Interesting to listen to John Cryan last week, the English, Frankfurt-based, CEO of Deutsche Bank.
Post-Brexit - Frankfurt is far from ready to take over from London, despite some regulatory aspects being in synch. “What determines who gets what piece of the cake?” said Cryan. It was not about changing laws or tax subsidies, he added. “In truth, it is its infrastructure that makes London unique in Europe. In this respect, this is where Germany needs to catch up if it wants to take over a large share of the business performed in London.” He said Frankfurt needed “more attractive, urban residential areas, enough international schools and a dozen additional theatres and a few hundred restaurants”.
Job losses - The problem will not be Brexit. He issued a stark warning about the impact of technology, saying a “big number” of his staff will lose their jobs as robots take over. “In our bank we have people doing work like robots. Tomorrow we will have robots behaving like people. It doesn’t matter if we as a bank will participate in these changes or not, it is going to happen." He also referred to accountants inside the bank who “spend a lot of time basically being an abacus”, who would also be replaced by machines. “The sad truth for the banking industry is, we won‘t need as many people as today.”
Interesting. I saw somewhere the average pay for bankers in various European cities, cant find it now, but the UK pays circa £20,000 more for the corresponding position, which may also delay the predicted mass migration. (It's not so long ago bankers in the UK were seen as pariahs )
1. I've never said a twisted narrative. I said, and stand by, a relentlessly negative narrative. 2.I have never questioned your integrity. It would be lovely if you could acknowledge these points.
3. By (again) turning this into a bet on something as complex as a nations future GDP (so many factors beyond Brexit as we both well know) you are deflecting from answering the focused points raised.
4. This is boring other listers and as you are never going to acknowledge things might not be as bad as you (and others) persistently insist, I will take a break from this thread.
1. I've never said a twisted narrative. I said, and stand by, a relentlessly negative narrative. 2.I have never questioned your integrity. It would be lovely if you could acknowledge these points.
3. By (again) turning this into a bet on something as complex as a nations future GDP (so many factors beyond Brexit as we both well know) you are deflecting from answering the focused points raised.
4. This is boring other listers and as you are never going to acknowledge things might not be as bad as you (and others) persistently insist, I will take a break from this thread.
Frankly I don't know what you do want from me then. If I am accused of a "relentlessly negative narrative", that is because I don't find a single positive thing about Brexit. If others do, fine well that is what the thread is about, no?
I have often felt you question my integrity and not just on this subject. It's what your posts make me feel.
I happened not to think that what you said about Nina Schick in any way justified calling her a "vacuous troll". But had I gone into it, that really would be boring.
I am well aware that GDP is affected by many factors. However, the forecasts you are making such a fuss about seek to portray that Brexit will not damage the economy as much as people have suggested (using GDP as the key measure). I happen to disagree, and am ready to put my money where my mouth is. If you don't want to, take me up on that, OK. I mainly wanted to show everyone,not just you, that I really believe what I write.
I don't mind taking this bet with someone else instead (but only one, obviously :-))
1. I've never said a twisted narrative. I said, and stand by, a relentlessly negative narrative. 2.I have never questioned your integrity. It would be lovely if you could acknowledge these points.
3. By (again) turning this into a bet on something as complex as a nations future GDP (so many factors beyond Brexit as we both well know) you are deflecting from answering the focused points raised.
4. This is boring other listers and as you are never going to acknowledge things might not be as bad as you (and others) persistently insist, I will take a break from this thread.
A four minute break judging by your next post!
Don't go @A-R-T-H-U-R I don't want to be left holding the centre ground on my own.
I think the threat of robotisation is massive. It's been happening in blue collar sectors for decades, but the technology to threaten white collar jobs is rapidly approaching. Nobody bats an eyelid when supermarket cashiers are replaced by self scan units. A few old folks feel uncomfortable about it, a couple of comedians make jokes about unexpected items in the bagging area and everyone makes the switch. Some like it because it's quicker, some like it because they don't have to talk to anybody. Most just get on with it; preferring not to think about, or at least preferring not to vocalise any concerns about possible detrimental effects on society.
The trouble is not that this technology exists per se, but because it is concentrated in the hands of big self-serving institutions. We already have a layer of people whom are effectively unemployable. They just don't have the skills to do anything that's wanted anymore. I can see that when white collar robots and automated vehicles really take hold, the pool of people no longer considered viable as (potential) employees will get a lot bigger. Meanwhile, those of us fortunate to maintain our jobs will have to work harder, faster, longer to keep up.
Back in the sixties we were promised more leisure time as a result of new technologies. What we've seen though is a polarisation where a small minority have masses of enforced leisure time and the majority work more. Unless we look very carefully at how such new technology is introduced, I fear we are storing up very big problems for the future. Are any of the political classes working on this massive potential problem though? No, they're too busy trying to crack tie Irish border conundrum. Or not.
