''If Deutsche Bank goes down, it will go down in the same way RBS did, only with the German taxpayer bailing it out rather than the UK one.'' Its not clear to me what is really threatening DB's viability. I read the term 'litigation' bandied around a lot, surely the regulators can't be fining their way into a financial crisis?
It's unlikely
More seriously, Deutsche Bank's problems are mostly that it tried to "play with the big boys" in investment banking, and has a huge cost base. What Deutsche Bank does not have is a very large number of underwater loans.
Total loans outstanding are EUR433bn. The company has shareholders equity of EUR69bn.
That's barely levered by the standards of most banks. Northern Rock, RBS and the like were levered 50-1 or more, Deutsche Bank's leverage is less than a fifth of that.
And the Germans don't owe very much money. Germany household debt is something like 55% of GDP. On the St Louis Fed numbers, that's the lowest in the developed world. (We, by the way, are on a scary 180+%). Corporate debt has declined since 2007, by roughly a quarter too. There's relatively little exposure to oil & gas or mining companies too.
So, while Deutsche Bank has a great many problems, in particular in terms of spending a lot of money to hire people to compete with Goldman, Morgan Stanley and the like, it would appear to be very far from insolvent.
Credit Suisse Group AG plunged to a 27-year low as a selloff across the industry compounded doubts about Chief Executive Officer Tidjane Thiam’s restructuring plans. A rout in bank stocks deepened on Thursday after France’s Societe Generale SA missed fourth-quarter profit estimates, with earnings declining 35 percent at the investment bank. Credit Suisse shares dropped as much as 9 percent, before trading at 12.39 Swiss francs, down 7.8 percent at 5:25 p.m. in Zurich. That’s the lowest level since October 1989...
Why have you posted a chart of Labour's poll share?
900 scientists spread over numerous laboratories with years of results processed by a supercomputer manage to prove something anticipated by 1 guy before the invention of the electronic calculator.
The human mind is surely the most astonishing thing in the known universe.
Just to rattle SeanT's cage...out of 991 scientists working on this...a grand total of 8 were at Chinese Universities...The likes of the University of the Balearic Islands (world ranked 660th) contributed more individuals to this than the whole of Chinese academia.
900 scientists spread over numerous laboratories with years of results processed by a supercomputer manage to prove something anticipated by 1 guy before the invention of the electronic calculator.
The human mind is surely the most astonishing thing in the known universe.
Well, the human mind "anticipated" a whole pile of bollocks as well.
It's a pity Einstein can't get a Nobel Prize for his work on General Relativity - too late now, of course.
A posthumous award would be nice. Given that he never got one for relativity....
I notice from the BBC article one of the lead scientists was eagerly saying that this was sure to get them the Nobel Prize. I am afraid this puts me right off scientists. Gravity is the warping of spacetime. Gravity waves do tend to suggest that there really is 'literally' a fabric, a substance, to 'empty' space itself - that space 'is' something. Question is, is there such a thing as a graviton?
Well, when CERN has lost most of the matter in the Universe...
"Here's a sobering fact: The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 4% of the content of the universe! "
Watford, Mortimer et al I don't know anyone who thinks the NHS is a religious movement but you'd be hard pushed to find a more efficient service. And if people are going to get what they pay for then the government's going to have to get the message across that they don't pay for very much.
And I'd have the evens on Hunt going of I were you.; he won't last beyond the summer.
It's a pity Einstein can't get a Nobel Prize for his work on General Relativity - too late now, of course.
A posthumous award would be nice. Given that he never got one for relativity....
I notice from the BBC article one of the lead scientists was eagerly saying that this was sure to get them the Nobel Prize. I am afraid this puts me right off scientists. Gravity is the warping of spacetime. Gravity waves do tend to suggest that there really is 'literally' a fabric, a substance, to 'empty' space itself - that space 'is' something. Question is, is there such a thing as a graviton?
Well, when CERN has lost most of the matter in the Universe...
"Here's a sobering fact: The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 4% of the content of the universe! "
900 scientists spread over numerous laboratories with years of results processed by a supercomputer manage to prove something anticipated by 1 guy before the invention of the electronic calculator.
The human mind is surely the most astonishing thing in the known universe.
Well, the human mind "anticipated" a whole pile of bollocks as well.
900 scientists spread over numerous laboratories with years of results processed by a supercomputer manage to prove something anticipated by 1 guy before the invention of the electronic calculator.
The human mind is surely the most astonishing thing in the known universe.
Yes true enough, but the thing they are looking for is pretty damn ephemeral. So much so that Einstein himself suggested that it would be impossible to detect.
''If Deutsche Bank goes down, it will go down in the same way RBS did, only with the German taxpayer bailing it out rather than the UK one.'' Its not clear to me what is really threatening DB's viability. I read the term 'litigation' bandied around a lot, surely the regulators can't be fining their way into a financial crisis?
It's unlikely
More seriously, Deutsche Bank's problems are mostly that it tried to "play with the big boys" in investment banking, and has a huge cost base. What Deutsche Bank does not have is a very large number of underwater loans.
Total loans outstanding are EUR433bn. The company has shareholders equity of EUR69bn.
That's barely levered by the standards of most banks. Northern Rock, RBS and the like were levered 50-1 or more, Deutsche Bank's leverage is less than a fifth of that.
And the Germans don't owe very much money. Germany household debt is something like 55% of GDP. On the St Louis Fed numbers, that's the lowest in the developed world. (We, by the way, are on a scary 180+%). Corporate debt has declined since 2007, by roughly a quarter too. There's relatively little exposure to oil & gas or mining companies too.
So, while Deutsche Bank has a great many problems, in particular in terms of spending a lot of money to hire people to compete with Goldman, Morgan Stanley and the like, it would appear to be very far from insolvent.
Credit Suisse Group AG plunged to a 27-year low as a selloff across the industry compounded doubts about Chief Executive Officer Tidjane Thiam’s restructuring plans. A rout in bank stocks deepened on Thursday after France’s Societe Generale SA missed fourth-quarter profit estimates, with earnings declining 35 percent at the investment bank. Credit Suisse shares dropped as much as 9 percent, before trading at 12.39 Swiss francs, down 7.8 percent at 5:25 p.m. in Zurich. That’s the lowest level since October 1989... Something's up.
