That works the other way too. Who is the stop-Boris/stop-Osborne candidate? May is one option but she too is Remain and more vocally so than Hammond. If there is a leadership change this year, there won't be many unifying figures on offer but Hammond is one of them. I'm not saying he'd win but I think his chances are rather better than the odds suggest.
May won't be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party", plus she has the liberal sensibilities of Attila the Hun. Her handling of immigration, both in term of illegal migrants, and the shameful treatment way the earnings thresholds for legal migrants, and especially family visa, are breaking up families is a disgrace. She sees the solution to all security issues as more reductions in civil liberties and increases in spying and police powers. After a ten year hiatus in my party membership I would rejoin just to vote AGAINST Mrs May.
I thought the Tories had a rule you had to be a paid up member for a year or something in order to vote, or did I imagine that?
That works the other way too. Who is the stop-Boris/stop-Osborne candidate? May is one option but she too is Remain and more vocally so than Hammond. If there is a leadership change this year, there won't be many unifying figures on offer but Hammond is one of them. I'm not saying he'd win but I think his chances are rather better than the odds suggest.
May won't be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party", plus she has the liberal sensibilities of Attila the Hun. Her handling of immigration, both in term of illegal migrants, and the shameful treatment way the earnings thresholds for legal migrants, and especially family visa, are breaking up families is a disgrace. She sees the solution to all security issues as more reductions in civil liberties and increases in spying and police powers. After a ten year hiatus in my party membership I would rejoin just to vote AGAINST Mrs May.
I thought the Tories had a rule you had to be a paid up member for a year or something in order to vote, or did I imagine that?
Plenty of time then, this is going to rumble on for ages
That works the other way too. Who is the stop-Boris/stop-Osborne candidate? May is one option but she too is Remain and more vocally so than Hammond. If there is a leadership change this year, there won't be many unifying figures on offer but Hammond is one of them. I'm not saying he'd win but I think his chances are rather better than the odds suggest.
May won't be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party", plus she has the liberal sensibilities of Attila the Hun. Her handling of immigration, both in term of illegal migrants, and the shameful treatment way the earnings thresholds for legal migrants, and especially family visa, are breaking up families is a disgrace. She sees the solution to all security issues as more reductions in civil liberties and increases in spying and police powers. After a ten year hiatus in my party membership I would rejoin just to vote AGAINST Mrs May.
I thought the Tories had a rule you had to be a paid up member for a year or something in order to vote, or did I imagine that?
Three months. If Indigo wants a vote, he should join in the next month, I'd suggest. The parliamentary rounds would probably be underway in exactly three months' time from today, were Cameron to resign following EURef.
The way in which MEPs are remunerated is one small example of how, rather than being pure, the EU is often, in the exact sense, corrupting — that is, it makes otherwise good people behave in bad ways...
What is true of the MEPs is equally true of the many giant corporations, mega-charities, think-tanks, professional associations and lobbyists who make a living out of the Brussels system. These groups are, as you might expect, the Praetorian Guard of the Remain campaign.
For their executives, staying in the EU is not about sovereignty or democracy; it’s about mortgages and school fees.
That works the other way too. Who is the stop-Boris/stop-Osborne candidate? May is one option but she too is Remain and more vocally so than Hammond. If there is a leadership change this year, there won't be many unifying figures on offer but Hammond is one of them. I'm not saying he'd win but I think his chances are rather better than the odds suggest.
May won't be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party", plus she has the liberal sensibilities of Attila the Hun. Her handling of immigration, both in term of illegal migrants, and the shameful treatment way the earnings thresholds for legal migrants, and especially family visa, are breaking up families is a disgrace. She sees the solution to all security issues as more reductions in civil liberties and increases in spying and police powers. After a ten year hiatus in my party membership I would rejoin just to vote AGAINST Mrs May.
I thought the Tories had a rule you had to be a paid up member for a year or something in order to vote, or did I imagine that?
Three months. If Indigo wants a vote, he should join in the next month, I'd suggest. The parliamentary rounds would probably be underway in exactly three months' time from today, were Cameron to resign following EURef.
Quite. The call for prison was the point the left jumped the shark. Before this they were making good dents in Cameron's luck even though little was new but now they are just utterly laughable. How do the left always get this so wrong when such an opportunity presents? An open goal for them and all they can do is race back to the bar and try to squeeze a rugby ball into a snooker table pocket.
Even the Saturday papers with two notable exceptions have given up the chase. Sunday's papers meh unless it's discovered that Cameron is the secret love child of the Dahli Lama after a paternity test or something?
The way in which MEPs are remunerated is one small example of how, rather than being pure, the EU is often, in the exact sense, corrupting — that is, it makes otherwise good people behave in bad ways...
What is true of the MEPs is equally true of the many giant corporations, mega-charities, think-tanks, professional associations and lobbyists who make a living out of the Brussels system. These groups are, as you might expect, the Praetorian Guard of the Remain campaign.
For their executives, staying in the EU is not about sovereignty or democracy; it’s about mortgages and school fees.
