Just arrived in Brighton for today's game against Burnley. I've been invited by one of the team's directors and will be sitting in the director's box - the first time I've ever done that.
Mike - best leave those Claret and Blue colours behind and restrict yourself to restrained applause as Burnley take the lead and go on to win, as they probably will. Enjoy the pork pie and cucumber sandwiches at half time!
West Ham are the one true Claret and Blue
Claret and Blue is nothing next to Claret and Amber.
On topic. The LDs reduced to 2 MSPs in Wales would be very bad for their "fightback". With Scotland also looking like a further decline in representatives for them and possibly in the London Assembly as well, Farron could be staring at a position where he has lost representatives in all of the 3 big battles of the May elections. Of course due to distractions elsewhere for Labour and the Conservatives, little attention will probably fall on Farron but he cannot claim to be making ground after taking over from Clegg. Instead he will be "managing the decline".
TC, I am willing to bet any money you like that the Liberal Democrats will get zero MSPs in Wales.
They should get at least a couple of AMs though. I would actually guess at this make up of the assembly:
Labour 26/7 Conservatives 13/4 PC 12/13 LD 3/4 UKIP 2/3
With the likeliest outcome:
Labour 27 Con 13 PC 13 LD 4 UKIP 3
But this could be quite a volatile election at the lower end. The key problem is that Labour are not likely to dip far. I would love to see them reduced to 20 seats and kicked into opposition but it ain't gonna happen.
Germany's law was NOT built from the ground up after WW2. They didn't wipe the slate clean and create an entirely new system of laws, though of course they got a new constitution. They didn't even declare the Nazi-era laws all null and void - some remain in effect.
Most continental EU countries run on a hybrid of Roman law and the Napoleonic Code (which was itself based on Roman law). Talking about Napoleon bringing civil law to Germany is actually to get legal history backwards. Many of the German states (including Bavaria and Prussia) had civil law systems that were based on the Roman codes by the 18th century; the Naploeonic code actually scrapped France's old feudal-derived legal system and brought it into closer alignment with these other European states which inspired it.
Moreover, "where Napoleon reached" is a very poor guide to the spread of the Napoleonic legal influence, because the codification had legal influence in its own right. Even the German states that Napoleon did not conquer and which already had codes of their own were influenced to some extent by the Napoleonic Code. Switzerland adopted a civil code in 1907 that was based on a hybrid of the German and French systems; Ataturk then largely brought the Swiss civil code to Turkey in the 1920s. The Qing dynasty imported large aspects of the German code to China, and many aspects of the Communist Era legal system still derive from it.
Good point about Germany, although it's still a jump to say "it's Napoleonic". If you extend the conversation to include legal systems that have been influenced by the Napoleonic Code then that's an extension too far: it's like saying "well, we're all Africans really" in a discussion about migration. Ditto for legal systems that existed before Napoleon
I also need to point out that I didn't say Napoleon brought civil law to Germany (were you contradicting a point somebody else made?)
I was agreeing with you that Napoleon didn't bring the Napoleonic code to Germany, which is a common misconception - but one can argue the reverse, that in many ways Napoleon brought the German code to France
Splitting hairs between "Napoleonic" and "German" civil codes is just a bit silly in this context really - they have both influenced each other, and many European countries (I gave some examples) use a system that is explicitly a hybrid of the two. There is a real gap between that system and the English common law, or even the Scottish civil law.
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited.
One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
What I would really liked to have heard from Nate Silver is - if not Trump then whom as between Cruz and Kasich? I would rather hope it would be the latter, having backed him as far out as 200/1 and having been largely ridiculed for doing so by a number of so-called experts on PB.com. Are you listening David Herdson and others?
I don't think I ever ridiculed you for taking a 200/1 bet on Kasich. There'd always have been trading value there at the least given Rubio's weaknesses. If I did then you may well have the last word and at a minimum are in a good position to trade out at a sizable profit.
I've certainly been critical of those who've been downbeat on Trump's chances, and not without reason. Even now, I think the betting markets underrate his position. But I did do a piece last week on why Kasich *should* be backed. Admittedly, the Cruz scandal hasn't taken off like I thought it would but it's still lingering like a bad smell. If Trump is to be stopped at the convention, Kasich seems to me to be the obvious person to do it.
Kasich would need all Cruz's delegates to back him, that is very unlikely
He could get there with Trump's delegates too. The relationship between who a delegate is obliged to vote for in the first round as against who they would naturally vote for given an open mind seems to be far from watertight.
I don't know why this is but my guess would be that in the decades since conventions actually picked the candidates, the party machines in the states have become much less powerful and as the event became a coronation and a jamboree, delegates were happy to go along for the ride, candidates were happy to let their control slip apart from on the first ballot (and it's only been the first ballot that's counted for many a year), and much more attention was paid to the primaries.
I've not seen much reporting on the opinion of the delegates who have been selected (not least because I think quite a lot haven't? - there are state conventions and all sorts to go through in many cases), but a lot will depend on how the mainstream can fight back against the Trumpets and Cruzers in getting their preferred delegates to Cleveland.
UKIP may well press for tariffs to be imposed on cheap Chinese steel much as Trump is pressing for and Leave will inevitably press the case that cannot be done while the UK remains in the EU.
Long-term though the future of British Steel lies in high-quality products, cheap mass production is over
Yet, as I understand yesterdays news, UK government has been behind moves to slow down or even block tariffs. So even if we leave EU we will still have a free-trade first UK government. Frankly it is another example of Leave promising something that won't happen.