Gold and Silver certainly are...
There are two fundamentally different questions:
1. Are earnings disappointing? and 2. Are there possible massive losses that could threaten the solvency of the bank?
In the case of 1, the answer is mostly yes. Banks earnings - particularly investment banking (broking, trading, etc.) - have tended to be lower than expected. SocGen's results showed that they bank had dramatically lower revenues from its equities division, for example.
But there seems precious little evidence of 2, yet. It's one thing to make less money that expected. That goes with the territory; sometimes things work, sometimes they do not. And default rates in Europe are falling, and both companies and consumers are less indebted than in 2007.
Hunt’s main problem is, as has been stated before, that if you insist on “normal” services on a seven day basis in hospitals, there are a lot more people involved than just doctors. And he seems to have the simplistic view that doctors can, and do, do everything, except perhaps that which nurses do.
Now, as someone who used to ‘cover” at night and weekends in the managed NHS, I’ve got a lot of sympathy with the idea of seven day working, but Hunt’s trying to bring it about in a ham-fisted, thoughtless fashion which will almost certainbly cause more problems for everyone concerned.
As has also been stated before, the plan is clearly to get doctors in place 24/7 and then the other staff. It can't happen the other way around.
Should happen at more or less the same time. Otherwise Mondays will be horrendous!
It's a pity Einstein can't get a Nobel Prize for his work on General Relativity - too late now, of course.
A posthumous award would be nice. Given that he never got one for relativity....
I notice from the BBC article one of the lead scientists was eagerly saying that this was sure to get them the Nobel Prize. I am afraid this puts me right off scientists. Gravity is the warping of spacetime. Gravity waves do tend to suggest that there really is 'literally' a fabric, a substance, to 'empty' space itself - that space 'is' something. Question is, is there such a thing as a graviton?
Well, when CERN has lost most of the matter in the Universe...
"Here's a sobering fact: The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 4% of the content of the universe! "
It's a pity Einstein can't get a Nobel Prize for his work on General Relativity - too late now, of course.
A posthumous award would be nice. Given that he never got one for relativity....
I notice from the BBC article one of the lead scientists was eagerly saying that this was sure to get them the Nobel Prize. I am afraid this puts me right off scientists. Gravity is the warping of spacetime. Gravity waves do tend to suggest that there really is 'literally' a fabric, a substance, to 'empty' space itself - that space 'is' something. Question is, is there such a thing as a graviton?
Why does the hunger to win the Nobel put you off scientists?
Partly because it betrays at least to me a selfishness that I do not think is good for objectivity. Partly because I think it channels work into area which may repay the effort with fortune and glory and away from an effort that might be practical and worthy but dull. And of course I may be wrong.
900 scientists spread over numerous laboratories with years of results processed by a supercomputer manage to prove something anticipated by 1 guy before the invention of the electronic calculator.
The human mind is surely the most astonishing thing in the known universe.
Well, the human mind "anticipated" a whole pile of bollocks as well.
EICIPM?
He almost certainly is in some other universe.
And in that Universe, the Ed Stone is proudly displayed in the Downing Street garden.
It so makes me want to believe in the multiverse. Just to know it still exists....
Watford, Mortimer et al I don't know anyone who thinks the NHS is a religious movement but you'd be hard pushed to find a more efficient service. And if people are going to get what they pay for then the government's going to have to get the message across that they don't pay for very much.
And I'd have the evens on Hunt going of I were you.; he won't last beyond the summer.
It's a pity Einstein can't get a Nobel Prize for his work on General Relativity - too late now, of course.
A posthumous award would be nice. Given that he never got one for relativity....
I notice from the BBC article one of the lead scientists was eagerly saying that this was sure to get them the Nobel Prize. I am afraid this puts me right off scientists. Gravity is the warping of spacetime. Gravity waves do tend to suggest that there really is 'literally' a fabric, a substance, to 'empty' space itself - that space 'is' something. Question is, is there such a thing as a graviton?
Well, when CERN has lost most of the matter in the Universe...
"Here's a sobering fact: The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 4% of the content of the universe! "
900 scientists spread over numerous laboratories with years of results processed by a supercomputer manage to prove something anticipated by 1 guy before the invention of the electronic calculator.
The human mind is surely the most astonishing thing in the known universe.
Well, the human mind "anticipated" a whole pile of bollocks as well.
Mr. Alistair, Newton's theory of light was wrong (I forget if he thought it was wave or particle, but the side he opted for was scientifically dominant for centuries). That doesn't mean it didn't advance knowledge or wasn't of value.
Mr. Alistair, Newton's theory of light was wrong (I forget if he thought it was wave or particle, but the side he opted for was scientifically dominant for centuries). That doesn't mean it didn't advance knowledge or wasn't of value.
Einstein wasn't 100% right on this latest discovery either. Is the nature of science. Some might say, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
Care to comment that momentum seems to be swinging behind the Govt?
Not in any significant way - what's happened according to the poll is an element of polarisation, with 8% swinging from "tend to support" to "strongly support" and 7% swinging from don't know/neither to "oppose", especially "strongly oppose". The overall balance is a 3-1 lead for the doctors, with opinion hardening. If you were Jeremy Hunt, would you treat the news that 14% strongly support you with jubilation?
It's brave in the Yes Minister sense. But e's obviously got contract imposition cleared, so better on him still being in post in January looks sensible.
Since when does a Government make decisions on opinion polls. A strong Government does what it considers it has been mandated to do irrespective of popularity.
Er, yes. But I was replying to someone implying that the polls were jolly encouraging for the Government. Saying they're not encouraging but it's right anyway is a different point.
Just got emails from both alma maters about LIGO & the gravitational wave detection. I think that very few physicists are surprised by their existence. The truly remarkable thing is the technology behind the measurements. The development of such supremely subtle technology needs fostering. In this case I hope somebody writes a detailed book describing it in depth. It would be a big book.
So after changes to the document even further watering down protections for non-Euro economies and the City, Cameron isn't even fighting against them. For God's sake, he cares more about PR to the British public than the UK national interest.
"A leak from Brussels today revealed the draft deal negotiated by David Cameron has been subject to a series of changes by other leaders.
Downing Street officials seemed relaxed with the amendments, which they said left the Prime Minister’s four key goals for EU reform fully intact."
