Fewer tech workers now see the UK as first choice for relocation after Bresit

A new report shows that many international tech workers no longer see the U.K. as a top choice. Only six percent of those surveyed listed the U.K. as a top choice for relocation due to concerns over Brexit the report claims.

The report was carried out by the international recruiter Hired, focussing on tech workers within the U.S. tech industry. A majority of the respondents claimed that Brexit had dissuaded them from considering the U.K. as a prime place to relocate. They saw Brexit as making the U.K. a less desirable place to live.

Canada was the top choice for relocation outside the U.S. The most favorable EU destination was Germany, which was preferred to France or the Netherlands. However, globally workers are tempted to relocate to China as it offers advantages to other countries and is spending large sums to become the leader in AI as discussed in a recent Digital Journal article. Technode also claims in a recent article that China could dominate in AI in 2017.

The report suggests that the U.S. tech industry is feeling threatened by President Donald Trump's immigration policies. He has claimed that he wants to cut legal immigration by half within ten years. The number of green cards for extended family members would be reduced, and the system would be based more upon merit and skills than family ties. Many tech workers would no doubt prefer to relocate to a country that would allow their families to also move. U.S. employers are already struggling to recruit staff as less candidates are applying. The number of US-based companies requesting interviews with foreign workers outside the U.S. has declined 60 percent in comparison with 2016.

While Trump and his supporters want curbs on immigration, a large majority in the U.S. tech industry have positive views about immigration. The U.K. industry agrees with the U.S. view with 84 percent saying that immigration helps innovation. In the UK there is a vigorous debate about immigration. Ruth Davidson, Scottish Conservative leader said that PM Theresa May should drop her slogan of slashing immigration below 100,000 if she did not want to risk damaging the U.K. economy. Davidson said that as the U.K. was on the road to full employment growth potential would face greater limitations without being boosted by an influx of immigrants.

Think Tank claims UK austerity measures shrinking output

According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research the UK economy may actually shrink by half a percentage point in 2012 compared to an earlier estimate of zero growth. The think tank blames austerity measures for the decline.

The NIESR(National Institute for Economic and Social Research) predicts that no recovery of any significance will take place until 2014. Both cuts to government spending and economic prospects for Europe given the debt crisis will contribute to this very slow recovery. The think tank claims that output in the UK would have been considerably higher had deficit reduction been postponed for three years. The NIESR predicted only 1.3% growth in 2013.
The NIESR claims that output this year would have grown 1.2% if the measures had been postponed. Over a decade the austerity measures may have lowered UK growth by 16.5%
Output in the UK dropped by 7 tenths of a percent in the second quarter of this year. Some analysts are calling for an easing of spending cuts as well as tax hikes but so far the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has held firm to its deficit reduction plans.
The NIESR claims that unemployment in the UK will peak at 8.6% next year somewhat below their earlier forecast of almost 9%. This is still much better than many European countries. The government could also still erase the structural budget deficit by 2017 as it plans.
Nevertheless economists at the NIESR recommended spending and easing of austerity measures.
"It remains the case that there is scope for a less aggressive path of fiscal tightening..The government should consider on-balance sheet funding of key projects, concurrent with a comprehensive restructuring of banks and key funding markets."
While the Labour opposition party has criticized the government austerity programs the government has the support of the OECD and the IMF. The IMF did caution however that if the economy continued to shrink that there should be some fiscal "loosening".
The Bank of England has engaged in some quantitative easing and plans to buy 50 billion pounds more in UK government bonds. The NIESR argues that this policy is now providing diminishing returns.
While many liberal economists such as Paul Krugman criticize austerity measures for lowering growth rates or even causing GDP to decline this ignores positive features of the policy from a capitalist perspective. Austerity measures lead to reduced expectations, and slash entitlement spending. They also weaken the power of labor. Increased unemployment reduces wage demands. All of these features in the longer term will improve profitability. As the positive spinners put it competitiveness is improved. The issue is also covered here.

United Kingdom slides back into recession

While attention falls upon Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland as the problem nations in Europe, the UK is not faring very well either. Recent austerity measures introduced in Britain no doubt were in part responsible for the fact that output fell for the second quarter in a row.

The Office for National Statistics reports that GDP (Gross Domestic Product) fell 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2012. In the last quarter of 2011 it had fallen by 0.3 per cent. In contrast many economists had been predicting slight growth of .1 per cent.

There were significant declines in many sectors especially construction and there was also a fall in industrial output. The government's goal of reducing the deficit will recede further into the future as revenues decline.

The Bank of England claims there is a risk of further decline in the second quarter of 2012 as well. However, commentators claim the bank is unlikely to apply further stimulus measures such as quantitative easing because of worries about inflation. For more see this article.

