We are maintaining our 2% GDP commitment and we have just announced a big spend on intelligence and our special forces (£2bn in new equipment). Plus committing to the early purchase of F35s and increasing the number of Typhoon squadrons. Including territorials the army will be bigger than before
There's a lot of moaning about defence spending, but we are getting the full order of F35s, both carriers will go into service, more Typhoons (and they are upgraded too) in service, P-9 Poseidon ordered, 20 next-generation Predator UCAVs, Zephyr ordered (this looks very interesting), Sentinel in service until 2025, and more.
I still think we should spend more on defence but it really does seem like we are getting much better at procurement and planning for the future, and we will have some very capable armed forces by the 2020s.
We will have some very good kit, whether we have enough of it and have enough people to use it is a moot point. The navy in particular is already struggling to find enough people with the right skills to crew the present fleet - where they will find the crews for the QE class God alone knows.
Of course some of the recent announcements are simply undoing the mess that was the 2010 defence cuts, sorry SDR (e.g. getting back an airborne maritime patrol capability) and the Army 2020 programme is now looking even more unbalanced and pathetic (the Cap Badge Warriors have won at the expense of force capability and the reserve army just isn't being built). The 2% commitment is only being met by accounting tricks.
So yes there is some good news but the situation is by no means rosy. The biggest challenge for the near/medium future is people - recruitment and especially retention.
Mr. 30, and who's going to develop them? For what purpose? How would you tell, at long range, a submarine was there?
Maybe it's a long-term plan. Labour uses underwater (and fictional) drones to excuse having no subs*, and then actual drones to excuse a policy of disbanding the army.
*Except Labour do want subs. Just without nukes. So even if Thornberry were making a valid point about submarines and drones (she isn't), Labour's policy would still be to have the apparently vulnerable submarines.
If Corbyn weren't, well, Corbyn, Labour might perhaps point out which party is actually cutting our armed forces.
We are maintaining our 2% GDP commitment and we have just announced a big spend on intelligence and our special forces (£2bn in new equipment). Plus committing to the early purchase of F35s and increasing the number of Typhoon squadrons. Including territorials the army will be bigger than before
And excluding the territorials, it will be smaller. Gordon Brown handed over 100,000 soldiers and David Cameron is already down to 80,000.
Millsfield is a township in Coos County, New Hampshire, United States
The median income for a household in the township was $59,375, and the median income for a family was $59,375. Males had a median income of $38,750 versus $0 for females.
The racial makeup of the township was 100.00% White.
Mr. Llama, could be worse. At least they haven't cut soldiers in a battalion to 200, to increase the apparent number of battalions [around the 4th century AD, the Romans did that, so the roll call of legions (then down to 1,000 men apiece) would sound more impressive].
''The biggest challenge for the near/medium future is people - recruitment and especially retention. ''
When the young people of today see troops being hounded by the likes of Leigh Day, or vagrant on the streets, or shoved into cr8p accommodation, or needing the likes of Help for Heroes to fill in the gaps for post combat care, is it any wonder they don't want to sign up?
And the point they make, that the warnings from the inners are a pile of horsesh8t, is quite important.
He does seem to be having great difficulty making a case for staying in. If the best communicator the party has got has people pointing and laughing....
Assuming that Kasich is the eventual Republican contender and wins his home state of Ohio, how much more difficult does that make it for the Democrats to hold on to the White House? Are they any states it would be more difficult for the Republicans to hold with him as their candidate?
And does anyone think Trump would win New York?
The only way that Kasich is not the best GOP general election candidate in a given state is if the state is both a swing state and the GOP base is very conservative. To me, that brings to mind the Mountain West - perhaps Colorado.
Yep, I'm in the Tim school for reform of drug laws.
Take them out of the black market by legalisation. Control (and tax) of sales, restrictions on the place of use for some drugs. Grow cannabis legally. Those that remain illegal (some of the legal highs? - I'm not an expert on drugs...), if any, should be clobbered with draconian and life changing consequences for users, suppliers and manufacturers.
There is no plus side to the current prohibition, as it isn't working in any meaningful way.
While you are at it, can you legalise prostitution and try to remove the pimps, slave labour, crime and coercion in that trade as well? (I'm not an expert there either, I hasten to add!)
It will happen when politicians realise they can tax it.
That's where it falls down which was my earlier point. If govt controls the supply of drugs it becomes a competitor with some very nasty people. Its an unholy mess, but rehabilitating criminals really means weaning them off drugs, until govt accepts that we're going nowhere.
Why does the government need to control the supply? Regulation of the tobacco and alcohol industries works well enough. I suspect that most users wouldn't want to go near the dealers given the choice but they don't have the choice. Illegal drugs have little assurance of quality or reliability.
As an aside, I think it's a mistake to assume that a lot of users want to come off drugs - many are there because they see a lack of enticing alternatives. Trying to get people off drugs without a more holistic approach to lifestyle reform is like trying to construct a table from the top down.