Just got emails from both alma maters about LIGO & the gravitational wave detection. I think that very few physicists are surprised by their existence. The truly remarkable thing is the technology behind the measurements. The development of such supremely subtle technology needs fostering. In this case I hope somebody writes a detailed book describing it in depth. It would be a big book.
Mr. Alistair, Newton's theory of light was wrong (I forget if he thought it was wave or particle, but the side he opted for was scientifically dominant for centuries). That doesn't mean it didn't advance knowledge or wasn't of value.
Einstein wasn't 100% right on this latest discovery either. Is the nature of science. Some might say, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
Under the rulebook of the Union of Theoretical Physicists and Allied Trades, Newton and Einstein weren't wrong; instead, their theories were incomplete.
Just got emails from both alma maters about LIGO & the gravitational wave detection. I think that very few physicists are surprised by their existence. The truly remarkable thing is the technology behind the measurements. The development of such supremely subtle technology needs fostering. In this case I hope somebody writes a detailed book describing it in depth. It would be a big book.
Mr. Alistair, Newton's theory of light was wrong (I forget if he thought it was wave or particle, but the side he opted for was scientifically dominant for centuries). That doesn't mean it didn't advance knowledge or wasn't of value.
Einstein wasn't 100% right on this latest discovery either. Is the nature of science. Some might say, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
Under the rulebook of the Union of Theoretical Physicists and Allied Trades, Newton and Einstein weren't wrong; instead, their theories were incomplete.
Is that a bit like economists, predictions never wrong, merely the models were incomplete to world events, which couldn't have been predicted ahead of time and have since been adjusted (rinse and repeat every year)?
Is that a bit like economists, predictions never wrong, merely the models were incomplete to world events, which couldn't have been predicted ahead of time and have since been adjusted (rinse and repeat every year)?
No, no, no! I am shocked at the very idea of comparing physicists with economists.
Mr. Alistair, Newton's theory of light was wrong (I forget if he thought it was wave or particle, but the side he opted for was scientifically dominant for centuries). That doesn't mean it didn't advance knowledge or wasn't of value.
Einstein wasn't 100% right on this latest discovery either. Is the nature of science. Some might say, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
Under the rulebook of the Union of Theoretical Physicists and Allied Trades, Newton and Einstein weren't wrong; instead, their theories were incomplete.
Is that a bit like economists, predictions never wrong, merely the models were incomplete to world events, which couldn't have been predicted ahead of time and have since been adjusted (rinse and repeat every year)?
You're talking bollocks, economists haven't got as accurate as Newton's predictions since their pseudo-science was invented and nor will they in the next billion.
Watford, Mortimer et al I don't know anyone who thinks the NHS is a religious movement but you'd be hard pushed to find a more efficient service. And if people are going to get what they pay for then the government's going to have to get the message across that they don't pay for very much.
And I'd have the evens on Hunt going of I were you.; he won't last beyond the summer.
Is there any evidence to support that, by any chance?
It's a pity Einstein can't get a Nobel Prize for his work on General Relativity - too late now, of course.
A posthumous award would be nice. Given that he never got one for relativity....
If there were any justice in the world, Einstein would get a posthumous Nobel and Obama’s would be rescinded.
Blair definitely deserves a Nobel prize.
For Literature? That Dodgy Dossier was well worthy.....
I am not sure it would qualify as an original work. Did they not copy and paste a large chunk of it from some nonsense on the internet?
That's post-modernism.
When you look at how Alastair Campbell put it together, spelling mistakes and all it is almost beyond belief he did not serve time for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
If this was not misconduct in a public office I really do not know what is.
I think there are two sides to the political impact of the Strike. On the one hand, I don't necessarily think the short-term fallout will be that bad for the government - while it's clear that people are on the doctors' side when they're specifically asked about it, I personally don't get the sense the public are that exercised about it - the thought of doctors being upset with the government in itself is probably not going to switch too many votes.
BUT, what it does do is potentially create big problems for the Government further down the road. In future, when the NHS is considered to be going through a "crisis", it's going to be so easy for opponents to say "this crisis is a result of nasty Tories disrespecting good doctors and forcing them to quit the NHS". In other words, the idea of the government upsetting doctors will not in itself make the public angry, but any public perception that the government upsetting doctors has led to a deterioration in the quality of the NHS will make people angry.
Going back to education for a moment, a question to the PB brains Trust. In the context of English grammar, can you, without looking it up, give a definition of a subordinate clause? How about, in the same context, Co-ordination? Struggling? Ok then an easy one to finish, what about defining, or even recognising a Subordinate Conjunction?
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Why do you call it a shocker for Trump? It's barely any worse than his New Hampshire performance.
"of the 44 men and women to head the Home Office since 1900, only two (Churchill and Callaghan) have become Prime Minister. Of the 36 men and women who have been Foreign Secretary, seven have made it to the top, while of the 37 Chancellors since 1900, 10 have become Prime Minister."
When you look at how Alastair Campbell put it together, spelling mistakes and all it is almost beyond belief he did not serve time for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
If this was not misconduct in a public office I really do not know what is.
The Hutton Report was one of the most amazing things I have ever read. It exposed all the damning evidence in exquisite detail, and then in his conclusion Lord Hutton either ignored it completely, or came to the most eccentric and one-sided judgements on it that was possible to imagine. I remember discovering for the first time in my life that the phrase 'my jaw dropped' was not just a metaphor; in my case, my jaw dropped when I read the bit about how one should expect a higher standard of exact accuracy from a verbal report on the 6am news on the BBC (a report which was corrected in subsequent bulletins) than from a formal written document from Her Majesty's Government, submitted to parliament and signed off by the PM.
"of the 44 men and women to head the Home Office since 1900, only two (Churchill and Callaghan) have become Prime Minister. Of the 36 men and women who have been Foreign Secretary, seven have made it to the top, while of the 37 Chancellors since 1900, 10 have become Prime Minister."
When you look at how Alastair Campbell put it together, spelling mistakes and all it is almost beyond belief he did not serve time for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
If this was not misconduct in a public office I really do not know what is.
