Can anyone explain what the Tory grassroots love so much about Boris?
Yes.
They're really so stupid they have fallen hook, line and sinker for his act.
Of course, the same can be said for Labour and Corbyn...
For anyone who says "But what about ... ?" as a matter of reflex, probably.
A good way of avoiding the substantive point. There are still many on the left, and even within the Labour Party, who worship the party's ex-leader. As we saw last night, people who are willing to defend Corbyn from the indefensible, even now.
The same is true of Boris. Some say Boris is like Trump; in reality, he is more like Corbyn than either would like to admit.
Truss is more the Corbyn, I think. About to be foisted as leader on the reluctant MPs by an extremist membership looking to make themselves feel good rather than thinking about what the job entails.
Big unfortunate difference - the party in question is in government.
Can anyone explain what the Tory grassroots love so much about Boris?
Yes.
They're really so stupid they have fallen hook, line and sinker for his act.
Of course, the same can be said for Labour and Corbyn...
For anyone who says "But what about ... ?" as a matter of reflex, probably.
A good way of avoiding the substantive point. There are still many on the left, and even within the Labour Party, who worship the party's ex-leader. As we saw last night, people who are willing to defend Corbyn from the indefensible, even now.
The same is true of Boris. Some say Boris is like Trump; in reality, he is more like Corbyn than either would like to admit.
Truss is more the Corbyn, I think. About to be foisted as leader on the reluctant MPs by an extremist membership looking to make themselves feel good rather than thinking about what the job entails.
Big unfortunate difference - the party in question is in government.
I am no Truss fan, but I don't think she is likely to always side with Britain's enemies like a rather low intellect sixth form gobshite. She is no Corbyn.
That question looks like it was commissioned by someone doing research in behavioural economics (or social psychology done badly, as I like to call it).
Can anyone explain what the Tory grassroots love so much about Boris?
Yes.
They're really so stupid they have fallen hook, line and sinker for his act.
Of course, the same can be said for Labour and Corbyn...
For anyone who says "But what about ... ?" as a matter of reflex, probably.
A good way of avoiding the substantive point. There are still many on the left, and even within the Labour Party, who worship the party's ex-leader. As we saw last night, people who are willing to defend Corbyn from the indefensible, even now.
The same is true of Boris. Some say Boris is like Trump; in reality, he is more like Corbyn than either would like to admit.
Truss is more the Corbyn, I think. About to be foisted as leader on the reluctant MPs by an extremist membership looking to make themselves feel good rather than thinking about what the job entails.
Big unfortunate difference - the party in question is in government.
The problem with that claim is that we're not sure what sort of government Truss will lead. I'm tempted to agree with you that it does not look positive, but she still has an opportunity to surprise on the upside.
Whereas we've had experience of Corbyn and Johnson's leaderships.
That question looks like it was commissioned by someone doing research in behavioural economics (or social psychology done badly, as I like to call it).
That's clever. I love surprising retakes of famous songs
I recently discovered this EXCELLENT reggae version of Ed Sheeran's Thinking Out Loud, by Sublime Reggae Kings. Perfect party-time summer music
You ever hear Dredd Zeppelin?
I have. But I already knew Lez Zep write superb songs which would surely make great covers
It was a total surprise to discover than underneath the Easy Listening, MOR, Gen Z acousto-whine of Ed Sheeran, there is actually some technically good songwriting
Can anyone explain what the Tory grassroots love so much about Boris?
Yes.
They're really so stupid they have fallen hook, line and sinker for his act.
Of course, the same can be said for Labour and Corbyn...
For anyone who says "But what about ... ?" as a matter of reflex, probably.
A good way of avoiding the substantive point. There are still many on the left, and even within the Labour Party, who worship the party's ex-leader. As we saw last night, people who are willing to defend Corbyn from the indefensible, even now.
The same is true of Boris. Some say Boris is like Trump; in reality, he is more like Corbyn than either would like to admit.
Truss is more the Corbyn, I think. About to be foisted as leader on the reluctant MPs by an extremist membership looking to make themselves feel good rather than thinking about what the job entails.
Big unfortunate difference - the party in question is in government.
I am no Truss fan, but I don't think she is likely to always side with Britain's enemies like a rather low intellect sixth form gobshite. She is no Corbyn.
No, I didn't mean a literal clone - Truss will do her own specious "gobshite" as we are seeing.
Am actually dancing around my flat now. Please ignore me for ~30 minutes
If that's to do with my music question, then my work here is done. A tiny bit of joy added into someone's world.
If it's not to do with my music question, then I'm joining in while listening to Army of Lovers' song 'Crucified'. Whose original video was rather erotic for a 17 year-old me...
Except I'm in our study, and Mrs J is on a conference call. So I've got headphones on, and am jigging around whilst hoping she doesn't have her PC's camera on...
