Miss Cyclefree, it's massively patronising to women to suggest they can only equal men by box-ticking rather than on merit. And does it apply in reverse, or is a 25% 'only' male shadow cabinet acceptable?
Of course it is. But more importantly it's ignoring the very real problems that women, particularly women and girls in some communities still face, which needs rather more focus than it is getting, particularly from the party which is so keen to get votes from those communities.
I'm afraid that I think Labour's talk of gender equality to be so much hypocritical hot air while they are unwilling/afraid to challenge the very real misogyny amongst some of their voters and speaking at gender segregated meetings.
It's a problem with boys and men in some communities as well; a cultural misogyny that treats women as inferior, and which is being passed from generation to generation within that culture, polluting boys' views of the world. You will not help the women in those cultures without tackling the problems the boys face as well.
Sadly, our increasingly misandric culture does not help.
As an example, I was really pi**ed off that Labour had a shadow minister for preventing violence against women and girls, when there is plenty of violence against men and boys as well.
As regular readers will know, I'm pretty much in favour of a clean and fresh approach of a new airport, which would probably be in the Thames Estuary. Given Instanbul is building a six-runway airport, even an expanded LHR will not be able to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
(Although given the problems on the Marmaray Project, we should not assume it will be built as planned).
The logic that we should spend all sorts of public money to make one big 'global player' in an industry was tried to death in the 1970s and ended up with inefficient behemoths like British Leyland dragging the whole sector down. What we need is not a 'bigger is better' approach but a 'competition is better' one, with several hub airports, starting with Gatwick being #2.
The idea of several hub airports is an odd one, given the purpose of hubs. It may work in very large and prosperous countries, but not ones the size of the UK. It's little good landing at Gatwick when the flight you want to transfer to is at Heathrow.
Your idea might work if Boeing's betting on more regional airports and direct flights (the 787) beats Airbus's reliance on hubs (A380). So far the jury is out.
I do not think the increase.on these issues has been down to the EU referendum. Discussion on that has not pemetrated the public consciousness yet. The rise in the EU has been down to the blanket coverage of the Eurozone's upheavals, and will likely continue if the default causes a lot of volatility. Equally, the immigration issue has ramped up due to the scenes of angry young men in Lampadusa, Crete and Calais. As long as this footage continues, immigration will stay first. Farage will have a strong line in the debate about how these people are likely to end up in Britain due to freedom of movement, regardless of our opt-outs. While I have other priorities for the repatriation, the public will need immigration limits much stronger than the government is hinting. Ideally that would be an emergency brake, but the minimum must be blocks on the unemployed and criminals. Benefits changes clearly will not suffice.
Presumably, to be consistent, you would of course leave them to purchase all the land they needed without any government interference in the form of compulsory purchase. By your reasoning, anyone who doesn't want their land to be used for a new airport should be allowed not to sell it, or to demand whatever price they like.
Aviation is a matter affecting the public interest. It follows that private property rights may be overridden to allow for the proper functioning of the transport system. No one believes in an absolute system of property ownership, and English law has never provided one (consider, for example, section 17 of the Limitation Act 1980, section 58 of, and schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002). For example, it has long been the case that an occupier of land cannot maintain a claim in trespass or nuisance against the operator of an aircraft flying pursuant to an Air Navigation Order (Civil Aviation Act 1982, s. 76). No one has ever been paid compensation for the loss of their claim in nuisance. Where someone is compulsory deprived of their entire estate in realty, it is reasonable that compensation is payable. Parliament has thus far struck a fair balance between the public interest and private rights. What Davies proposes is pure larceny.
Suits and Ties order of the day even in 35 degree heat?
The dress code for women in the HoC is much more lax, and colourful, than it is for men. The rules should be relaxed for men as well.
Summer dress for men should be removing one’s jacket, er that’s it – we don’t want standards to drop quite as far as some women are prepared to push it.
Miss Cyclefree, it's massively patronising to women to suggest they can only equal men by box-ticking rather than on merit. And does it apply in reverse, or is a 25% 'only' male shadow cabinet acceptable?
Of course it is. But more importantly it's ignoring the very real problems that women, particularly women and girls in some communities still face, which needs rather more focus than it is getting, particularly from the party which is so keen to get votes from those communities.
I'm afraid that I think Labour's talk of gender equality to be so much hypocritical hot air while they are unwilling/afraid to challenge the very real misogyny amongst some of their voters and speaking at gender segregated meetings.
It's a problem with boys and men in some communities as well; a cultural misogyny that treats women as inferior, and which is being passed from generation to generation within that culture, polluting boys' views of the world. You will not help the women in those cultures without tackling the problems the boys face as well.
Sadly, our increasingly misandric culture does not help.
As an example, I was really pi**ed off that Labour had a shadow minister for preventing violence against women and girls, when there is plenty of violence against men and boys as well.
Slightly surprising that security does not feature on that list. I wonder if this was done before Tunisia.
Responses to 'Defence/foreign affairs/international terrorism' total 2% - with the Welsh most worried at 8%
However atrocious Tunisia was, and the next outrage will be, voters may know that for all the horror we are individually at extremely small risk - and crossing the road, or going downstairs remain substantially more dangerous.....
There is a piece in the Telegraph today asking how Margaret Thatcher would have responded to the murder of 30 British citizens. I don't think a minute's silence quite covers it.
Another 'Thatcher' piece that uses her name to peddle fantasies. No one knows because there is no comparison. Irish terrorism (from both sides) ended not because Thatcher bombed Dublin, but because the civil war in Northern Ireland was reaching cataclysmic proportions.
One day I hope people will stop trying to scare, inspire or belittle by telling me what thatcher would have done. As you say, quite often the comparisons to her time are unreasonable, and more to the point for scaring anyway it will become increasingly ineffective. I don't remember thatchers time directly, so I don't care as much what she would do
Suits and Ties order of the day even in 35 degree heat?
The dress code for women in the HoC is much more lax, and colourful, than it is for men. The rules should be relaxed for men as well.
Summer dress for men should be removing one’s jacket, er that’s it – we don’t want standards to drop quite as far as some women are prepared to push it.
As regular readers will know, I'm pretty much in favour of a clean and fresh approach of a new airport, which would probably be in the Thames Estuary. Given Instanbul is building a six-runway airport, even an expanded LHR will not be able to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
(Although given the problems on the Marmaray Project, we should not assume it will be built as planned).
