"Now, change is coming; a dramatic increase in the productivity of the NHS’s exquisitely-qualified and expensive workforce is as necessary as it is desirable. Not even those at the very top of the social and professional scale can be safe from the glorious disruption technology brings.
This will be the story of medicine and technology in the 21st Century: bad for doctors, good for the rest of us. The junior doctors should enjoy their position of strength for it will not last. "
GPs will be the first to be rendered obsolete.
I see HMG sources have announced that they'll impose the new contract if no agreement is reached.
Kirkup is channeling Richard Susskind. Your views on the latter may be more positive than mine but perhaps some are true believers.
Mr. L, May wasn't an experienced presenter. Experience is not the issue. It's about whether someone's likeable, and whether they have chemistry with their co-hosts.
Edited extra bit: Mr. B, precisely. Top Gear wasn't a car show. It was a three blokes cocking about show.
To be fair, May has learned well. I enjoyed his wine show. and a couple of his other shows. Clarkson is good on his own too, if iconoclastic. Hammond wears on one after a short while on his own.
But as a trio they are a rare combination, and they are smart enough to realize it.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Mr Radio 2.
Evans is a giant ego, without the humour of Clarkson. TG is going to be a ratings losing, TV switching off disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if it was canned after a single series, assuming of course that a complete one makes it to transmission.
I've lost count of the times Clarkson or the other 2 would say 'ambitious but rubbish' or ask why everything they do either breaks down, sinks, or catches fire. I just don't see Evans doing that. Evans says the car will be the star. But it isn't. Top Gear is about the presenters. It is a vehicle for vehicles, adventures and challenges.
What made Top Gear work was the relationship and chemistry between the three of them. Top Gear Germany, USA or Australia just didn't work as well.
Yes. The old team would call a crap car crap. They key will be the demographics of the audience for the timeslot (8pm Sunday if they don't change it) - old Top Gear had as many women watching it as men. Women won't be interested in watching just another car show, it needs to be an entertainment show.
I remember him from Tomorrow's World with Raymond Baxter.
Mr. B, Renault have their own team now, so as well as the loss of love from Red Bull's constant bitching, the engine manufacturer's prime concern will be team Renault, not Red Bull.
As we've seen with Mercedes, sometimes updates can be mysteriously slow coming to non-manufacturer teams...
Mr. B (2), we shall see. I may well tune into episode 1 to see how it stacks up.
Red Bull aren't getting the whole power unit from Renault, just the ICE, the hybrid parts, electrics and control units are going to be custom built by Red Bull, the rumours are that they are also developing their own ICE and will become fully independent for 2017
I thought that the RB engine rumour got shot down. My understanding is that the whole power unit is from Renault, but badged as TAG-Heuer. RB certainly had people helping out Renault last year, but they're not homologating a separate power unit this year.
There's also a rule in place for next yer that the engine manufacturer has to give new parts to all teams at the same time as their own. Mercedes were indeed quite slow at that previously.
Mr. Max, so they say. They also reckoned, multiple times, they'd bring great improvements to the engine in the 2015 season. Didn't happen.
I'm not saying it can't or won't, just that it might, or it might not, and some optimistic pronouncements don't hold much weight.
Prodromou probably knows his beans, but Ferrari has James Allison[sp].
As a trading bet, Alonso may make sense, but Button kept him very honest last year. Button's odds will be longer and may be better value (cf backing Rosberg for the title at 16 or so in 2014).
I think there just weren't enough tokens available for such a radical redesign to fix it in-season so they went mainly for reliability instead of fixing the fundamental issue of the MGU-K not being able to fully recharge the battery which means the cars ran out of hybrid deployment half way down a straight.
AIUI the current chassis is 4th best behind Merc, RBR and Ferrari, but they expect to move up to 3rd behind RBR, possibly level in 2nd given that Adrian Newey is now designing a boat and will only be working part time on F1.
