Just back from my morning walk, and it gorgeous out there today, clear blue skies, bright sunshine, still white frost under foot and the air. Oh the air, so crisp and clean that you want to stay out just for the pleasure of breathing it. However, on the way back I had to go into the High Street as we are nearly out of gin and Herself has friends coming round, the traffic was backed up and the stench of exhaust fumes was disgusting. To think that for years I put up with that sort pollution, and worse, when working in London and never even noticed it. Thank God I am free of it. Anyway, I'll stop gloating and get to what I actually wanted to say.
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning suggesting that national ID cards are a jolly good idea and should be revived. I think that is the third of fourth time I have either read or heard such sentiments expressed in the mainstream media in recent months. Straws in the wind, perhaps, but I think we can expect a revival of the ID card scheme in the not too distant future - probably soon after Cameron has gone.
Does anyone else feel increasingly uncomfortable with PMQs?
Its like a medieval community picking on the village idiot. It's not even close to fair.
Cameron has already throttled back to easy but I really wonder if he needs to throttle back just a little more. It's not fun, its kinda dirty.
Villiage idiot...thats no way to talk about Bob from Bogor. Just because he doesn't understand the complex benefit system doesn't mean he shouldn't get the chance to ask the PM a slightly flawed question about how he will lose all his benefits and be banned from access to the NHS forever just because he wants to move house ;-)
Does anyone else feel increasingly uncomfortable with PMQs?
Its like a medieval community picking on the village idiot. It's not even close to fair.
Cameron has already throttled back to easy but I really wonder if he needs to throttle back just a little more. It's not fun, its kinda dirty.
I thought Corbyn won a few PMQs back actually (The reshuffle one, was that last week?), I have no idea what som of the Conservative backbenchers were thinking when it comes to their demeanour around serious questions of flooding.
Does anyone else feel increasingly uncomfortable with PMQs?
Its like a medieval community picking on the village idiot. It's not even close to fair.
Cameron has already throttled back to easy but I really wonder if he needs to throttle back just a little more. It's not fun, its kinda dirty.
Alternatively...he needs to crank it up a few gears, to show Labour how crazy they have been. After all, they were the ones who shoved the village idiot out front, to get pelted with rotten fruit...
Does anyone else feel increasingly uncomfortable with PMQs?
Its like a medieval community picking on the village idiot. It's not even close to fair.
Cameron has already throttled back to easy but I really wonder if he needs to throttle back just a little more. It's not fun, its kinda dirty.
Nah. It's hardly the PM's fault that the man opposite him doesn't research his questions.
He probably takes advantage of an extra hour in bed on Wednesdays though, I can't imagine his team meeting at 7am to discuss the PMQs Strategy, as much as when he used to debate with Hattie, Ed, Gordon or Tony.
I wonder how that would play out. As you say, if elected, Trump will not do or even try to do the most eye-catching things he's promised. Will that be held against him or will it not matter? Will the Democrats have fun by trying to insert an item for Mexican wall receipts into the budget?
If he is able just to shrug that stuff off, does it establish a baseline for future campaigns: promise anything, the less credible the better, to get attention. It won't matter if you win.
Yes - but it's interesting to consider how successful populism - and even respectable politics - works:
1. You have to suggest something that people would like but don't see being addressed. Stop immigration! Double pensions! Stop industry going abroad! End child abuse! You don't have to exactly show you know how you'll do these things, but make it clear you'd like to, they're a priority for you.
2. You need to find an eye-catching way to put it that the media HAVE to report. It doesn't matter that much if it's OTT and unworkable - people get the idea that you're on their side on this issue. They'll cut you some slack if you find it difficult. You should stop just short of sounding weird and obsessive (the danger that Farage sometimes courts).
3. You need to have a clear eye on your target audience and not say anything to upset them. Trump is really pursuing the Miliband 35% strategy as far as the nomination goes, and it may well work. It doesn't matter if 50% of the voters think he's nuts. It will matter after the nomination, of course, but that's not the current problem.
4. You need to avoid making your campaign being about stuff that people don't care about. That's part of Labour's problem at the moment - we'd like our message to be about ending austerity, which is at least arguably a viable populist strategy, but we're apparently all about internal quarrels and precisely what we'd do with submarines. It's also a perennial Tory problem, as Cameron has said, "always banging on about Europe". (Cameron hopes the referendum will put it to bed - good luck with that.)
On topic: the dynamic here strikes me as more about Ted Cruz than Donald Trump. Trump is going to do well in Iowa and almost certainly win NH easily. It doesn't too much matter from his point of view whether he wins both, or comes narrowly second in Iowa; he'll still be the leader of the pack.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, needs to win Iowa (or at worst come a close second, well ahead of the others) to maintain his position as the second-leading candidate.
If Trump manages to see off Cruz decisively in Iowa, then someone else may emerge as the main challenger to Trump. That could be Rubio. We might be about to see Cruz's star fade.
If OTOH Cruz narrowly beats Trump in Iowa and somehow Rubio ends up behind Kasich in New Hampshire (With Trump winning), the 5-2 on him looks even worse than it does presently.
