The UK regulators are all for the deferred compensation and the claw back (a malus would be even better, but I'm not sure how that can be made to work)
It's the bonus cap that the Europeans love which is the problem - it just forced up fixed salary costs and creates lots of crafty wheezes ("discretionary responsibility allowances") to get around the rules.
But I agree that investment banking should be conducted by private companies where the principals have skin in the game. Banking should be boring, heaving regulated, and low return. Investment firms should be allowed to make and lose millions but with their own, not depositors money
Nate "Donald has no more than a 5% chance" Silver ?
Bwhahaha. Did he really say that? Not sure whether that is worse than the hundred Lib Dems prediction.
Nate is a numbers-only guy. Thus when the numbers are wrong, when the system being described is chaotic or in transition phase, or where we are in unprecedented territory, Nate will always get it wrong. But he will get it right when have good numbers and the law of large numbers actually applies.
Someone earlier noted that JackW has an excellent prediction record. Well, with the number of forecasters on PB, if predictions were made purely randomly, someone would have had a good record over that period by pure chance. Retrospectively, there is no way of judging whether JackW's performance is due to skill or luck, and hence his past record is no indicator for future predictions.
I'll forgive your outburst this once ....
Clearly given a two horse race in 08 and 12 pure chance would allow for your "insight" but my ARSE also very accurately projected all the swing states with a fraction of a spitting distance except Missouri in 08 and Florida in 12 - missed by less than 0.5% in each case.
The UK regulators are all for the deferred compensation and the claw back (a malus would be even better, but I'm not sure how that can be made to work)
It's the bonus cap that the Europeans love which is the problem - it just forced up fixed salary costs and creates lots of crafty wheezes ("discretionary responsibility allowances") to get around the rules.
But I agree that investment banking should be conducted by private companies where the principals have skin in the game. Banking should be boring, heaving regulated, and low return. Investment firms should be allowed to make and lose millions but with their own, not depositors money
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
The one time Donald Trump was seriously discomfited was when Carly Fiorina laid into him about his remarks about her appearance. He looked boorish and crass.
He will need to think carefully about his style as and when he faces Hillary Clinton.
But that's not how you do it in practice because if Trump won even one of them particularly one of the first 2, then he would have gotten the momentum for the nomination.
It's what doomed the space shuttle, they said "oh it's a only a 1% chance that a component fails, then if we multiply it by all components it's only a 0.0001% chance that something goes wrong".
In reality you should not multiply probabilities.
You should always multiply probabilities if they're independent, you should not if they're not.
These are not independent probabilities as if Trump was more popular in one then he could be more popular in another. If he loses popularity overall he could lose popularity in both.
In the same way the odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of his team scoring both coming true should not be independently multiplied as they are related. The odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of another team playing at the same time in a different game scoring can be multiplied as they are totally independent from each other.
The one time Donald Trump was seriously discomfited was when Carly Fiorina laid into him about his remarks about her appearance. He looked boorish and crass.
He will need to think carefully about his style as and when he faces Hillary Clinton.
You would think he would have enough ammo to fire at her without having to go anywhere near physical appearance.
Osborne announcement of more cuts only a few months after splashing the cash. I think a lot of people will wonder what the bloody hell he is doing.
What splashing the cash?
He stopped or postponed certain extremely unpopular cuts, some of which he would struggle to get through Parliament in one piece (with even Tories rebelling). That is not the same as splashing the cash. Splashing the cash generally involves boosting new spending, not merely cancelling a cut.
As for what the bloody hell he's doing, the same as what he's been doing for six years now. Year after year cutting an incredibly large deficit.
This budget will be about keeping Conservative voters "on side" for the EU referendum. They are the electorate he has to worry about this year.
So I expect some Tory red meat on taxes, probably a higher than expected rise in the 40p rate threshold and maybe even a penny off the basic rate of income tax, and further public services cuts.. but no pensions raid.
Osborne has no problem with totally changing tack when he feels he has to.
Interesting fact: When Perot ran in 1992, turnout jumped 5%.
Don't underestimate Trump's own Perot factor, and ability to reach parts of the electorate that have given up on Tweedledum politics...
During the primaries so far Democratic turnout is 25% down, Republican turnout is 25% up on average.
With Trump and Hillary it will be interesting too see if that happens in the GE too.
I would be very reluctant to say that, like in previous elections, all the Republican primary voters will happily vote for the nominee. This is the time "this time it's different" is actually true.
The one time Donald Trump was seriously discomfited was when Carly Fiorina laid into him about his remarks about her appearance. He looked boorish and crass.
He will need to think carefully about his style as and when he faces Hillary Clinton.
You would think he would have enough ammo to fire at her without having to go anywhere near physical appearance.
She will be trying to lure him into chauvinism. His reckless style will mean he will struggle to avoid a few missteps. His fans won't care. But he needs more than just his fans.
Mathematically, his chances of winning all four was 6.25% [ assuming 50% in each was correct ].
But that's not how you do it in practice because if Trump won even one of them particularly one of the first 2, then he would have gotten the momentum for the nomination.
It's what doomed the space shuttle, they said "oh it's a only a 1% chance that a component fails, then if we multiply it by all components it's only a 0.0001% that something goes wrong".
In reality you should not multiply probabilities.
You should only if they are truly independent events. Four consecutive elections aren't independent.
Actually it's only if any particular single event doesn't lead to a change in outcome.
Let's have the example of a bridge that rests on 10 steel poles, if any of them fails the bridge goes down, the probability of failure of each one is 1% over a reasonable time, so what's the probability that the bridge will go down over a reasonable time?
Now what Silver did (and Nasa for the shuttle) was to multiply the odds, 1% over 10 times is one in 100 trillion trillion when in fact the odds for the bridge failure should be the highest number.
Osborne announcement of more cuts only a few months after splashing the cash. I think a lot of people will wonder what the bloody hell he is doing.
For one,me.
If you look at the quote of what he actually said, I'd like to know which words you disagree with?
Looking for spending efficiencies etc should be a permanent objective and not a one-off. For my personal AND for my business budgets I look at my budget every year and if there are cuts I can make, I make them. The notion that the government doing the same thing as what we all regularly either do or should do just shows how far down the rabbit hole consecutive governments have gone.
