Just heard Jeremy Hunt thank the 40% of Junior Doctors working normally today. I thought all the Junior Doctors were on strike. If as seems likely public support will fall surely the strike will collapse as it doesnt take many more doctors to go to work for the strike to be supported by less than half of doctors
No not all junior doctors are on strike only BMA members. My trust (and it is the one which had been on the news) has only 70% BMA membership. Those non members have been specifically warned about taking some action as they would not perhaps have protection against dismissal. Like everything which comes out of Hunt's mouth it is pure spin.
The interesting part of this is that the Junior Doctors now appear split and not far from 50/50 and I an sure the public thought this strike was by all Junior Doctors. I can see only one winner here and its not the Junior Doctors
I can't help it if you had been misled by Hunt's dissembling if every junior doctor who was a BMA member was on strike today then 33% of all junior doctors would be in work today.
I do not think the Junior Doctors will win this dispute
The point of being in the EEA is that only our relationship with Europe is governed by the EEA treaty, not everything we do. We would be free to enter a trade agreement with Peru if we so wanted and our companies could export there in the same manner as US companies do with fewer tariffs and barriers.
I'm unimpressed by this argument that we'd get some advantage through trade deals by leaving. Can anyone cite any industry, any industry at all, which is lobbying for non-EU-brokered trade deals? Furthermore, since the developed country which is unquestionably the biggest success in the world at exporting is a member of the EU, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that our non-EU exports are being held back by EU membership. On balance, the argument over trade deals is either neutral or perhaps favours staying in the EU, IMO; scale is important in such negotiations.
Small point: Germany shares the Euro with a bunch of deadbeats. This gives it the mega advantage of having a currency that is WAY undervalued. But, errr, it also means the deadbeats have currencies WAY overvalued so their economic / export performance is crippled. And they can never repay their loans. The German model is therefore inherently unsustainable - a kind of giant vendor financing scam. German success comes from eating their co-religionists in the Euro. Not going to end well. 2016 will be the year. Buy gold.
"German success comes from eating their co-religionists". A very apposite summary. (Not sure about gold).
'He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.'
But as Max has said, what exactly is the PM asking for in this area? As far as I can see, nothing of any significance at all. Perhaps Richard you could lay out clearly what you think an acceptable outcome in this area would be, just so we all know.
"leaving will be worse and they cannot answer - so I don't have to"
She obviously isn't too concerned about having an active love life.
On the other hand, if someone discovers it, and thinks it is awesome, they should get engaged on the spot - clearly, their souls were meant for each other.
Mr. Robert, leave aside all other issues, isn't that UK number scary? Isn't that the number that we, and especially HMG, really should be concentrating on?
Yes, I agree.
If you produce a chart with savings rate on one side and current account surplus/deficit on the other, you'll see that there is a very high degree of correlation between the two. In other words, where the population saves, they run surpluses, and and where the population borrows, they run deficits. (Which is very logical.)
Our real problem is not exports as a percentage of GDP - where we comfortably beat out China and the US, and are roughly in line with most of our European peers (exc. Germany) - but imports.
Simply, our population borrows from banks to buy goods from abroad. On this out "prosperity" is based.
Melissa Kidd, who's the economist at Redburn Partners, calls the UK the Grasshopper Economy, and she's written some fabulous pieces I can share with you if you like.
She obviously isn't too concerned about having an active love life.
On the other hand, if someone discovers it, and thinks it is awesome, they should get engaged on the spot - clearly, their souls were meant for each other.
Gobsmacked - Never had you down as a romantic Mr kle4…!
In that specific scenario, I would have no choice but to agree the universe was speaking to them, even the cynical old late 20s codger that I am.
Just heard Jeremy Hunt thank the 40% of Junior Doctors working normally today. I thought all the Junior Doctors were on strike. If as seems likely public support will fall surely the strike will collapse as it doesnt take many more doctors to go to work for the strike to be supported by less than half of doctors
No not all junior doctors are on strike only BMA members. My trust (and it is the one which had been on the news) has only 70% BMA membership. Those non members have been specifically warned about taking some action as they would not perhaps have protection against dismissal. Like everything which comes out of Hunt's mouth it is pure spin.