Trump's campaign paradoxically actually restores some faith that US campaigning is not all about money.
He says he spent nothing. I presume by nothing we are talking low millions. Not sure I quite buy his thought he can transfer that approach to improving American educational policy as he claimed last night.
On topic: the dynamic here strikes me as more about Ted Cruz than Donald Trump. Trump is going to do well in Iowa and almost certainly win NH easily. It doesn't too much matter from his point of view whether he wins both, or comes narrowly second in Iowa; he'll still be the leader of the pack.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, needs to win Iowa (or at worst come a close second, well ahead of the others) to maintain his position as the second-leading candidate.
If Trump manages to see off Cruz decisively in Iowa, then someone else may emerge as the main challenger to Trump. That could be Rubio. We might be about to see Cruz's star fade.
If Trump wins Iowa comfortably then there's a strong possibility the election will be over by the end of the month. He has healthy leads in NH and SC. Three straight wins would give him huge momentum running into Super Tuesday.
@britainelects · 35s36 seconds ago 2015 General Election campaign expenditure by party: CON: £15.6m LAB: £12.1m LDEM: £3.5m UKIP: £2.9m SNP: £1.5m GRN: £1.1m
Conservatives operating a two power standard, it seems.
Very good. That's not an enormous mismatch though, and certainly not of an order of magnitude implied by Labour. An effective return from the SNP but how on earth did the Greens spend more than GBP1m?
The SNP presumably spent all of their £1.5m in 59 seats. In GB there are 632 seats so the multiple is 10.7. So on a UK basis the SNP spent the equivalent of £16m, more than the Conservatives.
And I suspect that does not include a fair chunk of resources left over from the referendum, such as the mini buses we still see in Dundee.
Also, he seems to think that Apple make their own phones, which they don't. They farm out manufacturing of the phones and components to a whole bunch of companies, just like every company out there. The most recent product I know the details about is the PS4, about 5% of global PS4s out there were assembled by EMCS (Sony's manufacturing company) and that was basically the first run because they didn't want the design and specifications to leak by farming it out to Hon Hai. Out of the 340 separate components that make up the PS4, only about 20 are sourced from one of Sony's own subsidiaries, the rest are purchased from other companies.
Apple is nothing more than a research and design group with a massive sales and marketing department. It's a great business model as other companies take on the risk of manufacturing.
It's a religion with a small R&D wing.
Ah! Not only is it hate Trump and Palin day on PB it is also hate one of the most successful American enterprises ever, which has given pleasure and joy the billions of people world wide.
Hoffman-LaRoche used to be known as a bank that makes drugs
Goldmans is a hedge fund that pretends to care about its clients
Lots of ironic descriptions around. I'd take issue with Apple being described as a 'religion' though. It's more of a cult...
If OTOH Cruz narrowly beats Trump in Iowa and somehow Rubio ends up behind Kasich in New Hampshire (With Trump winning), the 5-2 on him looks even worse than it does presently.
True, Kasich could be a wrecker. That ARG poll looks unreliable, however (aren't ARG always a bit dodgy?)
Buried on the FT website. The EU proposes to do away with the law that refugees must claim asylum where they land. So in future they can be waved through to the north, i.e. the UK. As we are party to this refugee agreement, we'd have to accept them: 100,000s more migrants. Maybe millions
This alone could win the vote for LEAVE if it is the case.
I wonder how that would play out. As you say, if elected, Trump will not do or even try to do the most eye-catching things he's promised. Will that be held against him or will it not matter? Will the Democrats have fun by trying to insert an item for Mexican wall receipts into the budget?
If he is able just to shrug that stuff off, does it establish a baseline for future campaigns: promise anything, the less credible the better, to get attention. It won't matter if you win.
Yes - but it's interesting to consider how successful populism - and even respectable politics - works:
1. You have to suggest something that people would like but don't see being addressed. Stop immigration! Double pensions! Stop industry going abroad! End child abuse! You don't have to exactly show you know how you'll do these things, but make it clear you'd like to, they're a priority for you.
2. You need to find an eye-catching way to put it that the media HAVE to report. It doesn't matter that much if it's OTT and unworkable - people get the idea that you're on their side on this issue. They'll cut you some slack if you find it difficult. You should stop just short of sounding weird and obsessive (the danger that Farage sometimes courts).
3. You need to have a clear eye on your target audience and not say anything to upset them. Trump is really pursuing the Miliband 35% strategy as far as the nomination goes, and it may well work. It doesn't matter if 50% of the voters think he's nuts. It will matter after the nomination, of course, but that's not the current problem.
4. You need to avoid making your campaign being about stuff that people don't care about. That's part of Labour's problem at the moment - we'd like our message to be about ending austerity, which is at least arguably a viable populist strategy, but we're apparently all about internal quarrels and precisely what we'd do with submarines. It's also a perennial Tory problem, as Cameron has said, "always banging on about Europe". (Cameron hopes the referendum will put it to bed - good luck with that.)
An interesting post, Nick and one which shows why politics and politicians are held in such contempt by so many people these days.
Does anyone else feel increasingly uncomfortable with PMQs?
Its like a medieval community picking on the village idiot. It's not even close to fair.
