“The NHS in England remains under significant financial pressure which is demonstrated in its accounts. It has again used a range of short term measures to manage its budgetary position but this is not a sustainable answer to the financial problems which it faces. The Department and its partners need to create and implement a robust, credible and comprehensive plan to move the NHS to a more sustainable financial footing.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
“The NHS in England remains under significant financial pressure which is demonstrated in its accounts. It has again used a range of short term measures to manage its budgetary position but this is not a sustainable answer to the financial problems which it faces. The Department and its partners need to create and implement a robust, credible and comprehensive plan to move the NHS to a more sustainable financial footing.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
Don't worry it's getting £350m a week extra shortly!
I am surprised Kavanagh missed out racist. For that is what Trump is too.
He's worse than a racist, he's a calculating opportunist who uses racism to garner support. If Trump thought that picking on Jews or Navajos or Armenians would get him votes, these people(s) would also be getting it in the neck.
I think the comments he made about that Latino judge show that he is a genuine racist.
The thing is, he has no internal censor. We all catch ourselves thinking bigoted and unpleasant things from time to time, but our internal censor catches them and swallows them long before they reach the lips.
Trump doesn't have that. Pavllovian conditioning from the campaign has taught him things go best for him when he blurts out the first horrible thing that comes to mind. He'll be rewarded for it.
That's what makes the idea of him being President so worrying. His initial reaction to events and perhaps the decision he makes will have the potential to cause serious harm well beyond the US - in fact, probably will cause more harm outside the US than inside.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I had Jobabob in mind
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I do wonder how practical a system used in a country with massive distances between major population centres would be, in a densely populated country like the UK. You work in Romford but live in Brentwood - oops breaking the rules? And who enforces that?
More generally, why is it needed? London's key value-producing industries are not reliant on large quantities of unskilled or low-skilled labour. The highly educated overseas workforce they currently employ will all easily pass through a future points-based system.
I think your first point is absolutely right. With regards to the second, I suspect the "London Visa" - if it did exist - would end up being a 'quick to get for people from developed countries' but extremely time limited. So, you could come to London to seek your fortune, but you'd only get a year to make it. (I.e., if you qualified for another visa in that time, you could stay.)
The London visa is not a stupid idea at all. In Australia, quite a number of visas limit you to a certain state.
London visa, local girlfriend, article 8 challenge, live where you like from then on. Seen it all before.
Its Article 8 that is the problem, it's black/white view of the issue prevents us making sensible solutions to our various immigration concerns.
Nevertheless, regional visas work very well in other countries.
Issue here is that in UK they could not run a bath never mind a complex visa system, evenif just 2 choices.
Tsh, Malcolm, such prejudice ill-becomes you. The UK has over 20 visa schemes covering everything from Nobel prize winners through rich buggers to domestic servants.
For what it's worth, my thoughts on Brexit one month on:
We're all Brexiteers now Leave won. Remain lost. It's a result. Discussion moves from whether to how. There's no going back. Unfortunately we may not go forward much either, because :-
Brexit doesn't resolve anything People who voted Leave because they don't like the EU very much and wish it would go away will be disappointed to find the EU impacting even more now we are out. The EU is the only show in town, or rather in Europe, which despite everything is where the UK is located. Our relationship with the EU informs our other relationships, not just with every other European country, but also third party countries. The world remains a globalised place despite the backlash, of which Brexit is a part. Success comes from playing the globalisation game well. Brexit complicates that for us.
On another topic, immigration is likely remain high, beyond the effect of a Brexit induced recession, which no-one should celebrate.
Brexit won't be a disaster, probably, but it will be costly There aren't any real economic upsides to Brexit. The question is how much the downsides will weigh, in terms of uncertainty and the narrowing of horizons. It may not be huge. It will take a lot of effort in damage limitation, replacement of existing agreements and endless negotiation to get to a situation that is rather more mediocre than what we had previously.
Just back from a week in another EU country. They seem to have the impression from the media that we will soon need food parcels and have been taken over by Nazi style politicians. I asked where they got that impression from.... BBC News and the BBC World News was the answer.
Meanwhile I note that the Remoaners are still around on this website.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I had Jobabob in mind
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
Scotland would be another very good candidate.
We'd need a seasonal-workers visa scheme for the fruit harvests in the Marches.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I do wonder how practical a system used in a country with massive distances between major population centres would be, in a densely populated country like the UK. You work in Romford but live in Brentwood - oops breaking the rules? And who enforces that?
More generally, why is it needed? London's key value-producing industries are not reliant on large quantities of unskilled or low-skilled labour. The highly educated overseas workforce they currently employ will all easily pass through a future points-based system.