Trying to make savings annually is being responsible not a failure, even if we were running a surplus (which we're not) the government should still be doing that!
But that's not how you do it in practice because if Trump won even one of them particularly one of the first 2, then he would have gotten the momentum for the nomination.
It's what doomed the space shuttle, they said "oh it's a only a 1% chance that a component fails, then if we multiply it by all components it's only a 0.0001% chance that something goes wrong".
In reality you should not multiply probabilities.
You should always multiply probabilities if they're independent, you should not if they're not.
These are not independent probabilities as if Trump was more popular in one then he could be more popular in another. If he loses popularity overall he could lose popularity in both.
In the same way the odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of his team scoring both coming true should not be independently multiplied as they are related. The odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of another team playing at the same time in a different game scoring can be multiplied as they are totally independent from each other.
Conditional Probability P(A | = P(A∩B) / P(B)
Bayes Formula P(A | = P(B | A) · P(A) / P(B)
The intersect of New Hampshire (B) and the nomination (A) are quite high for the GOP.
The one time Donald Trump was seriously discomfited was when Carly Fiorina laid into him about his remarks about her appearance. He looked boorish and crass.
He will need to think carefully about his style as and when he faces Hillary Clinton.
You would think he would have enough ammo to fire at her without having to go anywhere near physical appearance.
She will be trying to lure him into chauvinism. His reckless style will mean he will struggle to avoid a few missteps. His fans won't care. But he needs more than just his fans.
It cuts both ways though. He will be trying to lure her into being hectoring, patronising and disdainful of her base. The equivalent of Brown's 'bigoted woman' gaffe.
Nate "Donald has no more than a 5% chance" Silver ?
Bwhahaha. Did he really say that? Not sure whether that is worse than the hundred Lib Dems prediction.
Nate is a numbers-only guy. Thus when the numbers are wrong, when the system being described is chaotic or in transition phase, or where we are in unprecedented territory, Nate will always get it wrong. But he will get it right when have good numbers and the law of large numbers actually applies.
Someone earlier noted that JackW has an excellent prediction record. Well, with the number of forecasters on PB, if predictions were made purely randomly, someone would have had a good record over that period by pure chance. Retrospectively, there is no way of judging whether JackW's performance is due to skill or luck, and hence his past record is no indicator for future predictions.
I'll forgive your outburst this once ....
Clearly given a two horse race in 08 and 12 pure chance would allow for your "insight" but my ARSE also very accurately projected all the swing states with a fraction of a spitting distance except Missouri in 08 and Florida in 12 - missed by less than 0.5% in each case.
Do you judge that "skill or luck" ?
Predicting the swing states is effectively nothing more than drawing a line and saying one side will be Democrat and the other side will be Republican.
To be fair you did that pretty well JackW.
Of course there are other elections where you haven't been so successful in your predictions but then we're all better at remembering our successful predictions than our unsuccessful.
Mathematically, his chances of winning all four was 6.25% [ assuming 50% in each was correct ].
But that's not how you do it in practice because if Trump won even one of them particularly one of the first 2, then he would have gotten the momentum for the nomination.
It's what doomed the space shuttle, they said "oh it's a only a 1% chance that a component fails, then if we multiply it by all components it's only a 0.0001% that something goes wrong".
In reality you should not multiply probabilities.
You should only if they are truly independent events. Four consecutive elections aren't independent.
Actually it's only if any particular single event doesn't lead to a change in outcome.
Let's have the example of a bridge that rests on 10 steel poles, if any of them fails the bridge goes down, the probability of failure of each one is 1% over a reasonable time, so what's the probability that the bridge will go down over a reasonable time?
Now what Silver did (and Nasa for the shuttle) was to multiply the odds, 1% over 10 times is one in 100 trillion trillion when in fact the odds for the bridge failure should be the highest number, 1%.
No you're wrong, in your situation you do need to multiply but the other way. If the probability of each one failing is 1% then you need to multiply the odds of not failing against each other. So 0.99^10.
Meaning that in your example the failure rate is 9.6%
Nate "Donald has no more than a 5% chance" Silver ?
Bwhahaha. Did he really say that? Not sure whether that is worse than the hundred Lib Dems prediction.
Nate is a numbers-only guy. Thus when the numbers are wrong, when the system being described is chaotic or in transition phase, or where we are in unprecedented territory, Nate will always get it wrong. But he will get it right when have good numbers and the law of large numbers actually applies.
Someone earlier noted that JackW has an excellent prediction record. Well, with the number of forecasters on PB, if predictions were made purely randomly, someone would have had a good record over that period by pure chance. Retrospectively, there is no way of judging whether JackW's performance is due to skill or luck, and hence his past record is no indicator for future predictions.
I'll forgive your outburst this once ....
Clearly given a two horse race in 08 and 12 pure chance would allow for your "insight" but my ARSE also very accurately projected all the swing states with a fraction of a spitting distance except Missouri in 08 and Florida in 12 - missed by less than 0.5% in each case.
Mathematically, his chances of winning all four was 6.25% [ assuming 50% in each was correct ].
But that's not how you do it in practice because if Trump won even one of them particularly one of the first 2, then he would have gotten the momentum for the nomination.
It's what doomed the space shuttle, they said "oh it's a only a 1% chance that a component fails, then if we multiply it by all components it's only a 0.0001% that something goes wrong".
In reality you should not multiply probabilities.
You should only if they are truly independent events. Four consecutive elections aren't independent.
Actually it's only if any particular single event doesn't lead to a change in outcome.
Let's have the example of a bridge that rests on 10 steel poles, if any of them fails the bridge goes down, the probability of failure of each one is 1% over a reasonable time, so what's the probability that the bridge will go down over a reasonable time?
Now what Silver did (and Nasa for the shuttle) was to multiply the odds, 1% over 10 times is one in 100 trillion trillion when in fact the odds for the bridge failure should be the highest number, 1%.
No you're wrong, in your situation you do need to multiply but the other way. If the probability of each one failing is 1% then you need to multiply the odds of not failing against each other. So 0.99 multiplied 10 times.
