So, done the AdwCleaner stuff. Will attempt a system restore in a few minutes (doing another Malwarebytes quick scan now). Sure you're all bored by this, but don't worry, if it all works I'll soon be back to posting about the difference between thermal degradation and tyre erosion, as well as the exciting prospects for the Spanish Grand Prix.
The interesting question is whether the likely swingback from UKIP will be symmetrical. Obviously we can't be sure of the answer to that, but it seems to me that the motivations of at least some of the Con->UKIP switchers (gay marriage, frustration at Cameron being too much a traditional one-nation Conservative, and above all frustration with our EU membership) are likely to be quite different from the motivations driving those working-class former Labour voters towards UKIP. In addition the demographics are quite different: the former group probably older and with a substantial proportion of retired owner-occupiers, the latter more likely to be of working age, and self-employed or employed in not particularly high-paying jobs.
Now, obviously that is a big generalisation, but, inasmuch as there is any truth in it, it seems to me that there is at least a likelihood, and perhaps a strong possibility, that the drift back from UKIP to Labour will exhibit different characteristics compared with the drift back to the Tories. That is one reason why I am cautious about predictions based on current polling: there is a quite hefty chunk of UKIP vote-share in the current opinion polls, easily enough for any differential behaviour to have a big impact on the final result.
Agree with Richard N there - I also think that swingback from UKIP, if it happens, will display different characteristics in its different components, and potentially also in marginals vs safe seats. I think it's genuinely hard to predict. We should know more in a couple of months when people have digested anmd reacted to the Euros and Newark.
The current tranche of UKIP supporters that I'm meeting are mostly treating it fairly lightly, on an "I'm gonna give UKIP a spin and shake things up" basis - a bit like the "Snog" option in Marry/snog/avoid. But they're not often very engaged in politics either, so if the outcome is satisfyingly shock-horror from the establishment, they might decide to carry on snogging next year. It's quite important for the mainstream parties to get the tone right if UKIP do well - concerned and interested but no shrieks and panic.
I thought the Roman bank council result last night was quite interesting'.
UKIP exploded, nearly taking the seat, but the net effect was a small swing from lab to con....
An intriguing result from last night’s Roman Bank election result was the combined UKIP/CON tally of 82% - It would be fascinating to know where UKIP is drawing its support from, the LD’s derisory 2% is only part of the picture imho.
Someone told me the other day that only once in the 20th Century has the political party that spent the most money in a general election not won. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?
Just UK, I presume?
I would imagine this is skewed by the fact that businesses like to give money to whoever is expected to win. No point in wasting a donation on a party that will lose...
I would guess that - in 1992 - the Labour Party outspend the Conservatives. I don't know how good the numbers are for elections prior to the early 1980s.
I would guess that - in 1992 - the Labour Party outspend the Conservatives. I don't know how good the numbers are for elections prior to the early 1980s.
I presumed the "spent the most money and not won" reference was to the Tories in 2010...
The first of the monthly Retail Sales reports, The Visa Europe UK Consumer Expenditure Index compiled by Markit and based on aggregate spending on consumer Visa debit and credit cards, was published this morning.
The overall story is that retail sales grew in April at their strongest rate since 2010. I am not sure another_richard will welcome the news that sales growth was driven by "fashion, food and eating out", but even he, buoyed by the closing trade deficit, may have secretly bought a couple of pairs of yellow corduroys last month.
Paul Smith of Markit sets the narrative:
“April’s data pointed to a marked underlying improvement in consumer spending heading into mid-year, with the annual measure signalling the strongest increase in expenditure for four years. Although the timing of Easter played some role, growth was broad-based with spending volumes up for a whole host of goods and services including clothing, food, and recreational activities.”
“The picture is now one of consumers benefiting from a stronger economic climate. With confidence hitting record levels, unemployment at a five-year low and real wages starting to rise, all the signs are for growth to be sustained at a decent pace over the coming months.”
Headline findings:
• Year-on-year household spending increased at the strongest rate for four years in April (+2.9%), following a slight increase in March (+0.5%).
• Month-on-month expenditure was unchanged in April (+0.0%), following a strong rise in March (+1.4%).
• Quarterly spending figures signalled that underlying expenditure improved in April (+1.2%), and at a similar rate to that recorded in March (+1.1%).
• Non-seasonally adjusted year-on-year expenditure rose solidly through Online (+4.9%), Face-to-Face (+3.4%) and Mail/Telephone Order (+1.6%) categories in April.
================================================================= Visa Europe UK Consumer Expenditure Index April 2014 Summary Table ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2014 Apr Mar Feb Overall Spending Annual SA +2.9% +0.5% +0.3% Overall Spending 3m/3m SA -1.2% +1.1% -0.5% Overall Spending Monthly SA -0.0% +1.4% -0.3%
What I think has been happening is that UKIP originally just took the hard right vote off the Tories, but they're now gaining working-class protest votes all round. In marginals like mine with a large middle-class vote the effect is less evident, but it's certainly there. I'm not convinced that it's permanent, but we shall see.
The interesting question is whether the likely swingback from UKIP will be symmetrical. Obviously we can't be sure of the answer to that, but it seems to me that the motivations of at least some of the Con->UKIP switchers (gay marriage, frustration at Cameron being too much a traditional one-nation Conservative, and above all frustration with our EU membership) are likely to be quite different from the motivations driving those working-class former Labour voters towards UKIP. In addition the demographics are quite different: the former group probably older and with a substantial proportion of retired owner-occupiers, the latter more likely to be of working age, and self-employed or employed in not particularly high-paying jobs.
Now, obviously that is a big generalisation, but, inasmuch as there is any truth in it, it seems to me that there is at least a likelihood, and perhaps a strong possibility, that the drift back from UKIP to Labour will exhibit different characteristics compared with the drift back to the Tories. That is one reason why I am cautious about predictions based on current polling: there is a quite hefty chunk of UKIP vote-share in the current opinion polls, easily enough for any differential behaviour to have a big impact on the final result.
Successful political parties are coalitions of interests.
If UKIP can unite: (a) WWC negatively affected by immigration, income inequality, (b) older people worried about crime, social liberalism, (c) the generally Eurosceptic, and (d) the "I'm looking for a new kind of politics" bunch, then they potentially have enough of a coalition to - in the medium term - gain significant political power, potentially even achieving power on their own.
However, this coalition has not been tried before. And there are some very substantial tensions in there, which could lead to it breaking down. For example, were UKIP to gain power through a coalition, then they (just as the LibDems before) would find themselves losing the NOTA vote.
So, done the AdwCleaner stuff. Will attempt a system restore in a few minutes (doing another Malwarebytes quick scan now). Sure you're all bored by this, but don't worry, if it all works I'll soon be back to posting about the difference between thermal degradation and tyre erosion, as well as the exciting prospects for the Spanish Grand Prix.
