Prediction is part of this website: trying to establish (the probability of) events in the future is a necessary part of deciding whether a bet is value or not.
Yes, but the corollary of that is that prediction in the real world is so bloody difficult it is almost not worth trying (where are all the punters' Gulfstreams?) So it is entirely legitimate to say, let's wait for data rather than forecasts.
True, but you scratch a sore point for me: PB is bloody awful at prediction, and it really shouldn't be. There are some standouts (RodCrosby springs to mind) but mostly it's people gobbing off on hobby horses (mixed metaphor!) in random directions. I think we can do something useful on terms of a simple binary prediction (will person X win election Y, yes or no?), and it worked for London Mayoral 2016, but I forgot to test that for UK EU 2016, dammit.
To be a bit more specific, our individual bias makes us a poor aggregate prediction tank in the medium-long term.
Short term, we're very good indeed (and much better than almost all talking heads on the telly). See last May election night thread to see how quickly it was realised that Tory Maj was pretty likely. Also the Ref night thread to see how quickly we all, I think without exception, called it for Leave soon after a few results came in....
Fair point, but that's still a forward indicator measured in hours: we predicted LEAVE at about midnight-1am and Betfair didn't cross over til about 2-3am, and closed around 4:30am?. SPIN was absolutely bloody useless, being suspended for many periods. For UK 2015, we spotted a Tory majority at about 2-3am, and it eventuated at about noon.
So I have mixed feeling about this: yes, we are good over short time periods, but can we make money out of this. I'll have to look more closely into a Betfair account.
This is a site with hundreds of contributors. Most contribute for the politics rather than the betting, and most political activists tend to predict what they want to happen, rather than what will happen.
What should have been plain to anyone in the run up to the Referendum, however, was the huge mismatch between the odds being offered on Leave, and the actual likelihood that Leave would win. The value was always with Leave at every stage.
"Corbyn tells The Guardian today that he will vote against it, adding: "I've been involved in peace transformation all of my life, and I think we've got an opportunity to show leadership in the world." Clive Lewis, shadow defence secretary, and Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary, described the vote as a "contemptible trick" and will abstain.
Dearie me.
Ha ha, a trick my arse. This vote has been postponed so many times, let's just bloody get on with building the new boats. Let's get some more things on the postponed list going too - yes, Heathrow, that means you!
There's a Times article today saying LHR decision could be weeks away. I remain sceptical.
Grr. Come on Theresa, just bloody announce it. Two new runways at LHR and one more at LGW please, preferably with a maglev or Hyperloop running between them
Are we trying to show the World we're open for business, or not?
Or Boris Island. Either would be fine.
I like the idea of a hyperloop between the two airports. (Quiet Mr Jessop)
Don't worry; I won't say a word. I'm too busy laughing at the idea.
Then again, Musk has an annoying habit of proving me wrong.
I really don't understand why Juppe is so popular, he makes Hillary Clinton look like a squeaky clean plucky outsider. I think on balance he is the most likely winner, but I've not heard anyone here speak fondly of him so not sure where juppemania comes from. People here (Paris not PB) don't seem to entertain the possibility of a Le Pen victory. The attitude reminds me of pre-Brexit thoughts on Leave winning. Marine Le Pen is charismatic and a better candidate for president personally than Trump is for example, but I think the lingering anti-semitism associations in her party will stop her this time. 2022 MLP nailed on if Juppe wins this time!
The anti-Semitic associations of NF will be a plus with native French folk. Most Jews in France are from North Africa or the Middle East, arrived after 1945 and are as loathed as the Muslims - more so, if one takes into account that the Muslims loathe them too.
This is a site with hundreds of contributors. Most contribute for the politics rather than the betting, and most political activists tend to predict what they want to happen, rather than what will happen.
What should have been plain to anyone in the run up to the Referendum, however, was the huge mismatch between the odds being offered on Leave, and the actual likelihood that Leave would win. The value was always with Leave at every stage.
I certaintly didn't believe Leave would win.
But I didn't embarrass myself with self delusion like Andrew Cooper either.
Dude, welcome back! We heard about your last-minute conversion to REMAIN (see posts passim ). How are you?
Prediction is part of this website: trying to establish (the probability of) events in the future is a necessary part of deciding whether a bet is value or not.
To be a bit more specific, our individual bias makes us a poor aggregate prediction tank in the medium-long term.
Short term, we're very good indeed (and much better than almost all talking heads on the telly). See last May election night thread to see how quickly it was realised that Tory Maj was pretty likely. Also the Ref night thread to see how quickly we all, I think without exception, called it for Leave soon after a few results came in....
Fair point, but that's still a forward indicator measured in hours: we predicted LEAVE at about midnight-1am and Betfair didn't cross over til about 2-3am, and closed around 4:30am?. SPIN was absolutely bloody useless, being suspended for many periods. For UK 2015, we spotted a Tory majority at about 2-3am, and it eventuated at about noon.
So I have mixed feeling about this: yes, we are good over short time periods, but can we make money out of this. I'll have to look more closely into a Betfair account.
This is a site with hundreds of contributors. Most contribute for the politics rather than the betting, and most political activists tend to predict what they want to happen, rather than what will happen.
What should have been plain to anyone in the run up to the Referendum, however, was the huge mismatch between the odds being offered on Leave, and the actual likelihood that Leave would win. The value was always with Leave at every stage.
I certaintly didn't believe Leave would win.
But I didn't embarrass myself with self delusion like Andrew Cooper either.