Yes, again the similarity with the medieval Catholic church - with its thousands of well-fed acolytes and hangers-on and its state-within-a-state existence - is there.
That works the other way too. Who is the stop-Boris/stop-Osborne candidate? May is one option but she too is Remain and more vocally so than Hammond. If there is a leadership change this year, there won't be many unifying figures on offer but Hammond is one of them. I'm not saying he'd win but I think his chances are rather better than the odds suggest.
May won't be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party", plus she has the liberal sensibilities of Attila the Hun. Her handling of immigration, both in term of illegal migrants, and the shameful treatment way the earnings thresholds for legal migrants, and especially family visa, are breaking up families is a disgrace. She sees the solution to all security issues as more reductions in civil liberties and increases in spying and police powers. After a ten year hiatus in my party membership I would rejoin just to vote AGAINST Mrs May.
I thought the Tories had a rule you had to be a paid up member for a year or something in order to vote, or did I imagine that?
Three months. If Indigo wants a vote, he should join in the next month, I'd suggest. The parliamentary rounds would probably be underway in exactly three months' time from today, were Cameron to resign following EURef.
That works the other way too. Who is the stop-Boris/stop-Osborne candidate? May is one option but she too is Remain and more vocally so than Hammond. If there is a leadership change this year, there won't be many unifying figures on offer but Hammond is one of them. I'm not saying he'd win but I think his chances are rather better than the odds suggest.
May won't be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party", plus she has the liberal sensibilities of Attila the Hun. Her handling of immigration, both in term of illegal migrants, and the shameful treatment way the earnings thresholds for legal migrants, and especially family visa, are breaking up families is a disgrace. She sees the solution to all security issues as more reductions in civil liberties and increases in spying and police powers. After a ten year hiatus in my party membership I would rejoin just to vote AGAINST Mrs May.
I thought the Tories had a rule you had to be a paid up member for a year or something in order to vote, or did I imagine that?
Three months. If Indigo wants a vote, he should join in the next month, I'd suggest. The parliamentary rounds would probably be underway in exactly three months' time from today, were Cameron to resign following EURef.
Tempted to join myself.
How much does a vote cost?
Membership is £25 a year, though higher amounts will be accepted! Votes cost you nothing.
That works the other way too. Who is the stop-Boris/stop-Osborne candidate? May is one option but she too is Remain and more vocally so than Hammond. If there is a leadership change this year, there won't be many unifying figures on offer but Hammond is one of them. I'm not saying he'd win but I think his chances are rather better than the odds suggest.
May won't be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party", plus she has the liberal sensibilities of Attila the Hun. Her handling of immigration, both in term of illegal migrants, and the shameful treatment way the earnings thresholds for legal migrants, and especially family visa, are breaking up families is a disgrace. She sees the solution to all security issues as more reductions in civil liberties and increases in spying and police powers. After a ten year hiatus in my party membership I would rejoin just to vote AGAINST Mrs May.
I thought the Tories had a rule you had to be a paid up member for a year or something in order to vote, or did I imagine that?
Three months. If Indigo wants a vote, he should join in the next month, I'd suggest. The parliamentary rounds would probably be underway in exactly three months' time from today, were Cameron to resign following EURef.
Tempted to join myself.
How much does a vote cost?
Depends: who are you planning on voting for?
It would be a difficult choice.
My book is most green on Hammond, Gove, Hunt and Paterson.
Though the Boy genius might be worth a vote for entertainment value, he does stage Lazarus like recoveries at times.
I cannot be the only one who thinks that it would be pretty hilarious if, assuming a Remain win, there's a lot of speculation about Cameron going sooner than anticipated, still a lot of hurt feeling, and it is trailed he'll be making an announcement about it at the next party conference...where he announces he's decided for the sake of the country he should run again in 2020 after all. That, unspoken, the battle with the Leavers and having to fight to keep his job at all got his back up and he decided to stay on out of spite.
That works the other way too. Who is the stop-Boris/stop-Osborne candidate? May is one option but she too is Remain and more vocally so than Hammond. If there is a leadership change this year, there won't be many unifying figures on offer but Hammond is one of them. I'm not saying he'd win but I think his chances are rather better than the odds suggest.
May won't be forgiven for coining the term "The Nasty Party", plus she has the liberal sensibilities of Attila the Hun. Her handling of immigration, both in term of illegal migrants, and the shameful treatment way the earnings thresholds for legal migrants, and especially family visa, are breaking up families is a disgrace. She sees the solution to all security issues as more reductions in civil liberties and increases in spying and police powers. After a ten year hiatus in my party membership I would rejoin just to vote AGAINST Mrs May.
I thought the Tories had a rule you had to be a paid up member for a year or something in order to vote, or did I imagine that?
Three months. If Indigo wants a vote, he should join in the next month, I'd suggest. The parliamentary rounds would probably be underway in exactly three months' time from today, were Cameron to resign following EURef.
Tempted to join myself.
How much does a vote cost?
Depends: who are you planning on voting for?