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
So you are saying that the NHS has got its own figures wrong?
If you had a link to back up your numbers, then we could compare. The link to the independent factchecker that I provided, backs up their own assessment by linking nhs digital from where they got their numbers and are open to criticism. They maintain that 9,800 EU staff did leave since the referendum but don't know why
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
I really don't get what taking bets proves, other than that some have more disposable income than others.
Simply to find a way to demonstrate that I really believe what I write on this subject, as opposed to just gobbing off negativity for the sake of it, as @A-R-T-H-U-R accuses me of.
Or we can just post our forecasts, without a bet, but I would like those who cast such aspersions to post theirs first.
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
The jobs in some areas are related to the clients. A school might have a pupil-teacher ratio of 1-25 in a 100 pupil school. If the number of pupils goes up to 150 and one extra teacher is hired. Then yes teachers go from 4 to 5 but the ratio and the workload and the pupil experience gets worse.
So a PM of an EU state significantly impacted by the UK decision heavily driven by the Sun should shut up? I understand it is because thd Sun has already published a comprehensive solution to the Irish problem....oh hang on. Ah, it is because the Sun believes in the good old British values of freedom of speech. ..oh hang on. It is because the Sun is a best selling newspaper for morons and it doesn't realise the damage it can do. The young Irish leader should apparently grow up and get to the reading age of 4 which is all you need to understand the Sun. Sadly as we see on this thread there are anti Irish people and the Sun panders to them and does their thinking for them.
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Pointing out the one sided nature of many posters on both sides (and I feel I stand in the middle) is not abrasive. It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
I think you will find that I am the one that stands in the middle.
LOL. Let's stand together and I'll try super hard not to be abrasive!
OK, but I don't know why you put a LOL. I am a deadly serious, I am the voice of reason on this thread and everything I say is spot on.
The problem is that everybody else thinks they are too, except @Chippycafc.
1. I've never said a twisted narrative. I said, and stand by, a relentlessly negative narrative. 2.I have never questioned your integrity. It would be lovely if you could acknowledge these points.
3. By (again) turning this into a bet on something as complex as a nations future GDP (so many factors beyond Brexit as we both well know) you are deflecting from answering the focused points raised.
4. This is boring other listers and as you are never going to acknowledge things might not be as bad as you (and others) persistently insist, I will take a break from this thread.
1. I've never said a twisted narrative. I said, and stand by, a relentlessly negative narrative. 2.I have never questioned your integrity. It would be lovely if you could acknowledge these points.
3. By (again) turning this into a bet on something as complex as a nations future GDP (so many factors beyond Brexit as we both well know) you are deflecting from answering the focused points raised.
4. This is boring other listers and as you are never going to acknowledge things might not be as bad as you (and others) persistently insist, I will take a break from this thread.
Ever felt your pissing in the wind here.
Now that you specifically mention it, chips - many, many times.
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Pointing out the one sided nature of many posters on both sides (and I feel I stand in the middle) is not abrasive. It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
I think you will find that I am the one that stands in the middle.
LOL. Let's stand together and I'll try super hard not to be abrasive!
OK, but I don't know why you put a LOL. I am a deadly serious, I am the voice of reason on this thread and everything I say is spot on.
The problem is that everybody else thinks they are too, except @Chippycafc.
I am as well
I am sure you have said before that you wasn't and *that everybody in the middle could just go an do one.
It is a public holiday here today, a very resonant one too (Freedom Day, the fall of communism), so sad ****** that I am, I took the time to call the ONS. Very approachable people but unfortunately the main guy is on hols today. Someone else is due to call me back however I think I may have already solved the puzzle.
More than half of the change in net migration can be accounted for by a decrease in net migration of EU citizens (down 51,000); this was driven by an increase (33,000) in emigration for EU citizens (in particular EU8 emigration up 17,000 (both statistically significant)) and a 19,000 decrease in immigration (not statistically significant).
This is the report that will be updated on 30th November.
What these statistics should not be used for, and why These statistics do not measure stocks or flows of recent migrants to the UK, because they include people resident in the UK for many years (many of whom will now be UK nationals) as well as more recent arrivals. This, along with a range of other factors, means that net changes in the number of non-UK workers in the UK cannot be directly compared with long-term net migration for non-UK nationals.
This warning was completely ignored by Migration Watch in the BBC report which @Imissthepeanutman read. It is totally understandable then that he understood it as he did.
Just reading quickly but a little confused. If the figures include those who are now U.K. nationals, then obviously it cannot be compared to migration for non-UK nationals ... or am I missing something?
