The dollar has fallen after the jobs data, helping the pound up 0.5% at $1.3082.

Two minutes until the opening bell on Wall Street.

Here is our full story on the US jobs report from the Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliott:

US futures rose briefly when the US payrolls figure came in lower than expected but have since dipped back into the red.

Bond yields also fell briefly but are now rising again. The yield on 30-year US government bonds has hit a fresh four-year high of 3.396%.

The dollar index - measuring the US currency against a basket of others - is flat at 95.75.

The US Labor department says the weaker-than-expected figures are partly explained by Hurricane Florence, which affected trade in bars, restaurants and hotels.

Hurricane Florence affected parts of the East Coast during the September reference periods for the establishment and household surveys.

Employment in leisure and hospitality was little changed over the month (-17,000). Prior to September, employment in the industry had been on a modest upward trend. Some of the weakness in this industry in September may reflect the impact of Hurricane Florence.

It’s US non-farm payrolls day, and investors await the figures as keenly as ever.

Economists polled by Reuters are predicting 185k for September, up from 204k last month.

Average earnings are expected to come in at 2.8%, a touch lower than last month’s 2.9%.

Rachel Reeves, Labour MP and chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee, makes the point that Unilever announced the plans to move its headquarters from London after fending off a takeover approach from America’s Kraft Heinz early last year:

Whatever the arguments made for incorporating into the Netherlands, there was a real suspicion that, in the wake of the hostile bid from Kraft Heinz, part of the motive for the move was that UK rules too easily allow takeovers.

As a committee, we will want to consider looking at the government’s white paper on foreign takeovers to see whether the new regime should include additional safeguards.

The business secretary, Greg Clark, gives his reaction to Unilever:

Interesting reference to the industrial strategy, which a year on from the announcement is still without the independent watchdog required to get it up and running:

Royal London Asset Management (which has 0.7% stake in Unilever, worth roughly £360m) was one of the public opponents to Unilever’s plans and has responded to the firm’s decision to scrap them:

We welcome the decision the board of Unilever has taken. They have listened to shareholder concerns and responded in a constructive way.

As a high quality company with a talented management team, we are pleased we and other UK investors can now share in the future growth of the company. We look forward to continued engagement with Unilever on the next steps.

Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, says Unilever’s decision to back track on plans to move its HQ to Rotterdam shows the power of institutional investors and puts pressure on the board.

Today’s climbdown from Unilever over a plan which would have necessitated its exit from the FTSE 100 is an example of the power institutional investors can wield when they act in concert with one another.

This brings into the question the credibility of Unilever’s insistence that the vast majority of shareholders were ‘fully supportive’ of its proposals ahead of the vote deadline in the UK and the Netherlands later this month.

Abandoning its dual UK-Dutch stock market listing and moving its HQ to Rotterdam would have made Unilever, one of the London market’s leading lights, ineligible for the FTSE and many institutions complained they would have been forced sellers of the shares.

The episode looks to have been badly mis-managed and the position of chief executive Paul Polman and the rest of the board is likely to come under severe scrutiny.

The Investment Association, a trade body representing UK fund managers, says there was no reason for UK shareholders to vote in favour of Unilever’s move to Rotterdam, and has welcomed the firm’s decision to scrap the plans.

The feedback from many of our members has been that there was no compelling reason for Plc shareholders to accept the proposed simplification in this form. They did not believe it would be in the long-term interests of their clients, and would have resulted in many shareholders being forced to sell their shares.

We welcome the fact that Unilever has listened to the feedback from their shareholders and not pushed ahead with their plans. We look forward to engaging with the company on their future plans.

The Dutch employers organisation VNO-NCW is blaming Brexit for Unilever’s decision:

The website DutchNews.nl quotes the organisation:

[We are sorry that] such an important decision has become swept up in the turbulent political developments in the UK.

It is also an indication of what Brexit means, a hard fight for corporate locations.

Unilever’s decision to keep its headquarters in London is a “huge blow” for the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and “a bit of a shocker.”

Reaction from the Netherlands:

As Unilever works out its “next steps”, it is not yet clear where the unravelled plans leave the company’s chairman and chief executive.

The decision to abandon the plans for a move to Rotterdam will be a major blow to Unilever’s chief executive, Paul Polman, and the wider board.

The plan was going to go to two polls - one in the Netherlands on 25 October, requiring the support of 50% of voting shareholders, and one in the UK on 26 October, requiring 75% support.

The London vote was always going to be the tricky one.

Unilever acknowledged the lack of support in their statement this morning:

We have had an extensive period of engagement with shareholders and have received widespread support for the principle behind simplification.

However, we recognise that the proposal has not received support from a significant group of shareholders and therefore consider it appropriate to withdraw.

Unions had also come out against Unilever’s planned move, arguing that it was vital for the maker of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and other companies to stay in the UK.

Unite national officer Rhys McCarthy said:

Investors understand the need for great British-based companies like Unilever to retain their headquarters in the UK.

The UK’s weak takeover rules which put short-termism ahead of the long term are clearly a major factor in Unilever’s proposed move following a failed hostile takeover bid, as is the swirling uncertainty around Brexit.

Ministers need to get a grip on Brexit and toughen takeover rules to stop more firms like Unilever seeking to flee overseas.

A raft of shareholders had publicly come out in opposition to Unilever’s plan to abandon its dual governance structure and switch its headquarters from London to Rotterdam.

UK investors including Aviva Investors, Columbia Threadneedle, L&G, M&G, Royal London and Schroders had all stated they would vote against the plans.

One of the main points of opposition was that Unilever would likely be ejected from the FTSE 100 - having been an original constituent in 1984 - and the FSTE All-share.