Meaning that in your example the failure rate is 9.6%
But that's not how you do it in practice because if Trump won even one of them particularly one of the first 2, then he would have gotten the momentum for the nomination.
It's what doomed the space shuttle, they said "oh it's a only a 1% chance that a component fails, then if we multiply it by all components it's only a 0.0001% chance that something goes wrong".
In reality you should not multiply probabilities.
You should always multiply probabilities if they're independent, you should not if they're not.
These are not independent probabilities as if Trump was more popular in one then he could be more popular in another. If he loses popularity overall he could lose popularity in both.
In the same way the odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of his team scoring both coming true should not be independently multiplied as they are related. The odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of another team playing at the same time in a different game scoring can be multiplied as they are totally independent from each other.
Conditional Probability P(A | = P(A∩B) / P(B)
Bayes Formula P(A | = P(B | A) · P(A) / P(B)
The intersect of New Hampshire (B) and the nomination (A) are quite high for the GOP.
Nate "Donald has no more than a 5% chance" Silver ?
Bwhahaha. Did he really say that? Not sure whether that is worse than the hundred Lib Dems prediction.
Nate is a numbers-only guy. Thus when the numbers are wrong, when the system being described is chaotic or in transition phase, or where we are in unprecedented territory, Nate will always get it wrong. But he will get it right when have good numbers and the law of large numbers actually applies.
Someone earlier noted that JackW has an excellent prediction record. Well, with the number of forecasters on PB, if predictions were made purely randomly, someone would have had a good record over that period by pure chance. Retrospectively, there is no way of judging whether JackW's performance is due to skill or luck, and hence his past record is no indicator for future predictions.
I'll forgive your outburst this once ....
Clearly given a two horse race in 08 and 12 pure chance would allow for your "insight" but my ARSE also very accurately projected all the swing states with a fraction of a spitting distance except Missouri in 08 and Florida in 12 - missed by less than 0.5% in each case.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
But that's not how you do it in practice because if Trump won even one of them particularly one of the first 2, then he would have gotten the momentum for the nomination.
It's what doomed the space shuttle, they said "oh it's a only a 1% chance that a component fails, then if we multiply it by all components it's only a 0.0001% chance that something goes wrong".
In reality you should not multiply probabilities.
You should always multiply probabilities if they're independent, you should not if they're not.
These are not independent probabilities as if Trump was more popular in one then he could be more popular in another. If he loses popularity overall he could lose popularity in both.
In the same way the odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of his team scoring both coming true should not be independently multiplied as they are related. The odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of another team playing at the same time in a different game scoring can be multiplied as they are totally independent from each other.
Conditional Probability P(A | = P(A∩B) / P(B)
Bayes Formula P(A | = P(B | A) · P(A) / P(B)
The intersect of New Hampshire (B) and the nomination (A) are quite high for the GOP.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Osborne announcement of more cuts only a few months after splashing the cash. I think a lot of people will wonder what the bloody hell he is doing.
What splashing the cash?
He stopped or postponed certain extremely unpopular cuts, some of which he would struggle to get through Parliament in one piece (with even Tories rebelling). That is not the same as splashing the cash. Splashing the cash generally involves boosting new spending, not merely cancelling a cut.
As for what the bloody hell he's doing, the same as what he's been doing for six years now. Year after year cutting an incredibly large deficit.
This budget will be about keeping Conservative voters "on side" for the EU referendum. They are the electorate he has to worry about this year.
So I expect some Tory red meat on taxes, probably a higher than expected rise in the 40p rate threshold and maybe even a penny off the basic rate of income tax, and further public services cuts.. but no pensions raid.
Osborne has no problem with totally changing tack when he feels he has to.
Sounds good to me!
I think and hope a penny off the basic rate will happen later this Parliament. Osborne's final budget before Cameron resigns he announces to Parliament that due to his stewardship we can afford a penny off tax and a surplus would be ideal.
@JackW Why do you think Hillary will break the normal 2 terms Dem; 2 terms GOP cycle ? Despite the avatar I'm certainly not ruling her out btw ^_~
It's a cycle with a broken wheel.
Carter was a one wheel cycle and Reagan/Bush was a tricycle. POTUS isn't determined by "models".
Absurd. There are three cycles that perfectly predict presidential election results, the eight year, 12 year and 28 year cycles. You simply overlay them over each other, and remember the 58.4 year insurgent cycle, and you can perfectly predict the result.
I think Trump has killed Bernie's chances. If Trump wasn't in it it'd be a very boring republican race with Jeb Bush probably ahead. There'd be alot more focus on Bernie as the "outsider" against HRC.
Nate "Donald has no more than a 5% chance" Silver ?
Bwhahaha. Did he really say that? Not sure whether that is worse than the hundred Lib Dems prediction.
Nate is a numbers-only guy. Thus when the numbers are wrong, when the system being described is chaotic or in transition phase, or where we are in unprecedented territory, Nate will always get it wrong. But he will get it right when have good numbers and the law of large numbers actually applies.
Someone earlier noted that JackW has an excellent prediction record. Well, with the number of forecasters on PB, if predictions were made purely randomly, someone would have had a good record over that period by pure chance. Retrospectively, there is no way of judging whether JackW's performance is due to skill or luck, and hence his past record is no indicator for future predictions.
I'll forgive your outburst this once ....
Clearly given a two horse race in 08 and 12 pure chance would allow for your "insight" but my ARSE also very accurately projected all the swing states with a fraction of a spitting distance except Missouri in 08 and Florida in 12 - missed by less than 0.5% in each case.
Do you judge that "skill or luck" ?
Predicting the swing states is effectively nothing more than drawing a line and saying one side will be Democrat and the other side will be Republican.
To be fair you did that pretty well JackW.
Of course there are other elections where you haven't been so successful in your predictions but then we're all better at remembering our successful predictions than our unsuccessful.
I think that's about as clear a definition of "damned with faint praise" with an added cherry as any PBer might muster.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Michael Bloomberg is honest and smart. What's not to like?
@JackW Why do you think Hillary will break the normal 2 terms Dem; 2 terms GOP cycle ? Despite the avatar I'm certainly not ruling her out btw ^_~
It's a cycle with a broken wheel.