The Hutton Report was one of the most amazing things I have ever read. It exposed all the damning evidence in exquisite detail, and then in his conclusion Lord Hutton either ignored it completely, or came to the most eccentric and one-sided judgements on it that was possible to imagine. I remember discovering for the first time in my life that the phrase 'my jaw dropped' was not just a metaphor; in my case, my jaw dropped when I read the bit about how one should expect a higher standard of exact accuracy from a verbal report on the 6am news on the BBC (a report which was corrected in subsequent bulletins) than from a formal written document from Her Majesty's Government and signed off by the PM.
Vaguely on-topic but junior doctors complaining about their hours is as much a feature of midwinter as the publishing of the Grand National weights. Of course, it's been a mild and quiet winter thus far but I'm sure any health professional will tell you a summer heatwave will cause many more problems than a cold spell.
As always with public services, it comes back to that old maxim - you can have as much or as little as you want or are willing to pay for - which applies from the size of the armed forces to the frequency of rubbish collection.
If we all paid 70% of our income in tax there would be a lot more money available to fund public services but, before the righties on here keel over from apoplexy or a surfeit of austerity, this bumps up against the other adage that the quality of public services is generally inversely proportional to the quantity of money available to spend on them.
Brown's mistake, after 1999, was to fund public services in the manner of force-feeding a banquet to a starving man. A more gradualist approach would have a) been more effective and b) left the public finances in a better state than they are (and were in 2010).
Yet the demand is unceasing - we live in a 24-hour society and public services need to reflect that but individual little County, District and Borough Councils trying to replicate the same functions is woefully inefficient and wasteful. Hence the era of collaboration, co-operation and co-location in which we find ourselves where one organisation (public, private or a hybrid thereof) provides the dame service for five or six authorities whether that be waste collection, property management or legal services.
In essence, we are moving away from local toward regional Government as the only model able to provide the range of services with the money available and one area that does impact on is bricks and mortar. The model of service delivery of both back and front office services is changing dramatically and whether through One Public Estate (OPE) or a department like DWP ending its absurd PFI contract and vacating hundreds of offices or the DoJ closing county and magistrates courts, Government is going to stop being so physically diverse and be more concentrated
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Rubio or Bush is GOP winner: I'm happy. Otherwise not.
"of the 44 men and women to head the Home Office since 1900, only two (Churchill and Callaghan) have become Prime Minister. Of the 36 men and women who have been Foreign Secretary, seven have made it to the top, while of the 37 Chancellors since 1900, 10 have become Prime Minister."
Evening Standard
Ha - Adam Boulton tweeted that yesterday (and retweeted my reply, which was nice).
Some of those figures overlap of course: Callaghan had been both FS and CoE prior to becoming PM, while Churchill also served later as CoE. In addition, both men went in and out of government between occupying the Home Office and taking on the premiership - in Churchill's case, the gap was some 39 years!
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
When you look at how Alastair Campbell put it together, spelling mistakes and all it is almost beyond belief he did not serve time for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
If this was not misconduct in a public office I really do not know what is.
The Hutton Report was one of the most amazing things I have ever read. It exposed all the damning evidence in exquisite detail, and then in his conclusion Lord Hutton either ignored it completely, or came to the most eccentric and one-sided judgements on it that was possible to imagine. I remember discovering for the first time in my life that the phrase 'my jaw dropped' was not just a metaphor; in my case, my jaw dropped when I read the bit about how one should expect a higher standard of exact accuracy from a verbal report on the 6am news on the BBC (a report which was corrected in subsequent bulletins) than from a formal written document from Her Majesty's Government and signed off by the PM.
It was astonishing. And if he had only done his job we would not still all be waiting for Godot Chilcot.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Why do you call it a shocker for Trump? It's barely any worse than his New Hampshire performance.
Going back to education for a moment, a question to the PB brains Trust. In the context of English grammar, can you, without looking it up, give a definition of a subordinate clause? How about, in the same context, Co-ordination? Struggling? Ok then an easy one to finish, what about defining, or even recognising a Subordinate Conjunction?
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
Going back to education for a moment, a question to the PB brains Trust. In the context of English grammar, can you, without looking it up, give a definition of a subordinate clause? How about, in the same context, Co-ordination? Struggling? Ok then an easy one to finish, what about defining, or even recognising a Subordinate Conjunction?
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
Going back to education for a moment, a question to the PB brains Trust. In the context of English grammar, can you, without looking it up, give a definition of a subordinate clause? How about, in the same context, Co-ordination? Struggling? Ok then an easy one to finish, what about defining, or even recognising a Subordinate Conjunction?
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
Although thinking myself as something of a language maven, I do hate attempts to formalize English grammar to this degree. That seems something that should be limited solely to professional comparative linguists.
Knowing what a subordinate clause is something that is useful to know when trying to construct coherent, readable sentences covering complex, nuanced and detailed issues. Hardly the thing for five year olds, but something people on PB might be expected to know.
Knowing what a conjunction is is fairly basic grammar and we use conjunctions from pretty much our first fully vocalized thoughts. I know my first stories at infants school were always one sentence with plenty of 'and's. But knowing the grammatical name and function of that even is something that can wait until one's teens. Bothering to further sub-divide conjunctions is nothing I have ever found useful in all my attempts to learn foreign tongues (seven attempts, four reasonably successful) and not something I would ever think about in relation to the Mother Tongue Sheself.
"At present, Parliamentary constituencies range in size from 22,000 to 108,000 electors. Without the implementation of these boundary reforms, the 2020-25 House of Commons would represent constituencies that are drawn up on electoral register data that is over 20 years’ old"
But aren't we being told that attending to this issue is "gerrymandering"?
That 22,000 one will stay won't it? Isn't it the Western Isles (or whatever the Gallic is for it)?
Watford, Mortimer et al I don't know anyone who thinks the NHS is a religious movement but you'd be hard pushed to find a more efficient service. And if people are going to get what they pay for then the government's going to have to get the message across that they don't pay for very much.
And I'd have the evens on Hunt going of I were you.; he won't last beyond the summer.
Is there any evidence to support that, by any chance?
Going back to education for a moment, a question to the PB brains Trust. In the context of English grammar, can you, without looking it up, give a definition of a subordinate clause? How about, in the same context, Co-ordination? Struggling? Ok then an easy one to finish, what about defining, or even recognising a Subordinate Conjunction?
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
The children are supposed to understand the concepts, not to give names to them.
The French gentleman who discovered to his delight that he had been speaking prose all his life without realising it springs to mind.