The logic that we should spend all sorts of public money to make one big 'global player' in an industry was tried to death in the 1970s and ended up with inefficient behemoths like British Leyland dragging the whole sector down. What we need is not a 'bigger is better' approach but a 'competition is better' one, with several hub airports, starting with Gatwick being #2.
The idea of several hub airports is an odd one, given the purpose of hubs. It may work in very large and prosperous countries, but not ones the size of the UK. It's little good landing at Gatwick when the flight you want to transfer to is at Heathrow.
Your idea might work if Boeing's betting on more regional airports and direct flights (the 787) beats Airbus's reliance on hubs (A380). So far the jury is out.
Two runway airports efficiently used will provide plenty of flights to the vast majority of locations - certainly enough to provide choice for all consumers. Have you ever struggled to reach a location from a two runway Heathrow. A far bigger problem is not reaching your location due to weather, volcanoes or poor management closing an airport and causing gridlock, which is far more common. A single huge hub airport exacerbates this issue, whereas multiple largish hubs allows you to move capacity around in an emergency.
As regular readers will know, I'm pretty much in favour of a clean and fresh approach of a new airport, which would probably be in the Thames Estuary. Given Instanbul is building a six-runway airport, even an expanded LHR will not be able to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
(Although given the problems on the Marmaray Project, we should not assume it will be built as planned).
The logic that we should spend all sorts of public money to make one big 'global player' in an industry was tried to death in the 1970s and ended up with inefficient behemoths like British Leyland dragging the whole sector down. What we need is not a 'bigger is better' approach but a 'competition is better' one, with several hub airports, starting with Gatwick being #2.
The idea of several hub airports is an odd one, given the purpose of hubs. It may work in very large and prosperous countries, but not ones the size of the UK. It's little good landing at Gatwick when the flight you want to transfer to is at Heathrow.
Your idea might work if Boeing's betting on more regional airports and direct flights (the 787) beats Airbus's reliance on hubs (A380). So far the jury is out.
The whole premise is wrong, we don't need a hub airport.
Aviation is a matter affecting the public interest. It follows that private property rights may be overridden to allow for the proper functioning of the transport system. No one believes in an absolute system of property ownership, and English law has never provided one (consider, for example, section 17 of the Limitation Act 1980, section 58 of, and schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002). For example, it has long been the case that an occupier of land cannot maintain a claim in trespass or nuisance against the operator of an aircraft flying pursuant to an Air Navigation Order (Civil Aviation Act 1982, s. 76). No one has ever been paid compensation for the loss of their claim in nuisance. Where someone is compulsory deprived of their entire estate in realty, it is reasonable that compensation is payable. Parliament has thus far struck a fair balance between the public interest and private rights. What Davies proposes is pure larceny.
So you are not consistent. Your position is absolutely ludicrous - on the one hand you do think that aviation is a public interest, and that therefore citizens' property rights can be overridden by the state "to allow for the proper functioning of the transport system", yet you think it's no business of the state to decide between the competing proposals which would have massive damaging effects on those affected,. You want the state to grab land for whatever scheme anyone proposing an airport wants, by implication without considering what would best achieve the proper functioning of the transport system, and without considering the implications in terms of noise and environmental damage.
That is, if you pardon my bluntness, stark raving bonkers.
Suits and Ties order of the day even in 35 degree heat?
The dress code for women in the HoC is much more lax, and colourful, than it is for men. The rules should be relaxed for men as well.
Summer dress for men should be removing one’s jacket, er that’s it – we don’t want standards to drop quite as far as some women are prepared to push it.
Re dress for men, removing jacket is fine in theory, but I still keep one on if actually in a meeting or the like. I don't find ties make a difference one way or the other so always wear one I the summer.
My plan is to leave Labour alone until after the leadership contest is done and the conference is completed. Then I'll see what's there. Right now, you could drive yourself mad getting involved in too much detail with what is happening. The sun is out, the sky is blue, there are more important things to be thinking about. The time to decide whether Labour is a serious political party, or not worth bothering with, is the late autumn and winter.
It's a fair point from your position, but the same majority of people (including me) who aren't really worried that someobody will murder them in Sainsbury also aren't really worried that people suspected of terrorism are detained for 90 days. Similarly, the deal on detention of suspected foreign terrorists seemed to me fair enough - they could leave Britain at any time, but we felt they were too risky to allow to wander around here. If they felt that being in detention here was preferable to being sent abroad (because they might get killed by rival factions), that was their decision, which they were free to reconsider at any time.
Nick: I realise that you may not be bothered if the local council reads your email. But this did not happen by accident. The power to do so had to be given to it. So why should the local council be given such a power? Why do you or did you think it should be given such a power?
Firstly, people are not fussed about all sorts of things until it turns around and bites them on the arse, and then its usually too late. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Secondly, people are not fussed about things because the great and the good go out of their way to not explain the implications to them. They might be un-fussed about their email being read by the local council. But trying asking them instead if they would like Social Services reading their emails with their mistress, or listening in to their arguments with their wives or their communications with their doctors, or HMRC reading emails to their accountant, or the CPS reading emails to their lawyer, or RIPA powers being used to force journalists to reveal their sources, or spy on parents choice of schools, of which rubbish bins there were using and you might find them a little more concerned.
Indigo: that first quote is not mine by Nick Palmer. I am very bothered about people in local councils reading my emails. I value my privacy. And have no time for politicians who are so willing to invade my right to privacy for trivial or non-existent reasons or so careless about protecting it. Without privacy there can be no real freedom or free speech and thought.
There is no good reason that I can think of why the local council should be able to read my emails as a matter of routine and I'm still waiting for an answer from Nick P as to why he thought they should be given such a power.
As regular readers will know, I'm pretty much in favour of a clean and fresh approach of a new airport, which would probably be in the Thames Estuary. Given Instanbul is building a six-runway airport, even an expanded LHR will not be able to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
(Although given the problems on the Marmaray Project, we should not assume it will be built as planned).
The logic that we should spend all sorts of public money to make one big 'global player' in an industry was tried to death in the 1970s and ended up with inefficient behemoths like British Leyland dragging the whole sector down. What we need is not a 'bigger is better' approach but a 'competition is better' one, with several hub airports, starting with Gatwick being #2.