On the subject of abortion, and Kansas, there are a couple of interesting conclusions:
1. Abortion choice supporters aren't simply low motivation Dems. If they were, they would have voted in the Dem primaries yesterday.
2. On the other hand, they are willing to go out and vote. "No" got comfortably more votes (in absolute terms) that the winning Gubernatorial candidate last time around. Which is absolutely astonishing, considering this was just primary day, and not November.
3. If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit... But will they benefit, if it is explicitly in the hands of elected representatives, and that means voting Democrat?
4. It has long been argued that anti abortion group is the more motivated one. I think that assumption is now looking incorrect.
5. It has also been argued that "do you think of yourself as pro Choice or pro life?" is a good proxy for support. That has turned out not to be the case.
6. The Kansas referendum was not framed (by those supporting the amendment) as a ban on abortions, only as allowing the State legislature to make abortion law. The residents of Kansas have voted (overwhelmingly) to not restrict abortion access further. Or perhaps, they considered the risk of a total ban as being too great.
Only a limited number of states have ballot propositions. But there are some where abortion is basically illegal (like Idaho), where it is possible, and where attitudes are generally pro legalized abortion.
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
For the really crazy bit. Crazier than “aliens are my hamster”
According to refugees from SF in the IT line I have met in London, one bonus of moving to London is less insane property prices.
Yes, I typed that right…
That is, if you are in IT on 6 figures, London is cheaper than SF - at least in terms of commutable stuff.
I was talking to one guy, He’s looking at Hemel Hempstead and a house for 800k…..
If Americans are thinking of commuting to Central London by car, they might be disappointed.
Southend United have found themselves the subject of mockery after the renaming of one of their stands resulted in an unfortunate name check of notorious serial killer Rose West.
New sponsors Gilbert & Rose estate agents have given their name to the West stand at Roots Hall stadium.
It is common for naming rights for stadium stands to be sold to companies, and it is an important source of revenue, particularly for lower league clubs.
But it appears that the National League side did not foresee the issues that might arise from naming a stand the "Gilbert & Rose West Stand".
Southend United have found themselves the subject of mockery after the renaming of one of their stands resulted in an unfortunate name check of notorious serial killer Rose West.
New sponsors Gilbert & Rose estate agents have given their name to the West stand at Roots Hall stadium.
It is common for naming rights for stadium stands to be sold to companies, and it is an important source of revenue, particularly for lower league clubs.
But it appears that the National League side did not foresee the issues that might arise from naming a stand the "Gilbert & Rose West Stand".
Southend United have found themselves the subject of mockery after the renaming of one of their stands resulted in an unfortunate name check of notorious serial killer Rose West.
New sponsors Gilbert & Rose estate agents have given their name to the West stand at Roots Hall stadium.
It is common for naming rights for stadium stands to be sold to companies, and it is an important source of revenue, particularly for lower league clubs.
But it appears that the National League side did not foresee the issues that might arise from naming a stand the "Gilbert & Rose West Stand".
Astonishing nonsense. We need some kind of public office of bullshitting detection.
I think the government has an official statistician who has reprimanded the government for misusing statistics. I expect they've just uttered a weary sigh as they realise the effort they will have to go to writing a letter to Khan to correct his nonsense.
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
For the really crazy bit. Crazier than “aliens are my hamster”
According to refugees from SF in the IT line I have met in London, one bonus of moving to London is less insane property prices.
Yes, I typed that right…
That is, if you are in IT on 6 figures, London is cheaper than SF - at least in terms of commutable stuff.
I was talking to one guy, He’s looking at Hemel Hempstead and a house for 800k…..
If Americans are thinking of commuting to Central London by car, they might be disappointed.
Americans know about trains - it’s just they are rather rarer there.
The Americans I’ve encountered moving here seem to do their research - lots of discussion about Tube (frequent, slow) vs Overground (less frequent, faster hence further) for choosing a property.
Sajid Javid has thrown his support behind Liz Truss to become the next Conservative leader, warning that Rishi Sunak’s economic plans would lead Britain “sleepwalking into a high-tax, low-growth” economy.
In an attack on his friend, Javid suggested that Sunak’s refusal to cut taxes risked Britain becoming a “middle-income economy” with a loss of “global influence and power”.
In an article for The Times he pointedly added that Truss had the “willingness to challenge the status quo” warning there were “no risk-free options in government”.
Southend United have found themselves the subject of mockery after the renaming of one of their stands resulted in an unfortunate name check of notorious serial killer Rose West.
New sponsors Gilbert & Rose estate agents have given their name to the West stand at Roots Hall stadium.
It is common for naming rights for stadium stands to be sold to companies, and it is an important source of revenue, particularly for lower league clubs.
But it appears that the National League side did not foresee the issues that might arise from naming a stand the "Gilbert & Rose West Stand".
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
Achieved, in part by methodically evicting the people who lived there and replacing them with richer, more middle class people.