By polling day, I'd resigned myself to small win for Remain, but had bet the other way, given that by this stage, the odds were 6-1 against.
What we should have been looking at were the final polling numbers, compared to the immediately preceding set of numbers *on a like for like basis*.
Yougov, on that basis, gave 50/50, Ipsos Mori 49/51, ORB 49/51, Populus 48/52. Taking into the small leads from TNS and Opinium, it would have been clear that this was a coin-toss.
The problem was that several polling companies made further adjustments to their numbers on the assumption that there would be a late swing to Remain, rather than just presenting their figures.
[The PM's spokeswoman] also said that the list of cabinet appointments published last week was not a guide to seniority and that the proper cabinet seniority rankings would not become clear until the official government list is published, probably later this afternoon. She also refused to comment on speculation that this final list might include the appointment of a first secretary of state.
Prediction is part of this website: trying to establish (the probability of) events in the future is a necessary part of deciding whether a bet is value or not.
Yes, but the corollary of that is that prediction in the real world is so bloody difficult it is almost not worth trying (where are all the punters' Gulfstreams?) So it is entirely legitimate to say, let's wait for data rather than forecasts.
True, but you scratch a sore point for me: PB is bloody awful at prediction, and it really shouldn't be. There are some standouts (RodCrosby springs to mind) but mostly it's people gobbing off on hobby horses (mixed metaphor!) in random directions. I think we can do something useful on terms of a simple binary prediction (will person X win election Y, yes or no?), and it worked for London Mayoral 2016, but I forgot to test that for UK EU 2016, dammit.
To be a bit more specific, our individual bias makes us a poor aggregate prediction tank in the medium-long term.
Short term, we're very good indeed (and much better than almost all talking heads on the telly). See last May election night thread to see how quickly it was realised that Tory Maj was pretty likely. Also the Ref night thread to see how quickly we all, I think without exception, called it for Leave soon after a few results came in....
Fair point, but that's still a forward indicator measured in hours: we predicted LEAVE at about midnight-1am and Betfair didn't cross over til about 2-3am, and closed around 4:30am?. SPIN was absolutely bloody useless, being suspended for many periods. For UK 2015, we spotted a Tory majority at about 2-3am, and it eventuated at about noon.
So I have mixed feeling about this: yes, we are good over short time periods, but can we make money out of this. I'll have to look more closely into a Betfair account.
This is a site with Leave at every stage.
Especially, uh-hum, at 15-1 at 10pm as the vote closed.
I still can't believe I didn't wager more at that point....
Should have put more on at longer odds. The despair of every profitble gambler, everywhere
I was at the count by then, and unable to access betting sites most of the day - only got on at 6-1
Prediction is part of this website: trying to establish (the probability of) events in the future is a necessary part of deciding whether a bet is value or not.
Yes, but the corollary of that is that prediction in the real world is so bloody difficult it is almost not worth trying (where are all the punters' Gulfstreams?) So it is entirely legitimate to say, let's wait for data rather than forecasts.
True, but you scratch a sore point for me: PB is bloody awful at prediction, and it really shouldn't be. There are some standouts (RodCrosby springs to mind) but mostly it's people gobbing off on hobby horses (mixed metaphor!) in random directions. I think we can do something useful on terms of a simple binary prediction (will person X win election Y, yes or no?), and it worked for London Mayoral 2016, but I forgot to test that for UK EU 2016, dammit.
Prediction about almost anything is just inherently next to impossible, though. As a rule of thumb, anything the bookies will let you bet on is inherently unpredictable, or they couldn't afford to let you bet on it. How often is the Grand National won by the favourite, and how often does, let's say, the Racing Post predict the winner?
There is stacks of good evidence that fund managers who outperform their benchmarks do it by chance rather than skill. I would be interested to see a long-term analysis of IMF predictions versus actual outcomes.
On holiday at the moment, and watching UK TV streams rather than the usual syndicated coverage. All the ads for bookmakers on UK TV are really shocking, they're really pushing hard for mug punters, especially in football with dodgy priced accumulators and 'cash out' functionality to take two over-rounds. The cursory 'when the fun stops, stop' messages at the end of the ads almost seem sarcastic.
PB has done very well for most of us in the past few years, with sports bets as well as politics.
I'm not sure whether these firms have taken their modus operandi from politicians in elections/referendums or that politicians have mirrored the success of these organisations. Promise what you won't be delivering, play on people's inevitable greed and gullibility, rinse and repeat.
Is there some sort of leadership contest happening in the Labour Party today?
I think to describe it as such may be dignifying events with a solemnity they do not entirely deserve. But yes, there are PLP hustings today, and nominations open at 7pm. As does the buy a vote scheme.
Is there some sort of leadership contest happening in the Labour Party today?
Owen Smith launched his leadership challenge yesterday, Angela Eagle has already done so, but might stand down in favour of Smith, or not as the case may be. However, the leadership battle will not officially start until the NEC has rigged the rules in either’s favour and the officially winner will not be announced until sometime next year, possibly.
Building it across the North first, say from Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds>Newcastle would undoubtedly be a good move. My understanding of the thinking behind starting with the London>Birmingham stretch was that that section is needed urgently to address capacity issues on the WCML, and it's not possible to do both simultaneously because of skills, equipment and materials required. One of the many railway experts on here will no doubt be along shortly with a more comprehensive reply.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
"Corbyn tells The Guardian today that he will vote against it, adding: "I've been involved in peace transformation all of my life, and I think we've got an opportunity to show leadership in the world." Clive Lewis, shadow defence secretary, and Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary, described the vote as a "contemptible trick" and will abstain.