If the Honda engineers are any good (I have my reservations) and they do fix the engine to bring the 2.2s improvement then McLaren will be the surprise package.
On Button, you are right that he kept Alonso honest, but thinking like a punter, more money will go on Alonso if McLaren do show the performance gains, his price will come in further and faster than Button's would. A smallish stake on both would be a good idea though.
Mr. L, May wasn't an experienced presenter. Experience is not the issue. It's about whether someone's likeable, and whether they have chemistry with their co-hosts.
Edited extra bit: Mr. B, precisely. Top Gear wasn't a car show. It was a three blokes cocking about show.
To be fair, May has learned well. I enjoyed his wine show. and a couple of his other shows. Clarkson is good on his own too, if iconoclastic. Hammond wears on one after a short while on his own.
But as a trio they are a rare combination, and they are smart enough to realize it.
Roll on the Amazon show.
They are not shown here - but the 'cheeky irrepressible chappy' as on 'Richard Hammond's Crash Course' wears out its welcome quickly.
If you want to see what Top Gear could be like with crap presenters that have no chemistry. Top Gear US is what you want to watch....many of the episodes are direct rips off from the UK series, but they are just unwatchable.
Top Gears strength was the dynamic between the three presenters. Never seen anything by Chris Evans that didn’t have him wittering on 19 to the dozen and drowning out his guests.
The ‘new’ Top Gear will struggle to recreate the old banter and mischief the other 3 got up to as Evan’s personality will, I suspect dominate stage.
"Now, change is coming; a dramatic increase in the productivity of the NHS’s exquisitely-qualified and expensive workforce is as necessary as it is desirable. Not even those at the very top of the social and professional scale can be safe from the glorious disruption technology brings.
This will be the story of medicine and technology in the 21st Century: bad for doctors, good for the rest of us. The junior doctors should enjoy their position of strength for it will not last. "
Any reports from our CES correspondent? Yes, the "medical internet of things" will make a difference. We briefly talked about the security implications a week or two back. We'll still need doctors though.
Mr. L, May wasn't an experienced presenter. Experience is not the issue. It's about whether someone's likeable, and whether they have chemistry with their co-hosts.
Edited extra bit: Mr. B, precisely. Top Gear wasn't a car show. It was a three blokes cocking about show.
To be fair, May has learned well. I enjoyed his wine show. and a couple of his other shows. Clarkson is good on his own too, if iconoclastic. Hammond wears on one after a short while on his own.
But as a trio they are a rare combination, and they are smart enough to realize it.
Roll on the Amazon show.
Yes. A teacher friend of mine uses clips from Brainiac (and the US show Mythbusters) to do a lot of science stuff schools aren't allowed to do live any more.
Yes. A teacher friend of mine uses clips from Brainiac (and the US show Mythbusters) to do a lot of science stuff schools aren't allowed to do live any more.
I stopped watching Mythbusters after they tried (and failed) to roll a car over with a jet engine, because they couldn't use an actual plane.
Mr. B, Renault have their own team now, so as well as the loss of love from Red Bull's constant bitching, the engine manufacturer's prime concern will be team Renault, not Red Bull.
As we've seen with Mercedes, sometimes updates can be mysteriously slow coming to non-manufacturer teams...
Mr. B (2), we shall see. I may well tune into episode 1 to see how it stacks up.
Red Bull aren't getting the whole power unit from Renault, just the ICE, the hybrid parts, electrics and control units are going to be custom built by Red Bull, the rumours are that they are also developing their own ICE and will become fully independent for 2017
I thought that the RB engine rumour got shot down. My understanding is that the whole power unit is from Renault, but badged as TAG-Heuer. RB certainly had people helping out Renault last year, but they're not homologating a separate power unit this year.
There's also a rule in place for next yer that the engine manufacturer has to give new parts to all teams at the same time as their own. Mercedes were indeed quite slow at that previously.
They hired a bunch of electrical engineers from other teams last season, if they aren't doing their own thing it would be a bit weird at this stage.