Having worked in the NHS for 10 years, I can safely say the government will never win over public opinion, so they might as well just get on with it. Left-wingery, runs through it like a stick of rock. Conservatives like me just keep their mouths shut.
Having worked in the NHS for 10 years, I can safely say the government will never win over public opinion, so they might as well just get on with it.
while Labour has howled in anger – and even joined the picket line – the truth is that they are an ineffectual opposition. And that is because they are not an effectual electoral threat.
No-one in Westminster, not least Labour MPs themselves, believe that Jeremy Corbyn can enter Downing Street in 2020. And the polls – although wrong in 2015 – emphatically back this up.
So the normal restraints of Parliamentary democracy no longer apply. The Government has a freedom to take unpopular decisions with little threat of electoral payback.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Yes another third place triumph for Rubio in that poll just 12 points behind Trump and 6 behind Cruz. Nothing is going to stop Marco now!!!!
Going back to education for a moment, a question to the PB brains Trust. In the context of English grammar, can you, without looking it up, give a definition of a subordinate clause? How about, in the same context, Co-ordination? Struggling? Ok then an easy one to finish, what about defining, or even recognising a Subordinate Conjunction?
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
The children are supposed to understand the concepts, not to give names to them.
The French gentleman who discovered to his delight that he had been speaking prose all his life without realising it springs to mind.
How do you know that, Mr. Meeks? Your knowledge of English is obviously superior to that of my wife, the teachers she works with, let alone my own. So perhaps you can explain to us how , "terminology that children are expected to know and use" actually means, "understand the concepts".
Going back to education for a moment, a question to the PB brains Trust. In the context of English grammar, can you, without looking it up, give a definition of a subordinate clause? How about, in the same context, Co-ordination? Struggling? Ok then an easy one to finish, what about defining, or even recognising a Subordinate Conjunction?
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
The children are supposed to understand the concepts, not to give names to them.
The French gentleman who discovered to his delight that he had been speaking prose all his life without realising it springs to mind.
I remember hunting shy gerunds - obviously only when in season.
Going back to education for a moment, a question to the PB brains Trust. In the context of English grammar, can you, without looking it up, give a definition of a subordinate clause? How about, in the same context, Co-ordination? Struggling? Ok then an easy one to finish, what about defining, or even recognising a Subordinate Conjunction?
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
The children are supposed to understand the concepts, not to give names to them.
The French gentleman who discovered to his delight that he had been speaking prose all his life without realising it springs to mind.
Speaking and writing in a way that others like to hear or read is surely the important thing.
I really don't know the details with which to describe language (comprehensive education), and I'm sure I make some howlers. I do though often get asked to proof read documents, and I believe that people generally think I have a good grasp of what makes a good sentence.
I really don't like for example "Mother Tongue Sheself" from MTimT. "Mother tongue herself" would I guess be what I'd write, but I wouldn't really use the phrase.
I have no idea what might be right or wrong in this, just that some things feel right, and other wrong.
(PS Apologies in advance for any grammatical crimes.)
Having worked in the NHS for 10 years, I can safely say the government will never win over public opinion, so they might as well just get on with it.
while Labour has howled in anger – and even joined the picket line – the truth is that they are an ineffectual opposition. And that is because they are not an effectual electoral threat.
No-one in Westminster, not least Labour MPs themselves, believe that Jeremy Corbyn can enter Downing Street in 2020. And the polls – although wrong in 2015 – emphatically back this up.
So the normal restraints of Parliamentary democracy no longer apply. The Government has a freedom to take unpopular decisions with little threat of electoral payback.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Yes another third place triumph for Rubio in that poll just 12 points behind Trump and 6 behind Cruz. Nothing is going to stop Marco now!!!!
Yes, OK, perhaps 'excellent' is over-egging it a bit. Decent enough to keep him in the game as a contender might be better. You're right that third-fifth-third isn't an ideal start.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Just more Kristol balls. Why does anybody listen to this discredited freak anymore?
Having worked in the NHS for 10 years, I can safely say the government will never win over public opinion, so they might as well just get on with it.
while Labour has howled in anger – and even joined the picket line – the truth is that they are an ineffectual opposition. And that is because they are not an effectual electoral threat.
No-one in Westminster, not least Labour MPs themselves, believe that Jeremy Corbyn can enter Downing Street in 2020. And the polls – although wrong in 2015 – emphatically back this up.
So the normal restraints of Parliamentary democracy no longer apply. The Government has a freedom to take unpopular decisions with little threat of electoral payback.
When you look at how Alastair Campbell put it together, spelling mistakes and all it is almost beyond belief he did not serve time for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
If this was not misconduct in a public office I really do not know what is.
The Hutton Report was one of the most amazing things I have ever read. It exposed all the damning evidence in exquisite detail, and then in his conclusion Lord Hutton either ignored it completely, or came to the most eccentric and one-sided judgements on it that was possible to imagine. I remember discovering for the first time in my life that the phrase 'my jaw dropped' was not just a metaphor; in my case, my jaw dropped when I read the bit about how one should expect a higher standard of exact accuracy from a verbal report on the 6am news on the BBC (a report which was corrected in subsequent bulletins) than from a formal written document from Her Majesty's Government, submitted to parliament and signed off by the PM.
Par for the course. Take the Franks Report into the causes of the Falklands War. As Jim Callaghan said: For 338 paragraphs he painted a splendid picture, delineated the light and the shade, and the glowing colours in it, and when Franks got to paragraph 339 he got fed up with the canvas he was painting, and chucked a bucket of whitewash over it.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
It's hearsay from a partisan publication and from someone with truly bad reputation.
Bill Kristol:
"I've just heard from a political operative whom I've known a long time and whose integrity I trust. This person is working with an organization—not one of the campaigns—that was in the field (using a very reputable pollster) Wednesday night in South Carolina."
Having worked in the NHS for 10 years, I can safely say the government will never win over public opinion, so they might as well just get on with it.
while Labour has howled in anger – and even joined the picket line – the truth is that they are an ineffectual opposition. And that is because they are not an effectual electoral threat.
No-one in Westminster, not least Labour MPs themselves, believe that Jeremy Corbyn can enter Downing Street in 2020. And the polls – although wrong in 2015 – emphatically back this up.