Little bit tetchy there methinks. So the BMA maybe not so strong as they pretend.
(1) Stay in EU: remain as large net contributor, possess 1/28th of the say on the single market (with the risk of being regularly outvoted by the euro zone) but able to at least make our case in the EU parliament/European Council etc. with a handful of veto options. Risk of further EU integration scope creep and continue to be subject to CAP/CFP and justice/crime/foreign affairs/security oversight through Lisbon. Trade with rest of world wholly through EU.
(2) Leave EU: still pay a contribution through EEA/EFTA membership, but less, have no direct say on the single market and comply with products sold into it and have no veto options. But regain self-governance on CAP/CFP, trade deals and any constitutional/legal links to most supranational EU institutions, including crime/justice. Able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states with no threat of further integration. Retain some influence in Europe through economic size/clout on the continent.
For me, the balance is quite clearly in favour of (2) and flipped some time ago.
Not a bad summary, but I need to point out that "able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states" does not imply a *better* outcome, or even a *different* one. I assume the conversation would go like this
* UK: "Hello, TurkIranexico. I'm the UK. I've just left the EU and I'd like a much better deal please" * TurkIranexico. "Why? We haven't changed, you have. Our interests are still the same" * UK: "Ah. I didn't think this thru, did I?" * TurkIranexico. "No"
It's a bit like Donald Trump promising that Mexico will pay for the wall and the TeaPartiers believing him because the Prez is just magic. But Mexico hasn't been asked and the answer will at least enable us to find out what "f*** off" is in Mexican. Similarly a better deal with country X will require the cooperation of company X, and that cooperation has not been sought nor proffered. See also "We can have a commonwealth free trade area..."
What you are missing is that we can get a tailored deal.
In the deal with TurkIranexico we might make concessions on tweed and racing cars in order to get better terms on French wine and Italian cheese
The point of being in the EEA is that only our relationship with Europe is governed by the EEA treaty, not everything we do. We would be free to enter a trade agreement with Peru if we so wanted and our companies could export there in the same manner as US companies do with fewer tariffs and barriers.
I'm unimpressed by this argument that we'd get some advantage through trade deals by leaving. Can anyone cite any industry, any industry at all, which is lobbying for non-EU-brokered trade deals? Furthermore, since the developed country which is unquestionably the biggest success in the world at exporting is a member of the EU, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that our non-EU exports are being held back by EU membership. On balance, the argument over trade deals is either neutral or perhaps favours staying in the EU, IMO; scale is important in such negotiations.
Small point: Germany shares the Euro with a bunch of deadbeats. This gives it the mega advantage of having a currency that is WAY undervalued. But, errr, it also means the deadbeats have currencies WAY overvalued so their economic / export performance is crippled. And they can never repay their loans. The German model is therefore inherently unsustainable - a kind of giant vendor financing scam. German success comes from eating their co-religionists in the Euro. Not going to end well. 2016 will be the year. Buy gold.
The deadbeats - Italy, Spain, etc. - all run current account surpluses. Which does not imply their currencies are over-valued.
If Italy exited the Euro tomorrow and recreated the Lira would this currency appreciate or depreciate? Where would your money go? What's their debt / GDP picture and prognosis? The Euro is politically unresolvable but economically unsustainable - bodes very ill. The garlic zone is NOT fixed. The 2016 market shock will reveal the resilience of the Euro banking system for what it is. RBS' market advice is spot on:
Can I confess to not caring about the doctor's strike or the NHS generally? I know I should, it is of great significance to society at large and probably me at some point, but after 20 years of critical stories on the NHS, I just don't react to anything about it bar some horrible tragedy anymore. Even if someone explains to me why I should care, I can intellectually see why I should, but emotionally it doesn't get to me at all. It'll never not be failing in some way, apparently, it'll never not need saving imminently, I've got the equivalent of literary angst fatigue about it.