The idea of several hub airports is an odd one, given the purpose of hubs. It may work in very large and prosperous countries, but not ones the size of the UK. It's little good landing at Gatwick when the flight you want to transfer to is at Heathrow.
Your idea might work if Boeing's betting on more regional airports and direct flights (the 787) beats Airbus's reliance on hubs (A380). So far the jury is out.
The whole premise is wrong, we don't need a hub airport.
Do you think there are no benefits from having a hub airport?
The fieldwork for this ended on the 15th of June, so I've edited the thread header so it now reads
The fieldwork for this polling ended on the 15th of June, so before the recent events in Greece and Tunisia
I agree with all of that Nick but if I were asked now about issues facing the country security would certainly be in my top 4.
Like all of these headings it is a broad category with a range of facets: how do we deal with the fact that hundreds of our citizens want to go to fight with ISIL in Syria or Iraq, have we gone too far in defence cuts, should we get more directly involved in the fight against ISIS, how do we deal with the security risk at home without turning into a police state, how do we correct the mistakes of multi-culturalism and integrate better into a unified community, where is the boundary between free speech and incitement to be put etc etc.
All of these questions seem to me relevant to our future security and they do not have straightforward answers.
These are all very good questions and the government should be coming up with practical answers and implementing them. Overreaction is not needed but nor is an "Oh well, stuff happens" response. What seems surprising to me is that only the Tories seem to be thinking about these things. I may have missed this but has anyone in Labour come up with any sort of coherent thought about how to address the ISIL threat at home and/or a response to Cameron's speech on extremism?
No. It is tricky territory for Labour and probably not a scenario which would help any of the candidates win members votes. We can only hope they have something to contribute once elected.
It's quite incredible that a former MP is so blase about the tens of thousands of people working at local councils being able to read one's emails.
Do you really think tens of thousands of people working at local councils can read your emails? Really?
I don't know what it is about this subject which makes so many people completely lose their marbles.
I was speaking about what NickPalmer was apparently comfortable with in a hypothetical. However, if the departments with permission to use spying powers employ a total of 25 people with access, that reaches five figures across 400 or so authorities. Given they are allowed to use such powers on things as minor as bin crimes, that does not seem implausible.
As regular readers will know, I'm pretty much in favour of a clean and fresh approach of a new airport, which would probably be in the Thames Estuary. Given Instanbul is building a six-runway airport, even an expanded LHR will not be able to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
(Although given the problems on the Marmaray Project, we should not assume it will be built as planned).
The logic that we should spend all sorts of public money to make one big 'global player' in an industry was tried to death in the 1970s and ended up with inefficient behemoths like British Leyland dragging the whole sector down. What we need is not a 'bigger is better' approach but a 'competition is better' one, with several hub airports, starting with Gatwick being #2.
The idea of several hub airports is an odd one, given the purpose of hubs. It may work in very large and prosperous countries, but not ones the size of the UK. It's little good landing at Gatwick when the flight you want to transfer to is at Heathrow.
Your idea might work if Boeing's betting on more regional airports and direct flights (the 787) beats Airbus's reliance on hubs (A380). So far the jury is out.
The whole premise is wrong, we don't need a hub airport.
Do you think there are no benefits from having a hub airport?
For somewhere like Dubai with the location, space, limited demand for flights from tourism and business as well as little economic development and then yes.
We attract plenty of flights as a destination in of itself and have no economic need to host a hub airport. Moreover we do not have the space or infrastructure to compete with Dubai, Amsterdam or Istanbul even if we wanted to.
So you are not consistent. Your position is absolutely ludicrous - on the one hand you do think that aviation is a public interest, and that therefore citizens' property rights can be overridden by the state "to allow for the proper functioning of the transport system", yet you think it's no business of the state to decide between the competing proposals which will have massive damaging effects on those affected,. You want the state to grab land for whatever scheme anyone proposing an airport wants, by implication without considering what would best achieve the proper functioning of the transport system.
That is, if you pardon my bluntness, stark raving bonkers.
My position is perfectly consistent. The state should set the overall framework regulating the use, acquisition and development of land. This is entirely uncontroversial, since property is something recognised and given effect to by law, which presupposes the existence of the state. It is unobjectionable to allow airport owners to acquire, subject to the payment of compensation, neighbouring land to build another runway. What the state should not be doing is engaging in corporatism by making decisions about which airport owners ought to have that right. It is akin to the difference between the government setting a minimum wage applicable to all employers and setting the wages of each employee individually.
Nick: I realise that you may not be bothered if the local council reads your email. But this did not happen by accident. The power to do so had to be given to it. So why should the local council be given such a power? Why do you or did you think it should be given such a power?
Firstly, people are not fussed about all sorts of things until it turns around and bites them on the arse, and then its usually too late. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Secondly, people are not fussed about things because the great and the good go out of their way to not explain the implications to them. They might be un-fussed about their email being read by the local council. But trying asking them instead if they would like Social Services reading their emails with their mistress, or listening in to their arguments with their wives or their communications with their doctors, or HMRC reading emails to their accountant, or the CPS reading emails to their lawyer, or RIPA powers being used to force journalists to reveal their sources, or spy on parents choice of schools, of which rubbish bins there were using and you might find them a little more concerned.
Indigo: that first quote is not mine by Nick Palmer. I am very bothered about people in local councils reading my emails. I value my privacy. And have no time for politicians who are so willing to invade my right to privacy for trivial or non-existent reasons or so careless about protecting it. Without privacy there can be no real freedom or free speech and thought.
There is no good reason that I can think of why the local council should be able to read my emails as a matter of routine and I'm still waiting for an answer from Nick P as to why he thought they should be given such a power.
Sorry, that was a cut/paste error, I was trying to highlight Dr Palmer's apparent insouciance about gross violations of privacy and privilege on the somewhat thin basis that an uninformed and otherwise distracted public doesn't appear to be concerned about it.
We attract plenty of flights as a destination in of itself and have no economic need to host a hub airport. Moreover we do not have the space or infrastructure to compete with Dubai, Amsterdam or Istanbul even if we wanted to.
The Netherlands is every bit as space constrained as we are. They just happen to have located their main airport in a more sensible place. There's no doubt that Amsterdam has reaped economic benefits from this.