It would be a difficult choice.
My book is most green on Hammond, Gove, Hunt and Paterson.
Though the Boy genius might be worth a vote for entertainment value, he does stage Lazarus like recoveries at times.
That, unspoken, the battle with the Leavers and having to fight to keep his job at all got his back up and he decided to stay on out of spite.
He better hope for a big majority if he does that, because there will be enough pissed of MPs that would figure that two could play the spite game. There might be rather less europhile friends next parliament after constituency associations that were lied to by candidates over their euroscepticism get their revenge.. we are looking at you Alan Mak.
That, unspoken, the battle with the Leavers and having to fight to keep his job at all got his back up and he decided to stay on out of spite.
He better hope for a big majority if he does that, because there will be enough pissed of MPs that would figure that two could play the spite game. There might be rather less europhile friends next parliament after constituency associations that were lied to by candidates over their euroscepticism get their revenge.. we are looking at you Alan Mak.
My feeling is even if he were tempted to try it, particularly if Osborne has no chance of succeeding him, he would in any case need to win really big in the Referendum in order to have any chance, as plenty of Leavers would as you say play the spite game right back, and the disappointed leadership contenders might not all take the news well.
It won't happen, but it would be funny. As it is, I'm sticking to a prediction he's gone no later than 2017 - assuming a Remain win, and this summer if a Leave win.
He's turned out to be something of a show pony, hasn't he?
He appears to take the view that the British should place solving everyone elses problems above solving their own problems... not sure I can see that being a success on the doorsteps. Mind you a certain sort of Conservative seems to agree with him, which is why we spend several billion pounds a year on our foreign aid budget while 40,000 British pensioners die of hyperthermia.
Philip Hammond is a possibility, as Foreign Secretary, of course he is. But I rather think that time and may have rather passed him by. Also .... does he want it enough (as John Major clearly did), there's no suggestion that he does. That said, with three of the favourites all being virtually unelectable in my view, i.e. Boris, Osborne and Mrs. May, this does rather make the other possible contenders look like good value in the betting markets. For me the stand-out best buy is Michael Gove available from Bet365 and others at a stonking 8/1. DYOR.
Quite. The call for prison was the point the left jumped the shark. Before this they were making good dents in Cameron's luck even though little was new but now they are just utterly laughable. How do the left always get this so wrong when such an opportunity presents? An open goal for them and all they can do is race back to the bar and try to squeeze a rugby ball into a snooker table pocket.
Even the Saturday papers with two notable exceptions have given up the chase. Sunday's papers meh unless it's discovered that Cameron is the secret love child of the Dahli Lama after a paternity test or something?
People expect the Tories to be stuffing their pockets with cash as they stab their grannies, nothing unusual about it.
He's turned out to be something of a show pony, hasn't he?
He appears to take the view that the British should place solving everyone elses problems above solving their own problems... not sure I can see that being a success on the doorsteps.
I think we have expended quite enough blood and treasure over the last century 'saving Europe from itself'.
Nor do I even accept the notion that the same is necessary now or any time soon. I find the EU thoroughly unpleasant but it is what our neighbouring countries want - or at least something very like it. Any of them can choose to leave at any time. They are all grown ups now.
Philip Hammond is a possibility, as Foreign Secretary, of course he is. But I rather think that time and may have rather passed him by. Also .... does he want it enough (as John Major clearly did), there's no suggestion that he does. That said, with three of the favourites all being virtually unelectable in my view, i.e. Boris, Osborne and Mrs. May, this does rather make the other possible contenders look like good value in the betting markets. For me the stand-out best buy is Michael Gove available from Bet365 and others at a stonking 8/1. DYOR.
Gove really shouldn't be a candidate. He is way too marmite. But the skill with which he has made the Leave case without falling out with any of the remainers is unique.
@racingkate: The Last Samurai the pick. Outside fancies for Trio D'Alene, Just A Par. #grandnational #aintree
@clarebalding: My Grand National short list: Many Clouds, Holywell, Shutthefrontdoor, Saint Are. Long shot for a place: Katenko. 5.15pm on @Channel4Racing
Philip Hammond is a possibility, as Foreign Secretary, of course he is. But I rather think that time and may have rather passed him by. Also .... does he want it enough (as John Major clearly did), there's no suggestion that he does. That said, with three of the favourites all being virtually unelectable in my view, i.e. Boris, Osborne and Mrs. May, this does rather make the other possible contenders look like good value in the betting markets. For me the stand-out best buy is Michael Gove available from Bet365 and others at a stonking 8/1. DYOR.
I agree that Gove is very good value and could easily end up on the ballot as a stop-Boris Brexit candidate. Problem is that he's so unpopular with the public, which would give his opponent in the run-off a very good chance. If Boris and Osborne both miss out - as is eminently possible, the trick is identifying the vehicle through which the parliamentary party will use to achieve that end.
There's been a lot of new endorsements of Trump overnight on Tweeter. Looks like Trump is making a move to shed the last two weeks, and springing back into positive action.