Dearie me.
Ha ha, a trick my arse. This vote has been postponed so many times, let's just bloody get on with building the new boats. Let's get some more things on the postponed list going too - yes, Heathrow, that means you!
There's a Times article today saying LHR decision could be weeks away. I remain sceptical.
Grr. Come on Theresa, just bloody announce it. Two new runways at LHR and one more at LGW please, preferably with a maglev or Hyperloop running between them
Are we trying to show the World we're open for business, or not?
Any chance she could stop throwing money down a hole, I mean HS2, as well?
HS2 still seems to be alive right now. How long for? I've no feeling for this at all.
Is there anybody willing to stand up and take Osborne's place as the champion of HS2? I suspect it is probably in real trouble.
Grayling (Sec of S at Transport) said he had no plans to stop HS2.
Somewhat ambiguous.
I didn't think it was at all ambiguous. He went on to give a convincing case as to why it needs to be done, and gave every indication that the government will get on with it.
This changing of the guard would be an ideal time to do something radical about HS2. There are pretty good arguments for scrapping the thing altogether and spending the money on other things instead (particularly connecting up the north of England with itself, rather than trying to make it an outer dormitory of London) but the idea of building HS2 starting from the north and working south intrigued me. I don't know how feasible or advantageous it would be in reality, but I can see why the idea would appeal to many northerners.
But the lack of capacity on the west coast line out through Milton Keynes is the most pressing problem. Hence starting in London is what the government will do.
Indeed, Mr. Sandpit. Mrs Umunna looks rather lovely.
You really don't want to read the comments under Guido's article.
Top rated
Impeach Lord Hill • an hour ago
"Oh my god I've never seen you look so beautiful" he murmured. "Your radiant eyes, your gorgeous satin clad figure. How I love you, how I want you, how I need you". Then Chuka turned off the bathroom light and left to join his bride to be.
The Chinese really want semiconductor technology self-sufficiency. I think they would very happily pay a very decent premium on top of £24 billion to get their hands on ARM. However, I cannot imagine that the government has not factored that into their assessment of the deal and on any enforceable assurances they have asked for. If ARM does end up in Chinese hands, there is no doubt that it will end up in China.
TaihuLight (#1 supercomputer @ peak 93PF) uses Chinese domestic CPUs, very loosely based on DEC's 21164 |(a RISC design). They've come on in leaps and bounds in recent years.
Indeed. There's little fundamental difficulty in designing chips and their architectures: plenty of companies do it. It just requires a fair amount of talent (which China has in spades), money to pay for that talent, and the necessary tools and licences. It's more complex if you want to own the fabrication plant as well, and that alone will cost a few billion dollars.
The problem is designing and fabbing chips that you wish to sell to others. For this, you need to produce a chip that has features other companies will want. Then you gave to reach a price-point they desire and a guarantee of yield. You then also need to have a agreement with a fab plant to use their process, and design to that process. Finally - and people forget this - you need the support infrastructure, and especially compilers. If you don't just add another target to GCC, this can cost an absolute fortune.
That's where ARM won the world: they lucked into having a chip design the world wanted, and skilfully played that market so that everyone won.
IMO China are aware they're not going to win with current designs and architectures. They're upskilling and waiting for whatever the next disruptive technology in chip design is. Then they will pounce.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start. .
I'm not sure which has the biggest defined need - but instinctively, it seems to me that there is more of a need for HS3 than HS2/2. Of all the problems our rail network faces, speed of journeys from Manchester and Leeds to London seems to be fairly low down the list, whereas speed of journeys across the Pennines is quite an issue.
Of course, there is also the issue of capacity (in my mind, this is a bigger issue than journey time) - but similarly, capacity on London-Manchester and London-Leeds journeys strikes me of less of an issue than capacity on Manchester Leeds journeys.
Despite this being sort of my area of expertise, the above is based on what seems right rather than any detailed analysis of the business cases. That said, when business cases for these projects are done, it's almost always the case that schemes with London in do better, simply because there are so many high earners there.
If the purpose of these projects is to transform the economy of the north, rather than simply to suck more money into London, non-traditional approaches to assessment have to be made.
On which subject, sceptics might think that the case for HS2/2 was based on the needs for one particular high earner to get quickly from Central London to the fringes of south Manchester, at someone else’s expense and with no particular worry about onward connections. But George Osborne’s enthusiasm for the northern powerhouse* was genuine, and I worry that after his demise the project will flounder for lack of treasury drive behind it.
*or, at least, those bits of it which revolved around Manchester. His thoughts on the other northern cities always seemed a little vaguer.
I'm not sure which has the biggest defined need - but instinctively, it seems to me that there is more of a need for HS3 than HS2/2. Of all the problems our rail network faces, speed of journeys from Manchester and Leeds to London seems to be fairly low down the list, whereas speed of journeys across the Pennines is quite an issue.
Of course, there is also the issue of capacity (in my mind, this is a bigger issue than journey time) - but similarly, capacity on London-Manchester and London-Leeds journeys strikes me of less of an issue than capacity on Manchester Leeds journeys.
Despite this being sort of my area of expertise, the above is based on what seems right rather than any detailed analysis of the business cases. That said, when business cases for these projects are done, it's almost always the case that schemes with London in do better, simply because there are so many high earners there.