Which is why UKIP would combine it with a pro-tariff policy
Plucky little Britain again. Us against the world.
They’ll be bringing back rationing next! (Although if we all ate less ......)
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited.
One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
What I would really liked to have heard from Nate Silver is - if not Trump then whom as between Cruz and Kasich? I would rather hope it would be the latter, having backed him as far out as 200/1 and having been largely ridiculed for doing so by a number of so-called experts on PB.com. Are you listening David Herdson and others?
I don't think I ever ridiculed you for taking a 200/1 bet on Kasich. There'd always have been trading value there at the least given Rubio's weaknesses. If I did then you may well have the last word and at a minimum are in a good position to trade out at a sizable profit. .
Kasich would need all Cruz's delegates to back him, that is very unlikely
He could get there with Trump's delegates too. The relationship between who a delegate is obliged to vote for in the first round as against who they would naturally vote for given an open mind seems to be far from watertight.
I don't know why this is but my guess would be that in the decades since conventions actually picked the candidates, the party machines in the states have become much less powerful and as the event became a coronation and a jamboree, delegates were happy to go along for the ride, candidates were happy to let their control slip apart from on the first ballot (and it's only been the first ballot that's counted for many a year), and much more attention was paid to the primaries.
I've not seen much reporting on the opinion of the delegates who have been selected (not least because I think quite a lot haven't? - there are state conventions and all sorts to go through in many cases), but a lot will depend on how the mainstream can fight back against the Trumpets and Cruzers in getting their preferred delegates to Cleveland.
Trump will obviously be the leader in terms of delegates so why would any of his delegates switch to Kasich given Kasich has only won 1 state, it would have to be an avalanche of Trump delegates moving to Kasich to make a difference
From looking at Colorado, North Dakota and the Virgin Islands in the round (All unbound) - I'd say Cruz is probably playing the best shadow delegate game.
I don't think that's new. I've certainly never used the content of my PhD in mathematics (nor to my knowledge has anyone else), but it's probably true that the course taught me to analyse complex data and to derive conclusions and present them in a coherent manner. That, rather than precise understanding of Riemann spaces, was what helped get jobs. Many, perhaps most, of my contemporaries haven;t used their degrees either. Obviously that's a pity, but it doesn't mean the degrees were a waste of time.
Conversely, as an employer, I look for that sort of thinking ability, and a degree is evidence towards it - neither necessary nor sufficient, but a useful indicator.
Of course his game will need to be ridiculously good, and Trump's ridiculously bad if Trump comes to the convention on 1200 pledged delegates and Cruz is only on 700 or so. Kasich's will need be crazily good to win from the max 300 or so he can likely get (He could be below Rubio still).
If you want to count Kasich still in, you need to possibly count Rubio still in the race !
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited.
One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
What I would really liked to have heard from Nate Silver is - if not Trump then whom as between Cruz and Kasich? I would rather hope it would be the latter, having backed him as far out as 200/1 and having been largely ridiculed for doing so by a number of so-called experts on PB.com. Are you listening David Herdson and others?
I don't think I ever ridiculed you for taking a 200/1 bet on Kasich. There'd always have been trading value there at the least given Rubio's weaknesses. If I did then you may well have the last word and at a minimum are in a good position to trade out at a sizable profit. .
Kasich would need all Cruz's delegates to back him, that is very unlikely
He could get there with Trump's delegates too. The relationship between who a delegate is obliged to vote for in the first round as against who they would naturally vote for given an open mind seems to be far from watertight.
I don't know why this is but my guess would be that in the decades since conventions actually picked the candidates, the party machines in the states have become much less powerful and as the event became a coronation and a jamboree, delegates were happy to go along for the ride, candidates were happy to let their control slip apart from on the first ballot (and it's only been the first ballot that's counted for many a year), and much more attention was paid to the primaries.
I've not seen much reporting on the opinion of the delegates who have been selected (not least because I think quite a lot haven't? - there are state conventions and all sorts to go through in many cases), but a lot will depend on how the mainstream can fight back against the Trumpets and Cruzers in getting their preferred delegates to Cleveland.
Trump will obviously be the leader in terms of delegates so why would any of his delegates switch to Kasich given Kasich has only won 1 state, it would have to be an avalanche of Trump delegates moving to Kasich to make a difference
Because the Trump delegates will not necessarily want Trump to win! (Or want Cruz to win, for that matter). The days of a candidate's delegates being their partisans seem to be long over, going by the reporting.
Despite getting my geography totally wrong eatlier, I can confirm, as a regular visitor to Port Talbot, that its main line railway station, which is having a multi million pound upgrade is pretty well in the centre of the town. Aberavon is basically one big council estate(Sandfields) built for the steelworks, but it does have a nice sea front. Naturally I hope and expect, Labour to retain its significant majority in the Assembly, but I anticipate a couple of losses. Llanelli is almost certain to go back to Plaid. From now on I will keep a ear to the ground and if any interesting tit bit (betting wise) comes up I will post it here.
I don't think that's new. I've certainly never used the content of my PhD in mathematics (nor to my knowledge has anyone else), but it's probably true that the course taught me to analyse complex data and to derive conclusions and present them in a coherent manner. That, rather than precise understanding of Riemann spaces, was what helped get jobs. Many, perhaps most, of my contemporaries haven;t used their degrees either. Obviously that's a pity, but it doesn't mean the degrees were a waste of time.
Conversely, as an employer, I look for that sort of thinking ability, and a degree is evidence towards it - neither necessary nor sufficient, but a useful indicator.