I lived in the area in the early 90s. Lot less er… heavy sun tans in the area now.
Southend United have found themselves the subject of mockery after the renaming of one of their stands resulted in an unfortunate name check of notorious serial killer Rose West.
New sponsors Gilbert & Rose estate agents have given their name to the West stand at Roots Hall stadium.
It is common for naming rights for stadium stands to be sold to companies, and it is an important source of revenue, particularly for lower league clubs.
But it appears that the National League side did not foresee the issues that might arise from naming a stand the "Gilbert & Rose West Stand".
Sajid Javid has thrown his support behind Liz Truss to become the next Conservative leader, warning that Rishi Sunak’s economic plans would lead Britain “sleepwalking into a high-tax, low-growth” economy.
In an attack on his friend, Javid suggested that Sunak’s refusal to cut taxes risked Britain becoming a “middle-income economy” with a loss of “global influence and power”.
In an article for The Times he pointedly added that Truss had the “willingness to challenge the status quo” warning there were “no risk-free options in government”.
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
Mate, I know!
I used to go score heroin there, around 1999 - so we might easily have crossed paths! I skipped the £5 hookers
It is the most extraordinary transformation in any city in the world, perhaps
New York has been hugely gentrified. Hudson Yards etc. But nothing so central and so dramatic as King's X, as far as I know. Hudson Yards is more like Canary Wharf
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
I remember that! Went to see someone in that office a few years earlier, perhaps 1992-3, when it was still very new. I did wince when I turned out of KX and saw the ambience of that street, and I was glad to be getting back to the train while it was still daylight.
Southend United have found themselves the subject of mockery after the renaming of one of their stands resulted in an unfortunate name check of notorious serial killer Rose West.
New sponsors Gilbert & Rose estate agents have given their name to the West stand at Roots Hall stadium.
It is common for naming rights for stadium stands to be sold to companies, and it is an important source of revenue, particularly for lower league clubs.
But it appears that the National League side did not foresee the issues that might arise from naming a stand the "Gilbert & Rose West Stand".
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
I knew it in the early 1990s. Memories include trying to go and see a gf in North London, and stupidly getting on a Cambridge non-stopper (the staff were brilliant and did not charge me any extra fare; they got me on the correct train back, and the only cost was a peeved gf). Going on a Monopoly board pub crawl, and going into the divingish-dive where some bored-looking strippers were performing for a couple of bemused-looking tourists. Walking the Regents Canal behind the station in agony, but loving every step. The dinghy narrow low-level platforms. Getting a greasy kebab from a van that must have failed every food-standards law made on out way to someone's digs at ULU. walking down a road, and encountering waves of prostitutes and tourists - and sometimes, perhaps, both. Lots of homeless people.
I wish I'd made more of those years. They were brilliant, for me at least.
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
I knew it in the early 1990s. Memories include trying to go and see a gf in North London, and stupidly getting on a Cambridge non-stopper (the staff were brilliant and did not charge me any extra fare; they got me on the correct train back, and the only cost was a peeved gf). Going on a Monopoly board pub crawl, and going into the divingish-dive where some bored-looking strippers were performing for a couple of bemused-looking tourists. Walking the Regents Canal behind the station in agony, but loving every step. The dinghy narrow low-level platforms. Getting a greasy kebab from a van that must have failed every food-standards law made on out way to someone's digs at ULU. walking down a road, and encountering waves of prostitutes and tourists - and sometimes, perhaps, both. Lots of homeless people.
I wish I'd made more of those years. They were brilliant, for me at least.
To be young again...
As someone once said, youth is wasted on the young,
Sajid Javid has thrown his support behind Liz Truss to become the next Conservative leader, warning that Rishi Sunak’s economic plans would lead Britain “sleepwalking into a high-tax, low-growth” economy.
In an attack on his friend, Javid suggested that Sunak’s refusal to cut taxes risked Britain becoming a “middle-income economy” with a loss of “global influence and power”.
In an article for The Times he pointedly added that Truss had the “willingness to challenge the status quo” warning there were “no risk-free options in government”.
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
Mate, I know!
I used to go score heroin there, around 1999 - so we might easily have crossed paths! I skipped the £5 hookers
It is the most extraordinary transformation in any city in the world, perhaps
New York has been hugely gentrified. Hudson Yards etc. But nothing so central and so dramatic as King's X, as far as I know. Hudson Yards is more like Canary Wharf
I used to go looking for.... other things. All kinds of exciting crud-encrusted streets and alleyways.
On the subject of abortion, and Kansas, there are a couple of interesting conclusions:
1. Abortion choice supporters aren't simply low motivation Dems. If they were, they would have voted in the Dem primaries yesterday.
2. On the other hand, they are willing to go out and vote. "No" got comfortably more votes (in absolute terms) that the winning Gubernatorial candidate last time around. Which is absolutely astonishing, considering this was just primary day, and not November.