As for the position of London/UK as a destination in itself, this is true, but a large proportion of people arriving in London on long-haul flights have other European cities as their final destination. If you take out these passengers then fewer long-haul flights become feasible and the number of destinations you can reach directly from London will shrink.
Those advocating 'ever closer union' need to understand that this means Greece's bills are paid by Germany. That's how a superstate HAS to work, it's a single country after all.
Even if it's a single country doesn't mean that all the bits of it are on the hook for the debts of all the other bits. American cities can go bankrupt without the central government stepping in.
edmund, I think technically the states can also go bankrupt although to my knowledge that has not yet happened. But Illinois is trying very hard with its pensions and bond issues to blaze the trail. California is in the chase too.
Indeed, nutcases see a headline, and jump to absurd conclusions.
Here's a hint, which may help. An application for "directed surveillance", in virtually all cases, is NOT an application to read your emails, or anything remotely like it. Usually - as indeed the article makes clear, if you bother to read it - it's about council officers keeping an eye on a public place where there's a nuisance from fly-tipping or dog fouling.
I'm in a full suit and tie in 35C heat. If I can manage it today, so can the Mayor of London.
I was dressed up for court this morning with waistcoat, wing collar, morning coat, court gown and a stupid horsehair wig.
Beat that.
I believe Indian barristers used to have to wear the same, without the more temperate climate and air conditioning. Suck it up.
Are the wigs real horsehair these days, btw?
Oh yes. If you are going to wear something truly stupid in the bizarre belief that this is a useful marketing tool in 2015 you don't want to go in for half measures.
Indeed, nutcases see a headline, and jump to absurd conclusions.
Here's a hint, which may help. An application for "directed surveillance", in virtually all cases, is NOT an application to read your emails, or anything remotely like it. Usually - as indeed the article makes clear, if you bother to read it - it's about council officers keeping an eye on a public place where there's a nuisance from fly-tipping or dog fouling.
Any yet we have several hundred public bodies with no connection to National Security with powers to obtain access to "communication data", or as it is more quaintly known, emails. But you appear to be back in your "government can do no wrong" mindset so this conversation is probably futile.
"It's one thing to use covert surveillance in operations investigating terrorism and other serious crimes, but it has come to a pretty pass when this kind of intrusive activity is used to police school catchment areas.
My position is perfectly consistent. The state should set the overall framework regulating the use, acquisition and development of land. This is entirely uncontroversial, since property is something recognised and given effect to by law, which presupposes the existence of the state. It is unobjectionable to allow airport owners to acquire, subject to the payment of compensation, neighbouring land to build another runway. What the state should not be doing is engaging in corporatism by making decisions about which airport owners ought to have that right. It is akin to the difference between the government setting a minimum wage applicable to all employers and setting the wages of each employee individually.
Blimey. You really are arguing that anyone should be able to build an airport anywhere they like, and, even more incredibly, that they should be able to invoke compulsory purchase powers to do so.
Tell me, would this curious position extend to someone wanting to put a little landing strip in Kensington, and compulsorily purcahse the land to do so? If not, why not?
Festival of Nimbyism in our fair country this morning I see.
Gatwick is a terrible place for an airport, to get there is a massive pain.
Heathrow also in a terrible place, but better than Gatwick
Why was Stansted not considered? And As i live really close and travel for work a lot I would love it. Also would love writing in support to the local paper and attacking all my NIMBY neighbours...
If you're going by population centre arguments, then East Mids Airport would be the best choice !
But seeing as it's a non runner, Heathrow's location crucially to the west of London means it is easier to get to for the average person by population somewhere between Nuneaton and Leicester.
East mids would make sense based on Brits getting TO the airport.
But you need to do calculations not just based on travel to the airport, but also where visitors go when they land.
A lot of people will go a very short distance - to another flight from heathrow (the hub argument).
An awful lot of others will go to London and the South East for tourism and business. So Heathrow better than East Mids for these 2 reasons, and better than Gatwick for your reason.
Any yet we have several hundred public bodies with no connection to National Security with powers to obtain access to "communication data", or as it is more quaintly known, emails. But you appear to be back in your "government can do no wrong" mindset so this conversation is probably futile.
What 'government can do no wrong' mindset, for heaven's sake? This was an act passed by the Labour governnment. You might have noticed that I wasn't exactly a fan of said government.
I am, however, a fan of getting facts straight. The garbage I was picking up was the utter nonsense - alas, often repeated, even by people who should be capable of at least a tenuous grip on reality - of the statement that tens of thousands of people working at local councils are able to read one's emails. The correct number is: Zero.
As it happens, I do agree that the powers of RIPA are too widely drawn. But let's not base the criticism on fantasy.
Tell me, would this curious position extend to someone wanting to put a little landing strip in Kensington, and compulsorily purcahse the land to do so? If not, why not?
The cost of the compulsory purchases would be prohibitive, no?
The problem the Greek government has now, as the Germans are pointing out, is that no one believes a word they say even when they say yes.
Who believes that Syriza will cut the public sector pay roll; cut public sector pensions; privatise state assets with the proceeds going to debt reduction, liberalise their labour markets and exercise fiscal discipline? Who believes the Greeks will start to take tax evasion seriously? It would have been a stretch before but after the last fortnight no one.
The consequence is that rather than having a set of principles they will need a very detailed and specific set of terms regulating how Greece is to be governed over a number of years. And documents like that cannot be drawn up overnight.
I think we can be confident that Greek banks will not be open on Monday anyway.
Festival of Nimbyism in our fair country this morning I see.
Gatwick is a terrible place for an airport, to get there is a massive pain.
Heathrow also in a terrible place, but better than Gatwick
Why was Stansted not considered? And As i live really close and travel for work a lot I would love it. Also would love writing in support to the local paper and attacking all my NIMBY neighbours...
If you're going by population centre arguments, then East Mids Airport would be the best choice !
But seeing as it's a non runner, Heathrow's location crucially to the west of London means it is easier to get to for the average person by population somewhere between Nuneaton and Leicester.
East mids would make sense based on Brits getting TO the airport.
But you need to do calculations not just based on travel to the airport, but also where visitors go when they land.
A lot of people will go a very short distance - to another flight from heathrow (the hub argument).