If the purpose of these projects is to transform the economy of the north, rather than simply to suck more money into London, non-traditional approaches to assessment have to be made.
On which subject, sceptics might think that the case for HS2/2 was based on the needs for one particular high earner to get quickly from Central London to the fringes of south Manchester, at someone else’s expense and with no particular worry about onward connections. But George Osborne’s enthusiasm for the northern powerhouse* was genuine, and I worry that after his demise the project will flounder for lack of treasury drive behind it.
*or, at least, those bits of it which revolved around Manchester. His thoughts on the other northern cities always seemed a little vaguer.
I think HS2/2 follows on naturally from HS2/1 - although now they've moved the Birmingham to Crewe section to HS2/1 that might not be so much the case.
I don't know what to think about HS3 until they decide what it is. Route improvements? A new route? Will it interconnect with HS2/2 ?
And you're right about Osborne. Love him or loathe him, he believed in the Northern Powerhouse. ISTR his first tweet after winning the election last year was about it.
This is a site with hundreds of contributors. Most contribute for the politics rather than the betting, and most political activists tend to predict what they want to happen, rather than what will happen.
What should have been plain to anyone in the run up to the Referendum, however, was the huge mismatch between the odds being offered on Leave, and the actual likelihood that Leave would win. The value was always with Leave at every stage.
I certaintly didn't believe Leave would win.
But I didn't embarrass myself with self delusion like Andrew Cooper either.
Dude, welcome back! We heard about your last-minute conversion to REMAIN (see posts passim ). How are you?
Thanks, but the only conversion I was busy at was trying to convince voters at the last minute to vote Leave all the way up to 8.30pm on the night itself!
Building it across the North first, say from Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds>Newcastle would undoubtedly be a good move. My understanding of the thinking behind starting with the London>Birmingham stretch was that that section is needed urgently to address capacity issues on the WCML, and it's not possible to do both simultaneously because of skills, equipment and materials required. One of the many railway experts on here will no doubt be along shortly with a more comprehensive reply.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
Yes why not get Scotland to pay even more to upgraded |England's transport network. No doubt you will suggest we get a few more carts and horses up here.
Building it across the North first, say from Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds>Newcastle would undoubtedly be a good move. My understanding of the thinking behind starting with the London>Birmingham stretch was that that section is needed urgently to address capacity issues on the WCML, and it's not possible to do both simultaneously because of skills, equipment and materials required. One of the many railway experts on here will no doubt be along shortly with a more comprehensive reply.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
Yes why not get Scotland to pay even more to upgraded |England's transport network. No doubt you will suggest we get a few more carts and horses up here.
If the Ediburgh Tram and Forth bridge fiascos are anything to go by, Scottish transport planning still leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm not sure which has the biggest defined need - but instinctively, it seems to me that there is more of a need for HS3 than HS2/2. Of all the problems our rail network faces, speed of journeys from Manchester and Leeds to London seems to be fairly low down the list, whereas speed of journeys across the Pennines is quite an issue.
Of course, there is also the issue of capacity (in my mind, this is a bigger issue than journey time) - but similarly, capacity on London-Manchester and London-Leeds journeys strikes me of less of an issue than capacity on Manchester Leeds journeys.
Despite this being sort of my area of expertise, the above is based on what seems right rather than any detailed analysis of the business cases. That said, when business cases for these projects are done, it's almost always the case that schemes with London in do better, simply because there are so many high earners there.
If the purpose of these projects is to transform the economy of the north, rather than simply to suck more money into London, non-traditional approaches to assessment have to be made.
On which subject, sceptics might think that the case for HS2/2 was based on the needs for one particular high earner to get quickly from Central London to the fringes of south Manchester, at someone else’s expense and with no particular worry about onward connections. But George Osborne’s enthusiasm for the northern powerhouse* was genuine, and I worry that after his demise the project will flounder for lack of treasury drive behind it.
*or, at least, those bits of it which revolved around Manchester. His thoughts on the other northern cities always seemed a little vaguer.
And you're right about Osborne. Love him or loathe him, he believed in the Northern Powerhouse. ISTR his first tweet after winning the election last year was about it.
The new cabinet is very southern. McCloughlin seems to be the furthest north and given he is only party chairman will have little actual input. A shame as the Northern Powerhouse branding was starting to have some effect.
Building it across the North first, say from Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds>Newcastle would undoubtedly be a good move. My understanding of the thinking behind starting with the London>Birmingham stretch was that that section is needed urgently to address capacity issues on the WCML, and it's not possible to do both simultaneously because of skills, equipment and materials required. One of the many railway experts on here will no doubt be along shortly with a more comprehensive reply.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
No doubt you will suggest we get a few more carts and horses up here.
I think you'll find carts & horses much more effective for turnip gathering than High Speed Rail....
Stephen Swinford Tom Watson just mounted excoriating attack on Corbyn, warning will be unable able to form front-bench if he wins leadership election #wato
Building it across the North first, say from Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds>Newcastle would undoubtedly be a good move. My understanding of the thinking behind starting with the London>Birmingham stretch was that that section is needed urgently to address capacity issues on the WCML, and it's not possible to do both simultaneously because of skills, equipment and materials required. One of the many railway experts on here will no doubt be along shortly with a more comprehensive reply.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
Yes why not get Scotland to pay even more to upgraded |England's transport network. No doubt you will suggest we get a few more carts and horses up here.