I think your first point is absolutely right. With regards to the second, I suspect the "London Visa" - if it did exist - would end up being a 'quick to get for people from developed countries' but extremely time limited. So, you could come to London to seek your fortune, but you'd only get a year to make it. (I.e., if you qualified for another visa in that time, you could stay.)
Interesting idea, the second one. But I think the notion still founders on point 1. So perhaps the issue is really just getting a new, national, points system properly calibrated.
As an aside, the CBI Trends survey is out in 10 minutes time. This has quite a lot more updated information (they finished collecting information end Saturday, I believe) than the Markit survey from last week. As a result, it will hopefully catch some of the post-May government bounce.
-4, not as gloomy as predicted and far, far better than the PMI. The final PMI figure is going to be very important, we need to see whether the it shows any bounce back based on the political situation stabilising.
One of the interesting conclusions (which may or may not be true) that they come to is that one of the motivations for Lone Wolfs is posthumous publicity, and that by restricting information about the attacker results in fewer attacks.
Anyway: it's a very interesting analysis and I would suggest everyone on here reads it.
It's a very old phenomenon. It even has a posh name: Herostratic fame, after the man who burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - at that time one of the seven ancient wonders of the world.
Herostratus wanted the immortality of fame. The Ephesians executed him and swore that they would keep no records of his name. Sadly, someone (Theopompus) who would be right at home on present-day Twitter, blabbed it.
Thank you
I was so busy being a smart arse, I forgot to say thanks for the article you linked. Interesting thoughts in there. Much appreciated.
Anyway according to many on here, this is all fake - these bloody scientists all feeding from the AGW trough!
Really?
"..last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide, and the fourteenth straight month that global heat records were broken”. This claim came from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),...
But what might also have been pointed out was that in recent years claims like this have, for two reasons, become increasingly controversial. For a start, as I have reported many times before, those responsible for compiling these records of global surface temperatures, including NOAA, have come under expert questioning for the way thay have long been engaging in wholesale “adjustment” of their data, almost invariably in the same direction. For earlier years, back to the 1930s and 1940s, their temperature figures have been revised downwards, while those for recent years have regularly been “adjusted” upwards – thus conveying that the world has been heating up much more than was justified by the original recorded data....."
"...But what also gets tellingly ignored...is that, since 1998, there has been an increasingly glaring divergence between the global temperatures shown by these surface records and the much more comprehensive temperature measurements made by US satellites. These clearly show 1998 as having been still easily the hottest year on record: more than 0.2 degrees C warmer than 2016. But the satellites have also lately been showing temperatures again dropping sharply, as happens each time an El Nino reverses into a La Nina. This suggests that these dramatic fluctuations have nothing to do with human activity but arise naturally."
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
With the moaning, special-pleading, and list of grievances those remainer Londoners are starting to sound an awful lot like the bloody Nats.
There's certainly a similarity wherein the PB Brexitories whining about whining Remainers actually now outnumber whining Remainers.
Not quite true yet, but you are right that we are approaching that welcome tipping point.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I had Jobabob in mind
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
Scotland would be another very good candidate.
We'd need a seasonal-workers visa scheme for the fruit harvests in the Marches.
We could always tell the unemployed in the cities to get on their bicycle and pick fruit for a couple of months or benefits cease
Anyway according to many on here, this is all fake - these bloody scientists all feeding from the AGW trough!
Really?
"..last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide, and the fourteenth straight month that global heat records were broken”. This claim came from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),...
But what might also have been pointed out was that in recent years claims like this have, for two reasons, become increasingly controversial. For a start, as I have reported many times before, those responsible for compiling these records of global surface temperatures, including NOAA, have come under expert questioning for the way thay have long been engaging in wholesale “adjustment” of their data, almost invariably in the same direction. For earlier years, back to the 1930s and 1940s, their temperature figures have been revised downwards, while those for recent years have regularly been “adjusted” upwards – thus conveying that the world has been heating up much more than was justified by the original recorded data....."
"...But what also gets tellingly ignored...is that, since 1998, there has been an increasingly glaring divergence between the global temperatures shown by these surface records and the much more comprehensive temperature measurements made by US satellites. These clearly show 1998 as having been still easily the hottest year on record: more than 0.2 degrees C warmer than 2016. But the satellites have also lately been showing temperatures again dropping sharply, as happens each time an El Nino reverses into a La Nina. This suggests that these dramatic fluctuations have nothing to do with human activity but arise naturally."
''-4, not as gloomy as predicted and far, far better than the PMI.''