Cameron has already throttled back to easy but I really wonder if he needs to throttle back just a little more. It's not fun, its kinda dirty.
I thought Corbyn won a few PMQs back actually (The reshuffle one, was that last week?), I have no idea what some of the Conservative backbenchers were thinking when it comes to their demeanour around serious questions of flooding.
I agree. Corbyn's style doesn't make it that easy for the PM to bash him too hard. It also makes it hard for Corbyn to achieve wins. Who knows - he may actually be using PMQs for its proper purpose and letting the PR side take care of itself.
However, if it does look overly one-sided then that's the fault of the weak one. It's not a handicap; it's one test in who's suitable to be PM and the ability to gain the respect of the House is one aspect of that. That went for IDS too - it's not party specific.
If Trump wins Iowa comfortably then there's a strong possibility the election will be over by the end of the month. He has healthy leads in NH and SC. Three straight wins would give him huge momentum running into Super Tuesday.
The field is still fragmented, though. That will probably change after Feb 1st.
On topic: the dynamic here strikes me as more about Ted Cruz than Donald Trump. Trump is going to do well in Iowa and almost certainly win NH easily. It doesn't too much matter from his point of view whether he wins both, or comes narrowly second in Iowa; he'll still be the leader of the pack.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, needs to win Iowa (or at worst come a close second, well ahead of the others) to maintain his position as the second-leading candidate.
If Trump manages to see off Cruz decisively in Iowa, then someone else may emerge as the main challenger to Trump. That could be Rubio. We might be about to see Cruz's star fade.
If OTOH Cruz narrowly beats Trump in Iowa and somehow Rubio ends up behind Kasich in New Hampshire (With Trump winning), the 5-2 on him looks even worse than it does presently.
Yes; but Trump could easily dramatically underperform in Iowa, as he doesn't have a ground game, and his supporters aren't natural caucus goers.
I think Cruz wins Iowa at a canter, and Trump is fighting it out with Rubio for second place in the low 20s.
Trump's campaign paradoxically actually restores some faith that US campaigning is not all about money.
He says he's spent nothing, but he must have costs of speeches and a few staff which need to be declared. He's only made one video so far and I'm not sure if that went on TV or straight to YouTube. He is very good at marketing himself though, and it's great to see that it's possible to go as far as he has without the frankly stupid money that others have. Isn't Jeb! something over $100m in the hole before we even start the primaries let alone the campaign?
Does anyone else feel increasingly uncomfortable with PMQs?
Its like a medieval community picking on the village idiot. It's not even close to fair.
Cameron has already throttled back to easy but I really wonder if he needs to throttle back just a little more. It's not fun, its kinda dirty.
Yes, Ed had the odd good week. Corbyn has, at best, the odd week which is not disastrous. And he is so vulnerable on so many points that Cameron can always divert if he thinks it is getting even vaguely sticky.
If OTOH Cruz narrowly beats Trump in Iowa and somehow Rubio ends up behind Kasich in New Hampshire (With Trump winning), the 5-2 on him looks even worse than it does presently.
True, Kasich could be a wrecker. That ARG poll looks unreliable, however (aren't ARG always a bit dodgy?)
Hasn't Rubio been below Jeb in one or two national polls.
So far as the betting goes, I've not been able to understand Jeb and Rubio's prices all campaign. They are still making up 38% of the market between them.
Does anyone else feel increasingly uncomfortable with PMQs?
Its like a medieval community picking on the village idiot. It's not even close to fair.
Cameron has already throttled back to easy but I really wonder if he needs to throttle back just a little more. It's not fun, its kinda dirty.
I thought Corbyn won a few PMQs back actually (The reshuffle one, was that last week?), I have no idea what some of the Conservative backbenchers were thinking when it comes to their demeanour around serious questions of flooding.
I agree. Corbyn's style doesn't make it that easy for the PM to bash him too hard. It also makes it hard for Corbyn to achieve wins. Who knows - he may actually be using PMQs for its proper purpose and letting the PR side take care of itself.
However, if it does look overly one-sided then that's the fault of the weak one. It's not a handicap; it's one test in who's suitable to be PM and the ability to gain the respect of the House is one aspect of that. That went for IDS too - it's not party specific.
Corbyn does not care. That is what makes him different to all his predecessors as LOTO.
Does anyone else feel increasingly uncomfortable with PMQs?
Its like a medieval community picking on the village idiot. It's not even close to fair.
Cameron has already throttled back to easy but I really wonder if he needs to throttle back just a little more. It's not fun, its kinda dirty.
I thought Corbyn won a few PMQs back actually (The reshuffle one, was that last week?), I have no idea what some of the Conservative backbenchers were thinking when it comes to their demeanour around serious questions of flooding.
I agree. Corbyn's style doesn't make it that easy for the PM to bash him too hard. It also makes it hard for Corbyn to achieve wins. Who knows - he may actually be using PMQs for its proper purpose and letting the PR side take care of itself.
However, if it does look overly one-sided then that's the fault of the weak one. It's not a handicap; it's one test in who's suitable to be PM and the ability to gain the respect of the House is one aspect of that. That went for IDS too - it's not party specific.