Carter was a one wheel cycle and Reagan/Bush was a tricycle. POTUS isn't determined by "models".
Absurd. There are three cycles that perfectly predict presidential election results, the eight year, 12 year and 28 year cycles. You simply overlay them over each other, and remember the 58.4 year insurgent cycle, and you can perfectly predict the result.
@JackW Why do you think Hillary will break the normal 2 terms Dem; 2 terms GOP cycle ? Despite the avatar I'm certainly not ruling her out btw ^_~
It's a cycle with a broken wheel.
Carter was a one wheel cycle and Reagan/Bush was a tricycle. POTUS isn't determined by "models".
Absurd. There are three cycles that perfectly predict presidential election results, the eight year, 12 year and 28 year cycles. You simply overlay them over each other, and remember the 58.4 year insurgent cycle, and you can perfectly predict the result.
Your fathers obsession with cycling has clearly rubbed off.
@JackW Why do you think Hillary will break the normal 2 terms Dem; 2 terms GOP cycle ? Despite the avatar I'm certainly not ruling her out btw ^_~
It's a cycle with a broken wheel.
Carter was a one wheel cycle and Reagan/Bush was a tricycle. POTUS isn't determined by "models".
Absurd. There are three cycles that perfectly predict presidential election results, the eight year, 12 year and 28 year cycles. You simply overlay them over each other, and remember the 58.4 year insurgent cycle, and you can perfectly predict the result.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
The problem with Trump is his character not his policies compared with other republicans.
Trump is ok with the concept of decent healthcare which other republicans despise, and he is more reasonable in foreign affairs compared with Kasich calling for regime change in N.Korea and Rubio calling for an invasion of Iran, Russia and China and describing all Palestinians as terrorists. And Trump is no extreme social conservative either when it comes to abortion, religion and gays.
Trump is a nationalist and a very vulgar one, not a crazy conservative with good manners.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
I think Trump has killed Bernie's chances. If Trump wasn't in it it'd be a very boring republican race with Jeb Bush probably ahead. There'd be alot more focus on Bernie as the "outsider" against HRC.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
@JackW Why do you think Hillary will break the normal 2 terms Dem; 2 terms GOP cycle ? Despite the avatar I'm certainly not ruling her out btw ^_~
It's a cycle with a broken wheel.
Carter was a one wheel cycle and Reagan/Bush was a tricycle. POTUS isn't determined by "models".
Absurd. There are three cycles that perfectly predict presidential election results, the eight year, 12 year and 28 year cycles. You simply overlay them over each other, and remember the 58.4 year insurgent cycle, and you can perfectly predict the result.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Michael Bloomberg is honest and smart. What's not to like?
"Just 7 percent of registered voters say they definitely would vote for him, while 29 percent say they'd consider it, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
"Isn't he the one who wanted to restrict the size of soda drinks?" asked Patricia Kowal, a 66-year-old Democrat who works on an assembly line and lives in Lublin, Wisconsin. "I think that's intruding on people's personal choices. It's none of the government's business." A court blocked Bloomberg's attempt to ban supersize takeout soda in 2014."
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Michael Bloomberg is honest and smart. What's not to like?
1) He's not yet officially a candidate
2) He's even older than Trump and Clinton.
Other than those, I have nothing against him.
There's nothing wrong with being a bit ancient.
There have been two presidents aged over 70 - Eisenhower and Reagan. Reagan was 73 when he won re-election, the only man to win an election after reaching that age. Due to his age related problems - partial blindness, deafness, and Alzheimer's - his second term descended into scandal and catastrophe, although he had one notable foreign policy success in meeting Gorbachev and beginning to unravel the Cold War.
After 70 the risk of a fatal illness, often quite sudden in someone who appears healthy, is also much increased, as my family has just found out.
I say again, he is too old. But then, that's true of the other two as well.
Nate "Donald has no more than a 5% chance" Silver ?
Bwhahaha. Did he really say that? Not sure whether that is worse than the hundred Lib Dems prediction.
Nate is a numbers-only guy. Thus when the numbers are wrong, when the system being described is chaotic or in transition phase, or where we are in unprecedented territory, Nate will always get it wrong. But he will get it right when have good numbers and the law of large numbers actually applies.
Someone earlier noted that JackW has an excellent prediction record. Well, with the number of forecasters on PB, if predictions were made purely randomly, someone would have had a good record over that period by pure chance. Retrospectively, there is no way of judging whether JackW's performance is due to skill or luck, and hence his past record is no indicator for future predictions.
I'll forgive your outburst this once ....
Clearly given a two horse race in 08 and 12 pure chance would allow for your "insight" but my ARSE also very accurately projected all the swing states with a fraction of a spitting distance except Missouri in 08 and Florida in 12 - missed by less than 0.5% in each case.
Do you judge that "skill or luck" ?
Predicting the swing states is effectively nothing more than drawing a line and saying one side will be Democrat and the other side will be Republican.
To be fair you did that pretty well JackW.
Of course there are other elections where you haven't been so successful in your predictions but then we're all better at remembering our successful predictions than our unsuccessful.
I think that's about as clear a definition of "damned with faint praise" with an added cherry as any PBer might muster.
Thank you ....
A venerable old Jacobite would surely treat with disdain praise which was too enthusiastic.
Besides I wouldn't want the excitement to risk carrying you off and depriving PB of your future predictions.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
In what sense is Trump inexperienced in the ways of politics? His practical experience of making friends and influencing people, including high-level politicians surely counts for more than a lot of average political careers, and even in electoral campaigning - one area where on the face of it you might expect him to struggle - he's schooled the professionals from the beginning. If you mean that he's not a policy wonk, that's not a good quality in a leader.
This story on the Mar-a-Lago estate is quite instructive about how he operates.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
The problem with Trump is his character not his policies compared with other republicans.
Trump is ok with the concept of decent healthcare which other republicans despise, and he is more reasonable in foreign affairs compared with Kasich calling for regime change in N.Korea and Rubio calling for an invasion of Iran, Russia and China and describing all Palestinians as terrorists. And Trump is no extreme social conservative either when it comes to abortion, religion and gays.
Trump is a nationalist and a very vulgar one, not a crazy conservative with good manners.