Unless you are a lawyer, a doctor or an academic or teacher most jobs do not directly use a degree. The most popular subject now is business studies in some shape or form much of which could be learnt on the job anyway but as you say a degree signifies a certain level of intelligence
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt
Of course his game will need to be ridiculously good, and Trump's ridiculously bad if Trump comes to the convention on 1200 pledged delegates and Cruz is only on 700 or so. Kasich's will need be crazily good to win from the max 300 or so he can likely get (He could be below Rubio still).
If you want to count Kasich still in, you need to possibly count Rubio still in the race !
I wouldn't count Rubio for two main reasons.
1. He's effectively withdrawn whereas Kasich hasn't. 'Suspending' a campaign might not technically mean withdrawing but it's as good as.
2. More importantly, he has a whole load of negatives without the redeeming positives. Why dump Cruz for a Cruz-light, for example?
Even if Kasich arrives in Cleveland with fewer votes than Rubio, Rubio wouldn't be a credible candidate having publicly admitted that he couldn't win. By contrast, by staying in the fight as the sole candidate of the Republican mainstream, Kasich could.
Having said all that, the likeliest result by some way is still a Trump nomination.
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt
Hmm. Perhaps. There is a case to be made that the US letting Lehmans go bust did nothing to lighten the recession. Similarly, had Northern Rock just been shut down, the damage that would have done to the rest of the UK's financial sector - when various other banks were dangerously exposed - would have been at best considerable and at worst catastrophic. Letting NR go bust and then having to rescue HBOS and the rest would have looked (and been) pretty stupid.
The key thing about delegates is saying someone is an X delhate just means they have to vote for X in the first round, it says nothing about their politics. Every single one of them could be a Jeb Bush supporter.
So come round 2 everything is nothing, nothing is forbidden.
The key thing about delegates is saying someone is an X delhate just means they have to vote for X in the first round, it says nothing about their politics. Every single one of them could be a Jeb Bush supporter.
So come round 2 everything is nothing, nothing is forbidden.
Come round 2, quite a few are still bound. It takes a few votes before you'd get to a free-for-all - but it would get there if it goes on long enough.
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
If that is the case in opposition Cameron was against the intervention proposed by Brown Darling and Mandelson in the banking sector. Their ideology is against state intervention, we will see if this stands up against reality. The EU and the USA protected their car industry in 2008. A previous Conservative government picked a winner with Rolls Royce in 72. They might have to make choices that go against their theory from their adolescence, that you can not buck the market, well you can if the market is rigged.
I don't think that's new. I've certainly never used the content of my PhD in mathematics (nor to my knowledge has anyone else), but it's probably true that the course taught me to analyse complex data and to derive conclusions and present them in a coherent manner. That, rather than precise understanding of Riemann spaces, was what helped get jobs. Many, perhaps most, of my contemporaries haven;t used their degrees either. Obviously that's a pity, but it doesn't mean the degrees were a waste of time.
Conversely, as an employer, I look for that sort of thinking ability, and a degree is evidence towards it - neither necessary nor sufficient, but a useful indicator.
On the latter point: if a lot of higher education is just what economists call signalling, which people are using to get round the inherent information asymmetry of the job market, then it can lead to people overinvesting (spending more time/money/effort than is socially optimal) in education they don't necessarily' want, or find any practical value in, other than getting a job. I do worry whether we're reaching that situation in the UK where there is a "graduates arms race", with so many people having bachelors degrees that more and more people are taking Masters degrees to stand out - there's even an increasing number of people taking multiple Masters degrees, at great expense and without the kind of government support that you get at undergraduate level. And when you look at the content of those Masters degrees, not so many of them are in technical or professional/vocational subjects, of the kinds that are most likely to equip people with the skills necessary for a job.
I say this as someone who loves learning for its own sake and has more degrees than I know what to do with, some of which have been greatly professionally beneficial to me (and presumably, if my skills are considered useful, to the wider economy/society) and others were just for fun. But I do wonder whether the ones I did for my own amusement should have attracted as much government financial support as they did at the time.
UKIP may well press for tariffs to be imposed on cheap Chinese steel much as Trump is pressing for and Leave will inevitably press the case that cannot be done while the UK remains in the EU.
Long-term though the future of British Steel lies in high-quality products, cheap mass production is over
Yet, as I understand yesterdays news, UK government has been behind moves to slow down or even block tariffs. So even if we leave EU we will still have a free-trade first UK government. Frankly it is another example of Leave promising something that won't happen.
It seems to continually come as a shock to people that LEAVE are not the government of the UK. They can promise NOTHING, they advocate a view, that we should end our membership of the EU, and that is it. They cannot even promise that we will do that if they win because all referenda in the UK are consultative, actually leaving, or not, is up to the government of the day as well. So lets just drop all the disingenuous "leave can/can't promise this, that or the other tosh on both sides". Remain on the other hand is backed by the government as had the luxury of making promises, and the disadvantage (with luck) of being held to them.
OK, I think Trump is going to lose but Dems taking Missouri is a step too far in terms of believability
A Clinton landslide would see Missouri fall.
I recall Missouri 08 as the state that blotted my PB copybook. I called it Toss Up/Obama and he lost the state by fewer than 4.000 votes in 3 million !! .... Bloody voters.
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ow.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt
Hmm. Perhaps. There is a case to be made that the US letting Lehmans go bust did nothing to lighten the recession. Similarly, had Northern Rock just been shut down, the damage that would have done to the rest of the UK's financial sector - when various other banks were dangerously exposed - would have been at best considerable and at worst catastrophic. Letting NR go bust and then having to rescue HBOS and the rest would have looked (and been) pretty stupid.