Mr. Robert, leave aside all other issues, isn't that UK number scary? Isn't that the number that we, and especially HMG, really should be concentrating on?
Yes, I agree.
If you produce a chart with savings rate on one side and current account surplus/deficit on the other, you'll see that there is a very high degree of correlation between the two. In other words, where the population saves, they run surpluses, and and where the population borrows, they run deficits. (Which is very logical.)
Our real problem is not exports as a percentage of GDP - where we comfortably beat out China and the US, and are roughly in line with most of our European peers (exc. Germany) - but imports.
Simply, our population borrows from banks to buy goods from abroad. On this out "prosperity" is based.
Melissa Kidd, who's the economist at Redburn Partners, calls the UK the Grasshopper Economy, and she's written some fabulous pieces I can share with you if you like.
I'd be very interested to see them (HurstLlama at gmail dir com will always find me), but perhaps the people that really ought to reading them are our politicians, senior treasury officials, and those on here who think that Mr. Alanbrooke, gent of this parish, is some sort of far right loon.
(1) Stay in EU: remain as large net contributor, possess 1/28th of the say on the single market (with the risk of being regularly outvoted by the euro zone) but able to at least make our case in the EU parliament/European Council etc. with a handful of veto options. Risk of further EU integration scope creep and continue to be subject to CAP/CFP and justice/crime/foreign affairs/security oversight through Lisbon. Trade with rest of world wholly through EU.
(2) Leave EU: still pay a contribution through EEA/EFTA membership, but less, have no direct say on the single market and comply with products sold into it and have no veto options. But regain self-governance on CAP/CFP, trade deals and any constitutional/legal links to most supranational EU institutions, including crime/justice. Able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states with no threat of further integration. Retain some influence in Europe through economic size/clout on the continent.
For me, the balance is quite clearly in favour of (2) and flipped some time ago.
Not a bad summary, but I need to point out that "able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states" does not imply a *better* outcome, or even a *different* one. I assume the conversation would go like this
* UK: "Hello, TurkIranexico. I'm the UK. I've just left the EU and I'd like a much better deal please" * TurkIranexico. "Why? We haven't changed, you have. Our interests are still the same" * UK: "Ah. I didn't think this thru, did I?" * TurkIranexico. "No"
It's a bit like Donald Trump promising that Mexico will pay for the wall and the TeaPartiers believing him because the Prez is just magic. But Mexico hasn't been asked and the answer will at least enable us to find out what "f*** off" is in Mexican. Similarly a better deal with country X will require the cooperation of company X, and that cooperation has not been sought nor proffered. See also "We can have a commonwealth free trade area..."
Yes, there would be challenges of course but I'd be far happier with the UK government being held accountable for tackling them by their own citizens.
Deals are made by the UK with other countries all the time - witness the deals even Cameron/Osborne have managed to negotiate with China, or the embassy deal Hague negotiated with the Harper government in Canada.
'He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.'
But as Max has said, what exactly is the PM asking for in this area? As far as I can see, nothing of any significance at all. Perhaps Richard you could lay out clearly what you think an acceptable outcome in this area would be, just so we all know.
I don't think we'll get an acceptable outcome, but I do think we'll get a better outcome than we would have done if Cameron had done nothing. In particular, I think we'll get a formal recognition that the EU can't discriminate against non-Eurozone states, which is very important because it will make it easier for us to challenge disagreeable proposals. It looks as though we'll get some changes to QMV.
Small beer, you may say, and you'd be right. But you are the one arguing for the EEA route, where we'd be subject to EXACTLY the same risk, but with zero say over measures proposed and with no institutional protection. If someone would care to explain to me how this is better, I'm all ears.
BBCLauraK 38 percent of junior doctors did go to work today I m told - majority on strike but less clear cut than original strike ballot
Seems high - not good for the militant wing of the BMA.
38% of JDs working does seem high once those on leave, sick and working other shifts is taken into account.
I would guess it is 40% of doctors scheduled to work today rather than 40% of all JDs and there perhaps has been some shifting around of schedules / holidays so that those likely to come in were on duty anyway.