If heroin is to be available on prescription they will have to acquire it. Allow me to be flippant, dealers don't advertise in Yellow Pages. Look, some people get free prescriptions, others don't, it is a can of worms when Dr Findlay is in competition with the local dealer.
Although we are in a mess, simply saying decriminalisation is the way ahead is naive.
Once something is legalised, the market will provide. Plenty of chemical companies out there.
As I say, the question is no longer just about whether Labour is capable of formulating a credible defence policy. It’s now about whether or not Labour shadow ministers are sentient beings capable of rational thought.
The defence of the realm either matters to members of Labour’s shadow cabinet, or it doesn’t. They need to stop hiding behind this sham of a review, and show us where they stand.
The median income for a household in the township was $59,375, and the median income for a family was $59,375. Males had a median income of $38,750 versus $0 for females.
The median income for a household in the township was $59,375, and the median income for a family was $59,375. Males had a median income of $38,750 versus $0 for females.
Mr. Llama, could be worse. At least they haven't cut soldiers in a battalion to 200, to increase the apparent number of battalions [around the 4th century AD, the Romans did that, so the roll call of legions (then down to 1,000 men apiece) would sound more impressive].
And the point they make, that the warnings from the inners are a pile of horsesh8t, is quite important.
He does seem to be having great difficulty making a case for staying in. If the best communicator the party has got has people pointing and laughing....
For @Moses (at his request): The Cyclefree Guide to the Nine Stages of a Crisis
Somewhere in any organisation of any type anywhere in the world, something bad is happening. Two groups of people are involved: those who are doing the bad stuff and those who know about it. This is what happens next.
1. People turn a blind eye. 2. People can't believe it. 3. People refuse to believe it. 4. People accept that something has gone wrong but insist that it is limited to "one or two bad apples". (Of course as any housewife knows if you put a rotting apple in with fresh apples all the apples will pretty soon start to rot. Whoever came up with that phrase clearly knew nothing about apples.) 5. When it becomes clear that not "one or two" stages 1, 2 and 3 are repeated. 6. People become more concerned with the reputation of / protecting the institution than dealing with what is wrong. There is much talk of "moving on" and not saying bad things about the many good people who aren't like the bad people. 7. A limited inquiry is instituted in the hope that this will sort matters out. It won't. 8. When it becomes public people become defensive and concentrate on the PR aspects. There will usually be at least one toe-curling press interview. 9. Eventually ….. eventually when the stench and/or the outside pressure become too much to bear a much more extensive investigation is instituted and remedial measures are put in place. Almost inevitably this is done far too late. And the institution will have to deal with the continuing fall-out from the previous failures for some time long after it has put its house in order.
The lesson to be learned (and there are many, of course) is that trust takes a very long time to build in the first place, can be lost in an instant and once lost or damaged will take a very long time indeed to rebuild.
And the point they make, that the warnings from the inners are a pile of horsesh8t, is quite important.
He does seem to be having great difficulty making a case for staying in. If the best communicator the party has got has people pointing and laughing....
I'm thinking that immigration is a subject that Remain will never win on.
And the point they make, that the warnings from the inners are a pile of horsesh8t, is quite important.
He does seem to be having great difficulty making a case for staying in. If the best communicator the party has got has people pointing and laughing....
It must be a kind of get up like a magic trick where the magician fails at first on purpose in order to look all the more impressive when he delivers the coup de grace
'I honestly want to shut him in a cupboard. For his own good.'
If the IN campaign's project fear is already being laughed at, then what does it have left?
It may be laughable but it is the only campaign going on. What is Leave doing? Nothing.
They are abiding by Cameron's request not to start campaigning until there was a deal.
They're bloody fools if so. Since he's obviously campaigning so should they be. They shouldn't be waiting for some Tory bigwig (not going to happen IMO) but should be making their case. Whatever that case is, which is hard to see. People here have made a far better case for Leave than Leave itself, who seem obsessed with being rude to or about foreigners.
Not sure she'd go for Trump, think she might tell a pollster she's voting for Rubio as he looks smart in a suit. Then stick the x in Cruz's box which she wouldn't admit as she doesn't want to seem like a hillbilly.
Actually on second thoughts I'd have her down as a Rubio voter. She is very establishment and quite right wing
And the point they make, that the warnings from the inners are a pile of horsesh8t, is quite important.
He does seem to be having great difficulty making a case for staying in. If the best communicator the party has got has people pointing and laughing....
It must be a kind of get up like a magic trick where the magician fails at first on purpose in order to look all the more impressive when he delivers the coup de grace
Can you see any government willing to build autonomous hunter/killer submarines and have them roaming the oceans, even if the technology existed to do so (which it doesn't)?
The alternative would be for governments to give up control of the seas to privately-owned, DAO-owned or self-owned autonomous hunter/killer submarines, so yes, I think they would.
'I honestly want to shut him in a cupboard. For his own good.'
If the IN campaign's project fear is already being laughed at, then what does it have left?
It may be laughable but it is the only campaign going on. What is Leave doing? Nothing.
They are abiding by Cameron's request not to start campaigning until there was a deal.