The people who don't like his character tend to be the ones who don't like his politics.
I think he only seriously has a problem with 4-5% of swing voters.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Dare I point out your British opinions here have zip to do with USA cultural psyche?
I'm amazed by the sneering about the USA by Brits. We're clearly cleverer, more sophisticated and erudite.
They're all vulgar, stupid backward guns and God luvvin trailer trash - unless they're black. Then they're MLK. But Democrats are aren't at all like this.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Nate "Donald has no more than a 5% chance" Silver ?
Bwhahaha. Did he really say that? Not sure whether that is worse than the hundred Lib Dems prediction.
Nate is a numbers-only guy. Thus when the numbers are wrong, when the system being described is chaotic or in transition phase, or where we are in unprecedented territory, Nate will always get it wrong. But he will get it right when have good numbers and the law of large numbers actually applies.
Someone earlier noted that JackW has an excellent prediction record. Well, with the number of forecasters on PB, if predictions were made purely randomly, someone would have had a good record over that period by pure chance. Retrospectively, there is no way of judging whether JackW's performance is due to skill or luck, and hence his past record is no indicator for future predictions.
I'll forgive your outburst this once ....
Clearly given a two horse race in 08 and 12 pure chance would allow for your "insight" but my ARSE also very accurately projected all the swing states with a fraction of a spitting distance except Missouri in 08 and Florida in 12 - missed by less than 0.5% in each case.
Do you judge that "skill or luck" ?
Predicting the swing states is effectively nothing more than drawing a line and saying one side will be Democrat and the other side will be Republican.
To be fair you did that pretty well JackW.
Of course there are other elections where you haven't been so successful in your predictions but then we're all better at remembering our successful predictions than our unsuccessful.
I think that's about as clear a definition of "damned with faint praise" with an added cherry as any PBer might muster.
Thank you ....
A venerable old Jacobite would surely treat with disdain praise which was too enthusiastic.
Besides I wouldn't want the excitement to risk carrying you off and depriving PB of your future predictions.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Dare I point out your British opinions here have zip to do with USA cultural psyche?
I'm amazed by the sneering about the USA by Brits. We're clearly cleverer, more sophisticated and erudite.
They're all vulgar, stupid backward guns and God luvvin trailer trash - unless they're black. Then they're MLK. But Democrats are aren't at all like this.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
We have no right to sneer at the Americans, and I have not done so. Indeed, that boot is on the other foot. After all, whatever his faults Trump is a far better and saner candidate than Corbyn.
Dare I point out your British opinions here have zip to do with USA cultural psyche?
I'm amazed by the sneering about the USA by Brits. We're clearly cleverer, more sophisticated and erudite.
They're all vulgar, stupid backward guns and God luvvin trailer trash - unless they're black. Then they're MLK. But Democrats are aren't at all like this.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
There's nothing to do about the USA in what you quoted. You just leapt on it as an opportunity to complain that people are too nice to "blacks".
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Some people charged with spending public money need locking up.
From 2012:
' Local authorities across the UK should have a statutory duty to combat climate change, government advisors recommend.
The Committee on Climate Change says that councils can make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in areas such as housing, traffic and waste.
Its report says that some councils are taking action but many others are not, which threatens national climate goals.
But with many councils struggling with finance, the committee says more government support may be needed.
The committee is the government's statutory adviser on climate change, and has recommended progressively tighter carbon budgets for the UK leading towards the legally binding goal of an 80% cut from 1990 levels by 2050.
"We've got national carbon budgets with ambitious emission cuts built into them, and if we weren't to address the cuts local authorities can make, we'd not meet the targets," said David Kennedy, the committee's chief executive. '
ydoether's comment "in all likelihood..." etc is probably worth deleting as it may well be actionable. And we have just heard that The Donald has fired up his team of lawyers on this....
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Some people charged with spending public money need locking up.
What can Bradford possibly do wrt climate change. Ridiculous as you say. I'd say the same about any council on it's own.
It depends what the "team" is doing.
If they're doing their own duplicated research etc then that is a waste of money. If the team is people responsible for issues that are completely within the councils control such as housing, waste, traffic planning, energy efficiency etc then that can make sense.
Though you don't necessarily need to be a dedicated individual to work on these for just climate issues, there are people who will be working on these anyway and if someone who is doing this work anyway is taking responsibility for reducing emissions while they do their work then that is a two birds, one stone solution.
The problem is if they're hiring two people to do the job of one.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Montana and Idaho - combined - have less than 1% of the population of the US. They are no more America than Florida or New York.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Some people charged with spending public money need locking up.
What can Bradford possibly do wrt climate change. Ridiculous as you say. I'd say the same about any council on it's own.
Imagine if we all decided to think like that Since when were the right wing against social responsibility?
Wow, logical fallacies abound. Have you your own personal climate change team? What level of granularity do you think should apply to this global phenomenon?
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Some people charged with spending public money need locking up.
From 2012:
' Local authorities across the UK should have a statutory duty to combat climate change, government advisors recommend.
The Committee on Climate Change says that councils can make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in areas such as housing, traffic and waste.
Its report says that some councils are taking action but many others are not, which threatens national climate goals.
But with many councils struggling with finance, the committee says more government support may be needed.
The committee is the government's statutory adviser on climate change, and has recommended progressively tighter carbon budgets for the UK leading towards the legally binding goal of an 80% cut from 1990 levels by 2050.
"We've got national carbon budgets with ambitious emission cuts built into them, and if we weren't to address the cuts local authorities can make, we'd not meet the targets," said David Kennedy, the committee's chief executive. '
Indeed there is lots councils can do and much of it will save money not cost extra. But if councils are duplicating work etc then that is not sensible.
All these issues in their responsibility have to happen anyway. Being efficient and energy efficient etc good, being inefficient in making work to look like you're doing something bad.
No idea if Bradford is good or bad on this. Though I could make a guess.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Montana and Idaho - combined - have less than 1% of the population of the US. They are no more America than Florida or New York.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
That is kinda of what I meant, was just using Idaho of an example that is definitely very very different to your standard view via TV of USA. People have this vision of USA based upon just a few places when there is a mix of very differing opinions.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Some people charged with spending public money need locking up.