An awful lot of others will go to London and the South East for tourism and business. So Heathrow better than East Mids for these 2 reasons, and better than Gatwick for your reason.
Stansted best for me personally ;-)
EMA for me, Stansted for yourself. But Heathrow seems to be the best option nationally ^_~
I am, however, a fan of getting facts straight. The garbage I was picking up was the utter nonsense - alas, often repeated, even by people who should be capable of at least a tenuous grip on reality - of the statement that tens of thousands of people working at local councils are able to read one's emails. The correct number is: Zero.
As it happens, I do agree that the powers of RIPA are too widely drawn. But let's not base the criticism on fantasy.
You mean aside from the current governments stated intention to widen the definition of "communications data" from the current meaning of "metadata" to "content", which includes urls visited and, funnily enough, emails (snapchat, banks transactions and other encrypted communications) which will included, because there is no way to exclude them, the type of privileged communications mentioned earlier.
It's quite incredible that a former MP is so blase about the tens of thousands of people working at local councils being able to read one's emails. The political elite's unwaivering belief in the innate goodness of the state and all who work for it shows a deep lack of knowledge about history. In places like East Germany all sorts of local bureaucrats used their ability to spy on people for blackmail and abuse.
Nick: I realise that you may not be bothered if the local council reads your email. But this did not happen by accident. The power to do so had to be given to it. So why should the local council be given such a power? Why do you or did you think it should be given such a power?
... There is no good reason that I can think of why the local council should be able to read my emails as a matter of routine and I'm still waiting for an answer from Nick P as to why he thought they should be given such a power.
Cyclefree, I only look in here now and then, so there's nothing very unusual in it taking a few hours to reply! No need to paw the ground impatiently. :-)
My post was intended as a bit of a provocation, but there's IMO an underlying truth in it. Most people and most MPs simply assume that not very many people have the power to read emails, that not very many people will be affected by those that do, and that we as individuals won't often have emails about which we care who reads them. As Richard N points out, it's simply not true that thousands of council employees can read them, or that the council generally can read them as a matter of routine.
If nonetheless you are very concerned about the issue, I'm just pointing out that there is a difficulty - most MPs don't see it as a big deal. There are other things which I do worry about (maltreatment of non-voters in vulnerable situations - prisons, asylum centres, dementia homes, etc.) where I also think that most MPs aren't paying attention. The question of how to raise MP concern about issues that don't excite most voters is a very real one.
JEO, obviously, if the ability to read emails is then misused by blackmail or other abuse, that is a criminal offence. The right to do something legally for purposes construed by Parliament as appropriate is a separate issue from misusing it for private (or political) purposes.
EMA for me, Stansted for yourself. But Heathrow seems to be the best option nationally ^_~
Strategically we should be looking to expand Birmingham. If it can get achieve critical mass as a major airport it can be a viable alternative to Heathrow for Brits based in Oxfordshire, Buckinghamsire and the Midlands, plus if we build HS2 it can service both London and the Northern Powerhouse.
The problem the Greek government has now, as the Germans are pointing out, is that no one believes a word they say even when they say yes.
Who believes that Syriza will cut the public sector pay roll; cut public sector pensions; privatise state assets with the proceeds going to debt reduction, liberalise their labour markets and exercise fiscal discipline? Who believes the Greeks will start to take tax evasion seriously? It would have been a stretch before but after the last fortnight no one.
The consequence is that rather than having a set of principles they will need a very detailed and specific set of terms regulating how Greece is to be governed over a number of years. And documents like that cannot be drawn up overnight.
I think we can be confident that Greek banks will not be open on Monday anyway.
To be fair the previous government which was "trusted" by the international bodies promised to do all sorts of things to improve the economy and didn't as well, which is part of the reason the current bunch of yahoos got elected in the first place.
Richard_Nabavi hasn't shown that few members of local authorities have these powers at all. In fact we have no idea whatsoever just how many people do, due to the lack of care governments of various stripes have had with respect to this topic. As you reveal in your post, most MPs just assume it is fine rather than doing their jobs and making sure they understand the issue properly. But a number north of 10,000 is certainly possible: it would only take 25 individuals per council to have access, by ny reckoning.
You mean aside from the current governments stated intention to widen the definition of "communications data" from the current meaning of "metadata" to "content", which includes urls visited and, funnily enough, emails (snapchat, banks transactions and other encrypted communications) which will included, because there is no way to exclude them, the type of privileged communications mentioned earlier.
You are moving the goalposts (what a surprise).
So, we are agreed on the first point, regarding the current powers of local councils, I take it.
On your new and completely separate point, I don't think there is any suggestion that any body other than the security services and police would have access to content. And for that they would need a warrant, issued by the Home Secretary, exactly as now.
There is a legitimate discussion to be had on the safeguards for this process, and David Anderson QC has written a report on these:
The Greek government's game plan seems to be to say we will trash the Greek economy unless you write off our debts and lendus more money to implement a socialist utopia.
If the Eurozone countries give in to such balckmail then what is to stop other EU countries doing the same.
So Germany has to let Syriza trash the economy and wait until the Greek people remove them. Then the EU and IMF will help a different government implement reforms and ideally replace the euro with the new drachma so that there are some self imposed disciplines on future Greek governments.
As for "abuse is a crime under existing laws and therefore we need not worry about these powers", thats a very poor argument. It seemingly takes a huge effort of state for us to bring to justice large networks of people involved in electoral fraud or covering up street grooming in local authorities. The idea that we can easily catch local government officials snooping where they should not is very quaint in that context.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour · 2m2 minutes ago Cameron says committed to Tory manifesto pledge for equal sized constituency in a smaller house of commons. So MPs numbers cut 650 to 600.
Open Europe @OpenEurope - Merkel makes strong case for keeping to the rules in Europe in order for EU to survive - compromise at any cost not worthwhile.
Intriguing, up till now I thought breaking all the rules to save the EU was de facto.
JEO, obviously, if the ability to read emails is then misused by blackmail or other abuse, that is a criminal offence. The right to do something legally for purposes construed by Parliament as appropriate is a separate issue from misusing it for private (or political) purposes.
No, it's the same issue. If you give someone a tool, you have to think about how it may be used.
What British people don't fully understand about civil liberties is that they are a security measure. This is much more obvious to people in Germany, where they have a very clear an unambiguous historical example of law enforcement tools being used for evil, but the calculation should be the same everywhere.