I saw the non-denial denial from Horner, he left the door wide open for a RBR engine in 2017, he knows that none of the current works engine manufacturers want to get into bed with them and Ron has the power of veto for Honda supply for the next 9 years so they won't be able to get Honda engines either. It leaves them very short on options.
Mr. L, May wasn't an experienced presenter. Experience is not the issue. It's about whether someone's likeable, and whether they have chemistry with their co-hosts.
Indeed -- the point was that Evans is not a surprise package: he presents The One Show and TFI Friday. A better rumour imo might be that some of Evans' commercial activities raise problems: if the BBC axed Michel Roux Jr from Masterchef because he advertised potatoes, is it OK for Chris Evans to be a quasi-dealer in vintage supercars?
How did Evans get away with presenting the recent TFI for Channel 4, a rival broadcaster?
Yes. A teacher friend of mine uses clips from Brainiac (and the US show Mythbusters) to do a lot of science stuff schools aren't allowed to do live any more.
I stopped watching Mythbusters after they tried (and failed) to roll a car over with a jet engine, because they couldn't use an actual plane.
@PeterMannionMP: Still no Shadow Solictor General? Pro tip: Get a list of all lawyers in PLP. Ring one. Repeat til you get a 'yes'. #neverending #reshuffle
As a post script I think the recent cancellation of the inquiry into the culture of banks was another example of the lessons of Francis not having been learned under this government. Culture is important.
I agree with the last point. While the optics don't look good what the FCA was proposing did not make a whole load of sense, TBH. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards wrote a very good report indeed on this - well worth a read. It is sharp, with good insights and good recommendations. There is not much point writing another report saying much the same thing.
What is needed now - and some banks are beginning to address this - are actual practical steps: what it means to speak up, how to challenge, how to create and reinforce the courage to ask questions, to keep asking questions, how to reward people for doing the right thing, how to understand the risks in the people you hire and how to manage effectively, what leadership really means etc etc.
A general moan about the past is not the way to do this. You need to explain what went wrong, why and how to avoid this in the future and here are some steps to take, things to think about etc etc. Given the current state of the FCA's leadership, I'm not sure (*cough*) they're necessarily the best people to give these lessons.
Mr. Max, the problem is that they need to close the gap not just on last year, but on where Mercedes, and Ferrari, will be in 2016.
I do agree there's the potential for a great success. But it won't necessarily be realised.
Backing Button as a trading bet would depend on the odds. If Alonso's around 66, I'd want 150 or so for Button, on that basis.
Mr. Sandpit, ah, forgot about that rule axing delays. Cheers for the reminder.
Miss Plato, indeed. If Evans think people watch Top Gear because they like cars he's a damned fool.
For sure, but the point is that Ferrari are already starting from a better position, the incremental gains available to them are pretty small, they might bring 0.5-0.7s in total, Mercedes even less than that. McLaren are such a long way behind in terms of engine performance and the gains are so easy to make (according to the experts it's a simple enough fix) that they have a pretty clear path to bring at least 2.1-2.5s worth of performance gains this season. Since they were 2.5s behind Merc last year then they will be just 0.5s behind this year, a massive improvement and it puts them on the podium and possibly winning one or two races.
As a post script I think the recent cancellation of the inquiry into the culture of banks was another example of the lessons of Francis not having been learned under this government. Culture is important.
I agree with the last point. While the optics don't look good what the FCA was proposing did not make a whole load of sense, TBH. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards wrote a very good report indeed on this - well worth a read. It is sharp, with good insights and good recommendations. There is not much point writing another report saying much the same thing.
What is needed now - and some banks are beginning to address this - are actual practical steps: what it means to speak up, how to challenge, how to create and reinforce the courage to ask questions, to keep asking questions, how to reward people for doing the right thing, how to understand the risks in the people you hire and how to manage effectively, what leadership really means etc etc.