Would it be fair to say the blow really is on sentiment - the numbers themselves seem to be OK?
Looks like it so far. The trouble is that the gloom in the press and massive overreactions pose some danger in terms of talking ourselves into a read recession. We almost did it in 2011/12 and the same idiots haven't learned from that almost failure.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
With the moaning, special-pleading, and list of grievances those remainer Londoners are starting to sound an awful lot like the bloody Nats.
Better than listening to your whining , nasty Little Englander bigotry.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I had Jobabob in mind
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
Scotland would be another very good candidate.
We'd need a seasonal-workers visa scheme for the fruit harvests in the Marches.
We could always tell the unemployed in the cities to get on their bicycle and pick fruit for a couple of months or benefits cease
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I had Jobabob in mind
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
Scotland would be another very good candidate.
We'd need a seasonal-workers visa scheme for the fruit harvests in the Marches.
We could always tell the unemployed in the cities to get on their bicycle and pick fruit for a couple of months or benefits cease
Or increase wages, though apparently that's not allowed to happen any longer.
2 overs down and still 10 Pakistani wickets to get.
There's still today and tomorrow though. I reckon put another 100 on the board and get stuck in. 600 is one hell of a chase to attempt
Don't think 600 is enough. I mean the world record chase is around 420 or so, but you can never be too careful. Cook should make sure he can't lose and go for a thousand or so lead.
I do wonder how practical a system used in a country with massive distances between major population centres would be, in a densely populated country like the UK. You work in Romford but live in Brentwood - oops breaking the rules? And who enforces that?
I dare say that some people abuse the Australian visa system, but I know from people who have lived there that the practical issues you mention and the strict checking of visas when entering the country do seem to limit abuse.
Anyway according to many on here, this is all fake - these bloody scientists all feeding from the AGW trough!
Really?
"..last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide, and the fourteenth straight month that global heat records were broken”. This claim came from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),...
But what might also have been pointed out was that in recent years claims like this have, for two reasons, become increasingly controversial. For a start, as I have reported many times before, those responsible for compiling these records of global surface temperatures, including NOAA, have come under expert questioning for the way thay have long been engaging in wholesale “adjustment” of their data, almost invariably in the same direction. For earlier years, back to the 1930s and 1940s, their temperature figures have been revised downwards, while those for recent years have regularly been “adjusted” upwards – thus conveying that the world has been heating up much more than was justified by the original recorded data....."
"...But what also gets tellingly ignored...is that, since 1998, there has been an increasingly glaring divergence between the global temperatures shown by these surface records and the much more comprehensive temperature measurements made by US satellites. These clearly show 1998 as having been still easily the hottest year on record: more than 0.2 degrees C warmer than 2016. But the satellites have also lately been showing temperatures again dropping sharply, as happens each time an El Nino reverses into a La Nina. This suggests that these dramatic fluctuations have nothing to do with human activity but arise naturally."
''-4, not as gloomy as predicted and far, far better than the PMI.''
Would it be fair to say the blow really is on sentiment - the numbers themselves seem to be OK?
Looks like it so far. The trouble is that the gloom in the press and massive overreactions pose some danger in terms of talking ourselves into a read recession. We almost did it in 2011/12 and the same idiots haven't learned from that almost failure.
In my view, Q3 will be dependent on how fast the 48% get over the loss and anguish.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
RCS voted Leave, I believe.
London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
Do you have how much of the country's GDP is spent on London compared to other parts of the country. On infrastructure it is about 1000% compared to what is spent on North of England.
2 overs down and still 10 Pakistani wickets to get.
There's still today and tomorrow though. I reckon put another 100 on the board and get stuck in. 600 is one hell of a chase to attempt
Don't think 600 is enough. I mean the world record chase is around 420 or so, but you can never be too careful. Cook should make sure he can't lose and go for a thousand or so lead.
Nah 600 should do it. Want to give yourself time to get them out.
Security folk have a simple definition of risk. It's a combination of the value of the asset we wish to protect, the capability of the threat actor and the residual vulnerabilities in our own system. It's a useful model for IT security. For people, I like a simpler method.
We all run risks everyday. We manage those risks consciously or subconsciously, whether that's by defensive driving, or not walking through that dimly lit subway at midnight or not drinking a bottle of wine a night.
If we look at England & Wales, 529k people died last year. That's over 10k per week, 1.4k per day. While risk of death isn't flat in practice, but the annual male mortality rate is around 116 per 10k p.a. with women at 86.
Generally we manage these implicit risks quite well; some may have an irrational fear of flying, or decide to live entirely on beansprouts, but by and large we just get on with our lives.