3. If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit... But will they benefit, if it is explicitly in the hands of elected representatives, and that means voting Democrat?
4. It has long been argued that anti abortion group is the more motivated one. I think that assumption is now looking incorrect.
5. It has also been argued that "do you think of yourself as pro Choice or pro life?" is a good proxy for support. That has turned out not to be the case.
6. The Kansas referendum was not framed (by those supporting the amendment) as a ban on abortions, only as allowing the State legislature to make abortion law. The residents of Kansas have voted (overwhelmingly) to not restrict abortion access further. Or perhaps, they considered the risk of a total ban as being too great.
Only a limited number of states have ballot propositions. But there are some where abortion is basically illegal (like Idaho), where it is possible, and where attitudes are generally pro legalized abortion.
This could be a very interesting November.
In most Southern states ballot initiatives are not legal, only legislative referrals. It is the South where opposition to abortion is highest so therefore it will be a key factor in governor and state legislature elections in November
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
I remember that! Went to see someone in that office a few years earlier, perhaps 1992-3, when it was still very new. I did wince when I turned out of KX and saw the ambience of that street, and I was glad to be getting back to the train while it was still daylight.
In those days there was a ramp off the end of platform 1 out onto York Road. So you could exit the station, cross the street and be into the Nature building inside 30 seconds. Barely time to wave at Clive Sinclair in his penthouse...
On the subject of abortion, and Kansas, there are a couple of interesting conclusions:
1. Abortion choice supporters aren't simply low motivation Dems. If they were, they would have voted in the Dem primaries yesterday.
2. On the other hand, they are willing to go out and vote. "No" got comfortably more votes (in absolute terms) that the winning Gubernatorial candidate last time around. Which is absolutely astonishing, considering this was just primary day, and not November.
3. If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit... But will they benefit, if it is explicitly in the hands of elected representatives, and that means voting Democrat?
4. It has long been argued that anti abortion group is the more motivated one. I think that assumption is now looking incorrect.
5. It has also been argued that "do you think of yourself as pro Choice or pro life?" is a good proxy for support. That has turned out not to be the case.
6. The Kansas referendum was not framed (by those supporting the amendment) as a ban on abortions, only as allowing the State legislature to make abortion law. The residents of Kansas have voted (overwhelmingly) to not restrict abortion access further. Or perhaps, they considered the risk of a total ban as being too great.
Only a limited number of states have ballot propositions. But there are some where abortion is basically illegal (like Idaho), where it is possible, and where attitudes are generally pro legalized abortion.
This could be a very interesting November.
In most Southern states ballot initiatives are not legal, only legislative referrals. It is the South where opposition to abortion is highest so therefore it will be a key factor in governor and state legislature elections in November
Dude: only eight states have higher "pro Life" percentages than Kansas. And they voted by 18 points to keep abortion legal.
Astonishing nonsense. We need some kind of public office of bullshitting detection.
I think the government has an official statistician who has reprimanded the government for misusing statistics. I expect they've just uttered a weary sigh as they realise the effort they will have to go to writing a letter to Khan to correct his nonsense.
It's called the "Office for National Statistics". Understandable that even people interested [?] in politics are still a bit hazy about it, as it's been in existence for only 26 years ...
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
I knew it in the early 1990s. Memories include trying to go and see a gf in North London, and stupidly getting on a Cambridge non-stopper (the staff were brilliant and did not charge me any extra fare; they got me on the correct train back, and the only cost was a peeved gf). Going on a Monopoly board pub crawl, and going into the divingish-dive where some bored-looking strippers were performing for a couple of bemused-looking tourists. Walking the Regents Canal behind the station in agony, but loving every step. The dinghy narrow low-level platforms. Getting a greasy kebab from a van that must have failed every food-standards law made on out way to someone's digs at ULU. walking down a road, and encountering waves of prostitutes and tourists - and sometimes, perhaps, both. Lots of homeless people.
I wish I'd made more of those years. They were brilliant, for me at least.
To be young again...
Trains and a peeved gf? I hooked back up with an ex whilst I was still in London. We went to a comedy club, went back to hers, had creative sex then slept. Following morning I was awoken to a Class 37 chugging at a red signal practically outside her bedroom window (which was a winner btw in rail enthusiast speak). Which then prompted more sex.
Used to spend a lot of time round King's Cross late eighties. Living in Bloomsbury, at the Scala 3 or 4 nights a week when it was an arty movie theatre. Kebab Machine. Drunks, addicts, homeless and prostitutes. Sometimes all 4 in the same incarnation. You could buy any of tomorrow's newspapers after around 10 pm or so. The fire. Happy days.
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
I remember that! Went to see someone in that office a few years earlier, perhaps 1992-3, when it was still very new. I did wince when I turned out of KX and saw the ambience of that street, and I was glad to be getting back to the train while it was still daylight.