@ScottyNational: Grand National:Disappointment for Indy supporters as a jump is nicknamed 'Referendum Result' & their horse just won't be able to get over it
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby had until now believed his father to be Gavin Welby, a whisky salesman and son of a Jewish immigrant, who was married briefly to his mother, Jane.
But the Telegraph pieced together evidence that suggested Archbishop Welby’s father was actually the late Sir Anthony Montague Browne, who served Churchill in Downing Street and during his retirement.
After this newspaper discussed its research with the Archbishop, he decided to take a DNA test to settle the matter. His mouth swabs were compared with hair samples from Sir Anthony and showed a 99.9779 per cent probability that they were father and son.
The URL amounts to click-bait, given where it cuts off. But why this story? Are Telegraph reporters conducting genetic tests on random clergymen and stumbled across the Archbishop?
The Daily Telegraph is now just a Daily Wail with big pages.
On illegitimacy, what's the ruling if, say, you were conceived when your parents were married, but they had divorced before your birth? Or divorced, and later had a liaison which conceived you?
Come to that, I don't actually know a lot of the rules on this issue - I assume it's based off when you are born, not conceived, hence quickfire weddings - and I seem to recall the Church in ancient ages past getting a lot of nobles annoyed by declaring certain levels of distant cousinship marriages and the births thereof as illegitimate.
Given that the archbishop has no reason to be upset, so he says, I therefore appreciate this story making a break from the rather less fun stories otherwise out there.
A child is legitimate if the parents were married at the time of conception or at any time thereafter, including after the birth of the child. This has changed a little over the years. Originally the parents had to be married at the time of conception or the time of birth, so children conceived before divorce but born afterwards were legitimate. From 1926 an illegitimate child became legitimate if the parents married after the birth provided neither of them had been married to someone else at the time of birth - being married to someone else at the time of conception did not make the child illegitimate. From 1959 an illegitimate child became legitimate if the parents married after the birth even if one of them had been married to someone else at the time of birth. The 1959 Act also extended legitimacy to those children whose parents believed they were married even though the marriage was in fact void.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
Let me explain.
Saving and borrowing are different sides of the same coin. When you borrow, you consume today, in return for work tomorrow. When you save, you work today in return for consumption tomorrow.
Any borrower needs someone on the other side: someone who is willing to defer consumption. And every saver needs a borrower: someone who wishes to consume today.
When we talk about debt forgiveness, we are talking about - one way or another - taking somebody's savings and getting rid of them. Of course, there are times when debt burdens (i.e. the amount of future work pledged) become too great, and then adjustments need to be made.
But the point that Yanis consistently seems to misunderstand is that he thinks that debt forgiveness is somehow "free". It's not. It comes at the expense of someone's savings.
In the case of the Eurozone crisis (and to a lesser extent the subprime mortgage crisis in the US), responsibility for the repayment of debt (i.e. the entity responsible for handing over of future work) moved from the borrower to the government (or set of governments through the IMF and the ECB). The future work is still delivered to the saver, but it is done so through the tax bills of the general population.
Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
the Bruce in fine form. http://capx.co/its-time-for-cameron-to-lead-or-leave/ "Andrew Feldman, the Party Chairman, is an excellent fellow, a good administrator and a first-rate fund-raiser. When it comes to politics, he neither knows nor cares. There are arguments for reforming the way in which the Tories organise themselves at local level. So why not have a debate, lead the party’s volunteers along gently and make them feel that the proposed changes are in everyone’s interests? Instead, quarter-baked and vaguely threatening suggestions found their way to the press, a few weeks before a referendum in which the voluntary party’s efforts will be crucial. "
Other examples are Skills Minister Matthew Hancock and Energy Secretary Amber Rudd, whose absurd scaremongering about how people’s energy bills would rise if we leave the EU were ripped to shreds by the BBC’s Justin Webb on the Today programme recently. The truth is that such people are being overpromoted simply to bolster Osborne’s support base."
More Bruce. http://capx.co/its-time-for-cameron-to-lead-or-leave/ "Most governments boast and try to take credit when they do not deserve It. This one is not only the exception. It is the opposite." "Craig Oliver, is a largely unknown figure with a lot to be unknown about. "
the Bruce in fine form. http://capx.co/its-time-for-cameron-to-lead-or-leave/ "Andrew Feldman, the Party Chairman, is an excellent fellow, a good administrator and a first-rate fund-raiser. When it comes to politics, he neither knows nor cares. There are arguments for reforming the way in which the Tories organise themselves at local level. So why not have a debate, lead the party’s volunteers along gently and make them feel that the proposed changes are in everyone’s interests? Instead, quarter-baked and vaguely threatening suggestions found their way to the press, a few weeks before a referendum in which the voluntary party’s efforts will be crucial. "
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby had until now believed his father to be Gavin Welby, a whisky salesman and son of a Jewish immigrant, who was married briefly to his mother, Jane.
But the Telegraph pieced together evidence that suggested Archbishop Welby’s father was actually the late Sir Anthony Montague Browne, who served Churchill in Downing Street and during his retirement.