If the Ediburgh Tram and Forth bridge fiascos are anything to go by, Scottish transport planning still leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes and paid for out of Scotland's pocket money as well , nothing from rest of UK. Yet we have to pay into all eth grandoise Westminster schemes.
PS: I note your extreme lack of any knowledge whatsoever of Scottish affairs , even idiots know teh Forth Bridge is coming in under budget and fully paid for by Scotland.
Indeed, Mr. Sandpit. Mrs Umunna looks rather lovely.
You really don't want to read the comments under Guido's article.
Top rated
Impeach Lord Hill • an hour ago
"Oh my god I've never seen you look so beautiful" he murmured. "Your radiant eyes, your gorgeous satin clad figure. How I love you, how I want you, how I need you". Then Chuka turned off the bathroom light and left to join his bride to be.
Excellent ! Still chuckling over the recent tweet... "Your so vain you actually do think this song is about you" .
Can't remember if that was directed at Chuka or someone else but It works either way.
So if you want a quick trade deal then cut the EU out of the equation ?
Just presenting some facts. The EU is probably the worst counterparty in the world for FTAs, simply because of all the stakeholder interests. That's not to say others don't take a long time, but it's pretty clear (looking globally) that FTAs take ~ 3-4 years depending on scope. Narrow ones (which are probably not of much interest or use to us) could be done more quickly. The link to Open Europe's blog post goes into much more gory detail for those interested.
I'm already irritated with Davis over his blithe assumption that everything will be just fine and dandy. May had a much better message - tough times ahead, but better in the end. This is going to be a 'blood, sweat and tears' period for the UK.
Stephen Swinford Tom Watson just mounted excoriating attack on Corbyn, warning will be unable able to form front-bench if he wins leadership election #wato
Is there some sort of leadership contest happening in the Labour Party today?
Does it matter?
Possibly, for betting purposes.
Monday 18 July: Registered supporters applications open
Monday 18 July, 7pm: PLP and Euro PLP nominations open
Wednesday 20 July, 5pm: PLP and Euro PLP nominations close, supporting nominations open, last date to join as registered supporter
Friday 22 July: Hustings open
Monday 15 August, noon: Supporting nominations close
Wednesday 21 September, noon: Ballot closes
Saturday 24 September: Special conference to announce result
Prob won't happen but, assuming Corbyn wins again, the only way I can see a real way back for Labour is to get a serious tough bruiser as leader, who understands something of economics, political strategy and the problems of the WWC base, including on free movement of people. Who can command the respect of the membership base too.
Step forward: Ed Balls. If I were he I'd stand for the Batley by-election.
This is no way connected to the 66/1 bet I have on him as next Labour leader.
Building it across the North first, say from Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds>Newcastle would undoubtedly be a good move. My understanding of the thinking behind starting with the London>Birmingham stretch was that that section is needed urgently to address capacity issues on the WCML, and it's not possible to do both simultaneously because of skills, equipment and materials required. One of the many railway experts on here will no doubt be along shortly with a more comprehensive reply.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
Yes why not get Scotland to pay even more to upgraded |England's transport network. No doubt you will suggest we get a few more carts and horses up here.
If the Ediburgh Tram and Forth bridge fiascos are anything to go by, Scottish transport planning still leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes and paid for out of Scotland's pocket money as well , nothing from rest of UK. Yet we have to pay into all eth grandoise Westminster schemes.
PS: I note your extreme lack of any knowledge whatsoever of Scottish affairs , even idiots know teh Forth Bridge is coming in under budget and fully paid for by Scotland.
Obviously. London is vital to Scotland's economc wellbeing, the reverse is not true. That's why you pay for our shiny new trains and we give you second hand turnip trucks.
This is a site with hundreds of contributors. Most contribute for the politics rather than the betting, and most political activists tend to predict what they want to happen, rather than what will happen.
What should have been plain to anyone in the run up to the Referendum, however, was the huge mismatch between the odds being offered on Leave, and the actual likelihood that Leave would win. The value was always with Leave at every stage.
I certaintly didn't believe Leave would win.
But I didn't embarrass myself with self delusion like Andrew Cooper either.
Dude, welcome back! We heard about your last-minute conversion to REMAIN (see posts passim ). How are you?
Thanks, but the only conversion I was busy at was trying to convince voters at the last minute to vote Leave all the way up to 8.30pm on the night itself!
Holiday was perfect. Feel very refreshed now.
Well, welcome back. At some point PB will start talking about POTUS2016 or the Labour leadership, and more money still to be made. For all its faults, 2016 is a very exciting year wrt betting
Paul Waugh Angela Eagle just told PLP she wants a post Brexit "Marshall Plan" for UK.
Seriously
Yes because our cities have been reduced to piles of rubble, and up to 50% of our population is internally displaced and the whole of civil society is in a state of parlous collapse. Jeez the hyperbole is strong in that one.
I'm not sure which has the biggest defined need - but instinctively, it seems to me that there is more of a need for HS3 than HS2/2. Of all the problems our rail network faces, speed of journeys from Manchester and Leeds to London seems to be fairly low down the list, whereas speed of journeys across the Pennines is quite an issue.
Of course, there is also the issue of capacity (in my mind, this is a bigger issue than journey time) - but similarly, capacity on London-Manchester and London-Leeds journeys strikes me of less of an issue than capacity on Manchester Leeds journeys.
Despite this being sort of my area of expertise, the above is based on what seems right rather than any detailed analysis of the business cases. That said, when business cases for these projects are done, it's almost always the case that schemes with London in do better, simply because there are so many high earners there.