In those days there was a ramp off the end of platform 1 out onto York Road. So you could exit the station, cross the street and be into the Nature building inside 30 seconds. Barely time to wave at Clive Sinclair in his penthouse...
I need to go back and explore the KX/StP area properly when I next visit my Camden friend; so much change there, including StP itself which was still very much its original state when I knew it, as described in Jack Simmons's history; didn't have time to more than pay homage to Hardy at the eponymous church, and to register the degree of change when passing through it in recent years, which needed a new edition of the history.
On the subject of abortion, and Kansas, there are a couple of interesting conclusions:
1. Abortion choice supporters aren't simply low motivation Dems. If they were, they would have voted in the Dem primaries yesterday.
2. On the other hand, they are willing to go out and vote. "No" got comfortably more votes (in absolute terms) that the winning Gubernatorial candidate last time around. Which is absolutely astonishing, considering this was just primary day, and not November.
3. If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit... But will they benefit, if it is explicitly in the hands of elected representatives, and that means voting Democrat?
4. It has long been argued that anti abortion group is the more motivated one. I think that assumption is now looking incorrect.
5. It has also been argued that "do you think of yourself as pro Choice or pro life?" is a good proxy for support. That has turned out not to be the case.
6. The Kansas referendum was not framed (by those supporting the amendment) as a ban on abortions, only as allowing the State legislature to make abortion law. The residents of Kansas have voted (overwhelmingly) to not restrict abortion access further. Or perhaps, they considered the risk of a total ban as being too great.
Only a limited number of states have ballot propositions. But there are some where abortion is basically illegal (like Idaho), where it is possible, and where attitudes are generally pro legalized abortion.
This could be a very interesting November.
Most of your points make good sense. However, note that Kansas party primaries are closed, that is limited to voters who publicly declare affiliation, either in advance or - if previously unaffiliated - on primary day. So unaffiliated voters could NOT vote in either party primary yesterday BUT they could and DID vote on the anti-abortion referendum.
My point is, blanket statement that, "If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit" is NOT correct, certainly not in all cases. For example, a ballot measure on abortion might well have a significant impact on turnout in a GENERAL election, or in primaries in open primary states.
There must be some massive market for superhero and comic book films - which are essentially all the same - that just totally passes me by.
It seems dozens are released a year, and they must be popular, yet I haven't seen a single one and have no intention to.
Some are really good escapism. Thor: Love and Thunder was brilliant. Utter tosh, but brilliant utter tosh. Exactly the sort of entertainment you want to go to a cinema to see.
Boris draws level with Mrs May in 5 hours 21 minutes. The bodger is going to outserve her. The ghost of Big Jim has 18 days to haunt Rishi into quitting or he will be the final former PM overtaken. Of those serving less than five years, he will be behind Addington, Portland, Derby, Grey, Balfour and Heath.
Interesting titbits of the day - no PM has served between 4 and 5 years (so nobody serving one full term and going a few weeks early) and only two between five and six years - Lloyd George and Peel
On the subject of abortion, and Kansas, there are a couple of interesting conclusions:
1. Abortion choice supporters aren't simply low motivation Dems. If they were, they would have voted in the Dem primaries yesterday.
2. On the other hand, they are willing to go out and vote. "No" got comfortably more votes (in absolute terms) that the winning Gubernatorial candidate last time around. Which is absolutely astonishing, considering this was just primary day, and not November.
3. If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit... But will they benefit, if it is explicitly in the hands of elected representatives, and that means voting Democrat?
4. It has long been argued that anti abortion group is the more motivated one. I think that assumption is now looking incorrect.
5. It has also been argued that "do you think of yourself as pro Choice or pro life?" is a good proxy for support. That has turned out not to be the case.
6. The Kansas referendum was not framed (by those supporting the amendment) as a ban on abortions, only as allowing the State legislature to make abortion law. The residents of Kansas have voted (overwhelmingly) to not restrict abortion access further. Or perhaps, they considered the risk of a total ban as being too great.
Only a limited number of states have ballot propositions. But there are some where abortion is basically illegal (like Idaho), where it is possible, and where attitudes are generally pro legalized abortion.
This could be a very interesting November.
In most Southern states ballot initiatives are not legal, only legislative referrals. It is the South where opposition to abortion is highest so therefore it will be a key factor in governor and state legislature elections in November
Dude: only eight states have higher "pro Life" percentages than Kansas. And they voted by 18 points to keep abortion legal.
Went down an internet rabbit hole which I regret last night over the Battersbee case. I had no idea how utterly psychotically horrible American Christians (who are, you guessed, supporting the parents there) actually are.
On the subject of abortion, and Kansas, there are a couple of interesting conclusions:
1. Abortion choice supporters aren't simply low motivation Dems. If they were, they would have voted in the Dem primaries yesterday.
