that is not the argument being made. HMG specifically and explicitly recognises that the gender pay gap is not about paying men and women differently for the same jobs.
The gender pay gap is the difference in the average hourly wage of all men and women across a workforce. If women do more of the less well paid jobs within an organisation than men, the gender pay gap is usually bigger.
The gender pay gap is not the same as unequal pay which is paying men and women differently for performing the same (or similar) work. Unequal pay has been unlawful since 1970.
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
How do we compete with Spanish orange-growers? Come to that the annual production of Italian wine is geater than British.
The point is that tariffs protect the interests of domestic producers but raise the prices of imported goods for consumers. So what benefits EU producers of oranges and wine etc damages us as consumers.
And being one in a negotiation against, effectively, 27 is going to be in our interest? Fox doesn’t seem to be doing a remarkably good job at the moment!
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
How do we compete with Spanish orange-growers? Come to that the annual production of Italian wine is geater than British.
That’s the point, we don’t. So if the EU does a trade deal with another orange-growing country, they won’t reduce import tariffs on oranges in order to protect their (EU) domestic producers.
If the UK wants to do a trade deal with that same country, we will happy eliminate tariffs on imported oranges as they don’t compete with us in that product. Net result: oranges become cheaper in British shops, more global trade is done. Win-win.
I think we all know that Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage et al are rather unpleasant people.
Shouldn't we now start looking at people who have shared a platform with Aaron Banks Nigel Farage et al?
No.
You can have the same objective as someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
Corbyn is in trouble. Or at least can legitimately be criticised for the company he has kept.
Farage is an elected politician. He has a legitimate right to be heard. There is a difference.
Of course he is and has. I happen to think he is one of if not the most successful politician of our times.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
I agree with that. The detail is what “associated” means.
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
I think if those unpalatable views are relevant to the aim of the platform then that is fair game. Ie if say a Brexiter thought gay people were sinners then yes agree. If however he hated foreigners and stated elsewhere that he didn’t want more of them then that’s different.
Why is it different? I don’t hate foreigners, but I still wanted to leave the political structure known as the EU
I am saying that if the views are relevant to the particular platform then those on that platform can jointly be judged on those views.
And I am saying they can’t.
Your turn.
We will have to submit this to the court of PB.
But I am right, obvs.
Evidently since you believe that nonsense your judgement is flawed so even if you were right you’d reach the wrong conclusion. Obvs
You are confusing yourself now Charles. Admittedly not a huge ask.
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
How do we compete with Spanish orange-growers? Come to that the annual production of Italian wine is geater than British.
The point is that tariffs protect the interests of domestic producers but raise the prices of imported goods for consumers. So what benefits EU producers of oranges and wine etc damages us as consumers.
And being one in a negotiation against, effectively, 27 is going to be in our interest? Fox doesn’t seem to be doing a remarkably good job at the moment!
Er no. Once free we can set our own tariffs on oranges and wine etc. No doubt setting them at zero since we do not have (much) in the way of domestic production. In fact I would like us to abolish all tariffs. Why protect an activity that can be done better or cheaper elsewhere?
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
How do we compete with Spanish orange-growers? Come to that the annual production of Italian wine is geater than British.
That’s the point, we don’t. So if the EU does a trade deal with another orange-growing country, they won’t reduce import tariffs on oranges in order to protect their (EU) domestic producers.
If the UK wants to do a trade deal with that same country, we will happy eliminate tariffs on imported oranges as they don’t compete with us in that product. Net result: oranges become cheaper in British shops, more global trade is done. Win-win.
But at the moment we buy Spanish oranges without tariffs.
Mr. L, I'm referring specifically to the Tesco case, not the gender pay gap generally, with my previous post.
The gender pay gap remains absolutely bullshit, though. Taking an average across a whole organisation is just dumb. It doesn't account for how long people have worked there, whether they've taken prolonged leave (maternity leave being the obvious one), whether they work full or part time, what pay grade they're on.