Perhaps but it at least was a way 'pour encourager les autres' if they do not sort out their act the next one to go bust could be them
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt
NR going bust WOULD have been a calamity, and it was - though I'm loathe to say this and have to admit a certain amount of pleasure that Lehman Brothers went bust - arguably a really catastrophic mistake to let that happen in the States because it made the crisis much worse than it would otherwise have been.
EDIT: this Guardian article was fairly even-handed, if I remember correctly
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
Would they have rocketed ? I don't know, but I suspect not, the cost of the steel in a (particularly luxury) car is, I would expect, a pretty small percentage of the price for the end user. Isn't steel currently £700-800 per tonne depending on specification, so even a 100% tarriff would only add maybe 1-2% onto the price of your Jag or Range Rover.
UKIP may well press for tariffs to be imposed on cheap Chinese steel much as Trump is pressing for and Leave will inevitably press the case that cannot be done while the UK remains in the EU.
Long-term though the future of British Steel lies in high-quality products, cheap mass production is over
Yet, as I understand yesterdays news, UK government has been behind moves to slow down or even block tariffs. So even if we leave EU we will still have a free-trade first UK government. Frankly it is another example of Leave promising something that won't happen.
It seems to continually come as a shock to people that LEAVE are not the government of the UK. They can promise NOTHING, they advocate a view, that we should end our membership of the EU, and that is it. They cannot even promise that we will do that if they win because all referenda in the UK are consultative, actually leaving, or not, is up to the government of the day as well. So lets just drop all the disingenuous "leave can/can't promise this, that or the other tosh on both sides". Remain on the other hand is backed by the government as had the luxury of making promises, and the disadvantage (with luck) of being held to them.
Leave.eu:
"Leaving the EU would provide the UK with the freedom to negotiate its own free trade deals; crucial when the EU has effectively become an uncompetitive trading bloc."
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ow.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt
Hmm. Perhaps. There is a case to be made that the US letting Lehmans go bust did nothing to lighten the recession. Similarly, had Northern Rock just been shut down, the damage that would have done to the rest of the UK's financial sector - when various other banks were dangerously exposed - would have been at best considerable and at worst catastrophic. Letting NR go bust and then having to rescue HBOS and the rest would have looked (and been) pretty stupid.
Perhaps but it at least was a way 'pour encourager les autres' if they do not sort out their act the next one to go bust could be them
There wouldn't have been time for them to sort their act out. An unmanaged collapse of NR would have had a domino effect that ran through the entire industry.
UKIP may well press for tariffs to be imposed on cheap Chinese steel much as Trump is pressing for and Leave will inevitably press the case that cannot be done while the UK remains in the EU.
Long-term though the future of British Steel lies in high-quality products, cheap mass production is over
Yet, as I understand yesterdays news, UK government has been behind moves to slow down or even block tariffs. So even if we leave EU we will still have a free-trade first UK government. Frankly it is another example of Leave promising something that won't happen.
It seems to continually come as a shock to people that LEAVE are not the government of the UK. They can promise NOTHING, they advocate a view, that we should end our membership of the EU, and that is it. They cannot even promise that we will do that if they win because all referenda in the UK are consultative, actually leaving, or not, is up to the government of the day as well. So lets just drop all the disingenuous "leave can/can't promise this, that or the other tosh on both sides". Remain on the other hand is backed by the government as had the luxury of making promises, and the disadvantage (with luck) of being held to them.
Leave.eu:
"Leaving the EU would provide the UK with the freedom to negotiate its own free trade deals; crucial when the EU has effectively become an uncompetitive trading bloc."
This whole page is about free trade. Where does protectionism for home-grown steel feature?
I don't know, do they advocate protectionism for steel ? Seems a bit futile to me, continuing to pay large amounts of money to produce a product that people don't want. But that is besides the point, Leave don't decide anything, they are not the government and never will be, they are a pressure group advocating a position.
NR going bust WOULD have been a calamity, and it was - though I'm loathe to say this and have to admit a certain amount of pleasure that Lehman Brothers went bust - arguably a really catastrophic mistake to let that happen in the States because it made the crisis much worse than it would otherwise have been.
EDIT: this Guardian article was fairly even-handed, if I remember correctly
Wasn't it said at the time if the government had just taken on NR's mortgage and loans book directly and let the bank go to the wall, it would both have been cheaper, and not have introduced any further moral hazard into the system. It is not the job of the government to protect businesses that have made bad decision, it is there to protect consumers, it should do so directly and let the business go bust imo.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
As someone who defended UKIP for a good few years on here I have kind of given up on them and do not now necessarily see any UKIP advance as being either good for the Brexit campaign nor any real reflection of support or otherwise for Leave. In itself I am sure UKIP will try to take advantage of the Port Talbot problems but I am not sure that however well or badly they do it will be considered any real indicator of support or otherwise for Leave. I generally now view UKIP as an irrelevance at best.
The question is what is the purpose of UKIP. If it is to get us out of Europe then we have the referendum and all efforts should be to win that.
If it is to be an actual party then that has no relationship now with Brexit.
Last week I submitted a thread header discussing the future of Ukip, for whatever reason I've had no response or reply.
The biggest problem is resources, there are plenty of people who would make excellent candidates, including on this board, but the time, expense and personal commitment are prohibitive.
My morning thread for tomorrow was going to be about backing Wales voting to Leave the EU at 2/1 for the elegant reasons you've alluded to here.
The most recent Wales specific EU referendum poll had Wales voting to leave 45% to 37% (though I would stress a poll showing Wales voting to leave the EU is a rare exception, and not the norm.)
Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?
That's always been the hallmark of Labour in opposition - petty and arrogant in equal measure. With luck Mr Javid will have the strength to face down the protectionist Left and the Brexiteers with their plans to return us to the era of Sunny Jim and state intervention.
Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?
You're right, she's good value. It's refreshing to hear a Labour backbencher on the front foot.
The worst comment made IMHO was accusing the right of not liking steel workers. Just a horrid form of entirely untruthful class-based rubbish that I thought intelligent MPs like Nick Palmer had moved the Labour party away from.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
I agre that it's not a complete analogy, for the reasons you say - steel manufacturig in a particular place isn't a critical path for most other industries. But the analogy is politically reasonable: "You did it for your friends in the banks, so you can do it here", It also stops short of the "nationalise it and keep it nationalised forever" demand, which would strike many as a leftism too far. Principally, though, it avoid the process being driven by Tata's "few weeks" deadline, which seems impossible to meet.
I do worry whether we're reaching that situation in the UK where there is a "graduates arms race", with so many people having bachelors degrees that more and more people are taking Masters degrees to stand out - there's even an increasing number of people taking multiple Masters degrees, at great expense and without the kind of government support that you get at undergraduate level. And when you look at the content of those Masters degrees, not so many of them are in technical or professional/vocational subjects, of the kinds that are most likely to equip people with the skills necessary for a job.
Yes, there's a global arms race of this kind - as someone (Indigo?) reported downthread, in the Phillippines, even shop assistants at the till are expected to have degrees, and India is full of graduates doing non-graduate work.
Not sure what to do about it, except as an employer avoid making a degree mandatory - nice to have as evidence of a good mind, but not essential.
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt
NR going bust WOULD have been a calamity, and it was - though I'm loathe to say this and have to admit a certain amount of pleasure that Lehman Brothers went bust - arguably a really catastrophic mistake to let that happen in the States because it made the crisis much worse than it would otherwise have been.
EDIT: this Guardian article was fairly even-handed, if I remember correctly
NR going bust would have at least saved the cost of bailout, as Lehmans did and if banks always know they are going to get bailed out regardless what incentive is there for them to avoid reckless decision making?
Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?
It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.
I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.
What are the unions and workers calling for?
My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ow.
But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt
Hmm. Perhaps. There is a case to be made that the US letting Lehmans go bust did nothing to lighten the recession. Similarly, had Northern Rock just been shut down, the damage that would have done to the rest of the UK's financial sector - when various other banks were dangerously exposed - would have been at best considerable and at worst catastrophic. Letting NR go bust and then having to rescue HBOS and the rest would have looked (and been) pretty stupid.
Perhaps but it at least was a way 'pour encourager les autres' if they do not sort out their act the next one to go bust could be them
There wouldn't have been time for them to sort their act out. An unmanaged collapse of NR would have had a domino effect that ran through the entire industry.
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?
That's always been the hallmark of Labour in opposition - petty and arrogant in equal measure. With luck Mr Javid will have the strength to face down the protectionist Left and the Brexiteers with their plans to return us to the era of Sunny Jim and state intervention.
I do not see why it has to be all or nothing. A one off tariff against steel dumping by the Chinese would hardly have marked a return to full time state intervention and protectionism. Free trade should also be fair trade. The ability occasionally to act in the interests of the UK is no bad thing.
I do worry whether we're reaching that situation in the UK where there is a "graduates arms race", with so many people having bachelors degrees that more and more people are taking Masters degrees to stand out - there's even an increasing number of people taking multiple Masters degrees, at great expense and without the kind of government support that you get at undergraduate level. And when you look at the content of those Masters degrees, not so many of them are in technical or professional/vocational subjects, of the kinds that are most likely to equip people with the skills necessary for a job.
Yes, there's a global arms race of this kind - as someone (Indigo?) reported downthread, in the Phillippines, even shop assistants at the till are expected to have degrees, and India is full of graduates doing non-graduate work.
Not sure what to do about it, except as an employer avoid making a degree mandatory - nice to have as evidence of a good mind, but not essential.
I do worry whether we're reaching that situation in the UK where there is a "graduates arms race", with so many people having bachelors degrees that more and more people are taking Masters degrees to stand out - there's even an increasing number of people taking multiple Masters degrees, at great expense and without the kind of government support that you get at undergraduate level. And when you look at the content of those Masters degrees, not so many of them are in technical or professional/vocational subjects, of the kinds that are most likely to equip people with the skills necessary for a job.
Yes, there's a global arms race of this kind - as someone (Indigo?) reported downthread, in the Phillippines, even shop assistants at the till are expected to have degrees, and India is full of graduates doing non-graduate work.
Not sure what to do about it, except as an employer avoid making a degree mandatory - nice to have as evidence of a good mind, but not essential.
Honestly Nick, you do spout bollox. Remember the 50% of kids to university and tuition fees?
Its like a paralel universe reading your posts sometimes, as if you've just landed here from Mars
So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it. The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
Unlike say British Leyland's cars (who in God's name came up with that name .... the kiss of death from the outset), Betamax was by universal acclaim the superior product at the time.
So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it. The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:
So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it. The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
We need to be careful about writing off traditional industries. I remember the chatterati in the days of the big problems with the UK car industry which was poorly managed and subverted by striking unions (even under public ownership!). It was said that making cars was just a "metal bashing" activity which had no future. As we know, under foreign ownership the UK industry is booming. The industry globally is changing with the advent of electric cars (see esp Tesla) and driverless capability.