They're bloody fools if so. Since he's obviously campaigning so should they be. They shouldn't be waiting for some Tory bigwig (not going to happen IMO) but should be making their case. Whatever that case is, which is hard to see. People here have made a far better case for Leave than Leave itself, who seem obsessed with being rude to or about foreigners.
Oh do grow up and do not be such a whining moaner. He is PM he is in charge he is the one who brought the deal to parliament. They can resign and campaign if they want. Leave are busy arguing among themselves. You are in trouble if you think people here are making a good deal for Leave.
If heroin is to be available on prescription they will have to acquire it. Allow me to be flippant, dealers don't advertise in Yellow Pages. Look, some people get free prescriptions, others don't, it is a can of worms when Dr Findlay is in competition with the local dealer.
Although we are in a mess, simply saying decriminalisation is the way ahead is naive.
Heroin is also known as diamorphine. Under this name it is sometimes prescribed for terminal cancer patients in extreme pain.
NHS hospitals buy it from regulated drug companies rather than the local dealer.
I'm truly astonished that the site's committed Leavers don't find Remain's arguments convincing.
As opposed to the national press, where feelings are much more considered and ambivalent...
It's a good question whether newspapers now change votes in any kind of election. With their sharply falling circulations, who is left reading them and how do those readers select their newspapers?
I might do a thread header on this subject at some point.
Strange how some self appointed shrewdies think immigration is a subject that LEAVE should avoid talking about...
Well no actually it isn't strange that they'd make that clueless error
I've no idea what you're talking about. I don't know if I count as a shrewdie, but if I was running the Leave campaign I would talk about immigration. It's their most potent, albeit a largely bogus, argument.
What's interesting is that Cameron has decided to tackle it head on. A high-risk strategy, but he's presumably decided it's an issue they have to tackle.
As I say, the question is no longer just about whether Labour is capable of formulating a credible defence policy. It’s now about whether or not Labour shadow ministers are sentient beings capable of rational thought.
The defence of the realm either matters to members of Labour’s shadow cabinet, or it doesn’t. They need to stop hiding behind this sham of a review, and show us where they stand.
Not sure she'd go for Trump, think she might tell a pollster she's voting for Rubio as he looks smart in a suit. Then stick the x in Cruz's box which she wouldn't admit as she doesn't want to seem like a hillbilly.
Actually on second thoughts I'd have her down as a Rubio voter. She is very establishment and quite right wing
I'm truly astonished that the site's committed Leavers don't find Remain's arguments convincing.
I think that both sides are failing to present a positive case: I do not share the EU's direction of travel and think very seriously that the UK and the EU need to find a better arrangement than they currently have for both sides' sakes. I think Britain will thrive whatever the outcome but the sort of Britain which it will be will be different in important ways (or, at least, in ways which are important to me).
What I dislike intensely is the negative fear-mongering from both sides. Immigration: who to let in, how many and what to do about the results of the Middle Eastern turmoil will still be an issue whether we're in or out and it is stupid of Cameron to suggest that the referendum result will have more than a marginal effect on this. Ditto for the Leave campaign of course.
I do not want to vote Remain on the basis of being too fearful of life outside the EU and/or on the basis that the EU will gang up on us if we don't. It is a pathetic and insulting argument and was pathetic and insulting to the Scots, when deployed against them.
To my mind, Cameron has not come up with a credible and worthwhile reform package and has not addressed one of my most important concerns, namely, that even inside the EU Britain will be outvoted, outmanoeuvred and disadvantaged. Maybe this will change. But he should be addressing this not wittering about camps in Kent.
@DavidL's posts yesterday summed up how I feel about the results of Cameron's negotiations. For all the undoubted and serious risks of leaving - and I am an instinctive pro-European and, indeed, not English at all - I do feel that the UK's position in the EU as it is likely to develop will rapidly become untenable. It is a great disappointment to me that Cameron has focused on side issues and has not thought clearly or with enough focus or ruthlessly enough on what is best for Britain in the EU and how to achieve it.
I don't know what it is about the EU which renders otherwise apparently intelligent British politicians incapable of coherent thought or action, other than gushing and embarrassing over-praise or hyperbolic statements about the evil intent of others. A pity.
''I might do a thread header on this subject at some point. ''
The thing about national right wing newspapers is they hate being on the losing side. That is why the violence of their reaction to Dave renego. surprised me a bit. So utterly dismissive. No hedging. Why?
Strange how some self appointed shrewdies think immigration is a subject that LEAVE should avoid talking about...
Well no actually it isn't strange that they'd make that clueless error
I've no idea what you're talking about. I don't know if I count as a shrewdie, but if I was running the Leave campaign I would talk about immigration. It's their most potent, albeit a largely bogus, argument.
What's interesting is that Cameron has decided to tackle it head on. A high-risk strategy, but he's presumably decided it's an issue they have to tackle.
Yes interesting indeed. He's a successful politician and I'm not so I guess he knows what he's doing... Maybe a Lynton Crosby leftfield tactical genius move, we shall see
'I honestly want to shut him in a cupboard. For his own good.'