A general moan about the past is not the way to do this. You need to explain what went wrong, why and how to avoid this in the future and here are some steps to take, things to think about etc etc. Given the current state of the FCA's leadership, I'm not sure (*cough*) they're necessarily the best people to give these lessons.
What are you views on the news of Santander's re-entry to the investment advice market?
That article is a bunch of bullshit. His whole reason for dumping his support for PR is because right of centre parties got 49% of the vote and would form a coalition. It's just another leftist dumping principles because they can't bear the thought of UKIP doing well. Given that they are going to get a solid number of seats in Wales, this article is pretty well timed.
Mr. Max, I don't have a SkyBet account, but if I did, I'd put something on that.
Worth recalling that Button is also the only driver to beat Hamilton as a team mate.
If you think they may win races, you could try checking out Ladbrokes' McLaren specials, though none tempted me (only Alonso to leave in 2016 [if the car remains a dog] at 4 made me think for a moment).
Mr. Owls, the last episode was barely advertised. It also had a tragic, dead atmosphere as Clarkson wasn't present and the studio was totally empty for the bits connecting the pieces.
Mr. B, Renault have their own team now, so as well as the loss of love from Red Bull's constant bitching, the engine manufacturer's prime concern will be team Renault, not Red Bull.
As we've seen with Mercedes, sometimes updates can be mysteriously slow coming to non-manufacturer teams...
Mr. B (2), we shall see. I may well tune into episode 1 to see how it stacks up.
Red Bull aren't getting the whole power unit from Renault, just the ICE, the hybrid parts, electrics and control units are going to be custom built by Red Bull, the rumours are that they are also developing their own ICE and will become fully independent for 2017
I thought that the RB engine rumour got shot down. My understanding is that the whole power unit is from Renault, but badged as TAG-Heuer. RB certainly had people helping out Renault last year, but they're not homologating a separate power unit this year.
There's also a rule in place for next yer that the engine manufacturer has to give new parts to all teams at the same time as their own. Mercedes were indeed quite slow at that previously.
They hired a bunch of electrical engineers from other teams last season, if they aren't doing their own thing it would be a bit weird at this stage.
I saw the non-denial denial from Horner, he left the door wide open for a RBR engine in 2017, he knows that none of the current works engine manufacturers want to get into bed with them and Ron has the power of veto for Honda supply for the next 9 years so they won't be able to get Honda engines either. It leaves them very short on options.
What would F1 be without a bunch of unsubstantiated rumours? I guess we'll find out soon enough, first test at Barcelona on 22nd Feb so cars should start being unveiled an the next 3 or 4 weeks.
Building their own PU for 2017 is quite possible. I don't think Horner is too happy with the situation with Renault, even if last year's political problems were of his own making.
5.3 Million watched the final much hyped swansong episode. ITV drama Black Work got 5.5 Million in same timeslot on the same night.
If the Beeb keep it on BBC 2 I reckon will bottom out at about 3 million viewers after first episode.
Wonder what Amazon Primes figures for the new show will be?
Once it's released on Prime it'll be there to watch any time, so it's hard to know. Prime got tens of millions of new members over Christmas - not just because of Top Gear, but by any measure Prime is a huge success world wide.
I found the last episode to be a huge downer, particularly as the first film wasn't very good.
As a post script I think the recent cancellation of the inquiry into the culture of banks was another example of the lessons of Francis not having been learned under this government. Culture is important.
I agree with the last point. While the optics don't look good what the FCA was proposing did not make a whole load of sense, TBH. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards wrote a very good report indeed on this - well worth a read. It is sharp, with good insights and good recommendations. There is not much point writing another report saying much the same thing.
What is needed now - and some banks are beginning to address this - are actual practical steps: what it means to speak up, how to challenge, how to create and reinforce the courage to ask questions, to keep asking questions, how to reward people for doing the right thing, how to understand the risks in the people you hire and how to manage effectively, what leadership really means etc etc.