Even as a perennial optimist for Labour, I obviously agree the Labour share and lead are down.
Nick, if you are around can I ask you a question which has been baffling me regarding Labour's policy suite and the absence of anything truly radical on housing.
There is clearly a housing crisis in this country. It is acute in London and the South-East because that is where everyone wants to live and not enough houses are being built. The solution is obviously to enable more homes to be built, of whatever tenure (LA, Private rental or owner occupier), by liberalising the planning laws on the outskirts of London (say outside London but within the M25)- i.e. by abolishing part of the green belt.
For the Conservatives such a policy would be electoral suicide- most of the seats in the area are Conservative and the Nimby vote would defenestrate the local MPs. However for Labour it seems to be relatively cost free- you do not actually loose seats but you earn the unending gratitude of the the younger generation unable to get on the housing ladder in the area (i.e. the S.E.) where the jobs are. Despite the latter point the Labour policy on housing seems tentative at best- the rent-capping policy will, like 'help to buy', simply distort the market. It does not address the fundamental structual issue and your target for the number of houses to be built nationally (200,000) is still under the number actually needed to keep pace with demand let alone make up for the shortfall (250,000).
I can think of only two reasons for Labour steering away from building on the S.E. greenbelt: 1. The fear that releasing land for building on the outskirts of London would in the long-term only create a pool of owner-occupying Conservative voters (and thus would outweigh any short-term gain) but this could be avoided by simply building LA/HA housing rather than private housing (which would still have the ultimate effect of reducing prices for private housing).
2. That such a policy would be seen to favour the South at the expense of the Northern cities. This may be closer to the truth but surely the objective of any political party is ultimately to make people happy and people will be happier if they can get housing where they can find a job! In addition I do not think that the second order political effect in the North would be that great - the effect is too indirect for voters to understand and in any case Labour is too entrenched in those areas.
In conclusion the Conservative opposition to building on the green belt seems rational but Labour's does not. I would be interested to know your thoughts.
The current tranche of UKIP supporters that I'm meeting are mostly treating it fairly lightly, on an "I'm gonna give UKIP a spin and shake things up" basis - a bit like the "Snog" option in Marry/snog/avoid.
I thought the Roman bank council result last night was quite interesting'.
UKIP exploded, nearly taking the seat, but the net effect was a small swing from lab to con....
An intriguing result from last night’s Roman Bank election result was the combined UKIP/CON tally of 82% - It would be fascinating to know where UKIP is drawing its support from, the LD’s derisory 2% is only part of the picture imho.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the LDs do in their London Heartlands.. Kingston looks as though its gone but other seats presumed safe up till now could be under threat if their vote just melts away. In Carshalton and Wallington Tom Brake is having to be wheeled out at every opportunity as he is more popular than the party but even he is getting polite knowing smiles from people on the doorstep. It all feels very strange out there..
Successful political parties are coalitions of interests.
Quite. on that topic, there's a good article by Douglas Carswell today in the telly on how the government's utterly contemptible and lunatic policy to let HMRC directly raid bank accounts risks bringing another huge swathe of voters into the anti-politics coalition.
Someone told me the other day that only once in the 20th Century has the political party that spent the most money in a general election not won. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?
Just UK, I presume?
I would imagine this is skewed by the fact that businesses like to give money to whoever is expected to win. No point in wasting a donation on a party that will lose...
I would guess that - in 1992 - the Labour Party outspend the Conservatives. I don't know how good the numbers are for elections prior to the early 1980s.
Can anyone get the data? Would be interesting to see. There may also be a correlation of successful parties attract money and votes independently.
Even considering that, it is also concerning given increased inequality. The very wealthy will get more and more control of our democracy. We need strict limits on how much anyone can donate.
Only had P1 so far, but smidgens of info have emerged. Perhaps most interesting was that Hamilton reported high tyre degradation on the hard compound (hard/medium this weekend). This may especially hamper Williams/Ferrari, although Ben Edwards (commentator) reckoned that the Ferrari should be softer on its tyres than previous races (and last year, when Alonso had a 4 stop victory).
Mercedes, hottest races out of the way, have tightened the packaging at the rear of the car. This'll improve aerodynamics at the cost of heat dissipation. However, Rosberg did few laps, after he complained of significant heat in the cockpit.
Vettel had some sort of problem. I had the video off at that moment (was paying attention to Mr. Eek's link and didn't want background noise) but it sounds like some sort of total electrical failure as I caught commentary saying '...even the radio' had cut out. Vettel's got a new chassis (well, an old one, it's from testing) for reasons entirely unconnected to the placebo effect.
Incidentally, cheers to whoever the spicy mix Jason fellow is on Twitter for his suggestion. Only saw it after the problem was (hopefully) resolved (avoiding logging in to Twitter for a little while. Think I'll avoid sites of a social media/money nature until at least tomorrow, do yet more scans, and, if everything's clean, maybe go from there).
We need strict limits on how much anyone can donate.
I thought you were hot on civil liberties and free speech. Why shouldn't anyone be able to spend their money on whatever they like? If J K Rowling wants to spend her money on what she sees as the good cause of trying to put Ed Miliband into No 10, who are you to tell her she's not allowed to?
Obviously a bad start for Vettel. He's had the bad luck this year (but then, he did in 2010 too). Hmm. Ricciardo's about 3/1 to be winner without the Mercedes (Ladbrokes). Worth consideration.
Vote 2014(Political) Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 on BBC 1 London from 11:35pm to 3:00am
David Dimbleby is your guide to this year's English local council elections as the votes are counted around the country. Emily Maitlis has the individual results as they come in, and Jeremy Vine's virtual reality graphics examine and identify any long-term trends. The BBC's regional political teams are at the most exciting counts, and BBC political editor Nick Robinson assesses the impact the results will have on next year's general election.
Someone told me the other day that only once in the 20th Century has the political party that spent the most money in a general election not won. Can anyone confirm whether this is true?
Just UK, I presume?
I would imagine this is skewed by the fact that businesses like to give money to whoever is expected to win. No point in wasting a donation on a party that will lose...
I would guess that - in 1992 - the Labour Party outspend the Conservatives. I don't know how good the numbers are for elections prior to the early 1980s.
No- in 1992 the Cons massively outspent Labour- by about £34m to £15m (I believe?). It was a higher spending election than 1997 (the Conservatives had less money by then) and thereafter the Labour government introduced the current limits (which I believe are about £15m?).
I suspect that 1997 is the election in question becuase although the Conservatives spent considerably less than in 1992 and Labour spent more (thanks to donations from business) they probably were still the highest spenders (all those Demon eyes cost a lot of money).