If the IN campaign's project fear is already being laughed at, then what does it have left?
It may be laughable but it is the only campaign going on. What is Leave doing? Nothing.
They are abiding by Cameron's request not to start campaigning until there was a deal.
They're bloody fools if so. Since he's obviously campaigning so should they be. They shouldn't be waiting for some Tory bigwig (not going to happen IMO) but should be making their case. Whatever that case is, which is hard to see. People here have made a far better case for Leave than Leave itself, who seem obsessed with being rude to or about foreigners.
Oh do grow up and do not be such a whining moaner. He is PM he is in charge he is the one who brought the deal to parliament. They can resign and campaign if they want. Leave are busy arguing among themselves. You are in trouble if you think people here are making a good deal for Leave.
I'm not moaning. I was commenting. DavidL has made a very good case for Leave. So has RCS100.
I struggle to see what you have added, mind. Still, not moaning. I'm sure incoherent rage adds to the gaiety of nations.......
'I honestly want to shut him in a cupboard. For his own good.'
If the IN campaign's project fear is already being laughed at, then what does it have left?
Experience tells me the Treasury, the BoE, the Queen, the Civil Service, the MoD, the CBI, the BBC, the Pope & Obama amongst many others. David Bowie sadly not available. Perhaps Kate Moss and a Ouija board?
Strange how some self appointed shrewdies think immigration is a subject that LEAVE should avoid talking about...
Well no actually it isn't strange that they'd make that clueless error
I've no idea what you're talking about. I don't know if I count as a shrewdie, but if I was running the Leave campaign I would talk about immigration. It's their most potent, albeit a largely bogus, argument.
What's interesting is that Cameron has decided to tackle it head on. A high-risk strategy, but he's presumably decided it's an issue they have to tackle.
Yes interesting indeed. He's a successful politician and I'm not so I guess he knows what he's doing... Maybe a Lynton Crosby leftfield tactical genius move, we shall see
He doesn't have to win the argument. He just needs to sow enough doubt to make enough waverers vote for the status quo option. The bar is lower. Whereas Leave have a much higher bar and are being utterly inept at even trying to reach it, not least because they are not coming up with a coherent account of what the alternative might be.
So making people think again - and on a topic which is high on some people's concerns - is probably a good tactic.
Not really, we've got EU immigration willing to do jobs UK citizens won't/and endemic pickpocketing by a small but identifiable group, and non-EU citizens from YouKnowWhere who marry cousins and form a most undesirable element.
''I might do a thread header on this subject at some point. ''
The thing about national right wing newspapers is they hate being on the losing side. That is why the violence of their reaction to Dave renego. surprised me a bit. So utterly dismissive. No hedging. Why?
Assuming that Kasich is the eventual Republican contender and wins his home state of Ohio, how much more difficult does that make it for the Democrats to hold on to the White House? Are they any states it would be more difficult for the Republicans to hold with him as their candidate?
And does anyone think Trump would win New York?
The only way that Kasich is not the best GOP general election candidate in a given state is if the state is both a swing state and the GOP base is very conservative. To me, that brings to mind the Mountain West - perhaps Colorado.
Thanks for that response, Tim. How would he play in Arizona? I guess OK. I think that is a state that might be trending Democrat?
I'm truly astonished that the site's committed Leavers don't find Remain's arguments convincing.
The most convincing argument for me to stay in the Euro is the stability, and the removal of currency risk on exporters' balance sheets.
Who's in the Euro? Not the UK.
It's the best argument I can think of for "remain". Since we're not in the € (As you rightly point out of course), my current disposition is to leave. If we were in the € I might consider differently.
It is understood that the deadly gang are led by a former special forces officer who has employed ex-military trained snipers from Eastern Europe.
Daniel and Christopher Jnr, who are due to travel to Ireland for a boxing extravaganza in the National Stadium next month, are currently reviewing their security.'
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/streets-of-fear-city-on-tenterhooks-as-pictures-emerge-of-eddie-hutch-snrs-bullet-ridden-home-after-fatal-shooting-34436023.html 'Fianna Fáil justice spokesman Niall Collins last night condemned the latest killings. He said the public's shock and fear is not helped by the fact that, despite media reports of gangland interest ahead of the event, there wasn't a single garda at the Regency. He called on the commissioner to explain why. "The Justice Minister simply shrugs and describes it as an operational matter, but that's not good enough. The critical question she should be asking is: 'Why'?" Mr Collins said. "If it is known that high profile and very dangerous criminals engaged in a feud are going to be attending a public event, surely the very least the public have a right to expect is that undercover gardaí will also be there?'
Meanwhile back in the real world Osborne decides he'll need to borrow lots more to keep the plates spinning
Never mind, George has all sorts of interesting ideas for balancing the budget, like hammering middle class pensions and wringing the motorist's neck with hikes in fuel duty.
I'm sure these will go down well with colleagues, party and voters!!!
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
On the bright side the SNP are fully signed up to the 'no tax increases/austerity' agenda.....
We should write a book about our politicians.