So the normal restraints of Parliamentary democracy no longer apply. The Government has a freedom to take unpopular decisions with little threat of electoral payback.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Yes another third place triumph for Rubio in that poll just 12 points behind Trump and 6 behind Cruz. Nothing is going to stop Marco now!!!!
Yes, OK, perhaps 'excellent' is over-egging it a bit. Decent enough to keep him in the game as a contender might be better. You're right that third-fifth-third isn't an ideal start.
Given no Republican since 1976 has won the nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampshire and only one Democrat Bill Clinton has and he won South Carolina, I would suggest third in the Palmetto State will effectively kill off Rubio even if he staggers on until Trump beats him in Florida, his home state. It is a Trump v Cruz battle now and this poll confirms it
Having worked in the NHS for 10 years, I can safely say the government will never win over public opinion, so they might as well just get on with it.
while Labour has howled in anger – and even joined the picket line – the truth is that they are an ineffectual opposition. And that is because they are not an effectual electoral threat.
No-one in Westminster, not least Labour MPs themselves, believe that Jeremy Corbyn can enter Downing Street in 2020. And the polls – although wrong in 2015 – emphatically back this up.
So the normal restraints of Parliamentary democracy no longer apply. The Government has a freedom to take unpopular decisions with little threat of electoral payback.
Does anyone want to read my penultimate paragraph? It's totally ludicrous. You do? Oh, alright then. Here it is SPOILER ALERT
"The list was a lyric of richness: sulphide of bismuth, arborescent native copper, arseniate of iron crystallised in great cubes. Foot wide garnet crystals, prisms of iron, heamatatic iron, hydrous oxide of iron, magnetic iron pyrites, hornblende mixed with slate, axinite in veins, thallite, chlorite, tremolite, plus jasper, schorl, and traces of gold. All of it here, right under here, under these rocks."
Having worked in the NHS for 10 years, I can safely say the government will never win over public opinion, so they might as well just get on with it.
while Labour has howled in anger – and even joined the picket line – the truth is that they are an ineffectual opposition. And that is because they are not an effectual electoral threat.
No-one in Westminster, not least Labour MPs themselves, believe that Jeremy Corbyn can enter Downing Street in 2020. And the polls – although wrong in 2015 – emphatically back this up.
So the normal restraints of Parliamentary democracy no longer apply. The Government has a freedom to take unpopular decisions with little threat of electoral payback.
That final paragraph is of course bollocks on several levels.
Firstly, if a government does take genuinely unpopular decisions, opposition in the polls will rise from somewhere, whether it be UKIP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens or some new force (SDP2 or whatever). Voters *will* go somewhere if you annoy them enough.
Secondly, it's not an unpopular decision as such. True, it's not a supported one (see the graphs in Mike's leader), but that doesn't mean it's unpopular. Raising your taxes is unpopular; raising someone you like's taxes might be seen as a bit unfair but will rarely be a vote-changer.
Thirdly, the "normal restraints of Parliamentary democracy" apply as much within parties as between them. True, they apply more when there's a bigger threat of losing office but they apply all the same.
Does anyone want to read my penultimate paragraph? It's totally ludicrous. You do? Oh, alright then. Here it is SPOILER ALERT
"The list was a lyric of richness: sulphide of bismuth, arborescent native copper, arseniate of iron crystallised in great cubes. Foot wide garnet crystals, prisms of iron, heamatatic iron, hydrous oxide of iron, magnetic iron pyrites, hornblende mixed with slate, axinite in veins, thallite, chlorite, tremolite, plus jasper, schorl, and traces of gold. All of it here, right under here, under these rocks."
Is it about mineralogy then? Interesting change of direction.
Mr. Alistair, Newton's theory of light was wrong (I forget if he thought it was wave or particle, but the side he opted for was scientifically dominant for centuries). That doesn't mean it didn't advance knowledge or wasn't of value.
Newton postulated that light was made up of particles. He was contradicted by Hooke who always thought is was wave-like. This upset Newton so much (he had even fewer social graces than Sheldon Cooper) that he withdrew from the public scientific world and in the main concentrated on alchemy and trying (secretly) to disprove the Holy Trinity. Hooke was at first proved right by James Maxwell in the 19th century but then, thanks to quantum theory, light was shown to be both. Newton never forgave Hooke, but it was following a famous exchange of letters between them - where Hooke brought in the concept of centripetal force (an object travelling in a straight line and pulled downwards by a force) - that prompted Newton to examine gravity again and eventually publish his Laws and their proof.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
It's hearsay from a partisan publication and from someone with truly bad reputation.
Bill Kristol:
"I've just heard from a political operative whom I've known a long time and whose integrity I trust. This person is working with an organization—not one of the campaigns—that was in the field (using a very reputable pollster) Wednesday night in South Carolina."
Trump far ahead, and a 5 way tie for second place ranging from Cruz to Carson, like in N.H. What's interesting is why.
After the last debate Rubio was high in N.H but people were looking for Rubio+Robot, so that wasn't good for Rubio.
Here it's Trump+Johnny Depp, which is realistic since a movie came out with Depp playing the lead role as Trump. I don't know if it's good or bad for him, I watched the movie and it sort of glorifying Trump's silliness and very questionable acts under a mountain of satire.
Rubio's price has plenty of spring in it I imagine. I have him red but I should probably make him neutral as a non awful perfoance in sc will probably shoot his price right down.
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Yes another third place triumph for Rubio in that poll just 12 points behind Trump and 6 behind Cruz. Nothing is going to stop Marco now!!!!
Yes, OK, perhaps 'excellent' is over-egging it a bit. Decent enough to keep him in the game as a contender might be better. You're right that third-fifth-third isn't an ideal start.
Given no Republican since 1976 has won the nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampshire and only one Democrat Bill Clinton has and he won South Carolina, I would suggest third in the Palmetto State will effectively kill off Rubio even if he staggers on until Trump beats him in Florida, his home state. It is a Trump v Cruz battle now and this poll confirms it
Although NH and Iowa threw up acceptable candidates between them. Neither Cruz nor Trump is anywhere near ideal for a lot of people. At the moment it's still a three way split between Trump, the conservatives and the mainstream (Rubio straddling the latter two). If all the mainstream candidates drop out pre-Super Tuesday then that still leaves Rubio a path.