Threat is based on malice, and that interferes with our cognition. Water can kill you; we all accept that (and 400 UKians drown every year), but it's a passive thing. The sea isn't actively out to kill you dear reader.
We find it very hard to act rationally in the face of threats, even if the probability of that threat is low. Islamic terrorism and pedophiles are two good examples of this phenomenon. These low-level threats have a chilling effect across society, whether that's our willingness to accept further Muslim immigration or our reluctance to employ male nannies/primary school teachers.
* Note. I am not equating Muslims with pedophiles, before someone jumps on the outrage bus.
How we deal with this is not easy - it's an open question in the security field. People feel unsafe, even if that is not a rational response. Sadly the likely response will be an increase in security theatre and lots and lots of hand-wringing/hashtaggery.
Those would all be cracking arguments against someone who had decided never to leave the house again because of the danger to them personally posed by terrorism. They don't really bite against someone who says that "although the risk to me personally is negligible, the risk that at least one of my fellow citizens will be killed in the next year by a terrorist is close to 100%. I am a social and political animal."
In addition: not everything that starts off statistically negligible stays that way. Paedophilia as a threat keeps within limits because most people aren't that way and are not capable of being converted to being that way. Terrorism doesn't necessarily. We are already near the point where "don't go to large organised events in France" looks like a rational rule of thumb.
ECB pressure on Cook to get a full day's play today.
North West England Forecast Summary Tuesday We will get a mixture of bright spells and showers tomorrow. Showers will mostly stay light but there may be a few heavy bursts over the Pennines later.
2 overs down and still 10 Pakistani wickets to get.
There's still today and tomorrow though. I reckon put another 100 on the board and get stuck in. 600 is one hell of a chase to attempt
Don't think 600 is enough. I mean the world record chase is around 420 or so, but you can never be too careful. Cook should make sure he can't lose and go for a thousand or so lead.
Nah 600 should do it. Want to give yourself time to get them out.
The match could have been over by close yesterday. In all seriousness if the ECB have leant on Cook to 'get a full 4th day' then that is as bad as spot fixing and the punishments should be similiar.
I'm half hoping it pisses it down in Manchester to teach Cook a lesson.
Or increase wages, though apparently that's not allowed to happen any longer.
Cutting off the cheap labour supply would make this inevitable. The problem is that they then wont be able to sell their fruit as untariffed imports would be much cheaper.
Meanwhile the domestic source of unskilled labour dosent fancy it because its easier to live on benefits.
Up until the 50s trainloads of people left the cities to spend the summer as hop pickers and the like.
Not sure that modern benefit recipients would much want to live in a tent for two months though.
Because Cook and Root wanted to get centuries. Seems like a good reason to me. If they both get not out 100s their confidence will be sky high for the next match.
2 overs down and still 10 Pakistani wickets to get.
There's still today and tomorrow though. I reckon put another 100 on the board and get stuck in. 600 is one hell of a chase to attempt
Don't think 600 is enough. I mean the world record chase is around 420 or so, but you can never be too careful. Cook should make sure he can't lose and go for a thousand or so lead.
Nah 600 should do it. Want to give yourself time to get them out.
I'm half hoping it pisses it down in Manchester to teach Cook a lesson.
“The NHS in England remains under significant financial pressure which is demonstrated in its accounts. It has again used a range of short term measures to manage its budgetary position but this is not a sustainable answer to the financial problems which it faces. The Department and its partners need to create and implement a robust, credible and comprehensive plan to move the NHS to a more sustainable financial footing.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
Good find Mr. Owls, but noting the problem does nothing to solve it. To do that we must first ask why the problem exists, do we not? What is causing these financial pressures? Just throwing money at the NHS hasn't worked and will continue not to work until the underlying causes are addressed. Nobody seems to want to talk about those. I wonder why.
Apols to the poster who originally posted it - just got round to reading it. Well worth a looksee.
"Who was the first candidate for president to comment on the Brussels bombing Tuesday? Who issued the most assertive, saber-rattling denunciations on the morning shows, making the rest of the field look timid? Of course, Mr. First was Donald Trump, whose verbal fleetness and willingness to talk to almost any reporter at almost any time of the day about almost any topic have made him the pacesetter this election year.
According to MSNBC, Hillary Clinton declined interview requests yesterday “until she saw that Trump was calling in to morning news shows,” and then went on the air to criticize him, although not by name. By diving in so late, Clinton was reduced to replowing a field that Trump had already turned. Like the Republican candidates before her, Clinton was already caught inside Trump’s OODA loop.