A general moan about the past is not the way to do this. You need to explain what went wrong, why and how to avoid this in the future and here are some steps to take, things to think about etc etc. Given the current state of the FCA's leadership, I'm not sure (*cough*) they're necessarily the best people to give these lessons.
The FCA leadership seemed more interested in making headlines and their PR than quality regulation. Good riddance.
As for halting the investigation, I still don't even know what they were investigating other than the broad idea of "excessive risk taking".
Mr. Max, I don't have a SkyBet account, but if I did, I'd put something on that.
Worth recalling that Button is also the only driver to beat Hamilton as a team mate.
If you think they may win races, you could try checking out Ladbrokes' McLaren specials, though none tempted me (only Alonso to leave in 2016 [if the car remains a dog] at 4 made me think for a moment).
Mr. Owls, the last episode was barely advertised. It also had a tragic, dead atmosphere as Clarkson wasn't present and the studio was totally empty for the bits connecting the pieces.
- and let's not forget 'the elephant in the room'.
Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.
Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.
Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.
Trump is going to be the next president.
(Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).
Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
Expect this to change.
Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.
Sanders hasn't gone after Trump either. Though I think Bloomberg would run anyway if that was the choice and would have a reasonable chance of winning
But Sanders didn't go after Hillary either.
Quite frankly he simply doesn't seem to have it in him, just like Bush doesn't.
I actually think that Sanders is a more difficult opponent for Trump than Clinton. Trump is clearly a "people" person, Clinton isn't and in any debate he would destroy her.
Sanders on the other hand has the Corbyn factor within the dems that Clinton doesn't.
Bloomberg WILL NOT run as an independent. He is well known and has moderate support in New York but not elsewhere. If he did run, he may easily cost Trump the presidency but wouldn't achieve enough to win it for himself. Why bother to only come second?
He would have the best chance of any third party contendor in history against Trump and Sanders and could well win the coasts and much of the MidWest and Florida and Virginia. As a multibillionaire he could also easily afford it
Best chance in history? The bar for that is 1912, and that race shows just how big the barriers are.
How do you win with no infrastructure in place, against two party machines?
Mr. Max, I don't have a SkyBet account, but if I did, I'd put something on that.
Worth recalling that Button is also the only driver to beat Hamilton as a team mate.
If you think they may win races, you could try checking out Ladbrokes' McLaren specials, though none tempted me (only Alonso to leave in 2016 [if the car remains a dog] at 4 made me think for a moment).
Mr. Owls, the last episode was barely advertised. It also had a tragic, dead atmosphere as Clarkson wasn't present and the studio was totally empty for the bits connecting the pieces.
Sky Bet often has great prices and has an amazing back catalogue of horse racing ! How are you living without it, Mr Dancer.
Top Gears strength was the dynamic between the three presenters. Never seen anything by Chris Evans that didn’t have him wittering on 19 to the dozen and drowning out his guests.
The ‘new’ Top Gear will struggle to recreate the old banter and mischief the other 3 got up to as Evan’s personality will, I suspect dominate stage.
Although all of the old presenters have big personalities, they were also self deprecating and allowed others to poke fun at them. Clarkson was made fun of for his shabby dress, fat tummy, dodgy hair, and hyperbolic opinions. May was made fun of for being slow and cautious, and somewhat old fashioned. Hammond was made fun of for being overly fashion conscious, being short, and too chirpy. They were happy enough to take what they dished out.
I can't recall Evans every being the butt of the joke. He's always been the big cheese on his shows, and surrounded himself with others to poke fun of.
It might still work as a show, but it will be quite different from the Top Gear that became such a hit.
Yes. A teacher friend of mine uses clips from Brainiac (and the US show Mythbusters) to do a lot of science stuff schools aren't allowed to do live any more.
I stopped watching Mythbusters after they tried (and failed) to roll a car over with a jet engine, because they couldn't use an actual plane.