Can't see it myself. Mainstream or not, 'robot' will stick.
Mr. T, he was a tin miner, she was the daughter of West Penwith's greatest silversmith?
Anyway, best of luck with it. [As I am sure you are keen to know, my mother has yet to begin The Ice Twins, but she did get a ridiculous number of books for Christmas].
Does anyone want to read my penultimate paragraph? It's totally ludicrous. You do? Oh, alright then. Here it is SPOILER ALERT
"The list was a lyric of richness: sulphide of bismuth, arborescent native copper, arseniate of iron crystallised in great cubes. Foot wide garnet crystals, prisms of iron, heamatatic iron, hydrous oxide of iron, magnetic iron pyrites, hornblende mixed with slate, axinite in veins, thallite, chlorite, tremolite, plus jasper, schorl, and traces of gold. All of it here, right under here, under these rocks."
Does anyone want to read my penultimate paragraph? It's totally ludicrous. You do? Oh, alright then. Here it is SPOILER ALERT
"The list was a lyric of richness: sulphide of bismuth, arborescent native copper, arseniate of iron crystallised in great cubes. Foot wide garnet crystals, prisms of iron, heamatatic iron, hydrous oxide of iron, magnetic iron pyrites, hornblende mixed with slate, axinite in veins, thallite, chlorite, tremolite, plus jasper, schorl, and traces of gold. All of it here, right under here, under these rocks."
It's not easy to squeeze the words "hornblende", "schorl" and tremolite" into a domestic chiller
Is this the one where the evil child predicts festive DEATH?
I do wonder if the good will shown to junior doctors will continue. They seem to be waving "save our nhs" placards around whilst resigning or threatening to go to Australia.
Mr. Alistair, Newton's theory of light was wrong (I forget if he thought it was wave or particle, but the side he opted for was scientifically dominant for centuries). That doesn't mean it didn't advance knowledge or wasn't of value.
Newton postulated that light was made up of particles. He was contradicted by Hooke who always thought is was wave-like. This upset Newton so much (he had even fewer social graces than Sheldon Cooper) that he withdrew from the public scientific world and in the main concentrated on alchemy and trying (secretly) to disprove the Holy Trinity. Hooke was at first proved right by James Maxwell in the 19th century but then, thanks to quantum theory, light was shown to be both. Newton never forgave Hooke, but it was following a famous exchange of letters between them - where Hooke brought in the concept of centripetal force (an object travelling in a straight line and pulled downwards by a force) - that prompted Newton to examine gravity again and eventually publish his Laws and their proof.
Comments
"Here's a sobering fact: The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 4% of the content of the universe! "
http://home-dev.web.cern.ch/about/physics/dark-matter
And I'd have the evens on Hunt going of I were you.; he won't last beyond the summer.
1. Are earnings disappointing?
and
2. Are there possible massive losses that could threaten the solvency of the bank?
In the case of 1, the answer is mostly yes. Banks earnings - particularly investment banking (broking, trading, etc.) - have tended to be lower than expected. SocGen's results showed that they bank had dramatically lower revenues from its equities division, for example.
But there seems precious little evidence of 2, yet. It's one thing to make less money that expected. That goes with the territory; sometimes things work, sometimes they do not. And default rates in Europe are falling, and both companies and consumers are less indebted than in 2007.
Kenya has until the end of Thursday to prove to the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) it is tackling cheating in athletics, the BBC has learned.
It comes after a spate of positive drugs tests among the country's athletes and fresh allegations of corruption.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/35551486
40 banned for doping in the past 5 years.
Partly because I think it channels work into area which may repay the effort with fortune and glory and away from an effort that might be practical and worthy but dull.
And of course I may be wrong.
It so makes me want to believe in the multiverse. Just to know it still exists....
Should you care to read it, the SocGen results presentation is here: http://www.societegenerale.com/sites/default/files/documents/Résultats financiers/2015_EN/T4/Presentation_Q4_2015.pdf
I think that very few physicists are surprised by their existence.
The truly remarkable thing is the technology behind the measurements.
The development of such supremely subtle technology needs fostering. In this case I hope somebody writes a detailed book describing it in depth. It would be a big book.
"A leak from Brussels today revealed the draft deal negotiated by David Cameron has been subject to a series of changes by other leaders.
Downing Street officials seemed relaxed with the amendments, which they said left the Prime Minister’s four key goals for EU reform fully intact."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/cameron-s-draft-eu-deal-has-had-series-of-changes-by-other-leaders-a3177971.html
EDIT behind Mr Mark, I see.
So embarrassing. The British PM turns into Comical Ali
If this was not misconduct in a public office I really do not know what is.
BUT, what it does do is potentially create big problems for the Government further down the road. In future, when the NHS is considered to be going through a "crisis", it's going to be so easy for opponents to say "this crisis is a result of nasty Tories disrespecting good doctors and forcing them to quit the NHS". In other words, the idea of the government upsetting doctors will not in itself make the public angry, but any public perception that the government upsetting doctors has led to a deterioration in the quality of the NHS will make people angry.
The reason I ask is that Herself does a little job at the local infants' school and she has just come home with a six-page, "Glossary of the terminology that children are expected to know and use in key stage 1", that is to say by the time the children are seven years old. The three items I mentioned are included in the list, along with some obvious stuff like what a sentence is.
I am all in favour of driving up standards and am a stern critic of the educational establishment but someone might be being a little ambitious here. A fair proportion of the children at Herself's school arrive barely able to speak coherently, some are still in nappies, and some actually arrive at and leave from school in push chairs. To expect the teachers to take a barley socialised brat at the age of five, who has communication skills of a Rock Ape, and turn them into someone who can recognise and use Subordinate Conjunction etc. in just two years seems a tad unrealistic.
Just seen this article tweeted:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sc-poll-trump-32-cruz-26-rubio-20-bush-10/article/2001032#.Vry62hQOPt8.twitter
If that's right and those are Wednesday numbers, then that's an excellent score for Rubio and a shocker for Trump (in as far as any first place can be a shocker). To that end, they do have the feel of being pre-debate never mind pre-NH poll data - but that's not what it says.
Caveat emptor and all that.
Must say I agree with your assessment.
Evening Standard
PING! I have a voice mail...
...& it's Nigel Farage!!