U.K. teenager charged for Facebook comment

Azhar Ahmed made a comment on Facebook about the six British soldiers killed last week in Afghanistan. What there was of cognitive content to his comment was that people made a big fuss about the deaths of the British soldiers but paid little attention to the deaths of Afghans. Most of the post is comprised of insults in vulgar and often vicious language. The text of the message can be found here.

I have never favored legislation against hate speech. Legislation just leads to those who express this hate becoming even more alienated. They feel--correctly in my opinion--that the government is suppressing them. However many countries have such laws including Canada. At first Ahmed was charged with "racially aggravated public order offences". For some reason they decided against going ahead with that charge. Perhaps because the rant does not seem to be directed at any racial group but at UK soldiers and their supporters. The charge has been changed to sending a grossly offensive message. U.S. talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh better stay away from the U.K.

For his part Ahmed has pleaded not guilty and maintained that he did not make the posting in the first place. I suppose it is quite possible that someone else put it there to get Ahmed in trouble.

The prosecutors are already rounding up witnesses who say they found the post offensive. Police were posted around the courthouse where Ahmed appear for a hearing. About 50 protesters shouted "jail to those who insult our troops." Ahmed has been released on bail and will face another hearing in July. For more see this article. I wonder why Facebook is not being charged for allowing the comment to appear on its pages?

Britain Revokes License of Iranian TV Station

The decision to pull the license of the station, Press TV, was made by Ed Richards who was formerly a policy adviser to Tony Blair. He is now Controller of Corporate Strategy at the BBC. He is head of OFCOM(Office of Communications) the body that made the decision that the licence should be denied.
  The official reason for the denial is that the editorial team is based in Tehran and not the UK. For their license to be renewed the entire editorial team must be moved to the UK. Critics of the move have pointed out that CNN, Bloomberg and Al Jazeera all have editorial bosses in other countries, namely the U.S. and Qatar but they are allowed to broadcast in the U.K.
   For some time the U.K. wanted to shut down Press T.V. A UK State Department memo complained: “UK law sets a very high standard for denying licenses to broadcasters.” Given their ability to deprive Press TV for a licence for the reasons given that statement does not seem particularly apt. In fact the U.S. would probably have more trouble than the UK in lifting the license.
   Press TV is funded by the Iranian government and is also monitored by the government. It is not however an official news outlet. The programs in English are very much reflective of a pro-Iranian viewpoint there is no doubt about that. I monitor it quite regularly and it often has interesting material that is not widely covered elsewhere. Press TV will still be available on the Internet so that Britons can view it there as can anyone else. For more see this article and for more about Press TV see here.

UK: Public Sector Workers Protest Pension Changes

 The striking public sector workers are particularly concerned about their pensions. Workers will be required to work longer and pay more into their pensions.The strike closed many schools and at hospitals many operations are cancelled. Over half of UK schools are closed.
  Air trafffic at Heathrow however seems to be operating close to normal with only a few flights cancelled. The situation varies in different areas. In Northern Ireland bus and train services are shut down. The strikes are being held in numerous centers around the UK not only in London the capital. Demonstrations are being held in Birmingham, Leeds, Exeter and Aberdeen in Scotland.

Public sector workers on strike in Newcastle

   While unions claim that up to two million public sector unions will take part in the strike the government says that less than a third of civil servants are taking part. As well as requiring workers to pay more into their pensions and work longer to earn them, the government plans to base pensions on career average earnings rather than the final years as many pensions are calculated now. This will reduce pension amounts considerably. The government claims funding present pensions cannot be sustained as workers are living longer. Obviously the solution is to make conditions so bad that workers will die earlier. The money saved can be used to sustain the one per cent in the style to which they are accustomed. For much more see this article.

UK: Work without pay or lose benefits

   In the U.K. those seeking jobs while receiving unemployment benefits could have those benefits cut off if they quit unpaid volunteer labor. The volunteer labor is part of a work experience program offered by the Department of Work and Pensions.
   If a job seeker expresses an interest in the work experience program they have one week to quit without penalty. After that, if they quit then they could lose their benefits.
   The program sends those  seeking jobs to work for a period of up to two months at supermarkets and other stores many of them big name outlets. Those in the program can work up to 30 hours a week with no pay. There is no guarantee of a job after the program is over either.
   Some participants claim they were not made aware of the provision to quit within the first week. In effect the work experience program is a giant scheme to provide some companies with unpaid labor. For much  more see this Guardian article.  Unemployment is high in the U.K. particularly among young people.

UK troops to be in Afghanistan for years.