If Trump wins Iowa comfortably then there's a strong possibility the election will be over by the end of the month. He has healthy leads in NH and SC. Three straight wins would give him huge momentum running into Super Tuesday.
The field is still fragmented, though. That will probably change after Feb 1st.
If Trump wins Iowa comfortably then there's a strong possibility the election will be over by the end of the month. He has healthy leads in NH and SC. Three straight wins would give him huge momentum running into Super Tuesday.
The field is still fragmented, though. That will probably change after Feb 1st.
Who drops out ?
Carson, Paul, Fiorina look the most likely.
Thats some more votes for Cruz, and five more for the others between them.
Social services were involved too. Im not sure who to direct my anger at, the police, teachers or social services.
I'll settle for the ridiculous environment successive governments have created by treating citizens as objects for their amusement.
If they hadn't followed up and there had been a subsequent attack I'm sure you would have been unstinting in your criticism of the government.
I suspect the press if over-egging it: all the police would have done would have been popped over for a chat to the parents and figured out that it wasn't an issue.
As for the teacher highlighting a potential concern for a child at risk, and the police linking up with social services...isn't that kind of exactly what we *want* our public services to do? Otherwise you can end up with Baby P type scenarios where no one talks to the other agencies
From a spelling mistake to comparisons with Baby P, welcome to the Nanny State. My god if only Orwell was here now.
It's not a comparison with Baby P.
I don't know if you have managed people in the past, but in big organisations sometimes it is better not to give people discretion, especially at the 'fact finding' stage. This is particularly the case where you have to get separate agencies to co-operate.
I manage and employ people now. I want them to do their jobs not project their prejudices onto others.
Sure, but their job is to look after child welfare and to involve other agencies.
Everyone acted correctly within their remit.
If you allowed discretion then mistakes - such as Baby P - will be made. Given the consequences, I'd rather that doesn't happen.
Once you have the facts of the situation then you can determine the right course of action.
Mr. T, the bureaucrats are clever enough to sit on something like that until a few moments after the polls close, I would've thought.
It's already being discussed though.
The legal niceties (could we be forced to accept? No - is my current understanding. Would we able to deport to first country of arrival? No - and that's the issue. Once arrived here - by whatever means, we would be stuck) are less important to my mind than the bigger issue about what it says about the EU's attitude to us vs other members.
When EU rules don't suit some countries, they get changed or ignored. But when we want changes we're told that nothing can be done. Everything is unchangeable. Otherwise the sky would fall in.
Sod it, no: either we're a full member - and we pay a huge amount to the organisation - and our wishes are at least as important as other countries and more so than those who contribute little or nothing - or we're not. But not this: "you must follow all the rules and pay handsomely for doing so and lectured if you don't even as others ignore rules and court judgments and do what they hell what they want".
Surely the main issue here is that it completely changes the nature of claiming assylum. This change muddies the waters between those fleeing for their lives, and those seeking a better life with a destination country in mind. We have a moral responsibility to help the former but not the latter.
If Trump wins Iowa comfortably then there's a strong possibility the election will be over by the end of the month. He has healthy leads in NH and SC. Three straight wins would give him huge momentum running into Super Tuesday.
The field is still fragmented, though. That will probably change after Feb 1st.
It will but we'll be 18 states in by then.
My mistake, I meant Feb 9th, i.e. after Iowa and NH but before SC
I fully understand why BP and Shell etc. shares are tumbling, but as a net oil importer aren't we better off with cheap oil?
Weak China blah blah blah sure, but we don't export much to them in the grand scheme of things. And weak Eurozone hasn't caused the FTSE to fall like this in the past 5 years. And the US is doing rather well.
Seems like on over reaction to me. But what do i know...
If Trump wins Iowa comfortably then there's a strong possibility the election will be over by the end of the month. He has healthy leads in NH and SC. Three straight wins would give him huge momentum running into Super Tuesday.
The field is still fragmented, though. That will probably change after Feb 1st.
It will but we'll be 18 states in by then.
After Iowa, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul drop out.
After New Hampshire, it's goodbye to Gilmore, Fiorina, Carson and Christie.
Social services were involved too. Im not sure who to direct my anger at, the police, teachers or social services.
I'll settle for the ridiculous environment successive governments have created by treating citizens as objects for their amusement.
If they hadn't followed up and there had been a subsequent attack I'm sure you would have been unstinting in your criticism of the government.
I suspect the press if over-egging it: all the police would have done would have been popped over for a chat to the parents and figured out that it wasn't an issue.
As for the teacher highlighting a potential concern for a child at risk, and the police linking up with social services...isn't that kind of exactly what we *want* our public services to do? Otherwise you can end up with Baby P type scenarios where no one talks to the other agencies
From a spelling mistake to comparisons with Baby P, welcome to the Nanny State. My god if only Orwell was here now.
It's not a comparison with Baby P.
I don't know if you have managed people in the past, but in big organisations sometimes it is better not to give people discretion, especially at the 'fact finding' stage. This is particularly the case where you have to get separate agencies to co-operate.
I manage and employ people now. I want them to do their jobs not project their prejudices onto others.