Steel is a different product but has a number of niche markets in which the Brits can and do excel.
So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it. The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
We need to be careful about writing off traditional industries. I remember the chatterati in the days of the big problems with the UK car industry which was poorly managed and subverted by striking unions (even under public ownership!). It was said that making cars was just a "metal bashing" activity which had no future. As we know, under foreign ownership the UK industry is booming. The industry globally is changing with the advent of electric cars (see esp Tesla) and driverless capability.
Steel is a different product but has a number of niche markets in which the Brits can and do excel.
I'm not writing off anything, I'm saying that the market will always decide. I've no idea who buys British steel and what they do with it, but its clear not many people buy it.
The comparison with the banks is false, this is a localised issue not a national one. I'd have let the banks fail too, it would be a shock to the system we all need.
So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it. The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
We need to be careful about writing off traditional industries. I remember the chatterati in the days of the big problems with the UK car industry which was poorly managed and subverted by striking unions (even under public ownership!). It was said that making cars was just a "metal bashing" activity which had no future. As we know, under foreign ownership the UK industry is booming. The industry globally is changing with the advent of electric cars (see esp Tesla) and driverless capability.
Steel is a different product but has a number of niche markets in which the Brits can and do excel.
I'm not writing off anything, I'm saying that the market will always decide. I've no idea who buys British steel and what they do with it, but its clear not many people buy it.
The comparison with the banks is false, this is a localised issue not a national one. I'd have let the banks fail too, it would be a shock to the system we all need.
"British Steel" isn't one commodity is it? We are, I understand very competitive in some areas. Just not the massive consumption ones.
So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it. The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
Unlike say British Leyland's cars (who in God's name came up with that name .... the kiss of death from the outset), Betamax was by universal acclaim the superior product at the time.
Beta was the superior format by far, which it's widespread use continued as the main format for professional and broadcast use well into this century. Sony's mistake was not to licence it to other manufacturers, unlike JVC who did with VHS.
So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it. The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
We need to be careful about writing off traditional industries. I remember the chatterati in the days of the big problems with the UK car industry which was poorly managed and subverted by striking unions (even under public ownership!). It was said that making cars was just a "metal bashing" activity which had no future. As we know, under foreign ownership the UK industry is booming. The industry globally is changing with the advent of electric cars (see esp Tesla) and driverless capability.
Steel is a different product but has a number of niche markets in which the Brits can and do excel.
I'm not writing off anything, I'm saying that the market will always decide. I've no idea who buys British steel and what they do with it, but its clear not many people buy it.
The comparison with the banks is false, this is a localised issue not a national one. I'd have let the banks fail too, it would be a shock to the system we all need.
"British Steel" isn't one commodity is it? We are, I understand very competitive in some areas. Just not the massive consumption ones.
To be fair I didn't write "British Steel". My point is the stuff made in Port Talbot just isn't in demand, its bad news but life is full of bad news. Idiot politicians will try and score points from it of course, when none of them has the foggiest idea what to do.
Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?
You're right, she's good value. It's refreshing to hear a Labour backbencher on the front foot.
The worst comment made IMHO was accusing the right of not liking steel workers. Just a horrid form of entirely untruthful class-based rubbish that I thought intelligent MPs like Nick Palmer had moved the Labour party away from.
I'm sorry that they say mean things about your party. I know PB is used to Labour politicians who do not care about winning popular support!
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
We need to be careful about writing off traditional industries. I remember the chatterati in the days of the big problems with the UK car industry which was poorly managed and subverted by striking unions (even under public ownership!). It was said that making cars was just a "metal bashing" activity which had no future. As we know, under foreign ownership the UK industry is booming. The industry globally is changing with the advent of electric cars (see esp Tesla) and driverless capability.
Steel is a different product but has a number of niche markets in which the Brits can and do excel.
I'm not writing off anything, I'm saying that the market will always decide. I've no idea who buys British steel and what they do with it, but its clear not many people buy it.
The comparison with the banks is false, this is a localised issue not a national one. I'd have let the banks fail too, it would be a shock to the system we all need.
It has been suggested the market for steel is rigged. A rigged market is not a free market. What happens when the supplier rigging the market achieves a monopoly and can charge whatever it likes? HMG has blocked or watered down EU action to regulate the market. This is what happens when politicians of all colours fetishise markets without understanding them.
Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?
You're right, she's good value. It's refreshing to hear a Labour backbencher on the front foot.
No one can make Jess Phillips out to be part of some London elite. She is great value and a worthy successor to the Beast of Bolsover in terms of scathing wit.
I particularly liked her remark (on life experience of coccooned politicians) that by the age of 25 her womb had done more work than the entire Tory cabinet. Cruel and untrue perhaps, but genuinely funny.
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
We need to be careful about writing off traditional industries. I remember the chatterati in the days of the big problems with the UK car industry which was poorly managed and subverted by striking unions (even under public ownership!). It was said that making cars was just a "metal bashing" activity which had no future. As we know, under foreign ownership the UK industry is booming. The industry globally is changing with the advent of electric cars (see esp Tesla) and driverless capability.
Steel is a different product but has a number of niche markets in which the Brits can and do excel.
I'm not writing off anything, I'm saying that the market will always decide. I've no idea who buys British steel and what they do with it, but its clear not many people buy it.
The comparison with the banks is false, this is a localised issue not a national one. I'd have let the banks fail too, it would be a shock to the system we all need.
It has been suggested the market for steel is rigged. A rigged market is not a free market. What happens when the supplier rigging the market achieves a monopoly and can charge whatever it likes? HMG has blocked or watered down EU action to regulate the market. This is what happens when politicians of all colours fetishise markets without understanding them.