The most expensive election of the twentieth century in real terms was, interestingly enough, 1935. Furthermore, having studied them in some detail, it is astonishing how expensive the elections of the 1880s and 1890s when compared with those of today in real terms- despite the much smaller electorate (half the franchise and smaller population).
Vote 2014(Political) Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 on BBC 1 London from 11:35pm to 3:00am
David Dimbleby is your guide to this year's English local council elections as the votes are counted around the country. Emily Maitlis has the individual results as they come in, and Jeremy Vine's virtual reality graphics examine and identify any long-term trends. The BBC's regional political teams are at the most exciting counts, and BBC political editor Nick Robinson assesses the impact the results will have on next year's general election.
A reason for not building on the Green Belt: It is the Green Belt and should be left alone, whether it fringes London or Newcastle.
Why? Another sacred cow like the NHS?
In any case it hasn't been left alone- the M25 was built right through it!
What really annoys me is that the Green Belt around London often has very little objective aesthetic merit as countryside, unlike the Green Belt around Newcastle which I suspect does.
"...Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation."
Good. That is one unambiguously positive feature of the EU, preventing protectionist interference by governments all over Europe. That is very much to the benefit of the UK, and I would hope we could retain it if we do leave the EU.
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
Do you know if there are any oncology drugs from AstraZeneca and Pfizer that compete?
As a general rule, I don't think "it's going to cost British people jobs" should ever be a reason why the government should interfering with the free market. However, where acquisitions create monopoly situations, that is a very different matter.
"...Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation."
Good. That is one unambiguously positive feature of the EU, preventing protectionist interference by governments all over Europe. That is very much to the benefit of the UK, and I would hope we could retain it if we do leave the EU.
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
Terrible, all those businesses being taken over and asset stripped by, err, British companies.
"The green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it" - John Prescott
Haha
Sadly he didn't.
I think you may have a point- Labour regards the Green Belt, like the NHS, as a sacred cow achievement of the Attlee government. However, unlike the NHS, I can see very little political cost for them in 'casting down' this particular sacred cow in so far as the belt around London is concerned.
M&A really is a double edged sword. I've always been in favour that anything private should be for sale, but then I read an article in the Standard about how M&A has ripped out the heart of some English provincial towns, such as Ipswich (Fisons), Norwich (Coleman's) and York (Cadbury?).
Mr. Jim, but it isn't our job to indulge the French.
Anyway, going to get some reading done. I'll decide tomorrow whether I'll be putting up any F1 articles (I'd prefer not to miss them, as I've done about every race since Spa or Monza 2009).
A reason for not building on the Green Belt: It is the Green Belt and should be left alone, whether it fringes London or Newcastle.
Why? Another sacred cow like the NHS?
In any case it hasn't been left alone- the M25 was built right through it!
What really annoys me is that the Green Belt around London often has very little objective aesthetic merit as countryside, unlike the Green Belt around Newcastle which I suspect does.
I am sometimes in favour of setting arbitrary limitations on how things are done in order to encourage creativity.
By creating the green belt the government sends a signal to housebuilding firms and others that we are not simply going to cover the country in suburban sprawl, and so it encourages innovative thinking in town planning, etc. Or, at least, that would be the intended best-case scenario.
I thought the Roman bank council result last night was quite interesting'.
UKIP exploded, nearly taking the seat, but the net effect was a small swing from lab to con....
An intriguing result from last night’s Roman Bank election result was the combined UKIP/CON tally of 82% - It would be fascinating to know where UKIP is drawing its support from, the LD’s derisory 2% is only part of the picture imho.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the LDs do in their London Heartlands.. Kingston looks as though its gone but other seats presumed safe up till now could be under threat if their vote just melts away. In Carshalton and Wallington Tom Brake is having to be wheeled out at every opportunity as he is more popular than the party but even he is getting polite knowing smiles from people on the doorstep. It all feels very strange out there..
As anotherDave also states below, the LD polling is showing no rise and basically rolling along below 10%. It is even trending down a little. My expectation has always been that in a national campaign the LD share rises. Presumably there must be a majority of the LDs defending seats (MEP and cllrs) that now expect to lose. Unless they are disconnected from reality in which case their defeat will be a massive shock and create a huge problem inside their party.
London has been secretly asked if it would be able to take over the 2016 Olympics because Brazil is so far behind on preparations, the Evening Standard has learned.
An informal approach was made by Olympics bosses to discover whether enough venues from the triumphant 2012 London Games could be brought back into use.
The disclosure follows growing panic at the International Olympic Committee over the shambles in Rio, where organisers are badly behind schedule.....
....A source told the Standard: “At a comparable planning stage in 2004 Athens had done 40 per cent of preparations on infrastructure, stadiums and so on. London had done 60 per cent. Brazil has done 10 per cent — and they have just two years left. So the IOC is thinking, ‘What’s our plan B?’
“Obviously, the answer would be to come back to London. It’s very unlikely but it would be the logical thing to do.”
We need strict limits on how much anyone can donate.
I thought you were hot on civil liberties and free speech. Why shouldn't anyone be able to spend their money on whatever they like? If J K Rowling wants to spend her money on what she sees as the good cause of trying to put Ed Miliband into No 10, who are you to tell her she's not allowed to?
Because I'm also hot on democracy. A situation where elections can be bought by the super wealthy is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. In the same way as J K Rowling shouldn't be able to spend her money paying people to vote a certain way, she and her income bracket shouldn't be able to dominate the political process be hoovering up all the airtime.
M&A really is a double edged sword. I've always been in favour that anything private should be for sale, but then I read an article in the Standard about how M&A has ripped out the heart of some English provincial towns, such as Ipswich (Fisons), Norwich (Coleman's) and York (Cadbury?).
It's a thorny issue.
About two thirds of mergers destroy economic value:
"...Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation."
Good. That is one unambiguously positive feature of the EU, preventing protectionist interference by governments all over Europe. That is very much to the benefit of the UK, and I would hope we could retain it if we do leave the EU.
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
The UKIP view is that we should be allowed to be protectionist if we want to, as it's our country.
Of course, if you are anti- these kind of protectionist measures, and anti-EU, then you have to accept that (if you support the leaving of the EU) then you run the risk of having a government that does interfere much more in the workings of the free market.
M&A really is a double edged sword. I've always been in favour that anything private should be for sale, but then I read an article in the Standard about how M&A has ripped out the heart of some English provincial towns, such as Ipswich (Fisons), Norwich (Coleman's) and York (Cadbury?).
It's a thorny issue.
About two thirds of mergers destroy economic value:
Food for thought for those who usually lean towards the laissez-faire view of things.
Yes: but companies should be allowed to do stupid things. Otherwise you're saying government are better at managing assets than people, and trust me, you don't want to go down that route.