Top Gear did it for real
I stopped when they sacked the Build Team for no good reason anyone could see.
The English national anthem has got to be Jerusalem. Land of Hope and Glory would be acceptable as well. God Save the Queen is just so boring. I think that's part of the reason our football teams do so poorly it doesn't really fire anyone up.
What is needed now - and some banks are beginning to address this - are actual practical steps: what it means to speak up, how to challenge, how to create and reinforce the courage to ask questions, to keep asking questions, how to reward people for doing the right thing, how to understand the risks in the people you hire and how to manage effectively, what leadership really means etc etc.
A general moan about the past is not the way to do this. You need to explain what went wrong, why and how to avoid this in the future and here are some steps to take, things to think about etc etc. Given the current state of the FCA's leadership, I'm not sure (*cough*) they're necessarily the best people to give these lessons.
What are you views on the news of Santander's re-entry to the investment advice market?
Retail investment advice is not my area of speciality but my thoughts are these:-
1. There is a crying need for sensible investment advice for those who have some money to invest / savings but are not well off enough to justify the more expensive advisors. 2. People need to be able to trust their advisors. That is not just dependant on the individual advisors but on the reputation of the organisation. Santander has not had the best reputation in the past for customer care - trying to get past their IT is a challenge - but that does not necessarily mean the advisors are no good. 3. The costs associated with giving good investment advice are high, which is why the market has tended to focus in recent years on higher end clients. 4. I'm not at all sure that the market has yet found a good model for giving advice to the vast majority who are not in that position. 5. In some ways the whole retail banking model is broken: banks have high costs, customers don't trust them very much, they want them and need them but also want it to be done at low cost; they also need good quality advice but banks have rather trashed their USP in relation to 6eing trusted advisors. 5. Customers need to understand that if you pay for the advice you are in charge. If you allow your advisor to be paid by someone else there will inevitably be the potential for a conflict of interest. There are ways of addressing this of course. But you don't get something for nothing. People need to be prepared to pay for good financial advice as they would for good legal advice or a good builder or electrician or dentist or whatever. 7. How Santander remunerates those advisors is key: if they're paid on the basis of sales, there is the potential for mis-selling. How they are trained, how rewarded and what disclosures are made to customers will need to be carefully considered.
I'm sure @Charles will have views on this, if he's around.
Top Gears strength was the dynamic between the three presenters. Never seen anything by Chris Evans that didn’t have him wittering on 19 to the dozen and drowning out his guests.
The ‘new’ Top Gear will struggle to recreate the old banter and mischief the other 3 got up to as Evan’s personality will, I suspect dominate stage.
Although all of the old presenters have big personalities, they were also self deprecating and allowed others to poke fun at them. Clarkson was made fun of for his shabby dress, fat tummy, dodgy hair, and hyperbolic opinions. May was made fun of for being slow and cautious, and somewhat old fashioned. Hammond was made fun of for being overly fashion conscious, being short, and too chirpy. They were happy enough to take what they dished out.
I can't recall Evans every being the butt of the joke. He's always been the big cheese on his shows, and surrounded himself with others to poke fun of.
It might still work as a show, but it will be quite different from the Top Gear that became such a hit.
It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?
None whatsoever
Actually there is some truth in that, in some cases. The active ingredient is not the only factor in the efficacy of a drug. The binder, the fineness of the particles, the level of impurities, the quality control on dosage, and so on, can all have an effect. Different formulations of the same drug do vary.
My source for this is statement is a very close friend of mine who is a world-renowned expert on the subject, a professor who ran a very highly regarded testing laboratory and who has spent his entire career in studying how drugs migrate though the body.
It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?
None whatsoever
Actually there is some truth in that, in some cases. The active ingredient is not the only factor in the efficacy of a drug. The binder, the fineness of the particles, the level of impurities, the quality control on dosage, and so on, can all have an effect. Different formulations of the same drug do vary.