I think it is clear that this latest set of stats is about people who have entered employment, and as such could have been here any length of time. Therefore it does not tell us anything about whether inward migration of EU citizens is rising or falling. For this we would need to wait until 30 November report.
But if you think I have that wrong, do say so, I still hope to speak with them directly and make sure I've got it right.
Not being awkward or saying you are wrong. The two points seemed to be opposite therefore could not be relative. Will look properly when I am less busy.
Let's throw some more figures into the melting pot:
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
Any chance that the increases have come from trainees coming through, UK residents returning to work or non EU sources? Or perhaps the long awaited move to employ people direct rather than through agencies?
If I could find the info on NHS Digital I would look myself.
Whilst perusing The FT link posted above, I noticed this article and wondered why it didn't get an airing. Then I realized that any hint of balance isn't seen as a virtue for some.
fastFT UBS Wealth Management: UK picture ‘not as bleak as many think’
“While weak business investment and falling household spending have driven the overall rate of GDP growth down, the picture is not as bleak as many think," said UBS Wealth Management UK economist Dean Turner.
Brexit uncertainty is undoubtedly having some impact, but businesses and consumers are showing resilience and adapting to the situation as it unfolds. Fundamentally, the UK has a flexible economy which is able to adjust to headwinds.
Turner said: "We’ve heard plenty of warnings from businesses that they will redirect investment and relocate staff unless they receive clarity on the Brexit state-of-play soon.
"Regardless of an agreement in principle, we would not be surprised to see contingency plans acted on to some extent. Yet even if we do see this movement, it should not be significant enough to bring about a cliff-edge moment for the economy."
It comes after a UBS analyst warned last year that a vote to leave the European Union could cause the FTSE 100 to fall by more than 10pc in a year. Instead, the benchmark index rose by 20pc.
The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen.
Again, an abrasive approach? Why?
One practical problem with the FT is that people don't have access to it, and may relevant articles are longer than that.
If you are a regular reader of the FT, you will know what the settled editorial view is of the paper, having sifted through all of the information they have gathered, including the view of UBS which you rightly post.There are other banks who don't agree with them.
FWIW I don't agree with UBS for this simple reason. They concede that GDP has fallen. This was not planned for by the Treasury. Therefore Hammond has a hole in his budget plans. Therefore he has less room to stimulate the economy with the long term infrastructure projects and support for essential services which the country badly needs, and keep ordinary people in proper jobs for several years. That will make the economy even worse. But that is just my opinion. You are welcome to state why you disagree. If you wish.
Pointing out the one sided nature of many posters on both sides (and I feel I stand in the middle) is not abrasive. It's clear you are consistently posting without any balance whatsoever.
I'm interested that you choose to ignore experts if they show even a glimmer of deflection from your negative narrative. You have a long track record of this.
There was an outcry on here when banks like UBS said that thousands of bankers would leave after Brexit...a few months later I post and article from one such source saying its unlikely to happen - the reaction,? ''well I don't agree with them'' (now).
UBS predicted a 10% drop in FT100 after any Brexit vote in the referendum, to more outcry and argument on a previous thread, now it's gone up over 15%, the goalposts are moved and revisionists say no one ever said it would be after the vote but after Brexit itself. Project fear of what might happen vs facts.
I'm happy to snuffle nuggets of positivity and post them on here if that's OK and not too abrasive for you.
I think you will find that I am the one that stands in the middle.
LOL. Let's stand together and I'll try super hard not to be abrasive!
OK, but I don't know why you put a LOL. I am a deadly serious, I am the voice of reason on this thread and everything I say is spot on.
The problem is that everybody else thinks they are too, except @Chippycafc.
I am as well
I am sure you have said before that you wasn't and *that everybody in the middle could just go an do one.
* I might have imagined that last bit though.
Haven't the foggiest what your going on about and why drag me in to it in the first place.
In March 2017 there were 30,613 advertised vacancy full-time equivalents published in England, this compares to 26,424 in 2016 and 26,406 in 2015.
NHS Digital
Is it not possible more jobs have been created? Seems unlikely with the current government, but possible, surely.
That is of course the explanation. The NHS employs nearly 1.5m people, a 4,000 increase in job places is probably not enough to keep pace with demand for NHS services.
Interesting to listen to John Cryan last week, the English, Frankfurt-based, CEO of Deutsche Bank.
Post-Brexit - Frankfurt is far from ready to take over from London, despite some regulatory aspects being in synch. “What determines who gets what piece of the cake?” said Cryan. It was not about changing laws or tax subsidies, he added. “In truth, it is its infrastructure that makes London unique in Europe. In this respect, this is where Germany needs to catch up if it wants to take over a large share of the business performed in London.” He said Frankfurt needed “more attractive, urban residential areas, enough international schools and a dozen additional theatres and a few hundred restaurants”.