We need strict limits on how much anyone can donate.
I thought you were hot on civil liberties and free speech. Why shouldn't anyone be able to spend their money on whatever they like? If J K Rowling wants to spend her money on what she sees as the good cause of trying to put Ed Miliband into No 10, who are you to tell her she's not allowed to?
Because I'm also hot on democracy. A situation where elections can be bought by the super wealthy is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. In the same way as J K Rowling shouldn't be able to spend her money paying people to vote a certain way, she and her income bracket shouldn't be able to dominate the political process be hoovering up all the airtime.
But presumably you would accept that if JK Rowling wanted to spend £1bn advocating exit from the EU, that would be her right. So, when does free speech become political speech?
"...Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation."
Good. That is one unambiguously positive feature of the EU, preventing protectionist interference by governments all over Europe. That is very much to the benefit of the UK, and I would hope we could retain it if we do leave the EU.
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
The UKIP view is that we should be allowed to be protectionist if we want to, as it's our country.
Of course, if you are anti- these kind of protectionist measures, and anti-EU, then you have to accept that (if you support the leaving of the EU) then you run the risk of having a government that does interfere much more in the workings of the free market.
It is a question of what you value more: democracy or free markets. I have always supported both, but always simply assumed that of course others like me would put democracy first. However, as I have got older I've realised that a lot of right wing people actually think of democracy as a "nice to have". It explains a lot of the Cold War. And Europhiles.
"...Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation."
Good. That is one unambiguously positive feature of the EU, preventing protectionist interference by governments all over Europe. That is very much to the benefit of the UK, and I would hope we could retain it if we do leave the EU.
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
The UKIP view is that we should be allowed to be protectionist if we want to, as it's our country.
Of course, if you are anti- these kind of protectionist measures, and anti-EU, then you have to accept that (if you support the leaving of the EU) then you run the risk of having a government that does interfere much more in the workings of the free market.
Membership of the EU does not prevent government intervention in the market. It just prevents democratic accountability of the decision makers.
London has been secretly asked if it would be able to take over the 2016 Olympics because Brazil is so far behind on preparations, the Evening Standard has learned.
An informal approach was made by Olympics bosses to discover whether enough venues from the triumphant 2012 London Games could be brought back into use.
The disclosure follows growing panic at the International Olympic Committee over the shambles in Rio, where organisers are badly behind schedule.....
....A source told the Standard: “At a comparable planning stage in 2004 Athens had done 40 per cent of preparations on infrastructure, stadiums and so on. London had done 60 per cent. Brazil has done 10 per cent — and they have just two years left. So the IOC is thinking, ‘What’s our plan B?’
“Obviously, the answer would be to come back to London. It’s very unlikely but it would be the logical thing to do.”
I was wondering if that would be proposed. ISTR a story going around in 2003 saying that Australia had been paid a few million by the IOC to investigate running the 2004 Olympics in Sydney again. The money was allegedly to get some initial plans in place.
I've no idea if the story was true then, but it would make sense for there to be backup plans, and for the IOC to play for them. Athens was widely seen as being chaotic on the run-up, but 10%. Ouch.
And they have the World Cup to concentrate on as well...
M&A really is a double edged sword. I've always been in favour that anything private should be for sale, but then I read an article in the Standard about how M&A has ripped out the heart of some English provincial towns, such as Ipswich (Fisons), Norwich (Coleman's) and York (Cadbury?).
It's a thorny issue.
About two thirds of mergers destroy economic value:
Food for thought for those who usually lean towards the laissez-faire view of things.
Yes: but companies should be allowed to do stupid things. Otherwise you're saying government are better at managing assets than people, and trust me, you don't want to go down that route.
Thought experiment.
What would happen if you outlawed all mergers and acquisitions, except in the case where the target of the takeover had gone bust?
My initial thought is that it would keep competition more open, avoiding the situation where large companies can buy out their competition. It would also help to limit the extent to which some companies - eg banks - become so big that governments feel compelled to discard the normal rules of market competition and intervene to prop them up.
On the other hand, there have been a few examples where a merger, or acquisition has helped to rescue a moribund company, I expect.
London has been secretly asked if it would be able to take over the 2016 Olympics because Brazil is so far behind on preparations, the Evening Standard has learned.
An informal approach was made by Olympics bosses to discover whether enough venues from the triumphant 2012 London Games could be brought back into use.
The disclosure follows growing panic at the International Olympic Committee over the shambles in Rio, where organisers are badly behind schedule.....
....A source told the Standard: “At a comparable planning stage in 2004 Athens had done 40 per cent of preparations on infrastructure, stadiums and so on. London had done 60 per cent. Brazil has done 10 per cent — and they have just two years left. So the IOC is thinking, ‘What’s our plan B?’
“Obviously, the answer would be to come back to London. It’s very unlikely but it would be the logical thing to do.”
M&A really is a double edged sword. I've always been in favour that anything private should be for sale, but then I read an article in the Standard about how M&A has ripped out the heart of some English provincial towns, such as Ipswich (Fisons), Norwich (Coleman's) and York (Cadbury?).
It's a thorny issue.
About two thirds of mergers destroy economic value:
Food for thought for those who usually lean towards the laissez-faire view of things.
Yes: but companies should be allowed to do stupid things. Otherwise you're saying government are better at managing assets than people, and trust me, you don't want to go down that route.
Thought experiment.
What would happen if you outlawed all mergers and acquisitions, except in the case where the target of the takeover had gone bust?
My initial thought is that it would keep competition more open, avoiding the situation where large companies can buy out their competition. It would also help to limit the extent to which some companies - eg banks - become so big that governments feel compelled to discard the normal rules of market competition and intervene to prop them up.
On the other hand, there have been a few examples where a merger, or acquisition has helped to rescue a moribund company, I expect.
What do you do about a large number of small 'mom-and-pop' stores who want to sell up and retire - or would it only apply to listed companies?
Good victory for Tories in the Fens last night. Blues and UKIP got circa 80% of vote. Labour/Libs switched to UKIP, Tories stayed loyal. What does it all mean?
By creating the green belt the government sends a signal to housebuilding firms and others that we are not simply going to cover the country in suburban sprawl, and so it encourages innovative thinking in town planning, etc. Or, at least, that would be the intended best-case scenario.
I have some sympathy with your approach- I would certainly consider instituting a minimum density requirement, for example, in respect of any greenbelt land that was released. However I do think that the housing crisis in the S.E. has now reached a point where radical solutions such as allowing London to expand for the first time since the 1940s should be contemplated (especially within the boundary of the M25). Furthermore, crucially, I do not see what the political cost to Labour, as opposed to the Conservatives, would be in doing so.