1. Who has rigged it?
2. Your point about politicians is well made, I heard young Kinnock on the radio yesterday. If his name wasn't Kinnock he'd be stacking shelves somewhere. Shelf stacking is an essential part of the economy, he's a vacuous oaf.
It seems a little implusible while they continue to run a budget deficit of over 20%. The whole of Saudi is house of cards with a Tasmanian devil loose in the room.
We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
Unlike say British Leyland's cars (who in God's name came up with that name .... the kiss of death from the outset), Betamax was by universal acclaim the superior product at the time.
There is a nice little irony there.
The common name for a video tape/recorder in the Philippines is "Betamax", this is because when it lost the format war with VHS, large numbers of Betamax recorders were dumped in the Philippines market. Lots of poor citizens were very pleased to pay an extremely low price, substantially less than the cost of a VHS in the west, for a superior project!
She shoots from the hip. No identikit SPAD following the party line!
Phillips and Kinnock, who can both take strips out of the Tories as well as far lefties in their own party, are regarded as ignoramuses on PB comments They should take it as a compliment. The only Labour politicians PB comments likes are retired, are harmless, are centre-right transigents in the Kendall-Field mould, or are dead.
Dr. Foxinsox, so she's a moron without a script. Maybe I'll warm to her if she stops finding the idea of discussing the high rate of male suicide laughable, or if she stops comparing a night out in Birmingham to the sexual molestations of New Year's Eve in Cologne.
Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?
That's always been the hallmark of Labour in opposition - petty and arrogant in equal measure. With luck Mr Javid will have the strength to face down the protectionist Left and the Brexiteers with their plans to return us to the era of Sunny Jim and state intervention.
I do not see why it has to be all or nothing. A one off tariff against steel dumping by the Chinese would hardly have marked a return to full time state intervention and protectionism. Free trade should also be fair trade. The ability occasionally to act in the interests of the UK is no bad thing.
Tariffs are not in the interest of the UK!!!!
They are in the interests of the people involved in the industry, workers and investors. and agents the interests of everybody who buys goods made of steal, which is just about everybody.
Overall the low prise of steel is in the economic interest of the people of the UK, but it is a case of 'what is seen and what is unseen' the loss of jobs to 25,000 ish people, is a big loss to a relatively small number of people, the benefit from cheaper products as a small benefit to the 63,000,000 people living in the UK. overall it is a gain, it just may not look like that at the moment.
Free trade is 'free' free of interventions to help one group or another, and therefor fair. you can not clamed to be advocating for fair trade, while also in the next sentence saying you want to 'occasionally' act in somebodies interests
I like everybody on hear feel sympathy for the people affected, but the way to help, the best way in the long run is to get rid of as many of the rules, regulations, mandates, protections, tariffs, taxis, inspections, and other distractions, imposed by governments at all levels, so that new jobs will quickly emerge, to take advantage of new oppeartunatyes. After all if it was not for the regulations forcing up the price of energy, this point may not have come so soon!
Dr. Foxinsox, so she's a moron without a script. Maybe I'll warm to her if she stops finding the idea of discussing the high rate of male suicide laughable, or if she stops comparing a night out in Birmingham to the sexual molestations of New Year's Eve in Cologne.
Dr. Foxinsox, so she's a moron without a script. Maybe I'll warm to her if she stops finding the idea of discussing the high rate of male suicide laughable, or if she stops comparing a night out in Birmingham to the sexual molestations of New Year's Eve in Cologne.
Comments
They should get at least a couple of AMs though. I would actually guess at this make up of the assembly:
Labour 26/7
Conservatives 13/4
PC 12/13
LD 3/4
UKIP 2/3
With the likeliest outcome:
Labour 27
Con 13
PC 13
LD 4
UKIP 3
But this could be quite a volatile election at the lower end. The key problem is that Labour are not likely to dip far. I would love to see them reduced to 20 seats and kicked into opposition but it ain't gonna happen.
I don't know why this is but my guess would be that in the decades since conventions actually picked the candidates, the party machines in the states have become much less powerful and as the event became a coronation and a jamboree, delegates were happy to go along for the ride, candidates were happy to let their control slip apart from on the first ballot (and it's only been the first ballot that's counted for many a year), and much more attention was paid to the primaries.
I've not seen much reporting on the opinion of the delegates who have been selected (not least because I think quite a lot haven't? - there are state conventions and all sorts to go through in many cases), but a lot will depend on how the mainstream can fight back against the Trumpets and Cruzers in getting their preferred delegates to Cleveland.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/politics/how-votes-for-trump-could-become-delegates-for-someone-else.html
Conversely, as an employer, I look for that sort of thinking ability, and a degree is evidence towards it - neither necessary nor sufficient, but a useful indicator.
If you want to count Kasich still in, you need to possibly count Rubio still in the race !
If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.
By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.
Naturally I hope and expect, Labour to retain its significant majority in the Assembly, but I anticipate a couple of losses. Llanelli is almost certain to go back to Plaid. From now on I will keep a ear to the ground and if any interesting tit bit (betting wise) comes up I will post it here.
1. He's effectively withdrawn whereas Kasich hasn't. 'Suspending' a campaign might not technically mean withdrawing but it's as good as.
2. More importantly, he has a whole load of negatives without the redeeming positives. Why dump Cruz for a Cruz-light, for example?
Even if Kasich arrives in Cleveland with fewer votes than Rubio, Rubio wouldn't be a credible candidate having publicly admitted that he couldn't win. By contrast, by staying in the fight as the sole candidate of the Republican mainstream, Kasich could.