Women tend to do more part-time work than men. And to take longer breaks from work to have and raise children. These are legitimate choices. It is not legitimate to take a few years off and then expect to be paid the same as those who stayed, worked and got promoted.
Besides, in the younger generation of workers, women are paid more than men on average. Is this being shouted about as a gender pay gap? As sexism? As a problem to be solved?
Of course not. Because when men have the shit end of the stick (suicides and custody being obvious examples) that's seen as fine. When women seem to have it worse, even with legitimate explanations, that's seen as a problem to be solved.
I'd write more, but I have a dental appointment. Alas.
The Telegraph have finally caught up with what I've been banging on about for months on PB, David Davis and Liam Fox are numpties who got high on their own product.
Whitehall 'chaos' puts the UK's Brexit trade strategy in doubt
"Strategy? What strategy?"
So responds a senior civil servant when asked how plans for the future of UK trade are coming together. They then proceed to smash their coffee's foam with the back of a teaspoon aggressively.
"[The] trade strategy is basically tweeting out flag emojis."
Their frustration is not about being for or against Brexit, they stress. It is about understanding the challenge and importance of the UK getting trade right, so that businesses and jobs are protected. At the moment, that is not happening. Instead, "[there is] a distressing and embarrassing level of chaos across Whitehall on trade"...
...In just under a year, after so-called Brexit Day - March 29 2019 - the UK will have the power to strike its own trade deals for the first time in more than 40 years. And it will need to be quick. The moment the ink is dry on a final deal with Brussels there are around 70 trade deals with non-EU countries to try to "roll over". Something once thought to be a copy and paste job has since been shown to be far more complex.
Developing a new trade strategy and implementing it in such a short period will demand close collaboration across government. The work of the two Brexit departments, international trade (DIT) and exiting the EU (Dexeu), will determine the future of trade with the EU. The terms of that deal may well decide the ease with which other, non-EU deals can be struck.
However, several independent sources sum up the relationship between the two departments as "a wall".
Mr. L, the argument being made is that differing pay rates are sexist (for warehouse versus shop employees). That's clearly nonsense, even if you buy into the 'equal value' line of thinking.
No, that is not the argument being made. HMG specifically and explicitly recognises that the gender pay gap is not about paying men and women differently for the same jobs.
The gender pay gap is the difference in the average hourly wage of all men and women across a workforce. If women do more of the less well paid jobs within an organisation than men, the gender pay gap is usually bigger.
The gender pay gap is not the same as unequal pay which is paying men and women differently for performing the same (or similar) work. Unequal pay has been unlawful since 1970.
Correct, which is why the statistic is completely meaningless in the real world. Ryanair reported a gap of 71%, because 90% of cabin crew and 10% of pilots are female.
Watch this amusing debate (and subsequent Twitter spat) between Stella Creasy and Kate Andrews of the IEA. https://youtu.be/yl6YlSVBasw
Mr. L, the argument being made is that differing pay rates are sexist (for warehouse versus shop employees). That's clearly nonsense, even if you buy into the 'equal value' line of thinking.
No, that is not the argument being made. HMG specifically and explicitly recognises that the gender pay gap is not about paying men and women differently for the same jobs.
The gender pay gap is the difference in the average hourly wage of all men and women across a workforce. If women do more of the less well paid jobs within an organisation than men, the gender pay gap is usually bigger.
The gender pay gap is not the same as unequal pay which is paying men and women differently for performing the same (or similar) work. Unequal pay has been unlawful since 1970.
In firms that employ lots of secretarial staff, (overwhelmingly female) or lots of manual labourers (overwhelmingly male) it's very hard to see how one could avoid having very large gaps between the average wages of men and women at the firm.
On-topic. Isn't the 45% Remain opinion based on entitlement. The Poshos aren't used to losing - there must have been cheating, especially as they know what's best for people. It's a 'Wind in the Willows' scenario - you can't have the weasels and stoats having a say.
I can only say that anecdotally, the Remainers around here (the Northwest) have generally reached the acceptance stage.
Yes, but you aren't under the Occupation that London suffers...