Mr. Nabavi, isn't it protectionist that the French have a veto over the ridiculous occasional sojourn to Strasbourg by the EU Parliament?
Edited extra bit: a veto to prevent any proposals to stop the idiocy succeeding.
Not sure if that's protectionist exactly. Stupid, yes. Although TBF there are some legitimate reasons for trying to disperse the institutions that are supposed to be providing checks and balances on each other.
I reckon one of these days the parliament will decide they've have enough and start finding ways to work around it, like sending one bloke down to Strasbourg to bang a gavel at the appropriate times while everyone else attends the Strasbourg session "remotely", gathered in a large room in Brussels...
I went to a business meeting this morning without wearing a tie. I have never done that before. It felt very strange. It was Herself's idea, she kept going on about time to leave the 20th century behind and update my ideas. Don't know that I want to do it again.
It is a question of what you value more: democracy or free markets.
No it isn't. A group of democracies have joined together and agreed to abide by a set of rules which block protectionist interventions by their respective governments. To my mind that is good, and I'd like to see more of it - it is in the interests of all the countries, but especially of free-trading Britain.
It would be nice if those advocating Brexit, who sometimes at least pay lip-service to free trade and dismantling protectionism, were consistent and honest about this. UKIP, as the link which anotherDave posted shows, sometimes seem to flirt with a Marine Le Pen-style protectionist mindset, closed borders, and xenophobia.
I went to a business meeting this morning without wearing a tie. I have never done that before. It felt very strange. It was Herself's idea, she kept going on about time to leave the 20th century behind and update my ideas. Don't know that I want to do it again.
Vote 2014(Political) Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 on BBC 1 London from 11:35pm to 3:00am
David Dimbleby is your guide to this year's English local council elections as the votes are counted around the country. Emily Maitlis has the individual results as they come in, and Jeremy Vine's virtual reality graphics examine and identify any long-term trends. The BBC's regional political teams are at the most exciting counts, and BBC political editor Nick Robinson assesses the impact the results will have on next year's general election.
Emily Maitlis the political weathergirl.
I'm going to attempt to provide popular vote totals for the various council elections. Usually the media don't bother, apart from the national projected share.
The London page is ready for the results to be declared:
I went to a business meeting this morning without wearing a tie. I have never done that before. It felt very strange. It was Herself's idea, she kept going on about time to leave the 20th century behind and update my ideas. Don't know that I want to do it again.
Do you people still wear ties?
Yes, I feel naked without one. Trouble nowadays is there's no standards!!
Don't know if anyone else is getting this but I'm having trouble logging in and posting to the normal site. It seems to work OK going to: http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/
...and posting from there, although it seemed to take a couple of minutes for the last post to show up on the main site.
London has been secretly asked if it would be able to take over the 2016 Olympics because Brazil is so far behind on preparations, the Evening Standard has learned.
"What would happen if you outlawed all mergers and acquisitions, except in the case where the target of the takeover had gone bust?"
Would that not require the government to control who could buy shares? I am not sure that would be a good idea and I am damn certain I would hate to live in a country where I had to ask permission to sell shares.
Vote 2014(Political) Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 on BBC 1 London from 11:35pm to 3:00am
David Dimbleby is your guide to this year's English local council elections as the votes are counted around the country. Emily Maitlis has the individual results as they come in, and Jeremy Vine's virtual reality graphics examine and identify any long-term trends. The BBC's regional political teams are at the most exciting counts, and BBC political editor Nick Robinson assesses the impact the results will have on next year's general election.
I wonder if Jeremy Vine will wear a silly costume this time?
Independence for Yorkshire!! Not serious (I think) - but it's odd for the Graun to be advocating it even in jest, given its attitude to us Jocks (Kevin McKenna excepted).
I went to a business meeting this morning without wearing a tie. I have never done that before. It felt very strange. It was Herself's idea, she kept going on about time to leave the 20th century behind and update my ideas. Don't know that I want to do it again.
Do you people still wear ties?
UK, yes. Scaniland no. Germany it depends. France in Paris but not elsewhere. New York yes. Mid West no.
London has been secretly asked if it would be able to take over the 2016 Olympics because Brazil is so far behind on preparations, the Evening Standard has learned.
"...Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation."
Good. That is one unambiguously positive feature of the EU, preventing protectionist interference by governments all over Europe. That is very much to the benefit of the UK, and I would hope we could retain it if we do leave the EU.
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
What a ridiculous statement. The elected government should be there to look after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, they certainly should absolve themselves of this responsibility and pass it on to the EU. Whether we want to have protectionist policies or not the final decision should rest with our elected representatives at Westminster not with the EU which does not have the best interests of the UK at heart.
The interesting question is whether the likely swingback from UKIP will be symmetrical. Obviously we can't be sure of the answer to that, but it seems to me that the motivations of at least some of the Con->UKIP switchers (gay marriage, frustration at Cameron being too much a traditional one-nation Conservative, and above all frustration with our EU membership) are likely to be quite different from the motivations driving those working-class former Labour voters towards UKIP. In addition the demographics are quite different: the former group probably older and with a substantial proportion of retired owner-occupiers, the latter more likely to be of working age, and self-employed or employed in not particularly high-paying jobs.
Now, obviously that is a big generalisation, but, inasmuch as there is any truth in it, it seems to me that there is at least a likelihood, and perhaps a strong possibility, that the drift back from UKIP to Labour will exhibit different characteristics compared with the drift back to the Tories. That is one reason why I am cautious about predictions based on current polling: there is a quite hefty chunk of UKIP vote-share in the current opinion polls, easily enough for any differential behaviour to have a big impact on the final result.
Agree with Richard N there - I also think that swingback from UKIP, if it happens, will display different characteristics in its different components, and potentially also in marginals vs safe seats. I think it's genuinely hard to predict. We should know more in a couple of months when people have digested anmd reacted to the Euros and Newark.
The current tranche of UKIP supporters that I'm meeting are mostly treating it fairly lightly, on an "I'm gonna give UKIP a spin and shake things up" basis - a bit like the "Snog" option in Marry/snog/avoid. But they're not often very engaged in politics either, so if the outcome is satisfyingly shock-horror from the establishment, they might decide to carry on snogging next year. It's quite important for the mainstream parties to get the tone right if UKIP do well - concerned and interested but no shrieks and panic.
Much as I admire him, I'm not sure I'd ever want to snog Farage. Even if Pod did give him a makeunder.
It seems strange to be discussing ties on 'dress down Friday'. I feel overdressed wearing a casual shirt rather than a T with my jeans.
I wear open necked shirt and trousers 99% when I'm at work. This is regarded as business casual. Very rarely there's business formal occasions where I wear a suit and tie.
"...Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation."