Having said all that, the likeliest result by some way is still a Trump nomination.
I've now eaten a few babies and shot a few foreigners. Anything more I have to do?
So come round 2 everything is nothing, nothing is forbidden.
Their ideology is against state intervention, we will see if this stands up against reality.
The EU and the USA protected their car industry in 2008.
A previous Conservative government picked a winner with Rolls Royce in 72.
They might have to make choices that go against their theory from their adolescence, that you can not buck the market, well you can if the market is rigged.
I say this as someone who loves learning for its own sake and has more degrees than I know what to do with, some of which have been greatly professionally beneficial to me (and presumably, if my skills are considered useful, to the wider economy/society) and others were just for fun. But I do wonder whether the ones I did for my own amusement should have attracted as much government financial support as they did at the time.
I recall Missouri 08 as the state that blotted my PB copybook. I called it Toss Up/Obama and he lost the state by fewer than 4.000 votes in 3 million !! .... Bloody voters.
EDIT: this Guardian article was fairly even-handed, if I remember correctly
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/16/lehman-brothers-financial-collapse
"Leaving the EU would provide the UK with the freedom to negotiate its own free trade deals; crucial when the EU has effectively become an uncompetitive trading bloc."
http://leave.eu/en/the-facts/on-global-trade
This whole page is about free trade. Where does protectionism for home-grown steel feature?
I am feeling the siren call of returning to the market!
The biggest problem is resources, there are plenty of people who would make excellent candidates, including on this board, but the time, expense and personal commitment are prohibitive.
My morning thread for tomorrow was going to be about backing Wales voting to Leave the EU at 2/1 for the elegant reasons you've alluded to here.
The most recent Wales specific EU referendum poll had Wales voting to leave 45% to 37% (though I would stress a poll showing Wales voting to leave the EU is a rare exception, and not the norm.)
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ld4xrymvff/ITVWales_Feb16_VI_and_EU_w.pdf
Not sure what to do about it, except as an employer avoid making a degree mandatory - nice to have as evidence of a good mind, but not essential.
Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.
I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6999182.stm
Its like a paralel universe reading your posts sometimes, as if you've just landed here from Mars
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/dc-madam-gag-order-added-to-scotus-docket-657276483519
So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it.
The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-28/dc-madams-attorney-says-call-log-bombshell-could-upend-presidential-race
Guardian reader accuses Jeremy Corbyn of wearing sexist trousers https://t.co/X4NRHJnlzR https://t.co/awzj1oDYGd
I think qualifying's at 4pm. Got a bet in mind, just waiting for the markets.
Hillary
Sanders
Cruz
Trump
Kasich
Which of them could be on the list ?
A lifetime's ban will surely follow.
Steel is a different product but has a number of niche markets in which the Brits can and do excel.
Burnley score ... over the line ... not given !!
OGH pulling his hair out ....
Best not to mention football for a few days
The comparison with the banks is false, this is a localised issue not a national one. I'd have let the banks fail too, it would be a shock to the system we all need.
A lesbian sex scandal would top everything so far.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3519536/Saudi-Arabia-planning-end-oil-age-creating-2-TRILLION-investment-fund-big-buy-Google-Apple-Microsoft.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline
Betting PostF1: have backed someone for pole in my pre-qualifying piece for Bahrain:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/bahrain-pre-qualifying.html
I particularly liked her remark (on life experience of coccooned politicians) that by the age of 25 her womb had done more work than the entire Tory cabinet. Cruel and untrue perhaps, but genuinely funny.
2. Your point about politicians is well made, I heard young Kinnock on the radio yesterday. If his name wasn't Kinnock he'd be stacking shelves somewhere. Shelf stacking is an essential part of the economy, he's a vacuous oaf.
The common name for a video tape/recorder in the Philippines is "Betamax", this is because when it lost the format war with VHS, large numbers of Betamax recorders were dumped in the Philippines market. Lots of poor citizens were very pleased to pay an extremely low price, substantially less than the cost of a VHS in the west, for a superior project!
They should take it as a compliment. The only Labour politicians PB comments likes are retired, are harmless, are centre-right transigents in the Kendall-Field mould, or are dead.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520029/Grandfather-spent-years-hoarding-hundreds-vintage-Rawlplugs-sells-lot-company-s-boss-1-500.html
They are in the interests of the people involved in the industry, workers and investors. and agents the interests of everybody who buys goods made of steal, which is just about everybody.
Overall the low prise of steel is in the economic interest of the people of the UK, but it is a case of 'what is seen and what is unseen' the loss of jobs to 25,000 ish people, is a big loss to a relatively small number of people, the benefit from cheaper products as a small benefit to the 63,000,000 people living in the UK. overall it is a gain, it just may not look like that at the moment.
Free trade is 'free' free of interventions to help one group or another, and therefor fair. you can not clamed to be advocating for fair trade, while also in the next sentence saying you want to 'occasionally' act in somebodies interests
I like everybody on hear feel sympathy for the people affected, but the way to help, the best way in the long run is to get rid of as many of the rules, regulations, mandates, protections, tariffs, taxis, inspections, and other distractions, imposed by governments at all levels, so that new jobs will quickly emerge, to take advantage of new oppeartunatyes. After all if it was not for the regulations forcing up the price of energy, this point may not have come so soon!
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8151468
I don't particularly agree with her politics, but she has star quality for the media.
Subjected instead to a severe reprimand and a 6 week suspension, i.e. until Burnley have safely negotiated their way back to the Promised Land.