After this newspaper discussed its research with the Archbishop, he decided to take a DNA test to settle the matter. His mouth swabs were compared with hair samples from Sir Anthony and showed a 99.9779 per cent probability that they were father and son.
The URL amounts to click-bait, given where it cuts off. But why this story? Are Telegraph reporters conducting genetic tests on random clergymen and stumbled across the Archbishop?
It's more interesting than that. I heard this on the radio so might have misheard / misremembered, but Charles Moore was doing some research, presumably for a book. I don't know if it was into Welby or Browne, but apparently someone on Browne's side told him the rumour, which he then also heard from another source.
He discreetly went to Welby, who admitted that he had heard the rumours in the past and discounted them, as most of us would. Welby then decided it was best to discover the truth, and Moore agreed to help him.
All in all it's quite an interesting story, done well.
Off topic.Occasionally,all past performance and trends get thrown out of the window eg it pays to lay the fav at Cheltenham over the long-term but on one occasion they all won.Today's National could be it.Sometimes sheer class carries the day against all better judgement.Silviniaco Conti win bet at 16-1.
Other examples are Skills Minister Matthew Hancock and Energy Secretary Amber Rudd, whose absurd scaremongering about how people’s energy bills would rise if we leave the EU were ripped to shreds by the BBC’s Justin Webb on the Today programme recently. The truth is that such people are being overpromoted simply to bolster Osborne’s support base."
Morning all,
Certainly agree on Javid. Absolutely no idea why he is in the Cabinet, or why some think he will be good leader.
“It’s been pretty difficult. At times the usual channels that make government work, and the usual processes that you need to make things happen, have been breaking down,” one senior government source said. “The clearance process (the way government agrees policy) now seems to be done on the hoof by a few departments without collective agreement being properly sought beforehand.” Sources across Whitehall believe that the “grid” — the way Downing Street schedules and controls public activities — has all but broken down."
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby had until now believed his father to be Gavin Welby, a whisky salesman and son of a Jewish immigrant, who was married briefly to his mother, Jane.
But the Telegraph pieced together evidence that suggested Archbishop Welby’s father was actually the late Sir Anthony Montague Browne, who served Churchill in Downing Street and during his retirement.
After this newspaper discussed its research with the Archbishop, he decided to take a DNA test to settle the matter. His mouth swabs were compared with hair samples from Sir Anthony and showed a 99.9779 per cent probability that they were father and son.
The URL amounts to click-bait, given where it cuts off. But why this story? Are Telegraph reporters conducting genetic tests on random clergymen and stumbled across the Archbishop?
It's more interesting than that. I heard this on the radio so might have misheard / misremembered, but Charles Moore was doing some research, presumably for a book. I don't know if it was into Welby or Browne, but apparently someone on Browne's side told him the rumour, which he then also heard from another source.
He discreetly went to Welby, who admitted that he had heard the rumours in the past and discounted them, as most of us would. Welby then decided it was best to discover the truth, and Moore agreed to help him.
All in all it's quite an interesting story, done well.
Number of candidates by party in May's local elections ( ignores 50 by elections in councils without regular elections ) and without Wolverhampton which has this years wooden spoon for being the only council not to have published the SOPN for its elections . Lab 2,609 Con 2593 LDem 1751 Green 1488 UKIP 1380 TUSC 302 Others 496
for the Met districts 903 seats plus 20 to come from Wolverhampton we have Lab 903 Con 791 Green 638 LDem 563 UKIP 530 TUSC 166 Others 204 Last year the Met figures were 839 seats and candidates Lab 839 Con 781 UKIP 684 Green 675 LDem 517 TUSC 230 Others 201
Other examples are Skills Minister Matthew Hancock and Energy Secretary Amber Rudd, whose absurd scaremongering about how people’s energy bills would rise if we leave the EU were ripped to shreds by the BBC’s Justin Webb on the Today programme recently. The truth is that such people are being overpromoted simply to bolster Osborne’s support base."
Morning all,
Certainly agree on Javid. Absolutely no idea why he is in the Cabinet, or why some think he will be good leader.
Javid neither used the resources of BIS to plan for the shocks in the steel industry or shut most of BIS down as govt industrial planning was pointless. He fell between both stools.
the Bruce in fine form. http://capx.co/its-time-for-cameron-to-lead-or-leave/ "Andrew Feldman, the Party Chairman, is an excellent fellow, a good administrator and a first-rate fund-raiser. When it comes to politics, he neither knows nor cares. There are arguments for reforming the way in which the Tories organise themselves at local level. So why not have a debate, lead the party’s volunteers along gently and make them feel that the proposed changes are in everyone’s interests? Instead, quarter-baked and vaguely threatening suggestions found their way to the press, a few weeks before a referendum in which the voluntary party’s efforts will be crucial. "
The shock is that Bruce has been a very big supporter of Cameron. When friends start saying this publicly the end is nigh.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby had until now believed his father to be Gavin Welby, a whisky salesman and son of a Jewish immigrant, who was married briefly to his mother, Jane.