Good. That is one unambiguously positive feature of the EU, preventing protectionist interference by governments all over Europe. That is very much to the benefit of the UK, and I would hope we could retain it if we do leave the EU.
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
What a ridiculous statement. The elected government should be there to look after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, they certainly should absolve themselves of this responsibility and pass it on to the EU. Whether we want to have protectionist policies or not the final decision should rest with our elected representatives at Westminster not with the EU which does not have the best interests of the UK at heart.
Usually when you make a trade agreement you decide a bunch of things the governments of the participating governments aren't allowed to do, and sometimes you come up with some kind of international body that will decide whether they're sticking to it or not. Non-rhetorically, would you also think signing up to one of those was out of order because the government was absolving itself of responsibility?
What a ridiculous statement. The elected government should be there to look after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, they certainly should absolve themselves of this responsibility and pass it on to the EU. Whether we want to have protectionist policies or not the final decision should rest with our elected representatives at Westminster not with the EU which does not have the best interests of the UK at heart.
The ridiculous statement is yours.
The elected government - in fact, successive elected governments - has decided that the best way to look after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom is for the UK to agree with other countries to abide by a set of rules which limit protectionist interventions. That is why we are in the EU, and in the World Trade Organization. It benefits us, because in return for giving up our option to be protectionist, our EU friends (and to a lesser extent our other trading partners) have given up their option to be protectionist. It's a Win-Win in a game which is not a zero-sum game.
Are you against this? I thought you, like Socrates, were keen on dismantling protectionist barriers. Are you, or are you not?
Re: ties. I like them and pretty much always wear them with new clients etc. If I know the client very well I may lose the tie for a business lunch etc, particularly on a Friday where there is a clear social element. I think it's actually a bit of a shame that they have fallen out of favour among some - there is nothing wrong, and a whole lot right, with men looking smart. Not least it makes it easier for us to get dressed in the morning!
What I think has been happening is that UKIP originally just took the hard right vote off the Tories, but they're now gaining working-class protest votes all round. In marginals like mine with a large middle-class vote the effect is less evident, but it's certainly there. I'm not convinced that it's permanent, but we shall see.
The interesting question is whether the likely swingback from UKIP will be symmetrical. Obviously we can't be sure of the answer to that, but it seems to me that the motivations of at least some of the Con->UKIP switchers (gay marriage, frustration at Cameron being too much a traditional one-nation Conservative, and above all frustration with our EU membership) are likely to be quite different from the motivations driving those working-class former Labour voters towards UKIP. In addition the demographics are quite different: the former group probably older and with a substantial proportion of retired owner-occupiers, the latter more likely to be of working age, and self-employed or employed in not particularly high-paying jobs.
Now, obviously that is a big generalisation, but, inasmuch as there is any truth in it, it seems to me that there is at least a likelihood, and perhaps a strong possibility, that the drift back from UKIP to Labour will exhibit different characteristics compared with the drift back to the Tories. That is one reason why I am cautious about predictions based on current polling: there is a quite hefty chunk of UKIP vote-share in the current opinion polls, easily enough for any differential behaviour to have a big impact on the final result.
Successful political parties are coalitions of interests.
If UKIP can unite: (a) WWC negatively affected by immigration, income inequality, (b) older people worried about crime, social liberalism, (c) the generally Eurosceptic, and (d) the "I'm looking for a new kind of politics" bunch, then they potentially have enough of a coalition to - in the medium term - gain significant political power, potentially even achieving power on their own.
However, this coalition has not been tried before. And there are some very substantial tensions in there, which could lead to it breaking down. For example, were UKIP to gain power through a coalition, then they (just as the LibDems before) would find themselves losing the NOTA vote.
I expect a very large swingback from UKIP to the Tories in 2015. I may not agree with the Tory meme about letting in Labour but it would be daft not to believe that many will. Whether it will be enough to save the Tories is another matter but those from UKIP pretending it will not happen and that those supporters are lost to the Tories for good are not being realistic.
London has been secretly asked if it would be able to take over the 2016 Olympics because Brazil is so far behind on preparations, the Evening Standard has learned.
An informal approach was made by Olympics bosses to discover whether enough venues from the triumphant 2012 London Games could be brought back into use.
The disclosure follows growing panic at the International Olympic Committee over the shambles in Rio, where organisers are badly behind schedule.....
....A source told the Standard: “At a comparable planning stage in 2004 Athens had done 40 per cent of preparations on infrastructure, stadiums and so on. London had done 60 per cent. Brazil has done 10 per cent — and they have just two years left. So the IOC is thinking, ‘What’s our plan B?’
“Obviously, the answer would be to come back to London. It’s very unlikely but it would be the logical thing to do.”
London has hosted Olympiads for similar reasons in the past.
At the risk of making sweeping generalisations, none of this surprises me. I was dismissed by a Brazilian programme director once after only 2 days. The programme for this particular client was a mess: heavily delayed and not performing.I did an audit, pointed out the issues and suggested remedies (very diplomatically) and was told to get on the next plane home.
I recently joined a new firm where three colleagues had a similar experience for a Brazilian client in Rio. They lasted A month and also came home having achieved nothing.
They like 6 hour meetings but it's almost entirely social. They never get down to business and if you try to point out issues they don't want to hear, they will either sideline you, ignore you or dismiss you.
Comments
UKIP exploded, nearly taking the seat, but the net effect was a small swing from lab to con....
The current tranche of UKIP supporters that I'm meeting are mostly treating it fairly lightly, on an "I'm gonna give UKIP a spin and shake things up" basis - a bit like the "Snog" option in Marry/snog/avoid. But they're not often very engaged in politics either, so if the outcome is satisfyingly shock-horror from the establishment, they might decide to carry on snogging next year. It's quite important for the mainstream parties to get the tone right if UKIP do well - concerned and interested but no shrieks and panic.
I would imagine this is skewed by the fact that businesses like to give money to whoever is expected to win. No point in wasting a donation on a party that will lose...
I would guess that - in 1992 - the Labour Party outspend the Conservatives. I don't know how good the numbers are for elections prior to the early 1980s.
And in many national polls con + UKIP = 50% or even more....
The first of the monthly Retail Sales reports, The Visa Europe UK Consumer Expenditure Index compiled by Markit and based on aggregate spending on consumer Visa debit and credit cards, was published this morning.
The overall story is that retail sales grew in April at their strongest rate since 2010. I am not sure another_richard will welcome the news that sales growth was driven by "fashion, food and eating out", but even he, buoyed by the closing trade deficit, may have secretly bought a couple of pairs of yellow corduroys last month.
Paul Smith of Markit sets the narrative:
“April’s data pointed to a marked underlying improvement in consumer spending heading into mid-year, with the annual measure signalling the strongest increase in expenditure for four years. Although the timing of Easter played some role, growth was broad-based with spending volumes up for a whole host of goods and services including clothing, food, and recreational activities.”