Maybe but the fact that 40% of Junior Doctors were on duty will encourage Jeremy Hunt to stand firm
If BMA take strike action on February 10th, they'll lose public support and ultimately the fight. Perhaps that's the Governments plan?
Can I confess to not caring about the doctor's strike or the NHS generally? I know I should, it is of great significance to society at large and probably me at some point, but after 20 years of critical stories on the NHS, I just don't react to anything about it bar some horrible tragedy anymore. Even if someone explains to me why I should care, I can intellectually see why I should, but emotionally it doesn't get to me at all. It'll never not be failing in some way, apparently, it'll never not need saving imminently, I've got the equivalent of literary angst fatigue about it.
You're not alone. I can't get excited about the NHS, one way or another.
'He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.'
But as Max has said, what exactly is the PM asking for in this area? As far as I can see, nothing of any significance at all. Perhaps Richard you could lay out clearly what you think an acceptable outcome in this area would be, just so we all know.
I don't think we'll get an acceptable outcome, but I do think we'll get a better outcome than we would have done if Cameron had done nothing. In particular, I think we'll get a formal recognition that the EU can't discriminate against non-Eurozone states, which is very important because it will make it easier for us to challenge disagreeable proposals. It looks as though we'll get some changes to QMV.
Small beer, you may say, and you'd be right. But you are the one arguing for the EEA route, where we'd be subject to EXACTLY the same risk, but with zero say over measures proposed and with no institutional protection. If someone would care to explain to me how this is better, I'm all ears.
Another blatantly false claim from you Richard. You complain that people accuse you of dishonesty and then make a statement that everyone including yourself knows to be utterly false. You really are despicable.
Well that's great news isn't it? Is it Brown's fault, Blair's? Maybe Ted Heath's ?
I'm still struggling to understand in what way developments re. the City could sway your vote Richard. It seems you are expecting some very modest 'gains' from the 'renegotiation' which you describe as 'small beer'.
So if for argument's sake these didn't materialise, would you vote 'leave'?
And if so, why would such 'small beer' changes sway your vote?
Comments
Switzerland 12.52%
Netherlands 9.66%
Japan 2.94%
Portugal 0.80%
India -1.12%
USA -2.53%
Canada -3.35%
Brazil -3.91%
etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
If you produce a chart with savings rate on one side and current account surplus/deficit on the other, you'll see that there is a very high degree of correlation between the two. In other words, where the population saves, they run surpluses, and and where the population borrows, they run deficits. (Which is very logical.)
Our real problem is not exports as a percentage of GDP - where we comfortably beat out China and the US, and are roughly in line with most of our European peers (exc. Germany) - but imports.
Simply, our population borrows from banks to buy goods from abroad. On this out "prosperity" is based.
Melissa Kidd, who's the economist at Redburn Partners, calls the UK the Grasshopper Economy, and she's written some fabulous pieces I can share with you if you like.
+ve means the currency is undervalued ?
In the deal with TurkIranexico we might make concessions on tweed and racing cars in order to get better terms on French wine and Italian cheese
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12093807/RBS-cries-sell-everything-as-deflationary-crisis-nears.html
Deals are made by the UK with other countries all the time - witness the deals even Cameron/Osborne have managed to negotiate with China, or the embassy deal Hague negotiated with the Harper government in Canada.
Small beer, you may say, and you'd be right. But you are the one arguing for the EEA route, where we'd be subject to EXACTLY the same risk, but with zero say over measures proposed and with no institutional protection. If someone would care to explain to me how this is better, I'm all ears.
You're not alone. I can't get excited about the NHS, one way or another.
Well that's great news isn't it? Is it Brown's fault, Blair's? Maybe Ted Heath's ?
I'm still struggling to understand in what way developments re. the City could sway your vote Richard. It seems you are expecting some very modest 'gains' from the 'renegotiation' which you describe as 'small beer'.
So if for argument's sake these didn't materialise, would you vote 'leave'?
And if so, why would such 'small beer' changes sway your vote?