...OODA stands for observation; orientation; decision; action—the four steps an individual goes through when reacting to an event...”
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I had Jobabob in mind
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
Scotland would be another very good candidate.
We'd need a seasonal-workers visa scheme for the fruit harvests in the Marches.
We could always tell the unemployed in the cities to get on their bicycle and pick fruit for a couple of months or benefits cease
Or increase wages, though apparently that's not allowed to happen any longer.
Have you seen the cost of help these days, Lady Bracknell?
Because Cook and Root wanted to get centuries. Seems like a good reason to me.
Daft.
Why? There's no rush to finish the match. I get the impression some of the TV and radio commentators have got used to four day finishes and like the extra day off.
ECB pressure on Cook to get a full day's play today.
North West England Forecast Summary Tuesday We will get a mixture of bright spells and showers tomorrow. Showers will mostly stay light but there may be a few heavy bursts over the Pennines later.
RCS voted Leave, I believe. London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
Disproportionate to what ? The number of people living there certainly, but the number of people working there ? London sucks in well in excess of 3m people every day as commuters to work there.
Anyway according to many on here, this is all fake - these bloody scientists all feeding from the AGW trough!
Really?
"..last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide, and the fourteenth straight month that global heat records were broken”. This claim came from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),...
But what might also have been pointed out was that in recent years claims like this have, for two reasons, become increasingly controversial. For a start, as I have reported many times before, those responsible for compiling these records of global surface temperatures, including NOAA, have come under expert questioning for the way thay have long been engaging in wholesale “adjustment” of their data, almost invariably in the same direction. For earlier years, back to the 1930s and 1940s, their temperature figures have been revised downwards, while those for recent years have regularly been “adjusted” upwards – thus conveying that the world has been heating up much more than was justified by the original recorded data....."
"...But what also gets tellingly ignored...is that, since 1998, there has been an increasingly glaring divergence between the global temperatures shown by these surface records and the much more comprehensive temperature measurements made by US satellites. These clearly show 1998 as having been still easily the hottest year on record: more than 0.2 degrees C warmer than 2016. But the satellites have also lately been showing temperatures again dropping sharply, as happens each time an El Nino reverses into a La Nina. This suggests that these dramatic fluctuations have nothing to do with human activity but arise naturally."
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
I had Jobabob in mind
I don't think I am always singing the praises of the Australian system. Today was the first time I have mentioned it, and that was in jest.
I didn't say I was opposed let alone 'so opposed', though can't see why Visas have to be just for London. Many people would welcome that system for the whole country over the current EU FoM
Scotland would be another very good candidate.
Had we voted 52-48 to remain, I wonder how much of a hearing they would have got if the people of Sunderland, Boston etc made demands to have tougher immigration rules for their specific Leave voting regions.
Not much I reckon
So, whatever the merits of the London visa, I don't think using the regional referendum result as justification is valid. If it's in the national interest for London to have a different rule, then fair enough I'm sure the rest of the country would understand
Is most of the money staked at Betfair on the US presidential election coming from Britain?
This is given that betting on the election is unlawful in the US, for some definition of "in".
The reason I ask is that the Betfair prices (Trump 30% probability) seem way out of line with the polls (1.9% Clinton lead - RCP average; Trump probability 40%-44% - Five Thirty-Eight forecasts; Trump 3% in the lead - latest CNN poll).
Are Brits rushing to buy the favourite, as they did with a hung parliament and Remain? I wouldn't stretch the latter analogy too far - there aren't many shy Trumpers. Barring cataclysms in the few days before the election, if Trump wins he's unlikely to have been trailing in the polls going into the vote.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
The arrogance of the ideological Brexiter in all its glory. This kind of "get over it, you lost" attitude is very dangerous for our country's future, even if it does work as a device that allows you not to engage with arguments that are inconvenient to your world view.
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
Who did you have in mind?
And given you are always singing the praises of the Australian system, why are you so opposed to bringing one of the more popular parts of it - geographically restrictive visas - to the UK?
There are remainers on here who think London should ignore the countrywide result because London voted to remain. They seem to have a "get over it, you lost" attitude to Londoners who voted to Leave, even though they are having to change the rules retrospectively for their argument to be valid.
With the moaning, special-pleading, and list of grievances those remainer Londoners are starting to sound an awful lot like the bloody Nats.
Better than listening to your whining , nasty Little Englander bigotry.
''1st significant convention bounce CNN has found since 2000''
John Redwood has pointed out that Trump's offer includes big tax cuts for America's middle class.
Some of his opponents are so obsessed with calling him names they seem to have missed this rather important topic.