“The picture is now one of consumers benefiting from a stronger economic climate. With confidence hitting record levels, unemployment at a five-year low and real wages starting to rise, all the signs are for growth to be sustained at a decent pace over the coming months.”
Headline findings:
• Year-on-year household spending increased at the strongest rate for four years in April (+2.9%), following a slight increase in March (+0.5%).
• Month-on-month expenditure was unchanged in April (+0.0%), following a strong rise in March (+1.4%).
• Quarterly spending figures signalled that underlying expenditure improved in April (+1.2%), and at a similar rate to that recorded in March (+1.1%).
• Non-seasonally adjusted year-on-year expenditure rose solidly through Online (+4.9%), Face-to-Face (+3.4%) and Mail/Telephone Order (+1.6%) categories in April.
If UKIP can unite: (a) WWC negatively affected by immigration, income inequality, (b) older people worried about crime, social liberalism, (c) the generally Eurosceptic, and (d) the "I'm looking for a new kind of politics" bunch, then they potentially have enough of a coalition to - in the medium term - gain significant political power, potentially even achieving power on their own.
However, this coalition has not been tried before. And there are some very substantial tensions in there, which could lead to it breaking down. For example, were UKIP to gain power through a coalition, then they (just as the LibDems before) would find themselves losing the NOTA vote.
Just for fun....
There is clearly a housing crisis in this country. It is acute in London and the South-East because that is where everyone wants to live and not enough houses are being built. The solution is obviously to enable more homes to be built, of whatever tenure (LA, Private rental or owner occupier), by liberalising the planning laws on the outskirts of London (say outside London but within the M25)- i.e. by abolishing part of the green belt.
For the Conservatives such a policy would be electoral suicide- most of the seats in the area are Conservative and the Nimby vote would defenestrate the local MPs. However for Labour it seems to be relatively cost free- you do not actually loose seats but you earn the unending gratitude of the the younger generation unable to get on the housing ladder in the area (i.e. the S.E.) where the jobs are. Despite the latter point the Labour policy on housing seems tentative at best- the rent-capping policy will, like 'help to buy', simply distort the market. It does not address the fundamental structual issue and your target for the number of houses to be built nationally (200,000) is still under the number actually needed to keep pace with demand let alone make up for the shortfall (250,000).
I can think of only two reasons for Labour steering away from building on the S.E. greenbelt:
1. The fear that releasing land for building on the outskirts of London would in the long-term only create a pool of owner-occupying Conservative voters (and thus would outweigh any short-term gain) but this could be avoided by simply building LA/HA housing rather than private housing (which would still have the ultimate effect of reducing prices for private housing).
2. That such a policy would be seen to favour the South at the expense of the Northern cities. This may be closer to the truth but surely the objective of any political party is ultimately to make people happy and people will be happier if they can get housing where they can find a job! In addition I do not think that the second order political effect in the North would be that great - the effect is too indirect for voters to understand and in any case Labour is too entrenched in those areas.
In conclusion the Conservative opposition to building on the green belt seems rational but Labour's does not. I would be interested to know your thoughts.
Kingston looks as though its gone but other seats presumed safe up till now could be under threat if their vote just melts away.
In Carshalton and Wallington Tom Brake is having to be wheeled out at every opportunity as he is more popular than the party but even he is getting polite knowing smiles from people on the doorstep.
It all feels very strange out there..
http://i.imgur.com/VIS47ce.png
Quite. on that topic, there's a good article by Douglas Carswell today in the telly on how the government's utterly contemptible and lunatic policy to let HMRC directly raid bank accounts risks bringing another huge swathe of voters into the anti-politics coalition.
I wonder which bright spark thought that one up.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10463657.Blood_donors_heckled_by_anti_fascist_protesters_at_Hove_Town_Hall/
Even considering that, it is also concerning given increased inequality. The very wealthy will get more and more control of our democracy. We need strict limits on how much anyone can donate.
Only had P1 so far, but smidgens of info have emerged. Perhaps most interesting was that Hamilton reported high tyre degradation on the hard compound (hard/medium this weekend). This may especially hamper Williams/Ferrari, although Ben Edwards (commentator) reckoned that the Ferrari should be softer on its tyres than previous races (and last year, when Alonso had a 4 stop victory).
Mercedes, hottest races out of the way, have tightened the packaging at the rear of the car. This'll improve aerodynamics at the cost of heat dissipation. However, Rosberg did few laps, after he complained of significant heat in the cockpit.
Vettel had some sort of problem. I had the video off at that moment (was paying attention to Mr. Eek's link and didn't want background noise) but it sounds like some sort of total electrical failure as I caught commentary saying '...even the radio' had cut out. Vettel's got a new chassis (well, an old one, it's from testing) for reasons entirely unconnected to the placebo effect.
Incidentally, cheers to whoever the spicy mix Jason fellow is on Twitter for his suggestion. Only saw it after the problem was (hopefully) resolved (avoiding logging in to Twitter for a little while. Think I'll avoid sites of a social media/money nature until at least tomorrow, do yet more scans, and, if everything's clean, maybe go from there).
Social attitudes must have changed rapidly since I was resident!
Hmm. With Ladbrokes they're 1/14 as a team to win, but Hamilton's 8/15 and Rosberg 11/4.
Obviously a bad start for Vettel. He's had the bad luck this year (but then, he did in 2010 too). Hmm. Ricciardo's about 3/1 to be winner without the Mercedes (Ladbrokes). Worth consideration.
Vote 2014(Political)
Thursday, May 22nd, 2014 on BBC 1 London from 11:35pm to 3:00am
David Dimbleby is your guide to this year's English local council elections as the votes are counted around the country. Emily Maitlis has the individual results as they come in, and Jeremy Vine's virtual reality graphics examine and identify any long-term trends. The BBC's regional political teams are at the most exciting counts, and BBC political editor Nick Robinson assesses the impact the results will have on next year's general election.
I suspect that 1997 is the election in question becuase although the Conservatives spent considerably less than in 1992 and Labour spent more (thanks to donations from business) they probably were still the highest spenders (all those Demon eyes cost a lot of money).
The most expensive election of the twentieth century in real terms was, interestingly enough, 1935. Furthermore, having studied them in some detail, it is astonishing how expensive the elections of the 1880s and 1890s when compared with those of today in real terms- despite the much smaller electorate (half the franchise and smaller population).
A better team would be:
Andrew Neil and Sophie Raworth hosting, Charlotte Hawkins as roving reporter.
In any case it hasn't been left alone- the M25 was built right through it!