If you allowed discretion then mistakes - such as Baby P - will be made. Given the consequences, I'd rather that doesn't happen.
I fully understand why BP and Shell etc. shares are tumbling, but as a net oil importer aren't we better off with cheap oil?
Weak China blah blah blah sure, but we don't export much to them in the grand scheme of things. And weak Eurozone hasn't caused the FTSE to fall like this in the past 5 years. And the US is doing rather well.
Seems like on over reaction to me. But what do i know...
The UK (and the European markets) are following Asian markets down. The Nikkei 225 lost 3.7% and the Hang Send 3.8%.
But your point about oil is a good one. Historically falling oil prices have led to faster economic growth in importing countries.
I fully understand why BP and Shell etc. shares are tumbling, but as a net oil importer aren't we better off with cheap oil?
Weak China blah blah blah sure, but we don't export much to them in the grand scheme of things. And weak Eurozone hasn't caused the FTSE to fall like this in the past 5 years. And the US is doing rather well.
Seems like on over reaction to me. But what do i know...
Well you know what a certain chap from Omaha says.
I was referring to the debate around the number of economically disadvantaged youngsters who attend university. And Scottish students are surely leaving with less debt than their English counterparts, no?
Correct, despite Scottish degrees being a year longer than England (4 years rather than 3) the average English debt is 10 grand higher than for Scottish students over the life of the degree.
Scotland hating Carlotta was just using the usual Tory lies to denigrate Scotland. These insecure exiles seem to hold grudges against the country of their birth for some reason. They try desperately to impress their chums and try to feel they have succeeded in life.
You're just fine with declining social mobility in Scotland - we get it - it's a small price to pay to avoid criticism of the SNP.
Some of us are not.
Except the proportion of poorest students attending university has increased under the SNP.
And this is despite a considerable strengthening and expansion of the FE College system which not only still exists in Scotland but is thriving and expanding social mobility far beyond the headline figures which deliberately focus on UCAS/Universities to deliberately lie about the SNP.
PMQs..It is not just Corbyn who is pathetic..the rest of his party are bloody useless too..none of them seem to have done any research at all and then they ask a question which Cameron sends to the Boundary..sitting down and looking peeved as he kills your question stone dead and makes you look like a numpty is not a winning look..
I fully understand why BP and Shell etc. shares are tumbling, but as a net oil importer aren't we better off with cheap oil?
Weak China blah blah blah sure, but we don't export much to them in the grand scheme of things. And weak Eurozone hasn't caused the FTSE to fall like this in the past 5 years. And the US is doing rather well.
Seems like on over reaction to me. But what do i know...
Well you know what a certain chap from Omaha says.
The management at BNP in France must be feeling very relieved right now; they sold their Reserves Based Lending business to Wells Fargo about 18 months ago.
"Hoffman-LaRoche used to be known as a bank that makes drugs."
A trifle unfair. Having worked for them for many years, can I say you're confusing general Swiss pragmatism for a specific money-hungry attitude. Although I concede it can be difficult to differentiate at times.
PMQs..It is not just Corbyn who is pathetic..the rest of his party are bloody useless too..none of them seem to have done any research at all and then they ask a question which Cameron sends to the Boundary..sitting down and looking peeved as he kills your question stone dead and makes you look like a numpty is not a winning look..
"Hoffman-LaRoche used to be known as a bank that makes drugs."
A trifle unfair. Having worked for them for many years, can I say you're confusing general Swiss pragmatism for a specific money-hungry attitude. Although I concede it can be difficult to differentiate at times.
I used to know Henri Meier relatively well, and am mates with Franz Humer's kid. Investing $1bn for a majority stake in Genentech was what saved the company!
But, of course, it's an unfair description - but with an element of truth
I was referring to the debate around the number of economically disadvantaged youngsters who attend university. And Scottish students are surely leaving with less debt than their English counterparts, no?
Correct, despite Scottish degrees being a year longer than England (4 years rather than 3) the average English debt is 10 grand higher than for Scottish students over the life of the degree.
Scotland hating Carlotta was just using the usual Tory lies to denigrate Scotland. These insecure exiles seem to hold grudges against the country of their birth for some reason. They try desperately to impress their chums and try to feel they have succeeded in life.
You're just fine with declining social mobility in Scotland - we get it - it's a small price to pay to avoid criticism of the SNP.
Some of us are not.
Except the proportion of poorest students attending university has increased under the SNP.
a considerable strengthening and expansion of the FE College system .
THE number of students in Scotland’s colleges has plummeted by 152,000 since the SNP came to power in 2007, prompting warnings that the further education sector is in “crisis”.
There are far too many doom mongers on here! This is just a correction. A large one sure, but still a correction. Market expectations about China were always unrealistic, the underlying health of British (and foreign) companies listed on the exchange is still very solid.
a considerable strengthening and expansion of the FE College system .
THE number of students in Scotland’s colleges has plummeted by 152,000 since the SNP came to power in 2007, prompting warnings that the further education sector is in “crisis”.
Again a deliberate misrepresentation and an effective lie. It's FTEs tha count not the number of people doing a 10 hour course on Film Appreciation or Basket Weaving.