If the purpose of these projects is to transform the economy of the north, rather than simply to suck more money into London, non-traditional approaches to assessment have to be made.
On which subject, sceptics might think that the case for HS2/2 was based on the needs for one particular high earner to get quickly from Central London to the fringes of south Manchester, at someone else’s expense and with no particular worry about onward connections. But George Osborne’s enthusiasm for the northern powerhouse* was genuine, and I worry that after his demise the project will flounder for lack of treasury drive behind it.
*or, at least, those bits of it which revolved around Manchester. His thoughts on the other northern cities always seemed a little vaguer.
I think HS2/2 follows on naturally from HS2/1 - although now they've moved the Birmingham to Crewe section to HS2/1 that might not be so much the case.
I don't know what to think about HS3 until they decide what it is. Route improvements? A new route? Will it interconnect with HS2/2 ?
And you're right about Osborne. Love him or loathe him, he believed in the Northern Powerhouse. ISTR his first tweet after winning the election last year was about it.
For reasons that baffle me, opposition to HS2 is seen as a totem of being on the Conservative Right. And that makes me very uncomfortable, and turns me off: particularly as I am on the Conservative Right.
I attended a Leave event where one donor berated me with a continuous stream of vitriol against HS2 for the best part of 5 minutes, just because he asked for my view and I had the temerity to say I supported it.
He seemed more animated by opposition to HS2 than he was to the EU. Eventually, I just deftly walked away from him as he clearly wasn't interested in listening, just preaching.
"Because it is? " - but in what way? It doesn't put any money in the firm's coffers. It will probably take money out,
The shareholders, owners of the company, are going to receive 50% more than the consensus value for the company. Additionally, the way Son does business means that it is unlikely he will take money out of the business. If anything he will put money in funded by ultra low borrowing costs in Japan's retail bond market.
.@tom_watson tells #wato he tried to negotiate exit deal for "a platform for Corbynism but not necessarily Jeremy Corbyn himself"
It's a measure of how much Labour has become a Mad Hatter's Tea Party that we are barely surprised that the Deputy Leader is making public comments like that about his boss.
Building it across the North first, say from Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds>Newcastle would undoubtedly be a good move. My understanding of the thinking behind starting with the London>Birmingham stretch was that that section is needed urgently to address capacity issues on the WCML, and it's not possible to do both simultaneously because of skills, equipment and materials required. One of the many railway experts on here will no doubt be along shortly with a more comprehensive reply.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
Yes why not get Scotland to pay even more to upgraded |England's transport network. No doubt you will suggest we get a few more carts and horses up here.
If the Ediburgh Tram and Forth bridge fiascos are anything to go by, Scottish transport planning still leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes and paid for out of Scotland's pocket money as well , nothing from rest of UK. Yet we have to pay into all eth grandoise Westminster schemes.
PS: I note your extreme lack of any knowledge whatsoever of Scottish affairs , even idiots know teh Forth Bridge is coming in under budget and fully paid for by Scotland.
And not a single Scottish firm nor drop of Scottish steel used.
I had a call on Friday night from a business partner. He told me the UK Government is looking to throw money at UK R&D projects. The main problem is there is so little capacity in the UK to properly use the money.
I have spent considerable time sorting out one failed Uni project after another where a group of smart PHDs have wasted years and millions on a nice idea bit with no real focus on commercialisation.
ARM is the kind of company we need to keep going.
R&D has been neglected for far too long and is one of the main reasons for our stagnant productivity along with the inexhaustible supply of cheap labour. It's the reverse of the economics of the Cold War years when the normal supply of economic migrants and cheap labour from eastern Europe was cut off.
Given the UK (well, England) has three of the world's top ten research universities, it seems unlikely that research is being neglected.
Corporate R&D is poor in the UK.
Been destroyed over the past 20 years. Here's how it goes.
UK based company is merged or taken over by another entity headquarted elsewhere. Two R&D centres in Europe Company decides to start research in China. Company decides to keep R&D near headquarters. UK R&D unit closes.
Son hasn't done any of this with previous SoftBank purchases. I don't see why he would start with ARM.
Last month Softbank sold its majority stake in Supercell 2 to Tencent.
What do you think they are raising capital for? Plus, Son is a canny operator, mobile gaming is an easy come, easy go kind of market. Tencent offered to more than double SoftBank's money. I don't see anyone offering £48-£55bn for ARM.
The Chinese really want semiconductor technology self-sufficiency. I think they would very happily pay a very decent premium on top of £24 billion to get their hands on ARM. However, I cannot imagine that the government has not factored that into their assessment of the deal and on any enforceable assurances they have asked for. If ARM does end up in Chinese hands, there is no doubt that it will end up in China.
So what is the alternative? Stop foriegn takeovers of British companies. That would be silly as British based companies like Sage are some of the most prolific acquisitors.
I really don't understand why Juppe is so popular, he makes Hillary Clinton look like a squeaky clean plucky outsider. I think on balance he is the most likely winner, but I've not heard anyone here speak fondly of him so not sure where juppemania comes from. People here (Paris not PB) don't seem to entertain the possibility of a Le Pen victory. The attitude reminds me of pre-Brexit thoughts on Leave winning. Marine Le Pen is charismatic and a better candidate for president personally than Trump is for example, but I think the lingering anti-semitism associations in her party will stop her this time. 2022 MLP nailed on if Juppe wins this time!