Mr. L, I'm referring specifically to the Tesco case, not the gender pay gap generally, with my previous post.
The gender pay gap remains absolutely bullshit, though. Taking an average across a whole organisation is just dumb. It doesn't account for how long people have worked there, whether they've taken prolonged leave (maternity leave being the obvious one), whether they work full or part time, what pay grade they're on.
Women tend to do more part-time work than men. And to take longer breaks from work to have and raise children. These are legitimate choices. It is not legitimate to take a few years off and then expect to be paid the same as those who stayed, worked and got promoted.
Besides, in the younger generation of workers, women are paid more than men on average. Is this being shouted about as a gender pay gap? As sexism? As a problem to be solved?
Of course not. Because when men have the shit end of the stick (suicides and custody being obvious examples) that's seen as fine. When women seem to have it worse, even with legitimate explanations, that's seen as a problem to be solved.
I'd write more, but I have a dental appointment. Alas.
You'll be all right -- unless perhaps your lady dentist reads pb!
Hospitalisation for over 80's manages the staged decline as you rightly indicate...every bout of hospitalisation usually results in a staged downturn turn for the individual.
Medical improvements are now enabling people to live longer with chronic ill health...is that right? I would not subject my pet to medical interventions for the sake of keeping them alive longer whilst chronically ill. If your dog was doubly incontinent, suffering from heart failure, kidney failure, diabetes, unable to walk....would you keep them going? Add in dementia for good measure. My wife's father lived for three years like this...and in the last months the care home was recommending nasal feeding to keep him alive. They were shocked when my wife said absolutely no.
I was rebuking Foxy for his anecdote, because you could get a thousand medics together who would give you a clearer picture of managing the geriatric population....and the jovial 95 year old really wouldn't figure in their discussions.
Medical advances do not change the fact that our bodies were designed for 70 years....and then after our major organs start failing.
While I'm sadly too busy to write about it right now, France is truly at a crossroads.
Will Macron hold firm, or will he - like others before him - bend?
He'll bend.
When I met him three years ago, his conviction was that France's labour laws were the primary factor holding his country back. He held firm the first time around, and pushed through one set of reforms.
This is a bigger set, and the push back from unions is commensurately greater.
I think, while he might offer 'concessions', the core of the reforms will remain. For France's sake, I hope I'm right.
He is (and you are) completely right, the question is whether enough of the French public agree for long enough to see off the strikes. Good luck to him!
How far ahead of Britain would France be if it were not for these labour laws? If Macron wins, how much will be added to France's GDP growth? How much will French citoyens' standards of living rise?
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
Do they still have the most starred restaurants? (It may just be London vs Paris or just 3* I am thinking of but sure I read that somewhere)
Which is exactly why we need a seat at the top table at the WTO - to be a powerful voice arguing for the benefits of free trade.
This is a good backgrounder on the dynamics of the WTO by a former insider. It works in power blocks. The idea that the UK would have a seat at the top table at the WTO as a powerful voice arguing for the benefits of free trade is for the fairies. The UK's influence is leveraged through multilateral arrangements, of which the EU is by far the most important example. That's the influence we lose through Brexit.
to pretend we will have less say is just ridiculous.
How does giving up our seat at the table give us more say?
We are gaining seats at places like the WTO, where the real power will be in future trade talks. UK trade deals will be written completely in the UK’s interest, rather than the interests of French farms, Italian wineries and Spanish orange growers.
How do we compete with Spanish orange-growers? Come to that the annual production of Italian wine is geater than British.
That’s the point, we don’t. So if the EU does a trade deal with another orange-growing country, they won’t reduce import tariffs on oranges in order to protect their (EU) domestic producers.
If the UK wants to do a trade deal with that same country, we will happy eliminate tariffs on imported oranges as they don’t compete with us in that product. Net result: oranges become cheaper in British shops, more global trade is done. Win-win.
But at the moment we buy Spanish oranges without tariffs.