2. On the other hand, they are willing to go out and vote. "No" got comfortably more votes (in absolute terms) that the winning Gubernatorial candidate last time around. Which is absolutely astonishing, considering this was just primary day, and not November.
3. If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit... But will they benefit, if it is explicitly in the hands of elected representatives, and that means voting Democrat?
4. It has long been argued that anti abortion group is the more motivated one. I think that assumption is now looking incorrect.
5. It has also been argued that "do you think of yourself as pro Choice or pro life?" is a good proxy for support. That has turned out not to be the case.
6. The Kansas referendum was not framed (by those supporting the amendment) as a ban on abortions, only as allowing the State legislature to make abortion law. The residents of Kansas have voted (overwhelmingly) to not restrict abortion access further. Or perhaps, they considered the risk of a total ban as being too great.
Only a limited number of states have ballot propositions. But there are some where abortion is basically illegal (like Idaho), where it is possible, and where attitudes are generally pro legalized abortion.
This could be a very interesting November.
In most Southern states ballot initiatives are not legal, only legislative referrals. It is the South where opposition to abortion is highest so therefore it will be a key factor in governor and state legislature elections in November
Dude: only eight states have higher "pro Life" percentages than Kansas. And they voted by 18 points to keep abortion legal.
14 states have higher percentages saying abortion should be mostly illegal than Kansas actually.
Even if only 1 or 2 of them made abortion mostly illegal that would still be a victory for pro life activists compared to the era of Roe v Wade when abortion was legal across the US
Nick Clegg joins clique of Meta bosses switching to London
https:/Yes, is back, part time…
Clegg is back, and London is back!
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
FPT
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a truly great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
NYC makes sense for a lot of reasons despite the crime (and it's nowhere near as bad as SF) it's got the 2pm-6pm crossover with London, there's already quite a few companies in the area, it's bigger and better connected than SF (which means people have the option of living in NJ and commuting in) and it's only 7h on a cheap business class flight from London for business meetings. For tech startups there's also a fuckton of potential clients on the doorstep in NYC because there's so many financial services companies looking to cut costs. The City is one of the reasons tech has thrived in London, its clients and financing for startups.
NYC is unquestionably a magnificent city (as I said in my earlier comment), but so is London. And the downsides of NYC - crime, racial tension, MAGA-Trump, divided country, healthcare, opiates, guns - now seem to me to outweigh the downsides of London: weather, greyness, grotty areas
Both are English-speaking world cities with glorious culture, London has more history, New York City has that skyline
The proximity of the rest of Europe might be the clincher for me, if I was a highly paid tech exec. And where do you want your kids to grow up? Safely?
But of course I am biased
I think we will see more American execs choosing London on a quasi-WFH basis. It will be a complex and remarkable irony if post-Brexit London ascends to world capital status (again?)..... because it is in Europe
Yes, that's why I think London is a good shout for operational and potentially tax HQ. My point on NYC is more in relation to having the sales function for NA run out of there rather than SF because it has significantly better crossover with London and it's only a 7h flight for when seniors and execs need face to face meetings.
The London/NYC split works brilliantly for financial services, it being replicated for tech would be no surprise.
The last piece of the puzzle is higher risk funds in London willing to invest hundreds of millions for series D onwards.
Yes, I concur
Finance/sales stuff might stay in NYC but a lot of intellectual/HQ heft will move to London
Add in the boost from Hong Kong and - perhaps unexpectedly - London could really thrive in the next decade
I wonder if this is what I sensed in King's X yesterday. Essentially they are - wittingly or not - creating a Silicon Valley in an amazing new London neighborhood, but with added universities and science institutes and art galleries and biochemistry labs and the British Library and the rest, and all of it 300m from St Pancras and the eurostar, and half an hour from Heathrow via the Liz Line, with Shoreditch and the Silicon roundabout just down the road
It is completely unique. London - esp King's X - has the chance to be THE tech hub for the world, or at least the western world
If I was the head of Instagram, I'd move from California to King's Cross (never thought I'd write that). Just to see
Kings Cross? Would you like to know about living there in the before times? Of COURSE you would...
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
I knew it in the early 1990s. Memories include trying to go and see a gf in North London, and stupidly getting on a Cambridge non-stopper (the staff were brilliant and did not charge me any extra fare; they got me on the correct train back, and the only cost was a peeved gf). Going on a Monopoly board pub crawl, and going into the divingish-dive where some bored-looking strippers were performing for a couple of bemused-looking tourists. Walking the Regents Canal behind the station in agony, but loving every step. The dinghy narrow low-level platforms. Getting a greasy kebab from a van that must have failed every food-standards law made on out way to someone's digs at ULU. walking down a road, and encountering waves of prostitutes and tourists - and sometimes, perhaps, both. Lots of homeless people.
I wish I'd made more of those years. They were brilliant, for me at least.