But the Telegraph pieced together evidence that suggested Archbishop Welby’s father was actually the late Sir Anthony Montague Browne, who served Churchill in Downing Street and during his retirement.
After this newspaper discussed its research with the Archbishop, he decided to take a DNA test to settle the matter. His mouth swabs were compared with hair samples from Sir Anthony and showed a 99.9779 per cent probability that they were father and son.
The URL amounts to click-bait, given where it cuts off. But why this story? Are Telegraph reporters conducting genetic tests on random clergymen and stumbled across the Archbishop?
It's more interesting than that. I heard this on the radio so might have misheard / misremembered, but Charles Moore was doing some research, presumably for a book. I don't know if it was into Welby or Browne, but apparently someone on Browne's side told him the rumour, which he then also heard from another source.
He discreetly went to Welby, who admitted that he had heard the rumours in the past and discounted them, as most of us would. Welby then decided it was best to discover the truth, and Moore agreed to help him.
All in all it's quite an interesting story, done well.
I think!
Indeed, though more so for Welby himself. I wonder if he ever met his real father?
As an aside, Steve Jobs met his real father without realising it: his biological father worked in a restaurant he used to eat at. They never 'officially' met.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
My personal view - and it's one I've articulated on here before - is that both us and the EU would benefit from our exit.
I am, I admit, slightly unusual about Leave-ers in that I wish the EU well. For the Eurozone to survive, it needs to have Euro-bonds (as in bonds guaranteed severally and jointly by the entire bloc), it needs to have mechanisms for ensuring that risk sharing is agreed, and it needs to have democratic oversight of all this. All these things will happen easier if we are not in the EU.
We are, basically, a poor fit in every way except geography for the EU. Our history and culture is different. Our politics are different. Our legal system(s) is different.
We will never be happy members of the EU.
It is better for us and for them that we simply go our separate ways, and that we wish them well with their project.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby had until now believed his father to be Gavin Welby, a whisky salesman and son of a Jewish immigrant, who was married briefly to his mother, Jane.
But the Telegraph pieced together evidence that suggested Archbishop Welby’s father was actually the late Sir Anthony Montague Browne, who served Churchill in Downing Street and during his retirement.
After this newspaper discussed its research with the Archbishop, he decided to take a DNA test to settle the matter. His mouth swabs were compared with hair samples from Sir Anthony and showed a 99.9779 per cent probability that they were father and son.
The URL amounts to click-bait, given where it cuts off. But why this story? Are Telegraph reporters conducting genetic tests on random clergymen and stumbled across the Archbishop?
It's more interesting than that. I heard this on the radio so might have misheard / misremembered, but Charles Moore was doing some research, presumably for a book. I don't know if it was into Welby or Browne, but apparently someone on Browne's side told him the rumour, which he then also heard from another source.
He discreetly went to Welby, who admitted that he had heard the rumours in the past and discounted them, as most of us would. Welby then decided it was best to discover the truth, and Moore agreed to help him.
All in all it's quite an interesting story, done well.
I think!
Moore said he heard it from a neighbour and then later met the widow of Browne who added some information.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
The best deterrent against war in Europe is that the demographics are awful. Countries need a surfeit of young men if they wish to wage war. With TFRs around 1.4, continental Europe lacks sufficient numbers of the young and the brave and the stupid.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
Sort of on topic, if the precedent is set that party leaders have to publish tax returns, what difference will that make to the Tory choice?
It's another step down the road of getting anodyne, boring career politicians with no back story (because they are personally deeply uninteresting). Think of Miliband without the charisma.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby had until now believed his father to be Gavin Welby, a whisky salesman and son of a Jewish immigrant, who was married briefly to his mother, Jane.
But the Telegraph pieced together evidence that suggested Archbishop Welby’s father was actually the late Sir Anthony Montague Browne, who served Churchill in Downing Street and during his retirement.
After this newspaper discussed its research with the Archbishop, he decided to take a DNA test to settle the matter. His mouth swabs were compared with hair samples from Sir Anthony and showed a 99.9779 per cent probability that they were father and son.
The URL amounts to click-bait, given where it cuts off. But why this story? Are Telegraph reporters conducting genetic tests on random clergymen and stumbled across the Archbishop?
It's more interesting than that. I heard this on the radio so might have misheard / misremembered, but Charles Moore was doing some research, presumably for a book. I don't know if it was into Welby or Browne, but apparently someone on Browne's side told him the rumour, which he then also heard from another source.
He discreetly went to Welby, who admitted that he had heard the rumours in the past and discounted them, as most of us would. Welby then decided it was best to discover the truth, and Moore agreed to help him.
All in all it's quite an interesting story, done well.
I think!