Meanwhile, the SFC figures showed that colleges delivered 121,364 full-time equivalent places last year, up 1.2 per cent from 2013-14. These included 119,078 funded places, exceeding the Scottish Government’s target of 116,000.
The SNP higher education policy is excellent, nothing less. They have maintained and expanded the FE College system to go hand in hand with a University system which remains excellent and at the same time they have slashed and burned the pointless, wasteful, ridiculous Hobby Courses which only existed to rob the public purse.
That's why the SNP have such strong public appreciation figures, positive on every isssue - because they deliver and do so well.
Uber is claiming a major victory after Transport for London (TfL) ditched a number of proposals that would have imposed restrictions on the taxi hailing app’s business.
Tfl has decided against implementing proposals that would have hit Uber’s service including forcing operators to provide booking confirmation details to the passenger at least five minutes before a journey starts.
Some reality that Carlotta won't like about Scottish Higher Education.
Last year a higher proportion (65 per cent) of full time further education college students completing their course successfully compared to 2011/12 (64 per cent)
The average student learning hours at college have increased by 53 per cent since 2006/07 and are now at a record level.
Scotland is the best educated country in Europe, according to a report released by the UK Office for National Statistics in June 2014. It says that nearly 45 per cent of people in Scotland aged between 25 and 64 have had some kind of tertiary education – including university degrees and further education — ahead of Ireland, Luxembourg and Finland, which were the only other countries to get more than 40 per cent.
Mr. T, the bureaucrats are clever enough to sit on something like that until a few moments after the polls close, I would've thought.
It's already being discussed though.
The legal niceties (could we be forced to accept? No - is my current understanding. Would we able to deport to first country of arrival? No - and that's the issue. Once arrived here - by whatever means, we would be stuck) are less important to my mind than the bigger issue about what it says about the EU's attitude to us vs other members.
When EU rules don't suit some countries, they get changed or ignored. But when we want changes we're told that nothing can be done. Everything is unchangeable. Otherwise the sky would fall in.
Sod it, no: either we're a full member - and we pay a huge amount to the organisation - and our wishes are at least as important as other countries and more so than those who contribute little or nothing - or we're not. But not this: "you must follow all the rules and pay handsomely for doing so and lectured if you don't even as others ignore rules and court judgments and do what they hell what they want".
If this really is the case then Calais is going to achieve city status in rather short order. I would go further and suggest they will never give up if that occurs and the only thing between us and those trying to get here are the immigration officers and Le Manche.
Mr. T, the bureaucrats are clever enough to sit on something like that until a few moments after the polls close, I would've thought.
It's already being discussed though.
The legal niceties (could we be forced to accept? No - is my current understanding. Would we able to deport to first country of arrival? No - and that's the issue. Once arrived here - by whatever means, we would be stuck) are less important to my mind than the bigger issue about what it says about the EU's attitude to us vs other members.
When EU rules don't suit some countries, they get changed or ignored. But when we want changes we're told that nothing can be done. Everything is unchangeable. Otherwise the sky would fall in.
Sod it, no: either we're a full member - and we pay a huge amount to the organisation - and our wishes are at least as important as other countries and more so than those who contribute little or nothing - or we're not. But not this: "you must follow all the rules and pay handsomely for doing so and lectured if you don't even as others ignore rules and court judgments and do what they hell what they want".
If this really is the case then Calais is going to achieve city status in rather short order. I would go further and suggest they will never give up if that occurs and the only thing between us and those trying to get here are the immigration officers and Le Manche.
That would be the moment to dump Eurotunnel shares, and buy into ferry lines, and shipbuilders.
@JournoStephen: Cameron says Labour is now "a risk to the security of every family in our country." I long for the days when that would have been hyperbole.
@rosschawkins: Cons decided now best attack is not Labour splits, but Labour & Corbyn are as one: "it's not just the leader, it's the whole Labour party"
Would anyone like to give me a Trump-Rubio Iowa spread?
In the polls, it would seem to be Trump by 10-12. I think it'll be closer than that. Anyone???
I'm happy to go above 10-12, but I can't in clear conscience without point out out the current RCP average spread is Trump by 16. A couple in the 10-12 range but several way more than that.
It says that nearly 45 per cent of people in Scotland aged between 25 and 64 have had some kind of tertiary education
Of whom the vast majority were educated before the SNP came to power and started depriving the poor with their middle class benefits.....so what's your explanation for the poor of Scotland falling behind other parts of the UK since the SNP took office?
Basically the same question 6 times getting the same answer. Loans means more students can be funded so more opportunity.
The cost of loans is exactly the same as the cost of fees and grants to a government in any financial year. To provide £1 of loan costs the treasury the same as providing £1 of fees or £1 of grants. You've failed basic economics.
Ms Sturgeon’s education drive is a response to sustained criticism over the SNP’s failure to close the so-called “attainment gap” between pupils from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds. Figures have also shown worrying falls in literacy and numeracy standards in schools while her party has been in power.
Basically the same question 6 times getting the same answer. Loans means more students can be funded so more opportunity.