Well, a pre recorded Nigel Farage asking if I want to rejoin UKIP as my membership has lapsed.. so I did.
Actually I joined again from scratch so that's "one new member" they can boast of
Quite a novel idea though (or novel to me anyway)
Vaguely on-topic but junior doctors complaining about their hours is as much a feature of midwinter as the publishing of the Grand National weights. Of course, it's been a mild and quiet winter thus far but I'm sure any health professional will tell you a summer heatwave will cause many more problems than a cold spell.
As always with public services, it comes back to that old maxim - you can have as much or as little as you want or are willing to pay for - which applies from the size of the armed forces to the frequency of rubbish collection.
If we all paid 70% of our income in tax there would be a lot more money available to fund public services but, before the righties on here keel over from apoplexy or a surfeit of austerity, this bumps up against the other adage that the quality of public services is generally inversely proportional to the quantity of money available to spend on them.
Brown's mistake, after 1999, was to fund public services in the manner of force-feeding a banquet to a starving man. A more gradualist approach would have a) been more effective and b) left the public finances in a better state than they are (and were in 2010).
Yet the demand is unceasing - we live in a 24-hour society and public services need to reflect that but individual little County, District and Borough Councils trying to replicate the same functions is woefully inefficient and wasteful. Hence the era of collaboration, co-operation and co-location in which we find ourselves where one organisation (public, private or a hybrid thereof) provides the dame service for five or six authorities whether that be waste collection, property management or legal services.
In essence, we are moving away from local toward regional Government as the only model able to provide the range of services with the money available and one area that does impact on is bricks and mortar. The model of service delivery of both back and front office services is changing dramatically and whether through One Public Estate (OPE) or a department like DWP ending its absurd PFI contract and vacating hundreds of offices or the DoJ closing county and magistrates courts, Government is going to stop being so physically diverse and be more concentrated
Some of those figures overlap of course: Callaghan had been both FS and CoE prior to becoming PM, while Churchill also served later as CoE. In addition, both men went in and out of government between occupying the Home Office and taking on the premiership - in Churchill's case, the gap was some 39 years!
I've got him onside now, so it's all good.
GodotChilcot.http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-south-carolina-presidential-republican-primary
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ok/oklahoma_republican_presidential_primary-4288.html
Knowing what a subordinate clause is something that is useful to know when trying to construct coherent, readable sentences covering complex, nuanced and detailed issues. Hardly the thing for five year olds, but something people on PB might be expected to know.
Knowing what a conjunction is is fairly basic grammar and we use conjunctions from pretty much our first fully vocalized thoughts. I know my first stories at infants school were always one sentence with plenty of 'and's. But knowing the grammatical name and function of that even is something that can wait until one's teens. Bothering to further sub-divide conjunctions is nothing I have ever found useful in all my attempts to learn foreign tongues (seven attempts, four reasonably successful) and not something I would ever think about in relation to the Mother Tongue Sheself.
There there's the evidence of how little we spend collectively on healthcare
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc
The French gentleman who discovered to his delight that he had been speaking prose all his life without realising it springs to mind.
He just won't be scoring any of them....
I really don't know the details with which to describe language (comprehensive education), and I'm sure I make some howlers. I do though often get asked to proof read documents, and I believe that people generally think I have a good grasp of what makes a good sentence.
I really don't like for example "Mother Tongue Sheself" from MTimT. "Mother tongue herself" would I guess be what I'd write, but I wouldn't really use the phrase.
I have no idea what might be right or wrong in this, just that some things feel right, and other wrong.
(PS Apologies in advance for any grammatical crimes.)
So the Junior Doctors are screwed because Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn? That has a nice symmetry to it....
Doctors plan guerrilla war as Hunt forces new contract http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article4688245.ece So the Junior Doctors are screwed because Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn? That has a nice symmetry to it....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-207279/Franks-inquiry-slammed-whitewash.html
Bill Kristol:
"I've just heard from a political operative whom I've known a long time and whose integrity I trust. This person is working with an organization—not one of the campaigns—that was in the field (using a very reputable pollster) Wednesday night in South Carolina."
As accurate as this:
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/695384762249162753
Mass resignations? So much for 'Patient Safety'. Anyone would think they were solely interested in cold, hard, cash. Which of course, they are.
Presumably Hunt's plan; make so many doctors resign that we have to give George Osborne's brother his job back to improve patient safety!!
That final paragraph is of course bollocks on several levels.
Firstly, if a government does take genuinely unpopular decisions, opposition in the polls will rise from somewhere, whether it be UKIP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens or some new force (SDP2 or whatever). Voters *will* go somewhere if you annoy them enough.
Secondly, it's not an unpopular decision as such. True, it's not a supported one (see the graphs in Mike's leader), but that doesn't mean it's unpopular. Raising your taxes is unpopular; raising someone you like's taxes might be seen as a bit unfair but will rarely be a vote-changer.
Thirdly, the "normal restraints of Parliamentary democracy" apply as much within parties as between them. True, they apply more when there's a bigger threat of losing office but they apply all the same.
Hooke was at first proved right by James Maxwell in the 19th century but then, thanks to quantum theory, light was shown to be both.
Newton never forgave Hooke, but it was following a famous exchange of letters between them - where Hooke brought in the concept of centripetal force (an object travelling in a straight line and pulled downwards by a force) - that prompted Newton to examine gravity again and eventually publish his Laws and their proof.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=/m/0cqt90, /m/07j6ty, /m/0dpr5f, /m/02zzm_, /m/019x9z&geo=US-SC&date=now 1-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT-2
Trump far ahead, and a 5 way tie for second place ranging from Cruz to Carson, like in N.H.
What's interesting is why.
After the last debate Rubio was high in N.H but people were looking for Rubio+Robot, so that wasn't good for Rubio.
Here it's Trump+Johnny Depp, which is realistic since a movie came out with Depp playing the lead role as Trump.
I don't know if it's good or bad for him, I watched the movie and it sort of glorifying Trump's silliness and very questionable acts under a mountain of satire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35552638
Perhaps he could try politics?
Can't see it myself. Mainstream or not, 'robot' will stick.
Anyway, best of luck with it. [As I am sure you are keen to know, my mother has yet to begin The Ice Twins, but she did get a ridiculous number of books for Christmas].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