To be young again...
My main memory of Ye Olde Kings Cross is being taken by Antipodian team mates to Church at Bagley's Studio at the old freight depot off York Way. Sawdust on the floor, cheap drinks and the games were quite amusing - M/F clothes swapping being a favourite. There were also strippers. All on all a fantastic Sunday afternoon.
On the subject of abortion, and Kansas, there are a couple of interesting conclusions:
1. Abortion choice supporters aren't simply low motivation Dems. If they were, they would have voted in the Dem primaries yesterday.
2. On the other hand, they are willing to go out and vote. "No" got comfortably more votes (in absolute terms) that the winning Gubernatorial candidate last time around. Which is absolutely astonishing, considering this was just primary day, and not November.
3. If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit... But will they benefit, if it is explicitly in the hands of elected representatives, and that means voting Democrat?
4. It has long been argued that anti abortion group is the more motivated one. I think that assumption is now looking incorrect.
5. It has also been argued that "do you think of yourself as pro Choice or pro life?" is a good proxy for support. That has turned out not to be the case.
6. The Kansas referendum was not framed (by those supporting the amendment) as a ban on abortions, only as allowing the State legislature to make abortion law. The residents of Kansas have voted (overwhelmingly) to not restrict abortion access further. Or perhaps, they considered the risk of a total ban as being too great.
Only a limited number of states have ballot propositions. But there are some where abortion is basically illegal (like Idaho), where it is possible, and where attitudes are generally pro legalized abortion.
This could be a very interesting November.
In most Southern states ballot initiatives are not legal, only legislative referrals. It is the South where opposition to abortion is highest so therefore it will be a key factor in governor and state legislature elections in November
Dude: only eight states have higher "pro Life" percentages than Kansas. And they voted by 18 points to keep abortion legal.
Went down an internet rabbit hole which I regret last night over the Battersbee case. I had no idea how utterly psychotically horrible American Christians (who are, you guessed, supporting the parents there) actually are.
Depends which Christians, there is a huge difference in their view of social issues between an American Episcopalian and a Southern Baptist for example
Comments
Check out Rodrigo Y Gabriela, the Showhawk Duo, or Willy Porter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDS3hAFQuS8
Used in the Deadpool soundtrack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGx6K90TmCI
Big unfortunate difference - the party in question is in government.
* Zion Gate - Horace Andy
* Zig Zag Wanderer - Captain Beefheart
@MayorofLondon
NEW: As a result of our junk food advertising ban on @TfL, nearly 100,000 cases of obesity have been prevented since 2019.
It’s expected to save the NHS over £200 million. An incredible result.
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/1554464060732735488
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOotCVMFncE
I recently discovered this EXCELLENT reggae version of Ed Sheeran's Thinking Out Loud, by Sublime Reggae Kings. Perfect party-time summer music
And yet I hate Ed Sheeran!
It made me re-evaluate him. A bit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f173FtJiFgo
Whereas we've had experience of Corbyn and Johnson's leaderships.
Try (re)listening to the album 999. That's an album.
We need some kind of public office of bullshitting detection.
Betfair next prime minister
1.08 Liz Truss 93%
11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%
Next Conservative leader
1.08 Liz Truss 93%
10 Rishi Sunak 10%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCiWTRg-itY
They do the Imperial March for a start. Anyway, here they are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyOxvrdj_Jw
It was a total surprise to discover than underneath the Easy Listening, MOR, Gen Z acousto-whine of Ed Sheeran, there is actually some technically good songwriting
If it's not to do with my music question, then I'm joining in while listening to Army of Lovers' song 'Crucified'. Whose original video was rather erotic for a 17 year-old me...
Except I'm in our study, and Mrs J is on a conference call. So I've got headphones on, and am jigging around whilst hoping she doesn't have her PC's camera on...
Edit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di18hTFTwIw
A band that featured a gay man, a transvestite, and an alleged lover of the King of Sweden.
My goodness, La Camilla in that Bo-Peep dress...
On the subject of abortion, and Kansas, there are a couple of interesting conclusions:
1. Abortion choice supporters aren't simply low motivation Dems. If they were, they would have voted in the Dem primaries yesterday.
2. On the other hand, they are willing to go out and vote. "No" got comfortably more votes (in absolute terms) that the winning Gubernatorial candidate last time around. Which is absolutely astonishing, considering this was just primary day, and not November.
3. If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit... But will they benefit, if it is explicitly in the hands of elected representatives, and that means voting Democrat?
4. It has long been argued that anti abortion group is the more motivated one. I think that assumption is now looking incorrect.
5. It has also been argued that "do you think of yourself as pro Choice or pro life?" is a good proxy for support. That has turned out not to be the case.
6. The Kansas referendum was not framed (by those supporting the amendment) as a ban on abortions, only as allowing the State legislature to make abortion law. The residents of Kansas have voted (overwhelmingly) to not restrict abortion access further. Or perhaps, they considered the risk of a total ban as being too great.