The cost of loans is exactly the same as the cost of fees and grants to a government in any financial year. To provide £1 of loan costs the treasury the same as providing £1 of fees or £1 of grants. You've failed basic economics.
did the course include the difference between cash flow and revenue/cost accounting?
Basically the same question 6 times getting the same answer. Loans means more students can be funded so more opportunity.
The cost of loans is exactly the same as the cost of fees and grants to a government in any financial year. To provide £1 of loan costs the treasury the same as providing £1 of fees or £1 of grants. You've failed basic economics.
No its not. A loan generates a future income flow that that can be sold or used to help fund the resources being spent now.
If members of the SNP think there is no difference between a grant and a loan then much of the Scottish education policy makes a little more sense but still, unfortunately, no sense at all.
Being unable to deport illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers is going to be a serious dent for remain if the EU are serious about it. It's one thing to be in favour of migration or not against it at least, but another to be in favour of illegal immigration and fake asylum claims.
Basically the same question 6 times getting the same answer. Loans means more students can be funded so more opportunity.
The cost of loans is exactly the same as the cost of fees and grants to a government in any financial year. To provide £1 of loan costs the treasury the same as providing £1 of fees or £1 of grants. You've failed basic economics.
Basically the same question 6 times getting the same answer. Loans means more students can be funded so more opportunity.
The cost of loans is exactly the same as the cost of fees and grants to a government in any financial year. To provide £1 of loan costs the treasury the same as providing £1 of fees or £1 of grants. You've failed basic economics.
did the course include the difference between cash flow and revenue/cost accounting?
The cost of a £1 grant is errm £1, whereas the loan probably costs about 55p in the £1 at a rough guess
Labour may look utterly unelectable now, but what if some of the doom-sayers at Davos are right and another gigantic, asset-bubble fuelled crash is about to hit us?
Basically the same question 6 times getting the same answer. Loans means more students can be funded so more opportunity.
The cost of loans is exactly the same as the cost of fees and grants to a government in any financial year. To provide £1 of loan costs the treasury the same as providing £1 of fees or £1 of grants. You've failed basic economics.
Oh dear.
Man boasts of Scottish education successes and then proves it's not very good.
Basically the same question 6 times getting the same answer. Loans means more students can be funded so more opportunity.
The cost of loans is exactly the same as the cost of fees and grants to a government in any financial year. To provide £1 of loan costs the treasury the same as providing £1 of fees or £1 of grants. You've failed basic economics.
No its not. A loan generates a future income flow that that can be sold or used to help fund the resources being spent now.
If members of the SNP think there is no difference between a grant and a loan then much of the Scottish education policy makes a little more sense but still, unfortunately, no sense at all.
Hmm, that's just double counting though. The government (SLC) has taken on a liability, the sale of loan stock would not be anywhere near their original value. I remember reading that the student loan delinquency rate was around 35%, which is expected to go up with the higher fees and thresholds to 45%. That deficit is effectively being covered by the state and we are subsidising poor choices by students who aren't able to fund their repayments in full because they can't get decent jobs after graduating.
Labour may look utterly unelectable now, but what if some of the doom-sayers at Davos are right and another gigantic, asset-bubble fuelled crash is about to hit us?
You've been reading AEP again. Really, its not a good idea.
Comments
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning suggesting that national ID cards are a jolly good idea and should be revived. I think that is the third of fourth time I have either read or heard such sentiments expressed in the mainstream media in recent months. Straws in the wind, perhaps, but I think we can expect a revival of the ID card scheme in the not too distant future - probably soon after Cameron has gone.
2015 General Election campaign spending per seat:
UKIP: £2.9m
GRN: £1.1m
LDEM: £441.2k
LAB: £52.1k
CON: £47.2k
SNP: £26.4k
He probably takes advantage of an extra hour in bed on Wednesdays though, I can't imagine his team meeting at 7am to discuss the PMQs Strategy, as much as when he used to debate with Hattie, Ed, Gordon or Tony.
1. You have to suggest something that people would like but don't see being addressed. Stop immigration! Double pensions! Stop industry going abroad! End child abuse! You don't have to exactly show you know how you'll do these things, but make it clear you'd like to, they're a priority for you.
2. You need to find an eye-catching way to put it that the media HAVE to report. It doesn't matter that much if it's OTT and unworkable - people get the idea that you're on their side on this issue. They'll cut you some slack if you find it difficult. You should stop just short of sounding weird and obsessive (the danger that Farage sometimes courts).
3. You need to have a clear eye on your target audience and not say anything to upset them. Trump is really pursuing the Miliband 35% strategy as far as the nomination goes, and it may well work. It doesn't matter if 50% of the voters think he's nuts. It will matter after the nomination, of course, but that's not the current problem.
4. You need to avoid making your campaign being about stuff that people don't care about. That's part of Labour's problem at the moment - we'd like our message to be about ending austerity, which is at least arguably a viable populist strategy, but we're apparently all about internal quarrels and precisely what we'd do with submarines. It's also a perennial Tory problem, as Cameron has said, "always banging on about Europe". (Cameron hopes the referendum will put it to bed - good luck with that.)