What really annoys me is that the Green Belt around London often has very little objective aesthetic merit as countryside, unlike the Green Belt around Newcastle which I suspect does.
http://www.ukip.org/eu_restrictions_on_astrazeneca_expose_farcical_state_of_british_politics
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
Edited extra bit: a veto to prevent any proposals to stop the idiocy succeeding.
As a general rule, I don't think "it's going to cost British people jobs" should ever be a reason why the government should interfering with the free market. However, where acquisitions create monopoly situations, that is a very different matter.
"Error 503 Service Unavailable
Service Unavailable
Guru Meditation:
XID: 833555422
Varnish cache server"
Sadly he didn't.
I think you may have a point- Labour regards the Green Belt, like the NHS, as a sacred cow achievement of the Attlee government. However, unlike the NHS, I can see very little political cost for them in 'casting down' this particular sacred cow in so far as the belt around London is concerned.
BTW I thought of you last night, as I went to a concert by Spiers & Boden. I wasn't actually Morris Dancing, though.
Mr. Nabavi, I am neither Spiers nor Boden.
It's a thorny issue.
Anyway, going to get some reading done. I'll decide tomorrow whether I'll be putting up any F1 articles (I'd prefer not to miss them, as I've done about every race since Spa or Monza 2009).
There's an EU Parliament candidate debate at Reading University Student Union this evening.
"THE big debate: Dan Hannan, Janice Atkinson, Catherine Bearder and the Labour and Green candidates. "
http://www.ukip.org/janiceatkinson/europe_day_euro_hustings_at_reading_university
http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/Events/Event574731.aspx
Two or three used for breast cancers, two for prostate cancers.
Can't find a UK list for Pfizer.
See, for example, the Dogme Films restrictions. Another example might be the cookery program Ready Steady Cook.
By creating the green belt the government sends a signal to housebuilding firms and others that we are not simply going to cover the country in suburban sprawl, and so it encourages innovative thinking in town planning, etc. Or, at least, that would be the intended best-case scenario.
So, I don't think there is any risk of Pfizer/AZ having any greater pricing power in any particular area of oncology.
London has been secretly asked if it would be able to take over the 2016 Olympics because Brazil is so far behind on preparations, the Evening Standard has learned.
An informal approach was made by Olympics bosses to discover whether enough venues from the triumphant 2012 London Games could be brought back into use.
The disclosure follows growing panic at the International Olympic Committee over the shambles in Rio, where organisers are badly behind schedule.....
....A source told the Standard: “At a comparable planning stage in 2004 Athens had done 40 per cent of preparations on infrastructure, stadiums and so on. London had done 60 per cent. Brazil has done 10 per cent — and they have just two years left. So the IOC is thinking, ‘What’s our plan B?’
“Obviously, the answer would be to come back to London. It’s very unlikely but it would be the logical thing to do.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/could-rio-games-come-to-london-olympic-bosses-make-secret-plea-to-use-2012-venues-9344084.html
http://www.bcg.de/documents/file130658.pdf
Food for thought for those who usually lean towards the laissez-faire view of things.
Of course, if you are anti- these kind of protectionist measures, and anti-EU, then you have to accept that (if you support the leaving of the EU) then you run the risk of having a government that does interfere much more in the workings of the free market.
I've no idea if the story was true then, but it would make sense for there to be backup plans, and for the IOC to play for them. Athens was widely seen as being chaotic on the run-up, but 10%. Ouch.
And they have the World Cup to concentrate on as well...
What would happen if you outlawed all mergers and acquisitions, except in the case where the target of the takeover had gone bust?
My initial thought is that it would keep competition more open, avoiding the situation where large companies can buy out their competition. It would also help to limit the extent to which some companies - eg banks - become so big that governments feel compelled to discard the normal rules of market competition and intervene to prop them up.
On the other hand, there have been a few examples where a merger, or acquisition has helped to rescue a moribund company, I expect.
Glad all over that Nige is a Palace fan.. my 2nd team
Well, one of my 2nd teams
And please God let Rolf be innocent
See, for example, the Dogme Films restrictions. Another example might be the cookery program Ready Steady Cook.
By creating the green belt the government sends a signal to housebuilding firms and others that we are not simply going to cover the country in suburban sprawl, and so it encourages innovative thinking in town planning, etc. Or, at least, that would be the intended best-case scenario.
I have some sympathy with your approach- I would certainly consider instituting a minimum density requirement, for example, in respect of any greenbelt land that was released. However I do think that the housing crisis in the S.E. has now reached a point where radical solutions such as allowing London to expand for the first time since the 1940s should be contemplated (especially within the boundary of the M25). Furthermore, crucially, I do not see what the political cost to Labour, as opposed to the Conservatives, would be in doing so.
I reckon one of these days the parliament will decide they've have enough and start finding ways to work around it, like sending one bloke down to Strasbourg to bang a gavel at the appropriate times while everyone else attends the Strasbourg session "remotely", gathered in a large room in Brussels...
Do you people still wear ties?
Suddenly a few people are looking at my candidates' spreadsheet which is unusual. I think someone must have mentioned it on Twitter:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0
It would be nice if those advocating Brexit, who sometimes at least pay lip-service to free trade and dismantling protectionism, were consistent and honest about this. UKIP, as the link which anotherDave posted shows, sometimes seem to flirt with a Marine Le Pen-style protectionist mindset, closed borders, and xenophobia.
The London page is ready for the results to be declared:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFBKVmJGYkhwYTRFeGpVZlg2bTRIZUE#gid=0
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/
...and posting from there, although it seemed to take a couple of minutes for the last post to show up on the main site.
Would that not require the government to control who could buy shares? I am not sure that would be a good idea and I am damn certain I would hate to live in a country where I had to ask permission to sell shares.
Independence for Yorkshire!! Not serious (I think) - but it's odd for the Graun to be advocating it even in jest, given its attitude to us Jocks (Kevin McKenna excepted).
Hmmmn.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10819029/Manufacturing-growth-at-highest-for-15-years.html
The elected government - in fact, successive elected governments - has decided that the best way to look after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom is for the UK to agree with other countries to abide by a set of rules which limit protectionist interventions. That is why we are in the EU, and in the World Trade Organization. It benefits us, because in return for giving up our option to be protectionist, our EU friends (and to a lesser extent our other trading partners) have given up their option to be protectionist. It's a Win-Win in a game which is not a zero-sum game.
Are you against this? I thought you, like Socrates, were keen on dismantling protectionist barriers. Are you, or are you not?
Women have fashion. Men have rules.
I recently joined a new firm where three colleagues had a similar experience for a Brazilian client in Rio. They lasted A month and also came home having achieved nothing.
They like 6 hour meetings but it's almost entirely social. They never get down to business and if you try to point out issues they don't want to hear, they will either sideline you, ignore you or dismiss you.