I just wonder if the Afghan war will be much of an issue during the elections in the UK. Maybe not because the Conservatives would no doubt keep the troops there also. I don't think that the Taliban ever thought they could win militarily but they do probably feel that they can wear the occupiers down until they either sue for peace or simply give up and go home. Britain must somehow feel that it can be a little junior imperialist dog following the pack leader the US. This is from the BBC.

Troops in Afghanistan 'for years'
Britain will be "militarily engaged" in Afghanistan for a further five years, the head of the Army has said.

General Sir David Richards told the Daily Telegraph, while on a visit to Helmand, that he expected the military conflict to "trail off in 2011".

But British troops will continue in training and support roles, he said.

He also warned that coalition troops could not afford to fail and said UK forces now "for the first time" had the resources they had wanted.

Sir David said in August that he believed the UK would be committed to Afghanistan "in some manner" for the next 30 or 40 years, possibly through roles in development, governance and security sector reform.

Sir David said: "The combat role will start to decline in 2011, but we will remain military engaged in training and support roles for another five years, and we will remain in a support role for many years to come."

“ The Taliban is now beginning to realise that they can lose this war, which was not the view they had a year ago ”
General Sir David Richards
Speaking on a visit to Afghanistan during Operation Moshtarak, which is an ongoing offensive to attack the Taliban, he said the campaign was showing some "very optimistic signs".

He added: "A year ago the Taliban thought they had us on the run, but now the tables have turned. They are under relentless pressure and they are now having some serious thoughts about continuing the fight.

"I do not think we can afford to fail in Afghanistan because of the intoxicating effect failure will have on those militants who oppose democracy and our freedoms.

"The Taliban is now beginning to realise that they can lose this war, which was not the view they had a year ago."

Sir David's comments come after the deaths of three British servicemen in three days.

A soldier from 28 Engineer Regiment, attached to the Brigade Reconnaissance Force, died on Friday after being caught in a blast near a check point in Nad Ali, Helmand. He has not yet been named.

Rifleman Martin Kinggett from A Company 4 Rifles was shot dead in Sangin on Thursday and Senior Aircraftman Luke Southgate died in an explosion north of Kandahar airfield on Wednesday.

A total of 266 British service personnel have died since the conflict began.

Story from BBC NEWS:

The Sins of Tony Blair

I thought that Blair was a bit more progressive with respect to his internal politics than this article indicates. I read in a different article that he had decreased poverty but this article claims otherwise. I find it hard to believe that Blair did not lose his labor base given his record.


Tony Blair's seven lefty sins
>by Jim Stanford
June 25, 2007
Tony Blair exits Britain's political stage next week. Which side he is leaving from, however, is open to question. Having won three consecutive majorities, he's the country's most successful left-wing prime minister ever. Or is he?

I adhere to the old-fashioned notion that what a politician does in office is more important than the number of elections won. By this standard, it's hard to conclude Mr. Blair was a lefty at all: Britain went backward during his era in the things that matter most to our side of the political spectrum. Britain is a leaner, meaner, more unequal society than when Mr. Blair came to power. And considering he inherited Margaret Thatcher's legacy, that's saying something.

Of course, no one expected Mr. Blair to undo the dramatic changes wrought by Ms. Thatcher. He took office in 1997 after deliberately watering down Labour Party policies and distancing himself from the past. But few thought he would actually take Britain in the wrong direction.

Here are seven ways Britain actually shifted to the right during Mr. Blair's tenure. The list doesn't even include the disastrous endorsement of George W. Bush's military adventures — just the home front:

Inequality: Income inequality and poverty didn't budge, staying at the levels reached under Ms. Thatcher. Wealth inequality actually got worse: In 1997, the richest 1 per cent of Britons owned one-quarter of all wealth (excluding dwellings); today they own one-third.

Children: Nothing reveals the soul of a society more than how it treats its children. Last year, the United Kingdom ranked dead last on UNICEF's ranking of 21 industrialized countries for the quality of children's lives.

Tuition Fees: Even when they go off to school, Mr. Blair hurt the kids. He broke a campaign promise and introduced “market-sensitive” tuition fees at universities — now worth many thousands of dollars.

Unions: Mr. Blair kept almost all of Ms. Thatcher's anti-union laws, and union membership declined further.

Industry: 1.25 million manufacturing jobs disappeared under Mr. Blair, cementing Britain's status as an industrial has-been. He oversaw the near-demise of Britain's automotive industry, and watched its merchandise trade deficit swell to 6.5 per cent of GDP.

Privatization: Mr. Blair extended Ms. Thatcher's commitment to selling off public assets, but he did it in disguise. He pioneered public-private partnerships, in which taxpayers bear the risks while investors reap the profits.