If you're trying to enhance security with measure x, you need to do a proper security analysis on it. What are the threats it protects you from, and what are the threats that it makes worse? In recent European history by far the largest security threat to the population has tended to be their own governments or the governments of neighbouring countries, so this is not an academic issue.
I've never heard anyone present any kind of convincing defence of the security trade-offs of large, secretive government surveillance programs. I think they must be like having a loaded gun in your home: It might make you feel safer if you feel scared, but in practice it's much more likely to take your life than to save it.
The problem the Greek government has now, as the Germans are pointing out, is that no one believes a word they say even when they say yes.
Who believes that Syriza will cut the public sector pay roll; cut public sector pensions; privatise state assets with the proceeds going to debt reduction, liberalise their labour markets and exercise fiscal discipline? Who believes the Greeks will start to take tax evasion seriously? It would have been a stretch before but after the last fortnight no one.
The consequence is that rather than having a set of principles they will need a very detailed and specific set of terms regulating how Greece is to be governed over a number of years. And documents like that cannot be drawn up overnight.
I think we can be confident that Greek banks will not be open on Monday anyway.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Germans (Dutch/Finns/Austrians/Irish/Spanish and others) on this. I wouldn't believe a word Syriza said either after they've acted like they're running a student union circa 1968, but clearly the Germans do not want to be seen to be defacto governing Greece with liberal use of a red pen as they go through the Greek budget line by line (for all the obvious reasons).
So we have a Euro area government with nigh on zero credibility, but if it's effectively removed via a fiscal crowbar, it's an anti democratic "Euro coup". It's a total mess, and I see no long term way out unless somebody actually tells the EZ electorates the truth, which is they've been landed with a pup and a tax/spend transfer union is the only long term way to stability (ie a new country) and do they want to vote for it? Answer probably no. If indeed they are allowed a vote of course, for this is exactly the sort of "Euro crisis" that the Machiavellian Euro enthusiasts foresaw might get them to a USE (United States of Europe) via a back door.
Germany and Italy were not united in the 1860/70's through rational democratic debate were they? It was a series of crises, customs and currency unions, military actions (read "regime change" in our age hopefully, nothing as drastic as military action even in these odd times!), dodgy referendums, compromises on jobs (all that southern German royalty keeping titles and allowed to go castle building).
And all the time the continent of Europe gets ever smaller on a world stage. They are in danger of recreating an Austro Hungarian Empire for the 21st Century. The architecture's lovely, the wines is great, the cake's are creamy, the hats are feathery, lots of posh high sounding titles (does a Commissioner equal an Archduke?), and all the while fading into sepia tainted somewhat moth eaten irrelevance. Next waltz anyone?
Looks like the Greek farce is entering a new and even more farcical phase, with the Eurozone leaders (who were aghast at Tsipras calling the referendum) now keen for it to go ahead, and Tsipras reportedly thinking of cancelling it:
V. surprised it hasn't already. I know the Greeks introduced the Stoics, but this is going some.
What might be the reasoning for cancelling a referendum - the wrong outcome perhaps?
There was some speculation at the weekend that the PM had acted in haste and come to regret it, partly because he would lose and therefore have to resign.
"The FT says a letter sent by Mr Tsipras to creditors asked for only two changes: that a VAT discount to Greek islands is maintained, and that the process of raising the retirement age to 67 begins in October and not immediately."
He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind, on the one hand conceding:
" Of course it is the responsibility of teachers to report suspicions of students being groomed by Isis and other jihadis, just as is the case with suspicions of grooming for sexual abuse."
But on the other hand having unarticulated concerns that making "Muslims feel like a fifth column, a potential enemy within, from childhood onwards: this is guaranteed to make British Muslims feel even more besieged and defensive".
He doesn't seem to have any solutions other than getting into a time machine and not invading Iraq or Libya.
and also the Germans are now saying they will not discuss the bail out terms until ref is out of the way. The ref is now a block on further negotiation.
There was some speculation at the weekend that the PM had acted in haste and come to regret it, partly because he would lose and therefore have to resign.
No I think the PM acted according to a well-thought out game plan and was 10 moves ahead of his interlocutors. What scuppered him was the rapid reassessment of the strategy of the EU/IMF in response to his actions.
Looks like the Greek farce is entering a new and even more farcical phase, with the Eurozone leaders (who were aghast at Tsipras calling the referendum) now keen for it to go ahead, and Tsipras reportedly thinking of cancelling it:
He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind, on the one hand conceding:
" Of course it is the responsibility of teachers to report suspicions of students being groomed by Isis and other jihadis, just as is the case with suspicions of grooming for sexual abuse."
But on the other hand having unarticulated concerns that making "Muslims feel like a fifth column, a potential enemy within, from childhood onwards: this is guaranteed to make British Muslims feel even more besieged and defensive".
He doesn't seem to have any solutions other than getting into a time machine and not invading Iraq or Libya.
He's trying to reach his conclusion through the default progressive filters of the liberal-left: anti-racism, anti-imperialism and anti-homophobia are fighting for supremacy in his head, and he's struggling to reconcile them.
He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind, on the one hand conceding:
" Of course it is the responsibility of teachers to report suspicions of students being groomed by Isis and other jihadis, just as is the case with suspicions of grooming for sexual abuse."
But on the other hand having unarticulated concerns that making "Muslims feel like a fifth column, a potential enemy within, from childhood onwards: this is guaranteed to make British Muslims feel even more besieged and defensive".
He doesn't seem to have any solutions other than getting into a time machine and not invading Iraq or Libya.
He's trying to reach his conclusion through the default progressive filters of the liberal-left: anti-racism, anti-imperialism and anti-homophobia are fighting for supremacy in his head, and he's struggling to reconcile them.
Oh the whole piece is nonsense. The new requirements are entirely sensible. I'm not expecting teachers to issue reports if pupils say that homosexuality is morally wrong - it's a point of view. But if teachers heard pupils aggressively arguing that gay men should be stoned to death, I'd hope that they would think that worthy of report.
JEO, obviously, if the ability to read emails is then misused by blackmail or other abuse, that is a criminal offence. The right to do something legally for purposes construed by Parliament as appropriate is a separate issue from misusing it for private (or political) purposes.