I watched a bit of CNN's reaction to their own Trump Speech poll - and it was comical. I've rarely seen such WTF handwaving as they wriggled between trashing their own survey and reporting it.
Is most of the money staked at Betfair on the US presidential election coming from Britain?
This is given that betting on the election is unlawful in the US, for some definition of "in".
The reason I ask is that the Betfair prices (Trump 30% probability) seem way out of line with the polls (1.9% Clinton lead - RCP average; Trump probability 40%-44% - Five Thirty-Eight forecasts; Trump 3% in the lead - latest CNN poll).
Are Brits rushing to buy the favourite, as they did with a hung parliament and Remain? I wouldn't stretch the latter analogy too far - there aren't many shy Trumpers. Barring cataclysms in the few days before the election, if Trump wins he's unlikely to have been trailing in the polls going into the vote.
Don't look at the national polls, it's 50 statewide polls. It's a complex picture but Hillary looks to be ahead in almost all the states that matter.
Got to love Boycott: Geoffrey Boycott Ex-England batsman on BBC Test Match Special It's like commentating on a charity match - just chuck it up. It's overkill. Pakistan wouldn't get these runs if I was bowling!
London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
I think that's a very partial take on London's success. The idea that London is open to the rest of the world whereas the rest of the country isn't is just plain wrong. Regions are crying out for foreign investment - I think they gave up on home grown investment a long time ago. London built a vast financial industry that became a millstone round our necks. You also have an awful lot of dubious money involved and frankly governments turning a blind eye to a kind of tax haven. Maybe that is starting to change. But notice how when Ed Miliband wanted to get on the whole tax haven/avoidance issue Ed Balls would turn into McCavity. I wonder why?
No doubt there's some great things going on in niche sectors (tech city?) but it's folly to suggest that this is what is really driving London's 'success'. Foreign investment in property might boost GDP but the place is becoming unaffordable for the people who actually live there. What kind of success is that? Perhaps many of the workers the city relies on can commute in from Brexitland.
I also think we need a reappraisal of this word 'talent'. I've no doubt many of the people heading to London are very driven - to make money and be near the centre of power? Is that really the same thing as talent? I'm struck by how many talented people I know who don't want to live in London, regarding it as too expensive, too congested and not altogether friendly - perhaps not surprising given the 'drive' needed to succeed there. Do most people really want to work 16 hour days for Goldman's? I think the inability to distinguish between drive and talent and our leaders' fascination with the money men played a real part in the naivety before the financial crisis. Perhaps we need such people migrating to London from all over the world. But let's face it the make up of migrants in provincial England will be quite different.
RCS voted Leave, I believe. London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
Disproportionate to what ? The number of people living there certainly, but the number of people working there ? London sucks in well in excess of 3m people every day as commuters to work there.
Quite so. I also wonder what the figures look like when you adjust for the number of wealth consumers (e.g. all the government employees, direct and indirect) as opposed to wealth creators.
Is most of the money staked at Betfair on the US presidential election coming from Britain?
This is given that betting on the election is unlawful in the US, for some definition of "in".
The reason I ask is that the Betfair prices (Trump 30% probability) seem way out of line with the polls (1.9% Clinton lead - RCP average; Trump probability 40%-44% - Five Thirty-Eight forecasts; Trump 3% in the lead - latest CNN poll).
Are Brits rushing to buy the favourite, as they did with a hung parliament and Remain? I wouldn't stretch the latter analogy too far - there aren't many shy Trumpers. Barring cataclysms in the few days before the election, if Trump wins he's unlikely to have been trailing in the polls going into the vote.
Don't look at the national polls, it's 50 statewide polls. It's a complex picture but Hillary looks to be ahead in almost all the states that matter.
Those State polls are not as up to date as the national poll. If Trump is ahead nationally, then he is ahead in the swing states. Same for Hillary.
Because Cook and Root wanted to get centuries. Seems like a good reason to me.
Daft.
Why? There's no rush to finish the match. I get the impression some of the TV and radio commentators have got used to four day finishes and like the extra day off.
I was on board with not enforcing the follow on, wanting to crush the opponents with the weight of the score and so on, but I was astounded they didn't decide to have 2 full days (minus any rain) to have a go. I guess just for the awkward factor they decided to declare mid morning - still, another hour and the rate they were scoring no problem in Cook and Root getting centuries again! Restrained themselves there. Cook was practically a run a ball!