Correct, but in global terms the Spanish oranges are expensive. We are not allowed to buy the cheaper oranges from other countries, because the EU slaps a whacking tariff on them so they don’t compete with the Spanish producers. One of the more immediately noticeable effects of leaving the EU is going to be cheaper food.
This infighting is attributed to one cause: Cabinet divisions which are feeding into and exacerbating departmental silos. It was Defra which leaked concerns about chlorinated chicken which have plagued every interview Trade Secretary Liam Fox has given, immediately before meetings with US trade counterparts, The Daily Telegraph understands.
Comments
What cuts? Go and ask a medical professional.
OK, to some extent these are rhetorical questions but someone, not least Macron, ought to have some idea, rather than just a woolly feeling that nice things will happen.
The British and French economies have been more-or-less the same size for decades.
That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? What of the Thatcherite economic reforms or the flight from France under Hollande that used to so exercise posters here? They seem to have made very little difference.
Our economies are not identical. You can cherry-pick measures that show Britain is better or that France is. We have the best language and higher employment; they have more Michelin-starred restaurants and higher productivity. But overall, we are pretty much the same.
So what is the answer? How much are France's labour laws holding the country back? How fast will France zoom ahead if Macron wins?
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00507263.pdf
Remainers seem to disregard the entirely legitimate (yet entirely one-sided and indefensible) use of £9m taxpayers' money for a pro-Remain propaganda piece shortly before the spending limits began.
I'm slightly surprise the figure is as high as 45% for Remainers, although a recent survey had some 57% or so remembering [ahem] they voted Leave. If that reflects not an unbalanced sample but false recall, then it'd indicate a shift in perception for some, meaning softer Remain types may have jumped the fence (psychologically, at least).
There have been a few stories murmuring about unfairness, cheating etc. I suppose Remain would've got away with it too, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids.
You can share a platform with someone without endorsing every jot and tittle of their programme.
Lucky that, otherwise Corbyn might be in trouble.
But he is still a toe rag with objectionable views that can be criticised and those who associated with some of those views likewise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Michelin_3-star_restaurants
If they hold the same views then yes. If they share a platform because they agree with some of his views (eg drowning kittens is bad) that doesn’t mean that they can be legitimately criticised for all his views
One change that should feed through relatively quickly is a drop in unemployment, as it becomes easier for companies to make redundancies or fire poor performers.
IMO a decade down the line France will be in a better place for these reforms, but then so will Britain when freed from the inward-looking and protectionist EU to trade more with the world. Some people may have a different opinion on that last point
FWIW most 3 star restaurants are pretentious and overpriced. You’ll get far better at a 1 star
Only 3% of the population over 65 are actually in care homes:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/changesintheolderresidentcarehomepopulationbetween2001and2011/2014-08-01
and although there are lots of people who probably ought to be in care and are just hanging on to their homes with family help, it also wouldn't be true to say that most people in care are obviously miserable.
When I last saw the figures, they seemed to show that people don't generally go into steady decline as they get older, as used to be feared. Rather, they carry on much as before until something happens - an accident, a serious illnesss - and it then often goes downhill pretty relentlessly. As you imply, it's someimes harder on the family than it is for the individual - the zest for doing stuff often declines with the ability to do it, and quite a few people decline with something like equanimity, but it's grim for the family seeing the decline and helpless to do anything about it.
We were all on the same pay grade.
Your turn.
But I am right, obvs.
Buying Chlorinated chicken from the US is not "completely in the UK’s interest"
We are begging for scraps, and the Brexiteers know it.
https://twitter.com/tictoc/status/981434916167614467
https://mobile.twitter.com/AlastairBruce_/status/981111080964509696/photo/1
See
http://www.edmundconway.com/2015/02/the-uk-germany-and-france-gdp-over-history/
and for a more nuanced view than mine
https://www.ft.com/content/f372cbb8-4a96-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43
I can only say that anecdotally, the Remainers around here (the Northwest) have generally reached the acceptance stage.
The gender pay gap is the difference in the average hourly wage of all men and women across a workforce. If women do more of the less well paid jobs within an organisation than men, the gender pay gap is usually bigger.