What can Bradford possibly do wrt climate change. Ridiculous as you say. I'd say the same about any council on it's own.
Five seconds on google and what do I find:
' Interim Sustainable Buildings Policy
Here at North East Derbyshire we are committed to tackling climate change, and we take this commitment seriously. Tackling climate change does not just affect the obvious things like recycling and reducing your carbon footprint. We also need to make sure that the buildings and developments of the future are environmentally friendly too.
In May 2009 the Council adopted an interim planning policy to deal with the issue of climate change. We will use this policy until the Core Strategy and other final versions of Development Plan Documents are adopted.
In the meantime the Council is producing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Climate Change which will provide guidance on how to reduce energy use and address issues raised in this interim policy. A six week consultation on a draft version of the SPD ended on the 10th December 2009. All comments and suggestions will be used to inform our final Supplementary Planning Document on Climate Change. '
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
This also infects our view of the European project as well. Many people see the US as 'one country' in the same sense that the UK is and object to the idea of a United States of Europe on that basis.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Never been to New York or Florida. I have been to Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and California as far south as San Francisco. Some remarkable places there.
The interesting part of being in the Nevadan desert was seeing which road signs had been used for target practice. You wonder why anyone would drive that far to shoot at a piece of metal. Perhaps the remoteness had some appeal, or maybe it was a competition they didn't want people to know about.
I found everyone very friendly and easy-going. It's one reason why I'm puzzled by the appeal of Trump and Clinton, who don't seem to be either.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
I have done whole coast to coast across Canada and USA...trying to explain to people that you drove days without hardly seeing a sole & when it says last gas station for x00 miles it means it is normally greeted by British people with confusion.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Montana and Idaho - combined - have less than 1% of the population of the US. They are no more America than Florida or New York.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
Is it still true that only 12% of Americans hold a passport.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Some people charged with spending public money need locking up.
What can Bradford possibly do wrt climate change. Ridiculous as you say. I'd say the same about any council on it's own.
Imagine if we all decided to think like that Since when were the right wing against social responsibility?
Wow, logical fallacies abound. Have you your own personal climate change team? What level of granularity do you think should apply to this global phenomenon?
Everyone should take their own level of responsibility appropriate to their faculties. The EU principle of subsidiarity.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Montana and Idaho - combined - have less than 1% of the population of the US. They are no more America than Florida or New York.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
Now, this is interesting. Looks like Osborne has decided not to hike taxes and piss off the Conservative base too much more, to me, but go for more spending cuts instead:
Some people charged with spending public money need locking up.
From 2012:
' Local authorities across the UK should have a statutory duty to combat climate change, government advisors recommend.
The Committee on Climate Change says that councils can make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in areas such as housing, traffic and waste.
Its report says that some councils are taking action but many others are not, which threatens national climate goals.
But with many councils struggling with finance, the committee says more government support may be needed.
The committee is the government's statutory adviser on climate change, and has recommended progressively tighter carbon budgets for the UK leading towards the legally binding goal of an 80% cut from 1990 levels by 2050.
"We've got national carbon budgets with ambitious emission cuts built into them, and if we weren't to address the cuts local authorities can make, we'd not meet the targets," said David Kennedy, the committee's chief executive. '
Indeed there is lots councils can do and much of it will save money not cost extra. But if councils are duplicating work etc then that is not sensible.
All these issues in their responsibility have to happen anyway. Being efficient and energy efficient etc good, being inefficient in making work to look like you're doing something bad.
No idea if Bradford is good or bad on this. Though I could make a guess.
I suspect there's a lot of money being spent on 'charters' and 'plans' and 'compliance officers' and 'outreach co-ordinators'.
And you can be certain that there will be some 'consultants' making a fortune from the issue.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
As a specific example, In Shenandoah, Iowa, a town of about five thousand, much of the fire department is manned by volunteers.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Montana and Idaho - combined - have less than 1% of the population of the US. They are no more America than Florida or New York.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
Is it still true that only 12% of Americans hold a passport.
There is little reason for Americans to hold a passport. If we didn't need a passport to visit anywhere in Europe, from the Balaerics to Moscow, from Scandinavia to Turkey, then the proportion of Brits to own a passport would likely be a lot lower.
The USA is massive and includes all forms of holiday destinations.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
As a specific example, In Shenandoah, Iowa, a town of about five thousand, much of the fire department is manned by volunteers.
That's very common in the US. I live part of the year in Sag Harbor, and that also has an entirely volunteer fire department.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
As a specific example, In Shenandoah, Iowa, a town of about five thousand, much of the fire department is manned by volunteers.
That's very common in the US. I live part of the year in Sag Harbor, and that also has an entirely volunteer fire department.
It's part of a wonderful social coherence. I think Alistair Cooke loved the Midwest.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
I have done whole coast to coast across Canada and USA...trying to explain to people that you drove days without hardly seeing a sole & when it says last gas station for x00 miles it means it is normally greeted by British people with confusion.
I remember driving across from the Big Sur to Vegas back in 1979 and seeing a sign that read "absolutely nothing for 90 miles
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Montana and Idaho - combined - have less than 1% of the population of the US. They are no more America than Florida or New York.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
Is it still true that only 12% of Americans hold a passport.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
As a specific example, In Shenandoah, Iowa, a town of about five thousand, much of the fire department is manned by volunteers.
The UK system relies on "Retained Firefighters" in many areas who are part time, including Leics:
I suspect there's a lot of money being spent on 'charters' and 'plans' and 'compliance officers' and 'outreach co-ordinators'.
And you can be certain that there will be some 'consultants' making a fortune from the issue.
Indeed. As I said there are good and bad ways to do this.
Planning has to happen anyway. All Councils have responsibility to produce planning documents, that is one of their duties. Producing energy efficient etc requirements in amongst those documents is eminently sensible and if followed through on buildings the Council pays energy costs on could ultimately save money.
Duplicating work is not sensible. There are good and bad ways to go about it, producing plans is not in itself bad.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Never been to New York or Florida. I have been to Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and California as far south as San Francisco. Some remarkable places there.
The interesting part of being in the Nevadan desert was seeing which road signs had been used for target practice. You wonder why anyone would drive that far to shoot at a piece of metal. Perhaps the remoteness had some appeal, or maybe it was a competition they didn't want people to know about.