Surely the left will always ride in behind the crook rather than the fascist, as it was put in 2002? What gives her an outside chance this year is the centre-right may not return the favour.
I agree re Juppe, though i wonder whether he actually is all that popular (I've not dug into the detail). Is it not more that rather like the Conservatives in Britain at the moment, he's just the least unpopular and with politics being a relative game, that's sufficient for now?
I think in 2017 it will be like that as you describe in the header, her best chance is against Hollande, it's just that he's too unpopular to be her opponent. However in 2022, it's unlikely Juppe is going to be able to change anything that Hollande couldn't, there's no intrinsic fault with Hollande that Juppe cures, and so I don't see how France won't end up in the exact same position in 5 years time, except with a very unpopular centre-right president losing to a centre-left challenger in 1st round, against the FN Leader in the runoff. He was already the most hated politician in France in the mid-90s so easy to see that label returning! The FN will as well be more ready in 2022, continuing the detoxification, and sadly a likely steady stream of terrorist attacks. They may even be better off to replace Marine but not sure that would be possible (I think she has a Farage-like grip on the party).
I think you're right in reality that Juppe is just lucky because of the competition (Sarko and Hollande), although there is a lot of talk about 'Juppemania' and how popular he is, particularly as he tries to entice the youth vote (he even played beer pong for the cameras!). I think it's probably a bit of a fake phenomenon pushed by his own campaign, but it has caught hold in the media.
Building it across the North first, say from Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds>Newcastle would undoubtedly be a good move. My understanding of the thinking behind starting with the London>Birmingham stretch was that that section is needed urgently to address capacity issues on the WCML, and it's not possible to do both simultaneously because of skills, equipment and materials required. One of the many railway experts on here will no doubt be along shortly with a more comprehensive reply.
Not an expert, but have read up a fair bit on it. Then again, my memory is not currently what it was.
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham), HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester) HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year. HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield) HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
Yes why not get Scotland to pay even more to upgraded |England's transport network. No doubt you will suggest we get a few more carts and horses up here.
If the Ediburgh Tram and Forth bridge fiascos are anything to go by, Scottish transport planning still leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes and paid for out of Scotland's pocket money as well , nothing from rest of UK. Yet we have to pay into all eth grandoise Westminster schemes.
PS: I note your extreme lack of any knowledge whatsoever of Scottish affairs , even idiots know teh Forth Bridge is coming in under budget and fully paid for by Scotland.
And not a single Scottish firm nor drop of Scottish steel used.
I highly doubt that there were no Scottish firms involved and given we do not produce steel it says a lot for you you halfwitted cretin.
Just seen Juncker's announcement that he will not permit the UK to have trade negoatiations with any third country while they are a member of the EU (as it is the exclusive responsibility of the Commisson).
"Corbyn tells The Guardian today that he will vote against it, adding: "I've been involved in peace transformation all of my life, and I think we've got an opportunity to show leadership in the world." Clive Lewis, shadow defence secretary, and Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary, described the vote as a "contemptible trick" and will abstain.
Dearie me.
Ha ha, a trick my arse. This vote has been postponed so many times, let's just bloody get on with building the new boats. Let's get some more things on the postponed list going too - yes, Heathrow, that means you!
There's a Times article today saying LHR decision could be weeks away. I remain sceptical.
Grr. Come on Theresa, just bloody announce it. Two new runways at LHR and one more at LGW please, preferably with a maglev or Hyperloop running between them
Are we trying to show the World we're open for business, or not?
Any chance she could stop throwing money down a hole, I mean HS2, as well?
HS2 still seems to be alive right now. How long for? I've no feeling for this at all.
Is there anybody willing to stand up and take Osborne's place as the champion of HS2? I suspect it is probably in real trouble.
I hope not. The story of major rail projects in this country is that they get put off until the need for them is utterly undeniable, thus meaning they don't open until 20 years after they are needed. This is why, for instance, Crossrail still isn't open yet.
Comments
https://twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status/754994818514903040
Then again, Musk has an annoying habit of proving me wrong.
With May as Priestly? Might have trouble fitting some of the lesser characters in, though.
Not read Private Eye for years, but I did enjoy the letter from the Dear Leader (or Great/Supreme, I forget) in Brown's time.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/754977381086072832
[The PM's spokeswoman] also said that the list of cabinet appointments published last week was not a guide to seniority and that the proper cabinet seniority rankings would not become clear until the official government list is published, probably later this afternoon. She also refused to comment on speculation that this final list might include the appointment of a first secretary of state.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jul/18/trident-debate-renewal-corbyn-may-idealism-as-mps-prepare-for-trident-vote-politics-live
Blair as the controlling vicar using cod morality was outstanding.
Never really got the Vicar of Albion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-565508/The-socialite-named-Allegra-Boris-Johnsons-wife.html
One of the problems with building HS3 first is that it delays everything by ten or more years. There are currently three projects:
HS2 phase 1 (London to Birmingham),
HS2 phase 2 (Birmingham to Leeds / Manchester)
HS3 (nebulously connecting Leeds and Manchester)
HS2/1 has the biggest immediate need, and is furthest down the planning road, with construction due to start next year.
HS2/2 is another few years down the road, with the route not fully finalised (see the recent proposed changes around Sheffield)
HS3 isn't even planned; no-one yet knows what it means. It almost certainly will not be a high-speed line like HS2/1 and HS2/2 due to the shorter distances involved.
So if you start with HS3, you start with the project that is least defined and the longest period before work can start.