Moore said he heard it from a neighbour and then later met the widow of Browne who added some information.
the Bruce in fine form. http://capx.co/its-time-for-cameron-to-lead-or-leave/ "Andrew Feldman, the Party Chairman, is an excellent fellow, a good administrator and a first-rate fund-raiser. When it comes to politics, he neither knows nor cares. There are arguments for reforming the way in which the Tories organise themselves at local level. So why not have a debate, lead the party’s volunteers along gently and make them feel that the proposed changes are in everyone’s interests? Instead, quarter-baked and vaguely threatening suggestions found their way to the press, a few weeks before a referendum in which the voluntary party’s efforts will be crucial. "
The shock is that Bruce has been a very big supporter of Cameron. When friends start saying this publicly the end is nigh.
Here's an interesting chart of how much one has to earn - I presume hourly - to rent a one bedroom flat in a London postcode, thats affordable to the rentee.
Mr. Jessop, there were rumours that Commodus was actually the son of a gladiator with whom his mother (whose bed was rarely slept in alone) had had a dalliance.
If true, and if Marcus Aurelius had been less rubbish, the Golden Age of Imperial Rome might have continued. No Crisis of the Third Century. That's a fascinating, albeit immensely complicated, alternative history to consider.
It is better for us and for them that we simply go our separate ways, and that we wish them well with their project.
I dont think you are unique in that, I would agree with almost all of that, but the extent to which there is a perception that the EU is actively conspiring to stop that happen, it gets people's backs up and makes them feel that the EU is sufficiently self-obsessed that it is not acting in its own best interests or that of our country, the former is their business, the later can be taken personally by a lot of people.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
I don't know who invented the notion that democracies don't go to war with each other. It has not been tested outside the realms of the American security alliances, and there was a war between democracies in 1995:
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
It is better for us and for them that we simply go our separate ways, and that we wish them well with their project.
I dont think you are unique in that, I would agree with almost all of that, but the extent to which there is a perception that the EU is actively conspiring to stop that happen, it gets people's backs up and makes them feel that the EU is sufficiently self-obsessed that it is not acting in its own best interests or that of our country, the former is their business, the later can be taken personally by a lot of people.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
Yes, I agree that a war would only break out if there was an authoritarian populist government.
I'm not an expert on Eastern Europe, but it appears superficially that the conditions that you suggest are potentially there in some countries - both governments with a doubtful commitment to democracy and the rule of law and large parts of the population willing to go along with that. The countries involved (Poland and Hungary) are finding the EU a significance nuisance in their plans, and the possibility of severely disruptive EU sanctions is not ruled out. That seems to me a useful constraint, and kicking over the edifice is from that viewpoint not a good idea.
And while Eastern Europe seems a long way away, I'm not sure we can permanently exclude Western European countries, including ourselves, from the possibility. Many countries have moments of insanity.
Comments
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/04/07/the-inside-story-of-why-corbyn-forgot-to-mention-ids-when-responding-to-that-cameron-statement/#more-20713
How much does a vote cost?
Even the Saturday papers with two notable exceptions have given up the chase. Sunday's papers meh unless it's discovered that Cameron is the secret love child of the Dahli Lama after a paternity test or something?
Yes, again the similarity with the medieval Catholic church - with its thousands of well-fed acolytes and hangers-on and its state-within-a-state existence - is there.
https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/718710264040923136
My book is most green on Hammond, Gove, Hunt and Paterson.
Though the Boy genius might be worth a vote for entertainment value, he does stage Lazarus like recoveries at times.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-save-the-eu?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Long+reads+base&utm_term=166185&subid=6274295&CMP=ema-1133
https://youtu.be/vcrO8SWZJFc
It won't happen, but it would be funny. As it is, I'm sticking to a prediction he's gone no later than 2017 - assuming a Remain win, and this summer if a Leave win.
A good day to all.
For me the stand-out best buy is Michael Gove available from Bet365 and others at a stonking 8/1.
DYOR.
Nor do I even accept the notion that the same is necessary now or any time soon. I find the EU thoroughly unpleasant but it is what our neighbouring countries want - or at least something very like it. Any of them can choose to leave at any time. They are all grown ups now.
@clarebalding: My Grand National short list: Many Clouds, Holywell, Shutthefrontdoor, Saint Are. Long shot for a place: Katenko. 5.15pm on @Channel4Racing
Both are Old Etonians, natch
Kirstie Alley endorses Trump...
(Well someone had to do it.)
Clinton 47 .. Trump 37
http://www.epicmra.com/press/Stwd_Survey_Mar2016_Media_Freq.pdf
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
When do they get £9 million to send a leaflet out to every home in the country ?
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=116762&area=uk
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
Let me explain.
Saving and borrowing are different sides of the same coin. When you borrow, you consume today, in return for work tomorrow. When you save, you work today in return for consumption tomorrow.
Any borrower needs someone on the other side: someone who is willing to defer consumption. And every saver needs a borrower: someone who wishes to consume today.
When we talk about debt forgiveness, we are talking about - one way or another - taking somebody's savings and getting rid of them. Of course, there are times when debt burdens (i.e. the amount of future work pledged) become too great, and then adjustments need to be made.