I found everyone very friendly and easy-going. It's one reason why I'm puzzled by the appeal of Trump and Clinton, who don't seem to be either.
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Montana and Idaho - combined - have less than 1% of the population of the US. They are no more America than Florida or New York.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
Is it still true that only 12% of Americans hold a passport.
' Germany does not know the whereabouts of 130,000 asylum seekers who were registered last year, officials say.
The migrants did not appear at reception centres to which they had been directed, the government said in a written reply to a question.
...
On Thursday, the head of Germany's federal office for migration, Frank-Juergen Weise, said there were up to 400,000 people in the country whose identities were unknown to the authorities. '
Boris announces in the Times that he has changed his mind and that a leave vote will be just that. This brings him in line with David Cameron and rather contradicts Michael Howard's position (and many others). Leave will need to make a proper case for leaving as this seems to strengthen David Cameron's position, which he has maintained from the beginning
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running .
Most people think the USA is new York or florida, because that is where they have been on their holidays. If you go and spend significant amount of time in places like Idaho, Montana, etc you start to understand why people have a very different view of the world & government. I was out there & a massive forrest fire started & I said so the state will call on the specialist teams right? Sure, they will be here in 2-3 days, so until then we will fight it.
Montana and Idaho - combined - have less than 1% of the population of the US. They are no more America than Florida or New York.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
Is it still true that only 12% of Americans hold a passport.
There is little reason for Americans to hold a passport. If we didn't need a passport to visit anywhere in Europe, from the Balaerics to Moscow, from Scandinavia to Turkey, then the proportion of Brits to own a passport would likely be a lot lower.
The USA is massive and includes all forms of holiday destinations.
Americans can also travel to much of the West Indies, Mexico and Canada without a passport too, and often get only 2 weeks leave per year, and much of that is visiting relatives.
Comments
The UK regulators are all for the deferred compensation and the claw back (a malus would be even better, but I'm not sure how that can be made to work)
It's the bonus cap that the Europeans love which is the problem - it just forced up fixed salary costs and creates lots of crafty wheezes ("discretionary responsibility allowances") to get around the rules.
But I agree that investment banking should be conducted by private companies where the principals have skin in the game. Banking should be boring, heaving regulated, and low return. Investment firms should be allowed to make and lose millions but with their own, not depositors money
Bradford Council sets 3.9% Council Tax and cuts services in budget
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14303551.DOUBLE_WHAMMY__Council_tax_to_go_up_by_3_99__AND_services_to_be_cut/
He will need to think carefully about his style as and when he faces Hillary Clinton.
These are not independent probabilities as if Trump was more popular in one then he could be more popular in another. If he loses popularity overall he could lose popularity in both.
In the same way the odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of his team scoring both coming true should not be independently multiplied as they are related. The odds of a footballer scoring and the odds of another team playing at the same time in a different game scoring can be multiplied as they are totally independent from each other.
So I expect some Tory red meat on taxes, probably a higher than expected rise in the 40p rate threshold and maybe even a penny off the basic rate of income tax, and further public services cuts.. but no pensions raid.
Osborne has no problem with totally changing tack when he feels he has to.
The GOP establishment starting to coaless around who they now accept will be the winner, or opportunistic looking to be the VP? Any thoughts?
Link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXOkKMwIBo8
Let's have the example of a bridge that rests on 10 steel poles, if any of them fails the bridge goes down, the probability of failure of each one is 1% over a reasonable time, so what's the probability that the bridge will go down over a reasonable time?
Now what Silver did (and Nasa for the shuttle) was to multiply the odds, 1% over 10 times is one in 100 trillion trillion when in fact the odds for the bridge failure should be the highest number.
Looking for spending efficiencies etc should be a permanent objective and not a one-off. For my personal AND for my business budgets I look at my budget every year and if there are cuts I can make, I make them. The notion that the government doing the same thing as what we all regularly either do or should do just shows how far down the rabbit hole consecutive governments have gone.
Trying to make savings annually is being responsible not a failure, even if we were running a surplus (which we're not) the government should still be doing that!
P(A |
Bayes Formula
P(A |
The intersect of New Hampshire (B) and the nomination (A) are quite high for the GOP.
To be fair you did that pretty well JackW.
Of course there are other elections where you haven't been so successful in your predictions but then we're all better at remembering our successful predictions than our unsuccessful.
Carter was a one wheel cycle and Reagan/Bush was a tricycle. POTUS isn't determined by "models".
Meaning that in your example the failure rate is 9.6%
https://youtu.be/XUwUp-D_VV0
I think the problem is not so much that people can't see Trump is a bloody awful candidate. He clearly is. He's elderly, rude, arrogant, ineffectual, dishonest, not very intelligent, in all likelihood corrupt and inexperienced in the ways of politics.
The real problem is that all the other candidates have all bar one of those vices, and they can hardly make a virtue out of political experience when people are fuming with politicians and want to kick the whole lot often in the metaphorical genitals.
So I think it is possible he can win both the nomination and the election. That's not a good outcome, but there is no good outcome from this point anyway. From a wider perspective Clinton's awareness of foreign affairs might make her a more useful president from our point of view, but her past record in domestic affairs cannot even be called disastrous without running the risk of undue generosity.
It's a completely avoidable catastrophe and it would actually be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
I think and hope a penny off the basic rate will happen later this Parliament. Osborne's final budget before Cameron resigns he announces to Parliament that due to his stewardship we can afford a penny off tax and a surplus would be ideal.
As is it is the Donald has well Trumped him.
Any rule should have the sample size attached.
Thank you ....
But for someone so erudite as he is, it wasn't very clear exactly what he meant.
2) He's even older than Trump and Clinton.
Other than those, I have nothing against him.
Trump is ok with the concept of decent healthcare which other republicans despise, and he is more reasonable in foreign affairs compared with Kasich calling for regime change in N.Korea and Rubio calling for an invasion of Iran, Russia and China and describing all Palestinians as terrorists.
And Trump is no extreme social conservative either when it comes to abortion, religion and gays.
Trump is a nationalist and a very vulgar one, not a crazy conservative with good manners.