My source for this is statement is a very close friend of mine who is a world-renowned expert on the subject, a professor who ran a very highly regarded testing laboratory and who has spent his entire career in studying how drugs migrate though the body.
Yes it's true that some excipients are not as inert as they should be but in the vast majority of cases the branded drug and genetic week have identical effects. They otherwise would not get a licence. For a small number of drugs which are listed in the BNF there are differences and these should be prescribed by brand but we certainly do not want to be going down the route of patients thinking generics are cheap and nasty substitutes.
Amusingly put, but I fail to see what is unusual about the current Cameron approach - as far as I can remember (OK, that's as far as Blair), PMs have always, to a greater or lesser degree, 'answered' questions by rhetorically asking the LOTO about their policies.
In my house we called it the Tory government response during the Blair years.
"Will the PM admit that his policy on X has been a shambles?" "Ah, but that's not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing is the appalling record of the previous Tory government" "Will the PM join me in congratulating our cricket team for beating the WIndies?" "Ah, but that's not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing is the appalling record of the previous Tory government"
Labour were still using that one (interspersed with "look what the 'next Tory government, if it happens, would do') 13 years in. Cameron will be using it his entire 7-10 years, I have no doubt, only with Corbyn in place rather than a Blairite or Brownite, he uses the 'future Labour' attack rather more than 'past record of Labour' .
Comments
There's also a rule in place for next yer that the engine manufacturer has to give new parts to all teams at the same time as their own. Mercedes were indeed quite slow at that previously.
AIUI the current chassis is 4th best behind Merc, RBR and Ferrari, but they expect to move up to 3rd behind RBR, possibly level in 2nd given that Adrian Newey is now designing a boat and will only be working part time on F1.
If the Honda engineers are any good (I have my reservations) and they do fix the engine to bring the 2.2s improvement then McLaren will be the surprise package.
On Button, you are right that he kept Alonso honest, but thinking like a punter, more money will go on Alonso if McLaren do show the performance gains, his price will come in further and faster than Button's would. A smallish stake on both would be a good idea though.
Top Gears strength was the dynamic between the three presenters. Never seen anything by Chris Evans that didn’t have him wittering on 19 to the dozen and drowning out his guests.
The ‘new’ Top Gear will struggle to recreate the old banter and mischief the other 3 got up to as Evan’s personality will, I suspect dominate stage.
I do agree there's the potential for a great success. But it won't necessarily be realised.
Backing Button as a trading bet would depend on the odds. If Alonso's around 66, I'd want 150 or so for Button, on that basis.
Mr. Sandpit, ah, forgot about that rule axing delays. Cheers for the reminder.
Miss Plato, indeed. If Evans think people watch Top Gear because they like cars he's a damned fool.
Top Gear did it for real
I saw the non-denial denial from Horner, he left the door wide open for a RBR engine in 2017, he knows that none of the current works engine manufacturers want to get into bed with them and Ron has the power of veto for Honda supply for the next 9 years so they won't be able to get Honda engines either. It leaves them very short on options.
Pro tip: Get a list of all lawyers in PLP.
Ring one.
Repeat til you get a 'yes'.
#neverending #reshuffle
But Wilman was smart enough to realize that his best bet was with the trio - particularly as he went to school with Clarkson.
The beeb is very much on the back foot on this.
What is needed now - and some banks are beginning to address this - are actual practical steps: what it means to speak up, how to challenge, how to create and reinforce the courage to ask questions, to keep asking questions, how to reward people for doing the right thing, how to understand the risks in the people you hire and how to manage effectively, what leadership really means etc etc.
A general moan about the past is not the way to do this. You need to explain what went wrong, why and how to avoid this in the future and here are some steps to take, things to think about etc etc. Given the current state of the FCA's leadership, I'm not sure (*cough*) they're necessarily the best people to give these lessons.
John Rentoul
Good grief. @NicholasTyrone, of Electoral Reform Society & Yes to AV, converts to first-past-the-post for Commons https://t.co/Bb2zIYt3Fx
But as Twitter said "Bros before shows."