The Labour Party itself: Needless to say, the activists who worked their behinds off to bring Mr. Blair to power quickly lost enthusiasm under his unprincipled rule. It was Mr. Blair's deliberate goal to break the ties binding his government's policies to actual party decisions. It's poetic justice that Labour membership fell by more than half during his rule, leaving his successors without a grassroots base.

In each case, it wasn't that Mr. Blair failed to undo Ms. Thatcher's right-wing shift or to fulfill the hopes of the progressive voters who elected him. Rather, he actually led Britain in the wrong direction. Despite a few positive measures (like Britain's first minimum wage, and modest increases in public spending), there's no doubt the country remains one of the most market-oriented, business-dominated, unequal jurisdictions in the developed world.

There are lessons in Mr. Blair's legacy for those who still aspire to build a more inclusive, equal society. Most important is that merely electing someone who professes to share your views is no guarantee you'll even head in the right direction. Mr. Blair's foremost goal, in retrospect, was getting elected, not changing society. And despite the initial relief at ousting the Conservatives, that wasn't enough to put Britain back on track.

Worst of all, the groups that should have demanded more from Mr. Blair were silenced by their allegiance to Labour's electoral strategy. They mostly kept their mouths shut as Mr. Blair headed in an increasingly conservative direction. Only recently have they found their voices again.

That's a crucial lesson for Canada's lefties to keep in mind, given our own fractured and confusing political landscape. The experience of Blairism proves we must keep our eyes on the prize (namely, better policies) — not on the party.

Jim Stanford is an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union.

"Ridiculous visa rulings" UK.

Seems that you are never allowed a first time to visit the UK! Even wierder is the denial of a visa because the trip was only for sightseeing!

'Ridiculous' visa rulings set out

Ignorance of UK sites was a disadvantage
UK tourist visas are often denied to would-be visitors because they "plan a holiday for no particular purpose other than sightseeing", a report says.
Others were turned down because they had never previously taken any foreign travel or could not speak English.

The "ridiculous reasons" for rejecting visas were set out in a report by the independent monitor of UK visas.

Linda Costelloe Baker's report said that despite such flaws there had been "significant improvement in quality."

But she said entry clearance officers could use "some ridiculous reasons when refusing visa for tourist visits".

She said a common reason for refusal was "you wish to go to the UK for a holiday. You have never previously undertaken any foreign travel before and I can see little reason for this trip".

EXAMPLES OF NON-PLAIN ENGLISH USED BY STAFF
The provenance of the funds depicted is not evidenced allied to other financial commitments
You have failed to complete pivotal areas of Section 6
I can only assess your mutual knowledge in a subjective context
Source: Independent Monitor

In her report she says "this is a common reason for refusal but there was a first time for everyone who has gone abroad on a holiday and not having done it before is an acceptable reason for travel".

Another reason to reject a tourist visa was "you plan a holiday for no particular purpose other than sightseeing".

On the use of that reason, she says: "But that's what the UK is famous for, sights worth seeing."

'Live like a housewife'

She said the numbers of British people "going on their hols" would be cut if other countries emulated the UKvisas officials who rejected a tourist visa request because the applicant did not have a "sufficient command of the language for the purposes of tourism".

She also highlights the case of a person whose request was rejected by an officer because they had "little or no idea what you plan to see or do".

This was, she discloses, because the person had answered the question on a form asking why they were going to the UK, with the words "annual leave vacation".

That was a "perfectly sensible response", Mrs Costelloe Baker said.

Another woman was criticised for not researching the UK's background when she said she wanted to spend her four-month visit to her fiance to "just live as a housewife".

"I suspect being a housewife for four months was all she wanted to do and the Immigration Rules allow that," Mrs Costelloe Baker said.

She said it was "a little naive to worry about a list of tourist sights" being outlined if applicants wanted to visit close friends.

An applicant in St Petersburg wrote: "I just want a holiday, my friends live near the seaside" to which the officer wrote "you have not named any places you will see".

Mrs Costelloe Baker said this was not the case - the applicant had named the "seaside".

'Plain English please!'

In one case, a man was refused a visa because the officer thought it not credible that he was going to stay in a hotel in Cirencester "far from [his] friends in Surrey and Kent".

The hotel was in fact in London and the man had told the officer that he had not wanted to put a burden on his friends for his entire 28-day visit.

Mrs Costelloe Baker said the man had been offered another application free of charge and she hoped he would get an apology as well.

She also said there had been improvement in the language used to explain refusals to applicants since the "very strange wordings" seen during her previous assessment.

But she still called for "plain English please!"

The report covers the first nine months of 2006, which had been a very busy period for UKvisas.

Mrs Costelloe Baker concluded that overall "there has been a significant improvement in the quality of UKvisas work compared with 2005 and I have found that refusal notices are more consistent and less idiosyncratic".