Now we get Osborne drivelling on "The economy is smaller than we thought ... "
Is that an admission that his predictions have been crap ?
It's trying to repeat itself as a dullard retread today without the naive hopes. Unless you're a teenager or middle aged nitwit.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4c27220fc61b444eaaeb2095cdeb6dbf/ap-gfk-poll-big-headwinds-if-ex-nyc-mayor-seeks-white-house
"Just 7 percent of registered voters say they definitely would vote for him, while 29 percent say they'd consider it, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
"Isn't he the one who wanted to restrict the size of soda drinks?" asked Patricia Kowal, a 66-year-old Democrat who works on an assembly line and lives in Lublin, Wisconsin. "I think that's intruding on people's personal choices. It's none of the government's business." A court blocked Bloomberg's attempt to ban supersize takeout soda in 2014."
Some people charged with spending public money need locking up.
After 70 the risk of a fatal illness, often quite sudden in someone who appears healthy, is also much increased, as my family has just found out.
I say again, he is too old. But then, that's true of the other two as well.
Besides I wouldn't want the excitement to risk carrying you off and depriving PB of your future predictions.
This story on the Mar-a-Lago estate is quite instructive about how he operates.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/trumps-war-with-palm-beach-213122
I think he only seriously has a problem with 4-5% of swing voters.
He will win them over.
And he knows it.
I'm amazed by the sneering about the USA by Brits. We're clearly cleverer, more sophisticated and erudite.
They're all vulgar, stupid backward guns and God luvvin trailer trash - unless they're black. Then they're MLK. But Democrats are aren't at all like this.
I'd say the same about any council on it's own.
Charming duplicity ....
Since when were the right wing against social responsibility?
You just leapt on it as an opportunity to complain that people are too nice to "blacks".
' Local authorities across the UK should have a statutory duty to combat climate change, government advisors recommend.
The Committee on Climate Change says that councils can make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in areas such as housing, traffic and waste.
Its report says that some councils are taking action but many others are not, which threatens national climate goals.
But with many councils struggling with finance, the committee says more government support may be needed.
The committee is the government's statutory adviser on climate change, and has recommended progressively tighter carbon budgets for the UK leading towards the legally binding goal of an 80% cut from 1990 levels by 2050.
"We've got national carbon budgets with ambitious emission cuts built into them, and if we weren't to address the cuts local authorities can make, we'd not meet the targets," said David Kennedy, the committee's chief executive. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18093080
Having the personality of a teenager probably adds to the impression of youthfulness...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbOZwr5WLww
If they're doing their own duplicated research etc then that is a waste of money.
If the team is people responsible for issues that are completely within the councils control such as housing, waste, traffic planning, energy efficiency etc then that can make sense.
Though you don't necessarily need to be a dedicated individual to work on these for just climate issues, there are people who will be working on these anyway and if someone who is doing this work anyway is taking responsibility for reducing emissions while they do their work then that is a two birds, one stone solution.
The problem is if they're hiring two people to do the job of one.
Utah, Colarado, Nevada et al. It's another land. I loved it all. Wyoming is vast nothing. There's no law here unless you carry it.
Most Brits have zero concept of the vastness, watching TV shows about Alaska state troopers gives a taste.
In many ways, what is so underappreciated about the US is how different San Diego is from Providence, Seattle from Tampa, Chicago from New Orlean, etc etc etc.
I'm always overtrading if on Betfair myself at points like this.
All these issues in their responsibility have to happen anyway. Being efficient and energy efficient etc good, being inefficient in making work to look like you're doing something bad.
No idea if Bradford is good or bad on this. Though I could make a guess.
' Interim Sustainable Buildings Policy
Here at North East Derbyshire we are committed to tackling climate change, and we take this commitment seriously. Tackling climate change does not just affect the obvious things like recycling and reducing your carbon footprint. We also need to make sure that the buildings and developments of the future are environmentally friendly too.
In May 2009 the Council adopted an interim planning policy to deal with the issue of climate change. We will use this policy until the Core Strategy and other final versions of Development Plan Documents are adopted.
In the meantime the Council is producing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Climate Change which will provide guidance on how to reduce energy use and address issues raised in this interim policy. A six week consultation on a draft version of the SPD ended on the 10th December 2009. All comments and suggestions will be used to inform our final Supplementary Planning Document on Climate Change. '
http://www.ne-derbyshire.gov.uk/environment-planning/planning/planning-policy/interim-sustainable-buildings-policy/
Derbyshire county council have a 'climate change charter':
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Climate Change Charter final_tcm44-256206.pdf
The interesting part of being in the Nevadan desert was seeing which road signs had been used for target practice. You wonder why anyone would drive that far to shoot at a piece of metal. Perhaps the remoteness had some appeal, or maybe it was a competition they didn't want people to know about.
I found everyone very friendly and easy-going. It's one reason why I'm puzzled by the appeal of Trump and Clinton, who don't seem to be either.
Running against the First Amendment is, well, brave.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/opinion-savvy-23898
T36 R23 C16
Maybe it's one of those things that can't be grasped until you've experienced it.
IIRC in Australia, Perth is five hours by plane from anywhere.
That's a WTF distance.
And you can be certain that there will be some 'consultants' making a fortune from the issue.
The USA is massive and includes all forms of holiday destinations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35667858
Mississippi is 18%, West Virginia is 19%.
New Jersey, by contrast, is 62%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retained_firefighter
Tennessee Williams summed up America thus:
"America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans.
Everywhere else is Cleveland."
Planning has to happen anyway. All Councils have responsibility to produce planning documents, that is one of their duties. Producing energy efficient etc requirements in amongst those documents is eminently sensible and if followed through on buildings the Council pays energy costs on could ultimately save money.
Duplicating work is not sensible. There are good and bad ways to go about it, producing plans is not in itself bad.
' Germany does not know the whereabouts of 130,000 asylum seekers who were registered last year, officials say.
The migrants did not appear at reception centres to which they had been directed, the government said in a written reply to a question.
...
On Thursday, the head of Germany's federal office for migration, Frank-Juergen Weise, said there were up to 400,000 people in the country whose identities were unknown to the authorities. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35667858