The gender pay gap is not the same as unequal pay which is paying men and women differently for performing the same (or similar) work. Unequal pay has been unlawful since 1970.
https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/public/assets/pdf/gender-pay-gap-explained.pdf
If the UK wants to do a trade deal with that same country, we will happy eliminate tariffs on imported oranges as they don’t compete with us in that product. Net result: oranges become cheaper in British shops, more global trade is done. Win-win.
In fact I would like us to abolish all tariffs. Why protect an activity that can be done better or cheaper elsewhere?
The gender pay gap remains absolutely bullshit, though. Taking an average across a whole organisation is just dumb. It doesn't account for how long people have worked there, whether they've taken prolonged leave (maternity leave being the obvious one), whether they work full or part time, what pay grade they're on.
Women tend to do more part-time work than men. And to take longer breaks from work to have and raise children. These are legitimate choices. It is not legitimate to take a few years off and then expect to be paid the same as those who stayed, worked and got promoted.
Besides, in the younger generation of workers, women are paid more than men on average. Is this being shouted about as a gender pay gap? As sexism? As a problem to be solved?
Of course not. Because when men have the shit end of the stick (suicides and custody being obvious examples) that's seen as fine. When women seem to have it worse, even with legitimate explanations, that's seen as a problem to be solved.
I'd write more, but I have a dental appointment. Alas.
Whitehall 'chaos' puts the UK's Brexit trade strategy in doubt
"Strategy? What strategy?"
So responds a senior civil servant when asked how plans for the future of UK trade are coming together. They then proceed to smash their coffee's foam with the back of a teaspoon aggressively.
"[The] trade strategy is basically tweeting out flag emojis."
Their frustration is not about being for or against Brexit, they stress. It is about understanding the challenge and importance of the UK getting trade right, so that businesses and jobs are protected. At the moment, that is not happening. Instead, "[there is] a distressing and embarrassing level of chaos across Whitehall on trade"...
...In just under a year, after so-called Brexit Day - March 29 2019 - the UK will have the power to strike its own trade deals for the first time in more than 40 years. And it will need to be quick. The moment the ink is dry on a final deal with Brussels there are around 70 trade deals with non-EU countries to try to "roll over". Something once thought to be a copy and paste job has since been shown to be far more complex.
Developing a new trade strategy and implementing it in such a short period will demand close collaboration across government. The work of the two Brexit departments, international trade (DIT) and exiting the EU (Dexeu), will determine the future of trade with the EU. The terms of that deal may well decide the ease with which other, non-EU deals can be struck.
However, several independent sources sum up the relationship between the two departments as "a wall".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/03/whitehall-chaos-puts-uks-brexit-trade-strategy-doubt/
Watch this amusing debate (and subsequent Twitter spat) between Stella Creasy and Kate Andrews of the IEA.
https://youtu.be/yl6YlSVBasw
*titter*
Hospitalisation for over 80's manages the staged decline as you rightly indicate...every bout of hospitalisation usually results in a staged downturn turn for the individual.
Medical improvements are now enabling people to live longer with chronic ill health...is that right? I would not subject my pet to medical interventions for the sake of keeping them alive longer whilst chronically ill. If your dog was doubly incontinent, suffering from heart failure, kidney failure, diabetes, unable to walk....would you keep them going? Add in dementia for good measure. My wife's father lived for three years like this...and in the last months the care home was recommending nasal feeding to keep him alive. They were shocked when my wife said absolutely no.
I was rebuking Foxy for his anecdote, because you could get a thousand medics together who would give you a clearer picture of managing the geriatric population....and the jovial 95 year old really wouldn't figure in their discussions.
Medical advances do not change the fact that our bodies were designed for 70 years....and then after our major organs start failing.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/uk-wto-leadership/
This infighting is attributed to one cause: Cabinet divisions which are feeding into and exacerbating departmental silos. It was Defra which leaked concerns about chlorinated chicken which have plagued every interview Trade Secretary Liam Fox has given, immediately before meetings with US trade counterparts, The Daily Telegraph understands.