In addition, it makes sense for HS2/2 and HS3 to be planned together (and to some extent constructed with each other in mind) to get the best benefits. This would be a rather unique example of joined-up planning by government, so it probably won't happen ...
Besides, the whole fate of HS2 depends on the money-sink that is Euston.
Impeach Lord Hill • an hour ago
"Oh my god I've never seen you look so beautiful" he murmured. "Your radiant eyes, your gorgeous satin clad figure. How I love you, how I want you, how I need you". Then Chuka turned off the bathroom light and left to join his bride to be.
I've seen lots of references to dalmations.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/theresa-may-the-national-frontpage-cover-cruella-devil-sexism-misogyny-a7136471.html
The problem is designing and fabbing chips that you wish to sell to others. For this, you need to produce a chip that has features other companies will want. Then you gave to reach a price-point they desire and a guarantee of yield. You then also need to have a agreement with a fab plant to use their process, and design to that process. Finally - and people forget this - you need the support infrastructure, and especially compilers. If you don't just add another target to GCC, this can cost an absolute fortune.
That's where ARM won the world: they lucked into having a chip design the world wanted, and skilfully played that market so that everyone won.
IMO China are aware they're not going to win with current designs and architectures. They're upskilling and waiting for whatever the next disruptive technology in chip design is. Then they will pounce.
Monday 18 July, 7pm: PLP and Euro PLP nominations open
Wednesday 20 July, 5pm: PLP and Euro PLP nominations close, supporting nominations open, last date to join as registered supporter
Friday 22 July: Hustings open
Monday 15 August, noon: Supporting nominations close
Wednesday 21 September, noon: Ballot closes
Saturday 24 September: Special conference to announce result
Of course, there is also the issue of capacity (in my mind, this is a bigger issue than journey time) - but similarly, capacity on London-Manchester and London-Leeds journeys strikes me of less of an issue than capacity on Manchester Leeds journeys.
Despite this being sort of my area of expertise, the above is based on what seems right rather than any detailed analysis of the business cases. That said, when business cases for these projects are done, it's almost always the case that schemes with London in do better, simply because there are so many high earners there.
If the purpose of these projects is to transform the economy of the north, rather than simply to suck more money into London, non-traditional approaches to assessment have to be made.
On which subject, sceptics might think that the case for HS2/2 was based on the needs for one particular high earner to get quickly from Central London to the fringes of south Manchester, at someone else’s expense and with no particular worry about onward connections. But George Osborne’s enthusiasm for the northern powerhouse* was genuine, and I worry that after his demise the project will flounder for lack of treasury drive behind it.
*or, at least, those bits of it which revolved around Manchester. His thoughts on the other northern cities always seemed a little vaguer.
Back in January I decided to sell all my ARM shares. It went on my todo list, but then I became ill in February and I never got around to it.
So whilst my illness has been a bit of a bu**er, it's potentially earned me a rather nice sum!
(I think this is called looking on the bright side.)
I don't know what to think about HS3 until they decide what it is. Route improvements? A new route? Will it interconnect with HS2/2 ?
And you're right about Osborne. Love him or loathe him, he believed in the Northern Powerhouse. ISTR his first tweet after winning the election last year was about it.
This is rather amusing, on the chaos that sudden departmental changes brings for civil servants
https://t.co/9MGwKsvaYS
SpaceX landed another rocket on land this morning.
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/spacex-just-nailed-second-falcon-9-ground-landing/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/18/todays-trident-vote-could-save-jeremy-corbyn-but-doom-labour/
https://twitter.com/PlatypusPR/status/755007310439780352
Holiday was perfect. Feel very refreshed now.
Interactive: Follow GOP voters’ path to backing Trump #GOPConvention https://t.co/moyNxvM9LE https://t.co/ZkPQkni1Ba
@BBCVickiYoung: #GMB leader Tim Roache says he'll ballot all 640,000 union members to see who they want as #Labour leader
Tom Watson just mounted excoriating attack on Corbyn, warning will be unable able to form front-bench if he wins leadership election #wato
Angela Eagle just told PLP she wants a post Brexit "Marshall Plan" for UK.
Seriously
PS: I note your extreme lack of any knowledge whatsoever of Scottish affairs , even idiots know teh Forth Bridge is coming in under budget and fully paid for by Scotland.
Still chuckling over the recent tweet... "Your so vain you actually do think this song is about you" .
Can't remember if that was directed at Chuka or someone else but It works either way.
I'm already irritated with Davis over his blithe assumption that everything will be just fine and dandy. May had a much better message - tough times ahead, but better in the end. This is going to be a 'blood, sweat and tears' period for the UK.
Step forward: Ed Balls. If I were he I'd stand for the Batley by-election.
This is no way connected to the 66/1 bet I have on him as next Labour leader.
I attended a Leave event where one donor berated me with a continuous stream of vitriol against HS2 for the best part of 5 minutes, just because he asked for my view and I had the temerity to say I supported it.
He seemed more animated by opposition to HS2 than he was to the EU. Eventually, I just deftly walked away from him as he clearly wasn't interested in listening, just preaching.
Osborne had it right on this.
I think you're right in reality that Juppe is just lucky because of the competition (Sarko and Hollande), although there is a lot of talk about 'Juppemania' and how popular he is, particularly as he tries to entice the youth vote (he even played beer pong for the cameras!). I think it's probably a bit of a fake phenomenon pushed by his own campaign, but it has caught hold in the media.