"The Borrowers" would make a good title.
The 'Tartan Tories' merit a chapter:
For Scotland, matching the UK government’s tax plans would reduce tax for the rich but not the poor; the proposals of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Labour would increase tax on the rich but not on the poor.
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
'I honestly want to shut him in a cupboard. For his own good.'
If the IN campaign's project fear is already being laughed at, then what does it have left?
It may be laughable but it is the only campaign going on. What is Leave doing? Nothing.
They are abiding by Cameron's request not to start campaigning until there was a deal.
They're bloody fools if so. Since he's obviously campaigning so should they be. They shouldn't be waiting for some Tory bigwig (not going to happen IMO) but should be making their case. Whatever that case is, which is hard to see. People here have made a far better case for Leave than Leave itself, who seem obsessed with being rude to or about foreigners.
Oh do grow up and do not be such a whining moaner. He is PM he is in charge he is the one who brought the deal to parliament. They can resign and campaign if they want. Leave are busy arguing among themselves. You are in trouble if you think people here are making a good deal for Leave.
I'm not moaning. I was commenting. DavidL has made a very good case for Leave. So has RCS100.
I struggle to see what you have added, mind. Still, not moaning. I'm sure incoherent rage adds to the gaiety of nations.......
The only thing likely to make me back Remain is SeanT. I simply can't be on the same side as him.
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
I met with one of the smartest bond funds in the world last week, and we were chatting - as you do - about credit worthiness and the like.
Their view is that the current "tantrum" is the consequence of a lot of the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds being forced to liquidate holdings to pay for budget deficits. In particular, they believed that in certain illiquid credit markets, a rush for the exit was causing enormous swings.
What it doesn't say in the C4 report in relation to the hotel costs, is there some fudge where the hotels weren't actually located in the constituency or something?
I met with one of the smartest bond funds in the world last week, and we were chatting - as you do - about credit worthiness and the like.
Their view is that the current "tantrum" is the consequence of a lot of the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds being forced to liquidate holdings to pay for budget deficits. In particular, they believed that in certain illiquid credit markets, a rush for the exit was causing enormous swings.
Interesting suggestion. If it's correct, then this is going to go on for some time, right?
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
I met with one of the smartest bond funds in the world last week, and we were chatting - as you do - about credit worthiness and the like.
Their view is that the current "tantrum" is the consequence of a lot of the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds being forced to liquidate holdings to pay for budget deficits. In particular, they believed that in certain illiquid credit markets, a rush for the exit was causing enormous swings.
That the oil producing nations are still refusing to blink and cut output is part of some collective macho madness. I still expect oil prices to move sharply upwards in the next 12 months, as they realise they are basically giving away their limited resources to an ungrateful world as their own economies go down the tubes...
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
I met with one of the smartest bond funds in the world last week, and we were chatting - as you do - about credit worthiness and the like.
Their view is that the current "tantrum" is the consequence of a lot of the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds being forced to liquidate holdings to pay for budget deficits. In particular, they believed that in certain illiquid credit markets, a rush for the exit was causing enormous swings.
That the oil producing nations are still refusing to blink and cut output is part of some collective macho madness. I still expect oil prices to move sharply upwards in the next 12 months, as they realise they are basically giving away their limited resources to an ungrateful world as their own economies go down the tubes...
The problem the oil countries have is that they all want to keep pumping while only Saudi Arabia cuts.
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
I met with one of the smartest bond funds in the world last week, and we were chatting - as you do - about credit worthiness and the like.
Their view is that the current "tantrum" is the consequence of a lot of the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds being forced to liquidate holdings to pay for budget deficits. In particular, they believed that in certain illiquid credit markets, a rush for the exit was causing enormous swings.
That the oil producing nations are still refusing to blink and cut output is part of some collective macho madness. I still expect oil prices to move sharply upwards in the next 12 months, as they realise they are basically giving away their limited resources to an ungrateful world as their own economies go down the tubes...
I thought their long term goal was to increase oil prices, but first they wanted to bankrupt all the more expensive drilling operations in the US?
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
I met with one of the smartest bond funds in the world last week, and we were chatting - as you do - about credit worthiness and the like.
Their view is that the current "tantrum" is the consequence of a lot of the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds being forced to liquidate holdings to pay for budget deficits. In particular, they believed that in certain illiquid credit markets, a rush for the exit was causing enormous swings.
That the oil producing nations are still refusing to blink and cut output is part of some collective macho madness. I still expect oil prices to move sharply upwards in the next 12 months, as they realise they are basically giving away their limited resources to an ungrateful world as their own economies go down the tubes...
I thought their long term goal was to increase oil prices, but first they wanted to bankrupt all the more expensive drilling operations in the US?
Bankrupting the US oil producers doesn't help them. Sure, the companies go bust. But the oil's still there, the pipes are still there, and the drilling rigs are still there. If you bankrupt all the companies, you just end up with someone else buying their assets from the bank for pennies in the dollar.
Re the Scots Tory surge, I remain to be convinced it is real, but I hope it is.