“The NHS in England remains under significant financial pressure which is demonstrated in its accounts. It has again used a range of short term measures to manage its budgetary position but this is not a sustainable answer to the financial problems which it faces. The Department and its partners need to create and implement a robust, credible and comprehensive plan to move the NHS to a more sustainable financial footing.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
Good find Mr. Owls, but noting the problem does nothing to solve it. To do that we must first ask why the problem exists, do we not? What is causing these financial pressures? Just throwing money at the NHS hasn't worked and will continue not to work until the underlying causes are addressed. Nobody seems to want to talk about those. I wonder why.
The USA 'throws' 17% of GDP at its healthcare system. UK spending is 7-8%. France and Germany spend >10%. Canada, which has a similar approach to us; i.e., direct use of tax revenues, without the extra admin. of 'insurance' and billing and reclaims, spends >10%.
Unless all the 30-40 systems in other developed countries are even more wastefully organised, it appears that part of the NHS's problem clearly *is* lack of money, to the tune of 3-4% of GDP.
It was completely ridiculous and ultimately pointless but what an innings that was by Root. He just has all the shots. Well over 300 runs in the match.
Finally something my and @stodge with our different strands of liberalism can agree on. Mark Littlewood had a majestic piece on it in yesterdays Mail. #1 While we're all making Kubler-Ross jibes Leavers are in denial as well. There is a fundamental contradiction in the Leave coalition. There was in Remain as well but we lost so it doesn't matter. #2 The WWC were lied to. They were told restricting immigration would make them richer. It will make them poorer. Maybe they'll be happy with that trade off in the end. But they were lied to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705165/The-great-Brexit-immigration-LIE-Like-Cameron-foolish-promise-migrant-numbers-just-t-writes-MARK-LITTLEWOOD.html
Yawn.
Yawn ? Enjoying the after glow while it lasts but the contradictions examined by the ' London Visa ' strand of this thread are profound and aren't going away.Littlewwood is laser sharp. Look where " Yawn " got europhile like myself as a response to contradictions.
Look I recognise your entire world view has collapsed since (probably) the last GE with the wipe-out of the Lib Dems and now the end of the UK's EU membership, but you really do need to move on. Projecting your psychological crises onto others doesn't help.
RCS voted Leave, I believe.
London contributes around 20% to this country's overall GDP, far in excess of its proportional share. It is one of the very few areas of the UK that is a net giver to the UK's coffers. It has done this as a result of being open to the rest of the world. If we want to mitigate some of the potential short and medium term negative effects of Brexit - ones that will have an impact on the overall tax take and, therefore, the government's ability to meet current spending commitments, let alone any future ones - we need to ensure that London remains as attractive as it has been up to now. Special visas may well be one solution.
London was dominating the UK economy before mass immigration took hold. This is regional GVA vs national GVA average.
@malcolmg you're underestimating. London got £5.3k per head of capital investment in 2014, versus £223 per head in the NE. No figures for Scotland I'm afraid. That's roughly 2,400% .
Pakistan just need to go at 3 an over for 185 overs now. Easy win. Although probably more like 3.5 an hour for 150 assuming no dry spells, given how many overs people lose.
Is most of the money staked at Betfair on the US presidential election coming from Britain?
This is given that betting on the election is unlawful in the US, for some definition of "in".
The reason I ask is that the Betfair prices (Trump 30% probability) seem way out of line with the polls (1.9% Clinton lead - RCP average; Trump probability 40%-44% - Five Thirty-Eight forecasts; Trump 3% in the lead - latest CNN poll).
Are Brits rushing to buy the favourite, as they did with a hung parliament and Remain? I wouldn't stretch the latter analogy too far - there aren't many shy Trumpers. Barring cataclysms in the few days before the election, if Trump wins he's unlikely to have been trailing in the polls going into the vote.
Don't look at the national polls, it's 50 statewide polls. It's a complex picture but Hillary looks to be ahead in almost all the states that matter.
Anyway according to many on here, this is all fake - these bloody scientists all feeding from the AGW trough!
Really?
"..last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide, and the fourteenth straight month that global heat records were broken”. This claim came from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),...
But what might also have been pointed out was that in recent years claims like this have, for two reasons, become increasingly controversial. For a start, as I have reported many times before, those responsible for compiling these records of global surface temperatures, including NOAA, have come under expert questioning for the way thay have long been engaging in wholesale “adjustment” of their data, almost invariably in the same direction. For earlier years, back to the 1930s and 1940s, their temperature figures have been revised downwards, while those for recent years have regularly been “adjusted” upwards – thus conveying that the world has been heating up much more than was justified by the original recorded data....."