Job losses - The problem will not be Brexit. He issued a stark warning about the impact of technology, saying a “big number” of his staff will lose their jobs as robots take over. “In our bank we have people doing work like robots. Tomorrow we will have robots behaving like people. It doesn’t matter if we as a bank will participate in these changes or not, it is going to happen." He also referred to accountants inside the bank who “spend a lot of time basically being an abacus”, who would also be replaced by machines. “The sad truth for the banking industry is, we won‘t need as many people as today.”
Interesting. I saw somewhere the average pay for bankers in various European cities, cant find it now, but the UK pays circa £20,000 more for the corresponding position, which may also delay the predicted mass migration. (It's not so long ago bankers in the UK were seen as pariahs )
In March 2017 there were 30,613 advertised vacancy full-time equivalents published in England, this compares to 26,424 in 2016 and 26,406 in 2015.
NHS Digital
Is it not possible more jobs have been created? Seems unlikely with the current government, but possible, surely.
That is of course the explanation. The NHS employs nearly 1.5m people, a 4,000 increase in job places is probably not enough to keep pace with demand for NHS services.
They have massive vacancies in just about every discipline, it might be creating new jobs but first it would be filling the jobs that were already vacant.
Comments
I saw somewhere the average pay for bankers in various European cities, cant find it now, but the UK pays circa £20,000 more for the corresponding position, which may also delay the predicted mass migration.
(It's not so long ago bankers in the UK were seen as pariahs )
I have often felt you question my integrity and not just on this subject. It's what your posts make me feel.
I happened not to think that what you said about Nina Schick in any way justified calling her a "vacuous troll". But had I gone into it, that really would be boring.
I am well aware that GDP is affected by many factors. However, the forecasts you are making such a fuss about seek to portray that Brexit will not damage the economy as much as people have suggested (using GDP as the key measure). I happen to disagree, and am ready to put my money where my mouth is. If you don't want to, take me up on that, OK. I mainly wanted to show everyone,not just you, that I really believe what I write.
I don't mind taking this bet with someone else instead (but only one, obviously :-))
Don't go @A-R-T-H-U-R I don't want to be left holding the centre ground on my own.
The trouble is not that this technology exists per se, but because it is concentrated in the hands of big self-serving institutions. We already have a layer of people whom are effectively unemployable. They just don't have the skills to do anything that's wanted anymore. I can see that when white collar robots and automated vehicles really take hold, the pool of people no longer considered viable as (potential) employees will get a lot bigger. Meanwhile, those of us fortunate to maintain our jobs will have to work harder, faster, longer to keep up.
Back in the sixties we were promised more leisure time as a result of new technologies. What we've seen though is a polarisation where a small minority have masses of enforced leisure time and the majority work more. Unless we look very carefully at how such new technology is introduced, I fear we are storing up very big problems for the future. Are any of the political classes working on this massive potential problem though? No, they're too busy trying to crack tie Irish border conundrum. Or not.
Has the NHS in England really been losing EU nationals from its staff since Britain voted to leave the European Union?
in post 30 June 2016 / in post 30 June 2017
Doctors - 9,695 / 10,136 - INCREASE
Registrars - 3,190 / 3,215 - INCREASE
Trainee doctors (foundation years 1 and 2) - 779 / 950 - INCREASE
Nurses and health visitors - 20,907 / 20,618 - DECREASE
Midwives - 1,220 / 1,247 - INCREASE
Ambulance staff - 250 / 386 - INCREASE
Scientific/therapeutic/technical - 6,112 / 6,957 - INCREASE
Source: NHS Digital
fullfact.org
I would like to see where the increase in numbers come from.
Or we can just post our forecasts, without a bet, but I would like those who cast such aspersions to post theirs first.
In March 2017 there were 30,613 advertised vacancy full-time equivalents published in England, this compares to 26,424 in 2016 and 26,406 in 2015.
NHS Digital
I understand it is because thd Sun has already published a comprehensive solution to the Irish problem....oh hang on.
Ah, it is because the Sun believes in the good old British values of freedom of speech.
..oh hang on.
It is because the Sun is a best selling newspaper for morons and it doesn't realise the damage it can do.
The young Irish leader should apparently grow up and get to the reading age of 4 which is all you need to understand the Sun.
Sadly as we see on this thread there are anti Irish people and the Sun panders to them and does their thinking for them.
* I might have imagined that last bit though.
If I could find the info on NHS Digital I would look myself.
uk.businessinsider.com/emolument-banker-pay-salary-london-frankfurt-paris-europe-brexit-2017-11