Only a limited number of states have ballot propositions. But there are some where abortion is basically illegal (like Idaho), where it is possible, and where attitudes are generally pro legalized abortion.
This could be a very interesting November.
Southend United have found themselves the subject of mockery after the renaming of one of their stands resulted in an unfortunate name check of notorious serial killer Rose West.
New sponsors Gilbert & Rose estate agents have given their name to the West stand at Roots Hall stadium.
It is common for naming rights for stadium stands to be sold to companies, and it is an important source of revenue, particularly for lower league clubs.
But it appears that the National League side did not foresee the issues that might arise from naming a stand the "Gilbert & Rose West Stand".
https://news.sky.com/story/southend-united-to-hold-talks-with-sponsor-over-gilbert-and-rose-west-stand-12664861
I moved to that London in July 1999. I had graduated with a Journalism Degree in summer 1998 already working in radio on various short term contracts. By late spring 1999 there was a gap, and I was a bit fed up with the GF I was living with. So moved to London to find a job.
Which I did in 7 working days. Literally. Arrived Sunday. Agency interviews Monday, job interviews later that week, a 2nd interview the following Monday and started working for Nature the science journal straight away.
Their office is on Crinan Street, the north end of KX station with the canal basin behind. So I rented a 1 bed mini bedsit at the top of Grays Inn Road and started work. Kings Cross at the time was home to only one thriving industry - hookers. I was propositioned at 8am one morning crossing the road by the station on the way to work! There was so little in the way of facilities in Kings Cross that the company had a free canteen for its employees - there literally being nothing available in the vicinity.
At the top of Crinan Street was a pub which had been an old canal warehouse - now demolished and the site of Guardian Newspapers building. And a wine bar on Balfe Street. Aside from the Flying Scotsman fight bar on Caledonian Road, that was it.
The transformation in 20 years is literally mindblowing.
The Americans I’ve encountered moving here seem to do their research - lots of discussion about Tube (frequent, slow) vs Overground (less frequent, faster hence further) for choosing a property.
Sajid Javid has thrown his support behind Liz Truss to become the next Conservative leader, warning that Rishi Sunak’s economic plans would lead Britain “sleepwalking into a high-tax, low-growth” economy.
In an attack on his friend, Javid suggested that Sunak’s refusal to cut taxes risked Britain becoming a “middle-income economy” with a loss of “global influence and power”.
In an article for The Times he pointedly added that Truss had the “willingness to challenge the status quo” warning there were “no risk-free options in government”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sajid-javid-liz-truss-tory-leadership-vgxcrxlrp
Which I would have willingly have sworn was impossible.
I lived in the area in the early 90s. Lot less er… heavy sun tans in the area now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPmHQb0pKSs
I used to go score heroin there, around 1999 - so we might easily have crossed paths! I skipped the £5 hookers
It is the most extraordinary transformation in any city in the world, perhaps
New York has been hugely gentrified. Hudson Yards etc. But nothing so central and so dramatic as King's X, as far as I know. Hudson Yards is more like Canary Wharf
AFP News Agency
@AFP
#BREAKING Azerbaijan says took control of several strategic heights in breakaway Karabakh: official
https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1554859544345513988
THE CURSE OF LEON
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
12 Rishi Sunak 8%
Next Conservative leader
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%
https://youtu.be/GAeWcYODMoQ
I wish I'd made more of those years. They were brilliant, for me at least.
To be young again...
It seems dozens are released a year, and they must be popular, yet I haven't seen a single one and have no intention to.
Where did my life go...?
The fire.
Happy days.
My point is, blanket statement that, "If abortion goes to ballot propositions, then the Dems don't really benefit" is NOT correct, certainly not in all cases. For example, a ballot measure on abortion might well have a significant impact on turnout in a GENERAL election, or in primaries in open primary states.
Slowly edging up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD_UtJeRwC0 (Telegraph)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULcLuRx__nI (Sun)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5X6gz_p3G8 (Mail)
and doubtless other places.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsUCRcK7QYc
Edit - Actually the second best.
This is the funniest moment in cinematic history, I needed oxygen in the cinema.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCNN2CnCAww
https://conservativehome.com/2022/08/03/conhomes-tory-leadership-election-survey-truss-58-per-cent-sunak-26-per-cent-12-per-cent-undecided/
Of those serving less than five years, he will be behind Addington, Portland, Derby, Grey, Balfour and Heath.
Interesting titbits of the day - no PM has served between 4 and 5 years (so nobody serving one full term and going a few weeks early) and only two between five and six years - Lloyd George and Peel
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
Even if only 1 or 2 of them made abortion mostly illegal that would still be a victory for pro life activists compared to the era of Roe v Wade when abortion was legal across the US