Regardless, I do wonder if now is the moment for the Scots Tories to break free and rebrand as Ruth Davidson's "Scottish Unionist Party", allied to the Tories.
Unionism is stronger than Toryism up there, Labour and the LDs are toxic as hell, and Davidson is increasingly popular and respected. Annabel Goldie, of course, was well liked and usually ranked second behind Salmond in the leader stakes but she was a bit of a "tweedy", old school Tory appealing to the older generation of Scots Tory stalwart - Davidson is younger, inclusive, and looks like she "gets it".
Why haven't you linked to this. I think Ozzy has abolished boom and bust
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
Because I was waiting for some tribal gombeen to claim boom and bust had been abolished. You just did.
Just making sure your chain is yankble
David Smith in the Sunday Times has been saying the same thing. Thats not the same as abolishing boom and bust. The economic cycle is always with us. Thats why we need to cut spending to live within that economic cycle. The start of the year has been delivering some good economic indicators.
Re the Scots Tory surge, I remain to be convinced it is real, but I hope it is.
Regardless, I do wonder if now is the moment for the Scots Tories to break free and rebrand as Ruth Davidson's "Scottish Unionist Party", allied to the Tories.
Unionism is stronger than Toryism up there, Labour and the LDs are toxic as hell, and Davidson is increasingly popular and respected. Annabel Goldie, of course, was well liked and usually ranked second behind Salmond in the leader stakes but she was a bit of a "tweedy", old school Tory appealing to the older generation of Scots Tory stalwart - Davidson is younger, inclusive, and looks like she "gets it".
He doesn't have to win the argument. He just needs to sow enough doubt to make enough waverers vote for the status quo option. The bar is lower. Whereas Leave have a much higher bar and are being utterly inept at even trying to reach it, not least because they are not coming up with a coherent account of what the alternative might be.
So making people think again - and on a topic which is high on some people's concerns - is probably a good tactic.
Frankly I am amazed that this is his tactic, I mean I know he is planning to quit, but he isn't going to draw all the poison with him, and I imagine we wants some sort of legacy left with the public and not to be though of as yet another lying spiv like Blair.... and yet all we get are scare stories and lies, and yes they might win the referendum, and yes we might as a result stay in the EU for another five years or so, but the chance of us staying the the EU long term, or even medium term, is close to zero, we are just heading in different directions.
The Tories face being blamed for not protecting us from the immigration fiasco that will return in anger this spring, and for not protecting the city when the federalists crank up their wish list, and all the EU idiocy that will follow when we have to admit that (both) handbrakes are actual worthless. Its possible people might remember all the lying through teeth at this point. Then the global economy turns down and George will get the blame for that, and then there is an election. The press will have other things to talk about then other than pulling the wings off leaders of the opposition, and this will be the Dave's Legacy - Vote Conservative, we won't sell you down the road, honest.
'I honestly want to shut him in a cupboard. For his own good.'
If the IN campaign's project fear is already being laughed at, then what does it have left?
It may be laughable but it is the only campaign going on. What is Leave doing? Nothing.
They are abiding by Cameron's request not to start campaigning until there was a deal.
They're bloody fools if so. Since he's obviously campaigning so should they be. They shouldn't be waiting for some Tory bigwig (not going to happen IMO) but should be making their case. Whatever that case is, which is hard to see. People here have made a far better case for Leave than Leave itself, who seem obsessed with being rude to or about foreigners.
Oh do grow up and do not be such a whining moaner. He is PM he is in charge he is the one who brought the deal to parliament. They can resign and campaign if they want. Leave are busy arguing among themselves. You are in trouble if you think people here are making a good deal for Leave.
I'm not moaning. I was commenting. DavidL has made a very good case for Leave. So has RCS100.
I struggle to see what you have added, mind. Still, not moaning. I'm sure incoherent rage adds to the gaiety of nations.......
The only thing likely to make me back Remain is SeanT. I simply can't be on the same side as him.
I shouldn't worry about stuff like that. This is the internet. Who knows if he even exists? For all we know, he could be a sober tax lawyer who likes presenting himself as a crazed journalist whose opinions vary with the passing wind. And I expect SeanT will change his mind several times between now and the actual referendum with the value of Camden flat proving to be the final clincher.
Re the Scots Tory surge, I remain to be convinced it is real, but I hope it is.
Regardless, I do wonder if now is the moment for the Scots Tories to break free and rebrand as Ruth Davidson's "Scottish Unionist Party", allied to the Tories.
Comments
If the IN campaign's project fear is already being laughed at, then what does it have left?
The only area it might be conceivably behind is print media.
Normally that would be enough. But 2016 is not normal. I can;t remember a more anti-establishment time. I'm really not sure.
But, we shall see.
Of course some of the recent announcements are simply undoing the mess that was the 2010 defence cuts, sorry SDR (e.g. getting back an airborne maritime patrol capability) and the Army 2020 programme is now looking even more unbalanced and pathetic (the Cap Badge Warriors have won at the expense of force capability and the reserve army just isn't being built). The 2% commitment is only being met by accounting tricks.