But the point that Yanis consistently seems to misunderstand is that he thinks that debt forgiveness is somehow "free". It's not. It comes at the expense of someone's savings.
In the case of the Eurozone crisis (and to a lesser extent the subprime mortgage crisis in the US), responsibility for the repayment of debt (i.e. the entity responsible for handing over of future work) moved from the borrower to the government (or set of governments through the IMF and the ECB). The future work is still delivered to the saver, but it is done so through the tax bills of the general population.
Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
http://capx.co/its-time-for-cameron-to-lead-or-leave/
"Andrew Feldman, the Party Chairman, is an excellent fellow, a good administrator and a first-rate fund-raiser. When it comes to politics, he neither knows nor cares. There are arguments for reforming the way in which the Tories organise themselves at local level. So why not have a debate, lead the party’s volunteers along gently and make them feel that the proposed changes are in everyone’s interests? Instead, quarter-baked and vaguely threatening suggestions found their way to the press, a few weeks before a referendum in which the voluntary party’s efforts will be crucial. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3531040/PETER-OBORNE-beginning-end-Cameron-era.html
"I believe that Javid is one of many ministers who have been promoted beyond their natural ability, thanks to the patronage of Chancellor George Osborne.
Other examples are Skills Minister Matthew Hancock and Energy Secretary Amber Rudd, whose absurd scaremongering about how people’s energy bills would rise if we leave the EU were ripped to shreds by the BBC’s Justin Webb on the Today programme recently. The truth is that such people are being overpromoted simply to bolster Osborne’s support base."
http://capx.co/its-time-for-cameron-to-lead-or-leave/
"Most governments boast and try to take credit when they do not deserve It. This one is not only the exception. It is the opposite."
"Craig Oliver, is a largely unknown figure with a lot to be unknown about. "
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
He discreetly went to Welby, who admitted that he had heard the rumours in the past and discounted them, as most of us would. Welby then decided it was best to discover the truth, and Moore agreed to help him.
All in all it's quite an interesting story, done well.
I think!
Certainly agree on Javid. Absolutely no idea why he is in the Cabinet, or why some think he will be good leader.
“The clearance process (the way government agrees policy) now seems to be done on the hoof by a few departments without collective agreement being properly sought beforehand.”
Sources across Whitehall believe that the “grid” — the way Downing Street schedules and controls public activities — has all but broken down."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e163a646-fdc5-11e5-9a6a-378375facfc1
I feel sorry for him and his mum.
Lab 2,609
Con 2593
LDem 1751
Green 1488
UKIP 1380
TUSC 302
Others 496
for the Met districts 903 seats plus 20 to come from Wolverhampton we have
Lab 903
Con 791
Green 638
LDem 563
UKIP 530
TUSC 166
Others 204
Last year the Met figures were 839 seats and candidates
Lab 839
Con 781
UKIP 684
Green 675
LDem 517
TUSC 230
Others 201
As an aside, Steve Jobs met his real father without realising it: his biological father worked in a restaurant he used to eat at. They never 'officially' met.
I am, I admit, slightly unusual about Leave-ers in that I wish the EU well. For the Eurozone to survive, it needs to have Euro-bonds (as in bonds guaranteed severally and jointly by the entire bloc), it needs to have mechanisms for ensuring that risk sharing is agreed, and it needs to have democratic oversight of all this. All these things will happen easier if we are not in the EU.
We are, basically, a poor fit in every way except geography for the EU. Our history and culture is different. Our politics are different. Our legal system(s) is different.
We will never be happy members of the EU.
It is better for us and for them that we simply go our separate ways, and that we wish them well with their project.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
I've backed EW and for a 1-6 place.
I used to largely ignore him and especially Bruce as pom poms, when it came to a balanced assessment.
These ones EW - hopefully under the radar
Boston Bob
Morning Assembly
Saint Are
Romford Pele
Health warning: I know NOTHING about horses. DYOR.
http://www.cityam.com/238342/map-how-much-you-need-to-earn-to-live-in-every-london-postcode?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Email&utm_campaign=160
If true, and if Marcus Aurelius had been less rubbish, the Golden Age of Imperial Rome might have continued. No Crisis of the Third Century. That's a fascinating, albeit immensely complicated, alternative history to consider.
It has not been tested outside the realms of the American security alliances, and there was a war between democracies in 1995:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenepa_War
In my opinion it's that Allies do not go to war with each other, the political system is irrelevant.
https://twitter.com/2tweetaboutit/status/718173395767136256
I'm not an expert on Eastern Europe, but it appears superficially that the conditions that you suggest are potentially there in some countries - both governments with a doubtful commitment to democracy and the rule of law and large parts of the population willing to go along with that. The countries involved (Poland and Hungary) are finding the EU a significance nuisance in their plans, and the possibility of severely disruptive EU sanctions is not ruled out. That seems to me a useful constraint, and kicking over the edifice is from that viewpoint not a good idea.
And while Eastern Europe seems a long way away, I'm not sure we can permanently exclude Western European countries, including ourselves, from the possibility. Many countries have moments of insanity.