No, it's the same issue. If you give someone a tool, you have to think about how it may be used.
What British people don't fully understand about civil liberties is that they are a security measure. This is much more obvious to people in Germany, where they have a very clear an unambiguous historical example of law enforcement tools being used for evil, but the calculation should be the same everywhere.
If you're trying to enhance security with measure x, you need to do a proper security analysis on it. What are the threats it protects you from, and what are the threats that it makes worse? In recent European history by far the largest security threat to the population has tended to be their own governments or the governments of neighbouring countries, so this is not an academic issue.
I've never heard anyone present any kind of convincing defence of the security trade-offs of large, secretive government surveillance programs. I think they must be like having a loaded gun in your home: It might make you feel safer if you feel scared, but in practice it's much more likely to take your life than to save it.
I don't agree with you very often, but on this I do: I think that's spot on.
Blimey. You really are arguing that anyone should be able to build an airport anywhere they like, and, even more incredibly, that they should be able to invoke compulsory purchase powers to do so.
Tell me, would this curious position extend to someone wanting to put a little landing strip in Kensington, and compulsorily purcahse the land to do so? If not, why not?
As I said, I am in favour of the state enacting the general framework. Provided it is based on objective criteria which do not discriminate between airport operators, it can, of course, impose restrictions on the ability to expand, or to create airports, for example, based on the area's population density, distance from the sea etc.. What it should not be doing is selecting one proposed expansion scheme over another. The view that it should is reminiscent of the old orthodox view about the regulation of civil aviation. It was a matter of public interest, it was argued, so the state should favour one monopoly operator (which happened to be controlled by the state) and capriciously prevent new entrants to the market. That orthodoxy was smashed by the late Sir Freddie Laker, to the great benefit of the public.
Looks like the Greek farce is entering a new and even more farcical phase, with the Eurozone leaders (who were aghast at Tsipras calling the referendum) now keen for it to go ahead, and Tsipras reportedly thinking of cancelling it:
The EU leaders thought they would get the wrong answer from the Greeks so they didn't like the idea, now its looking like they might get the right answer, then its a mighty fine idea after all. Tsipras & Co. obviously think the opposite for exactly the same reasons.
Planes, trains and helicopters; transport is almost up there with Europe as an issue through which Tory disloyalty might eventually crystallise.
I see a remake coming on with Boris as John Candy, Zak as Steve Martin, David Cameron as the thanksgiving turkey and, given Boris, the almost inevitable involvement of a polka band at some stage.
And all the time the continent of Europe gets ever smaller on a world stage. They are in danger of recreating an Austro Hungarian Empire for the 21st Century. The architecture's lovely, the wines is great, the cake's are creamy, the hats are feathery, lots of posh high sounding titles (does a Commissioner equal an Archduke?), and all the while fading into sepia tainted somewhat moth eaten irrelevance. Next waltz anyone?
Another excellent post @welshowl. Once again you have managed to express in written form the more general feelings that I have for the subject. I feel though that our EU membership is something worth saving, if we can get the relationship that is best for both us and the EU.
Meanwhile bookmaker Paddy Power has paid out a five figure sum to those who bet Greece would vote yes in Sunday’s referendum. It said:
At the time of paying out, the bookie was offering odds of 2/7 that the Greeks would pass the referendum.
Since the market opened on Monday the bookie has seen one way traffic in the betting with over 85% of all money staked in favour that the result would pass.
Comments
Sadly, our increasingly misandric culture does not help.
As an example, I was really pi**ed off that Labour had a shadow minister for preventing violence against women and girls, when there is plenty of violence against men and boys as well.
If we want equality, then it should be equality.
Your idea might work if Boeing's betting on more regional airports and direct flights (the 787) beats Airbus's reliance on hubs (A380). So far the jury is out.
I hate wearing ties.
Although I don't think I'd be very popular if I tried to enter parliament wearing the garb in my avatar.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2220716/original.jpg
That is, if you pardon my bluntness, stark raving bonkers.
Re dress for men, removing jacket is fine in theory, but I still keep one on if actually in a meeting or the like. I don't find ties make a difference one way or the other so always wear one I the summer.
There is no good reason that I can think of why the local council should be able to read my emails as a matter of routine and I'm still waiting for an answer from Nick P as to why he thought they should be given such a power.
Glad I'm not in sweatbox London
We attract plenty of flights as a destination in of itself and have no economic need to host a hub airport. Moreover we do not have the space or infrastructure to compete with Dubai, Amsterdam or Istanbul even if we wanted to.
As for the position of London/UK as a destination in itself, this is true, but a large proportion of people arriving in London on long-haul flights have other European cities as their final destination. If you take out these passengers then fewer long-haul flights become feasible and the number of destinations you can reach directly from London will shrink.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584808/Council-spy-cases-hit-1000-a-month.html
Beat that.
Are the wigs real horsehair these days, btw?
Here's a hint, which may help. An application for "directed surveillance", in virtually all cases, is NOT an application to read your emails, or anything remotely like it. Usually - as indeed the article makes clear, if you bother to read it - it's about council officers keeping an eye on a public place where there's a nuisance from fly-tipping or dog fouling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/7398820.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/7343445.stm
Tell me, would this curious position extend to someone wanting to put a little landing strip in Kensington, and compulsorily purcahse the land to do so? If not, why not?
But you need to do calculations not just based on travel to the airport, but also where visitors go when they land.
A lot of people will go a very short distance - to another flight from heathrow (the hub argument).
An awful lot of others will go to London and the South East for tourism and business. So Heathrow better than East Mids for these 2 reasons, and better than Gatwick for your reason.
Stansted best for me personally ;-)
I am, however, a fan of getting facts straight. The garbage I was picking up was the utter nonsense - alas, often repeated, even by people who should be capable of at least a tenuous grip on reality - of the statement that tens of thousands of people working at local councils are able to read one's emails. The correct number is: Zero.
As it happens, I do agree that the powers of RIPA are too widely drawn. But let's not base the criticism on fantasy.
https://twitter.com/cabinetofficeuk/status/616200988555395072
Who believes that Syriza will cut the public sector pay roll; cut public sector pensions; privatise state assets with the proceeds going to debt reduction, liberalise their labour markets and exercise fiscal discipline? Who believes the Greeks will start to take tax evasion seriously? It would have been a stretch before but after the last fortnight no one.