So yes there is some good news but the situation is by no means rosy. The biggest challenge for the near/medium future is people - recruitment and especially retention.
Agent P
SNP road safety MSP banned for speeding.
It is her 2nd driving ban in 3 years.
She must be sacked from her role. https://t.co/81wR9KsTgY
The median income for a household in the township was $59,375, and the median income for a family was $59,375. Males had a median income of $38,750 versus $0 for females.
The racial makeup of the township was 100.00% White.
Guess which candidate got a landslide there
When the young people of today see troops being hounded by the likes of Leigh Day, or vagrant on the streets, or shoved into cr8p accommodation, or needing the likes of Help for Heroes to fill in the gaps for post combat care, is it any wonder they don't want to sign up?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scott-macnab-tory-surge-latest-twist-in-a-dramatic-decade-1-4024805
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Airborne_Division_(United_Kingdom)
Whoever's driving Remain needs to get a grip here. Leave are just infighting like guests on Jeremy Kyle.
I've no real dog in this fight as I'm Leaving whatever the arguments, yet a Cameroon.
Which candidate would Bree van der kamp support ?
https://twitter.com/JeyyLowe/status/696805747007614976
A pilot nicknamed 'Biggles' jailed for 19 years for importing £34m worth of cocaine into Britain.
Somewhere in any organisation of any type anywhere in the world, something bad is happening. Two groups of people are involved: those who are doing the bad stuff and those who know about it. This is what happens next.
1. People turn a blind eye.
2. People can't believe it.
3. People refuse to believe it.
4. People accept that something has gone wrong but insist that it is limited to "one or two bad apples". (Of course as any housewife knows if you put a rotting apple in with fresh apples all the apples will pretty soon start to rot. Whoever came up with that phrase clearly knew nothing about apples.)
5. When it becomes clear that not "one or two" stages 1, 2 and 3 are repeated.
6. People become more concerned with the reputation of / protecting the institution than dealing with what is wrong. There is much talk of "moving on" and not saying bad things about the many good people who aren't like the bad people.
7. A limited inquiry is instituted in the hope that this will sort matters out. It won't.
8. When it becomes public people become defensive and concentrate on the PR aspects. There will usually be at least one toe-curling press interview.
9. Eventually ….. eventually when the stench and/or the outside pressure become too much to bear a much more extensive investigation is instituted and remedial measures are put in place. Almost inevitably this is done far too late. And the institution will have to deal with the continuing fall-out from the previous failures for some time long after it has put its house in order.
The lesson to be learned (and there are many, of course) is that trust takes a very long time to build in the first place, can be lost in an instant and once lost or damaged will take a very long time indeed to rebuild.
The PlumberThe Decorator?I'd say Trump - or maybe Cruz.
IN could be looking at a perfect storm come the summer.
And Wales isn't off the board either. WTF is going on?
Actually on second thoughts I'd have her down as a Rubio voter. She is very establishment and quite right wing
http://youtu.be/JomTxDb_HfM
As opposed to the national press, where feelings are much more considered and ambivalent...
We don't want him to embarrass himself. Even if we want Leave to win.
Leave are busy arguing among themselves.
You are in trouble if you think people here are making a good deal for Leave.
NHS hospitals buy it from regulated drug companies rather than the local dealer.
The converse is true on the economic risks, which Leave can't win but can seek to muddy.
I might do a thread header on this subject at some point.
Well no actually it isn't strange that they'd make that clueless error
What's interesting is that Cameron has decided to tackle it head on. A high-risk strategy, but he's presumably decided it's an issue they have to tackle.
The issue is also wider than defence - it links in with our place in the world and our part in the Western Alliance
The hill billies in Justified would eat them all.
What I dislike intensely is the negative fear-mongering from both sides. Immigration: who to let in, how many and what to do about the results of the Middle Eastern turmoil will still be an issue whether we're in or out and it is stupid of Cameron to suggest that the referendum result will have more than a marginal effect on this. Ditto for the Leave campaign of course.
I do not want to vote Remain on the basis of being too fearful of life outside the EU and/or on the basis that the EU will gang up on us if we don't. It is a pathetic and insulting argument and was pathetic and insulting to the Scots, when deployed against them.
To my mind, Cameron has not come up with a credible and worthwhile reform package and has not addressed one of my most important concerns, namely, that even inside the EU Britain will be outvoted, outmanoeuvred and disadvantaged. Maybe this will change. But he should be addressing this not wittering about camps in Kent.
@DavidL's posts yesterday summed up how I feel about the results of Cameron's negotiations. For all the undoubted and serious risks of leaving - and I am an instinctive pro-European and, indeed, not English at all - I do feel that the UK's position in the EU as it is likely to develop will rapidly become untenable. It is a great disappointment to me that Cameron has focused on side issues and has not thought clearly or with enough focus or ruthlessly enough on what is best for Britain in the EU and how to achieve it.
I don't know what it is about the EU which renders otherwise apparently intelligent British politicians incapable of coherent thought or action, other than gushing and embarrassing over-praise or hyperbolic statements about the evil intent of others. A pity.