And I suspect that does not include a fair chunk of resources left over from the referendum, such as the mini buses we still see in Dundee.
Goldmans is a hedge fund that pretends to care about its clients
Lots of ironic descriptions around. I'd take issue with Apple being described as a 'religion' though. It's more of a cult...
Obviously the richly ironic nature of the entire concept is lost on its authors.
Corbyn is barely worth preparing for. It's politics for 5-9yr olds. From Fisher Price.
Journalists attempting to make any exchange a close match is straw grabbing for copy.
However, if it does look overly one-sided then that's the fault of the weak one. It's not a handicap; it's one test in who's suitable to be PM and the ability to gain the respect of the House is one aspect of that. That went for IDS too - it's not party specific.
I think Cruz wins Iowa at a canter, and Trump is fighting it out with Rubio for second place in the low 20s.
So far as the betting goes, I've not been able to understand Jeb and Rubio's prices all campaign. They are still making up 38% of the market between them.
Carson, Paul, Fiorina look the most likely.
Thats some more votes for Cruz, and five more for the others between them.
Everyone acted correctly within their remit.
If you allowed discretion then mistakes - such as Baby P - will be made. Given the consequences, I'd rather that doesn't happen.
Once you have the facts of the situation then you can determine the right course of action.
I fully understand why BP and Shell etc. shares are tumbling, but as a net oil importer aren't we better off with cheap oil?
Weak China blah blah blah sure, but we don't export much to them in the grand scheme of things. And weak Eurozone hasn't caused the FTSE to fall like this in the past 5 years. And the US is doing rather well.
Seems like on over reaction to me. But what do i know...
After New Hampshire, it's goodbye to Gilmore, Fiorina, Carson and Christie.
After South Carolina, we lose Kasich and Bush.
allegedly
But your point about oil is a good one. Historically falling oil prices have led to faster economic growth in importing countries.
In the polls, it would seem to be Trump by 10-12. I think it'll be closer than that. Anyone???
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2016/1/20/breaking-point-will-irans-return-mark-the-bottom-for-oil
(i) teachers to report potential concerns;
(ii) those concerns to be followed up on; and
(iii) all appropriate agencies to be informed/involved
There shouldn't be any discretion on those aspects.
As for any steps beyond the initial follow up, that's up to the professional judgement of the agencies involved
[talking to a group of economists about the Efficient Market theory]
Not even listed as a runner on Betfair:
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107664938
Do his own family even know he is running ?
"Hoffman-LaRoche used to be known as a bank that makes drugs."
A trifle unfair. Having worked for them for many years, can I say you're confusing general Swiss pragmatism for a specific money-hungry attitude. Although I concede it can be difficult to differentiate at times.
But, of course, it's an unfair description - but with an element of truth
http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/number-of-students-in-scottish-colleges-falls-by-152-000-1-4000847
If they hadn't and an atrocity occurred, the authorities would be hammered and rightly so.
I was involved with Baby P at SoS level.
Meanwhile, the SFC figures showed that colleges delivered 121,364 full-time equivalent places last year, up 1.2 per cent from 2013-14. These included 119,078 funded places, exceeding the Scottish Government’s target of 116,000.
The SNP higher education policy is excellent, nothing less. They have maintained and expanded the FE College system to go hand in hand with a University system which remains excellent and at the same time they have slashed and burned the pointless, wasteful, ridiculous Hobby Courses which only existed to rob the public purse.
That's why the SNP have such strong public appreciation figures, positive on every isssue - because they deliver and do so well.
Tfl has decided against implementing proposals that would have hit Uber’s service including forcing operators to provide booking confirmation details to the passenger at least five minutes before a journey starts.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/20/uber-claims-victory-after-tfl-drops-proposed-restrictions
Last year a higher proportion (65 per cent) of full time further education college students completing their course successfully compared to 2011/12 (64 per cent)
The average student learning hours at college have increased by 53 per cent since 2006/07 and are now at a record level.
Scotland is the best educated country in Europe, according to a report released by the UK Office for National Statistics in June 2014.
It says that nearly 45 per cent of people in Scotland aged between 25 and 64 have had some kind of tertiary education – including university degrees and further education — ahead of Ireland, Luxembourg and Finland, which were the only other countries to get more than 40 per cent.
Next, a claim that Salmond's £3000 golfing jolly and luxury hotel expenses were money well spent for the publicity.
Ms Sturgeon’s education drive is a response to sustained criticism over the SNP’s failure to close the so-called “attainment gap” between pupils from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds. Figures have also shown worrying falls in literacy and numeracy standards in schools while her party has been in power.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nicola-sturgeon-vows-to-put-education-front-and-centre-as-she-launches-snp-election-campaign-a6796766.html
If its all so wonderful - why does it need fixing?
If members of the SNP think there is no difference between a grant and a loan then much of the Scottish education policy makes a little more sense but still, unfortunately, no sense at all.
Corbyn is speaking for everyone else. Don't judge this contest by the volume of noise from the Tory back benches.
Man boasts of Scottish education successes and then proves it's not very good.
Priceless.
The figures are absolutely clear - Corbyn is an unelectable disaster for Labour.