The consequence is that rather than having a set of principles they will need a very detailed and specific set of terms regulating how Greece is to be governed over a number of years. And documents like that cannot be drawn up overnight.
I think we can be confident that Greek banks will not be open on Monday anyway.
My post was intended as a bit of a provocation, but there's IMO an underlying truth in it. Most people and most MPs simply assume that not very many people have the power to read emails, that not very many people will be affected by those that do, and that we as individuals won't often have emails about which we care who reads them. As Richard N points out, it's simply not true that thousands of council employees can read them, or that the council generally can read them as a matter of routine.
If nonetheless you are very concerned about the issue, I'm just pointing out that there is a difficulty - most MPs don't see it as a big deal. There are other things which I do worry about (maltreatment of non-voters in vulnerable situations - prisons, asylum centres, dementia homes, etc.) where I also think that most MPs aren't paying attention. The question of how to raise MP concern about issues that don't excite most voters is a very real one.
JEO, obviously, if the ability to read emails is then misused by blackmail or other abuse, that is a criminal offence. The right to do something legally for purposes construed by Parliament as appropriate is a separate issue from misusing it for private (or political) purposes.
Richard_Nabavi hasn't shown that few members of local authorities have these powers at all. In fact we have no idea whatsoever just how many people do, due to the lack of care governments of various stripes have had with respect to this topic. As you reveal in your post, most MPs just assume it is fine rather than doing their jobs and making sure they understand the issue properly. But a number north of 10,000 is certainly possible: it would only take 25 individuals per council to have access, by ny reckoning.
So, we are agreed on the first point, regarding the current powers of local councils, I take it.
On your new and completely separate point, I don't think there is any suggestion that any body other than the security services and police would have access to content. And for that they would need a warrant, issued by the Home Secretary, exactly as now.
There is a legitimate discussion to be had on the safeguards for this process, and David Anderson QC has written a report on these:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/uk-intelligence-agencies-should-keep-mass-surveillance-powers-report-gchq
As far as I know the government hasn't responded to this report yet.
If the Eurozone countries give in to such balckmail then what is to stop other EU countries doing the same.
So Germany has to let Syriza trash the economy and wait until the Greek people remove them. Then the EU and IMF will help a different government implement reforms and ideally replace the euro with the new drachma so that there are some self imposed disciplines on future Greek governments.
Cameron says committed to Tory manifesto pledge for equal sized constituency in a smaller house of commons. So MPs numbers cut 650 to 600.
Intriguing, up till now I thought breaking all the rules to save the EU was de facto.
It opened in 1968 !
Any property owner who has owned their property since then near Heathrow will have done very well indeed.
NIMBYism at it's finest
What British people don't fully understand about civil liberties is that they are a security measure. This is much more obvious to people in Germany, where they have a very clear an unambiguous historical example of law enforcement tools being used for evil, but the calculation should be the same everywhere.
If you're trying to enhance security with measure x, you need to do a proper security analysis on it. What are the threats it protects you from, and what are the threats that it makes worse? In recent European history by far the largest security threat to the population has tended to be their own governments or the governments of neighbouring countries, so this is not an academic issue.
I've never heard anyone present any kind of convincing defence of the security trade-offs of large, secretive government surveillance programs. I think they must be like having a loaded gun in your home: It might make you feel safer if you feel scared, but in practice it's much more likely to take your life than to save it.
So we have a Euro area government with nigh on zero credibility, but if it's effectively removed via a fiscal crowbar, it's an anti democratic "Euro coup". It's a total mess, and I see no long term way out unless somebody actually tells the EZ electorates the truth, which is they've been landed with a pup and a tax/spend transfer union is the only long term way to stability (ie a new country) and do they want to vote for it? Answer probably no. If indeed they are allowed a vote of course, for this is exactly the sort of "Euro crisis" that the Machiavellian Euro enthusiasts foresaw might get them to a USE (United States of Europe) via a back door.
Germany and Italy were not united in the 1860/70's through rational democratic debate were they? It was a series of crises, customs and currency unions, military actions (read "regime change" in our age hopefully, nothing as drastic as military action even in these odd times!), dodgy referendums, compromises on jobs (all that southern German royalty keeping titles and allowed to go castle building).
And all the time the continent of Europe gets ever smaller on a world stage. They are in danger of recreating an Austro Hungarian Empire for the 21st Century. The architecture's lovely, the wines is great, the cake's are creamy, the hats are feathery, lots of posh high sounding titles (does a Commissioner equal an Archduke?), and all the while fading into sepia tainted somewhat moth eaten irrelevance. Next waltz anyone?
I assume the last (abandoned) boundary review is now out of date, as it was for 2015 - not 2020
It doesn't have to be a large rebellion either.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/01/greek-debt-crisis-creditors-consider-next-moves-after-imf-default-live
(Bonus points, if you get the pop culture reference)
FTSE up 1.3%
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/01/muslim-children-enemy-radicalisation
He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind, on the one hand conceding:
" Of course it is the responsibility of teachers to report suspicions of students being groomed by Isis and other jihadis, just as is the case with suspicions of grooming for sexual abuse."
But on the other hand having unarticulated concerns that making "Muslims feel like a fifth column, a potential enemy within, from childhood onwards: this is guaranteed to make British Muslims feel even more besieged and defensive".
He doesn't seem to have any solutions other than getting into a time machine and not invading Iraq or Libya.
http://rt.com/uk/239797-boris-may-water-cannons/
Hopefully, this affair will highlight the absurdity of the notion of 'moving away from' austerity.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
I see a remake coming on with Boris as John Candy, Zak as Steve Martin, David Cameron as the thanksgiving turkey and, given Boris, the almost inevitable involvement of a polka band at some stage.
Once again you have managed to express in written form the more general feelings that I have for the subject.
I feel though that our EU membership is something worth saving, if we can get the relationship that is best for both us and the EU.
Meanwhile bookmaker Paddy Power has paid out a five figure sum to those who bet Greece would vote yes in Sunday’s referendum. It said:
At the time of paying out, the bookie was offering odds of 2/7 that the Greeks would pass the referendum.
Since the market opened on Monday the bookie has seen one way traffic in the betting with over 85% of all money staked in favour that the result would pass.