Leave 38%, Remain 39%, with the usual divides by way of age and voting intention.
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BMG-UK-Poll-EU-Referendum-060216.pdf
The thing about national right wing newspapers is they hate being on the losing side. That is why the violence of their reaction to Dave renego. surprised me a bit. So utterly dismissive. No hedging. Why?
I struggle to see what you have added, mind. Still, not moaning. I'm sure incoherent rage adds to the gaiety of nations.......
David Bowie sadly not available. Perhaps Kate Moss and a Ouija board?
http://newsthump.com/2014/11/28/ukip-warns-of-schrodingers-immigrant-who-lazes-around-on-benefits-whilst-simultaneously-stealing-your-job/
Rather sums up a lot of the 'immigration' "debate" (sic) - and not just from UKIP.....
So making people think again - and on a topic which is high on some people's concerns - is probably a good tactic.
Meanwhile back in the real world Osborne decides he'll need to borrow lots more to keep the plates spinning
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12147730/UKs-rising-trade-deficit-sparks-fears-of-drag-on-economic-growth.html
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/camerons-eu-campaign-is-negative-stupid-and-likely-to-win/
The url saves you most of the effort if you can't be bothered reading it.
"The Borrowers" would make a good title.
The papers seem able to predict each occurrence in advance, while the police fail to do anything.
http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crimedesk/hutch-army-take-out-life-for-life-insurance
'a U.K.-based gang of assassins for hire has been contracted as insurance against any further strikes on the Hutch family and their network.
It is understood that the deadly gang are led by a former special forces officer who has employed ex-military trained snipers from Eastern Europe.
Daniel and Christopher Jnr, who are due to travel to Ireland for a boxing extravaganza in the National Stadium next month, are currently reviewing their security.'
No police, but journalists turn up to cover the predicted action...
http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crimedesk/foreign-hit-squad-used-to-carry-out-military-style-rampage
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/streets-of-fear-city-on-tenterhooks-as-pictures-emerge-of-eddie-hutch-snrs-bullet-ridden-home-after-fatal-shooting-34436023.html
'Fianna Fáil justice spokesman Niall Collins last night condemned the latest killings.
He said the public's shock and fear is not helped by the fact that, despite media reports of gangland interest ahead of the event, there wasn't a single garda at the Regency. He called on the commissioner to explain why.
"The Justice Minister simply shrugs and describes it as an operational matter, but that's not good enough. The critical question she should be asking is: 'Why'?" Mr Collins said.
"If it is known that high profile and very dangerous criminals engaged in a feud are going to be attending a public event, surely the very least the public have a right to expect is that undercover gardaí will also be there?'
Never mind, George has all sorts of interesting ideas for balancing the budget, like hammering middle class pensions and wringing the motorist's neck with hikes in fuel duty.
I'm sure these will go down well with colleagues, party and voters!!!
Goldman Sachs sees near-zero risk of UK recession despite market tantrum
Britain is extremely unlikely to face an economic recession over the next two years and is on safer ground than any other major country in the developed world, according to a new crisis-study by Goldman Sachs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12147100/Goldman-Sachs-sees-near-zero-risk-of-UK-recession-despite-market-tantrum.html
For Scotland, matching the UK government’s tax plans would reduce tax for the rich but not the poor; the proposals of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Labour would increase tax on the rich but not on the poor.
http://www.ippr.org/blog/household-equity-analysing-the-impacts-of-scottish-parties-tax-proposals
The SNP protecting the better off! Whodathunkit?
After that duck, Jos Buttler only averages 159 in his last 5 ODIs.
bbc.in/1PLJizg
You just did.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/697023089775874048
Their view is that the current "tantrum" is the consequence of a lot of the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds being forced to liquidate holdings to pay for budget deficits. In particular, they believed that in certain illiquid credit markets, a rush for the exit was causing enormous swings.
Regardless, I do wonder if now is the moment for the Scots Tories to break free and rebrand as Ruth Davidson's "Scottish Unionist Party", allied to the Tories.
Unionism is stronger than Toryism up there, Labour and the LDs are toxic as hell, and Davidson is increasingly popular and respected. Annabel Goldie, of course, was well liked and usually ranked second behind Salmond in the leader stakes but she was a bit of a "tweedy", old school Tory appealing to the older generation of Scots Tory stalwart - Davidson is younger, inclusive, and looks like she "gets it".
New Thread New Thread
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/01/ruth-davidson-what-ill-be-looking-for-in-the-next-conservative-leader.html
The Tories face being blamed for not protecting us from the immigration fiasco that will return in anger this spring, and for not protecting the city when the federalists crank up their wish list, and all the EU idiocy that will follow when we have to admit that (both) handbrakes are actual worthless. Its possible people might remember all the lying through teeth at this point. Then the global economy turns down and George will get the blame for that, and then there is an election. The press will have other things to talk about then other than pulling the wings off leaders of the opposition, and this will be the Dave's Legacy - Vote Conservative, we won't sell you down the road, honest.