Button is available at 150 on SkyBet!
If the Beeb keep it on BBC 2 I reckon will bottom out at about 3 million viewers after first episode.
Wonder what Amazon Primes figures for the new show will be?
Worth recalling that Button is also the only driver to beat Hamilton as a team mate.
If you think they may win races, you could try checking out Ladbrokes' McLaren specials, though none tempted me (only Alonso to leave in 2016 [if the car remains a dog] at 4 made me think for a moment).
Mr. Owls, the last episode was barely advertised. It also had a tragic, dead atmosphere as Clarkson wasn't present and the studio was totally empty for the bits connecting the pieces.
Building their own PU for 2017 is quite possible. I don't think Horner is too happy with the situation with Renault, even if last year's political problems were of his own making.
Do you think anyone actually believed that the Electoral Reform Society was anything other than a left-wing pressure group?
I found the last episode to be a huge downer, particularly as the first film wasn't very good.
As for halting the investigation, I still don't even know what they were investigating other than the broad idea of "excessive risk taking".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35296296
Although God Save The Queen would be the national anthem picked under FPTP, I reckon Land of Hope & Glory would win under AV.
They will play at the Coliseum until the new $2 billion stadium in Inglewood is ready in 2019.
I can't recall Evans every being the butt of the joke. He's always been the big cheese on his shows, and surrounded himself with others to poke fun of.
It might still work as a show, but it will be quite different from the Top Gear that became such a hit.
[I don't have a gambling problem so much as a lack of money problem
the Rams have a previous LA history
the Rams are coming first, so if you have been pining for an LA franchise surely they are your guys
What is the appeal to fans of the Chargers turning up late to play at the same stadium?
1. There is a crying need for sensible investment advice for those who have some money to invest / savings but are not well off enough to justify the more expensive advisors.
2. People need to be able to trust their advisors. That is not just dependant on the individual advisors but on the reputation of the organisation. Santander has not had the best reputation in the past for customer care - trying to get past their IT is a challenge - but that does not necessarily mean the advisors are no good.
3. The costs associated with giving good investment advice are high, which is why the market has tended to focus in recent years on higher end clients.
4. I'm not at all sure that the market has yet found a good model for giving advice to the vast majority who are not in that position.
5. In some ways the whole retail banking model is broken: banks have high costs, customers don't trust them very much, they want them and need them but also want it to be done at low cost; they also need good quality advice but banks have rather trashed their USP in relation to 6eing trusted advisors.
5. Customers need to understand that if you pay for the advice you are in charge. If you allow your advisor to be paid by someone else there will inevitably be the potential for a conflict of interest. There are ways of addressing this of course. But you don't get something for nothing. People need to be prepared to pay for good financial advice as they would for good legal advice or a good builder or electrician or dentist or whatever.
7. How Santander remunerates those advisors is key: if they're paid on the basis of sales, there is the potential for mis-selling. How they are trained, how rewarded and what disclosures are made to customers will need to be carefully considered.
I'm sure @Charles will have views on this, if he's around.
New Thread.
My source for this is statement is a very close friend of mine who is a world-renowned expert on the subject, a professor who ran a very highly regarded testing laboratory and who has spent his entire career in studying how drugs migrate though the body.
In my house we called it the Tory government response during the Blair years.
"Will the PM admit that his policy on X has been a shambles?"
"Ah, but that's not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing is the appalling record of the previous Tory government"
"Will the PM join me in congratulating our cricket team for beating the WIndies?"
"Ah, but that's not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing is the appalling record of the previous Tory government"
Labour were still using that one (interspersed with "look what the 'next Tory government, if it happens, would do') 13 years in. Cameron will be using it his entire 7-10 years, I have no doubt, only with Corbyn in place rather than a Blairite or Brownite, he uses the 'future Labour' attack rather more than 'past record of Labour' .