"...But what also gets tellingly ignored...is that, since 1998, there has been an increasingly glaring divergence between the global temperatures shown by these surface records and the much more comprehensive temperature measurements made by US satellites. These clearly show 1998 as having been still easily the hottest year on record: more than 0.2 degrees C warmer than 2016. But the satellites have also lately been showing temperatures again dropping sharply, as happens each time an El Nino reverses into a La Nina. This suggests that these dramatic fluctuations have nothing to do with human activity but arise naturally."
RE: "last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide,"
.....and there was I thinking that the summers of 1975 and 1976 were hotter than 2016. We even had a Minister for Drought in 1976. Maybe the sun just missed our little land in June 2016?
That doesn't entirely surprise me. I heard his speech and thought it might resonate with the views of the public no matter that it was poorly delivered and substance free, as Trump is at least on the same page as the wider public.
Is most of the money staked at Betfair on the US presidential election coming from Britain?
This is given that betting on the election is unlawful in the US, for some definition of "in".
The reason I ask is that the Betfair prices (Trump 30% probability) seem way out of line with the polls (1.9% Clinton lead - RCP average; Trump probability 40%-44% - Five Thirty-Eight forecasts; Trump 3% in the lead - latest CNN poll).
Are Brits rushing to buy the favourite, as they did with a hung parliament and Remain? I wouldn't stretch the latter analogy too far - there aren't many shy Trumpers. Barring cataclysms in the few days before the election, if Trump wins he's unlikely to have been trailing in the polls going into the vote.
Don't look at the national polls, it's 50 statewide polls. It's a complex picture but Hillary looks to be ahead in almost all the states that matter.
Odd point to declare when your two batsman are piling runs on with abandon and closing in on centuries.
15-20minute break leaves an awkward hour before lunch was I presume the thinking. Still, if they'd gone a little quicker last night, they'd have had time to get the centuries this morning (it appears time more than runs was the reason for the change). Cook'll be happy with a not out - he doesn't get many, as an opener, and its hard to beef up your average without them when you've played 131 matches.
“The NHS in England remains under significant financial pressure which is demonstrated in its accounts. It has again used a range of short term measures to manage its budgetary position but this is not a sustainable answer to the financial problems which it faces. The Department and its partners need to create and implement a robust, credible and comprehensive plan to move the NHS to a more sustainable financial footing.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
Good find Mr. Owls, but noting the problem does nothing to solve it. To do that we must first ask why the problem exists, do we not? What is causing these financial pressures? Just throwing money at the NHS hasn't worked and will continue not to work until the underlying causes are addressed. Nobody seems to want to talk about those. I wonder why.
The USA 'throws' 17% of GDP at its healthcare system. UK spending is 7-8%. France and Germany spend >10%. Canada, which has a similar approach to us; i.e., direct use of tax revenues, without the extra admin. of 'insurance' and billing and reclaims, spends >10%.
Unless all the 30-40 systems in other developed countries are even more wastefully organised, it appears that part of the NHS's problem clearly *is* lack of money, to the tune of 3-4% of GDP.
One graph i saw indicated that the pronblem was the lack of private money spent on health and not the tax payer spend which was comparable or greater than our neighbours spending. Maybe all this socialism in the NHS has prevented the spending on private health tah tour neighbours encourage?
"I think when you put all this together, it's a disturbing picture," says her campaign manager Robby Mook. Well yes, I suppose you could say that the Kremlin being close to installing its man in the Oval Office might be considered "disturbing" by some. The Clinton side's problem is that they can't shout accusations in the way that Trump shouted about Obama's birthplace and will shout about Benghazi.
“The NHS in England remains under significant financial pressure which is demonstrated in its accounts. It has again used a range of short term measures to manage its budgetary position but this is not a sustainable answer to the financial problems which it faces. The Department and its partners need to create and implement a robust, credible and comprehensive plan to move the NHS to a more sustainable financial footing.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
Good find Mr. Owls, but noting the problem does nothing to solve it. To do that we must first ask why the problem exists, do we not? What is causing these financial pressures? Just throwing money at the NHS hasn't worked and will continue not to work until the underlying causes are addressed. Nobody seems to want to talk about those. I wonder why.
The USA 'throws' 17% of GDP at its healthcare system. UK spending is 7-8%. France and Germany spend >10%. Canada, which has a similar approach to us; i.e., direct use of tax revenues, without the extra admin. of 'insurance' and billing and reclaims, spends >10%.
Unless all the 30-40 systems in other developed countries are even more wastefully organised, it appears that part of the NHS's problem clearly *is* lack of money, to the tune of 3-4% of GDP.
One graph i saw indicated that the pronblem was the lack of private money spent on health and not the tax payer spend which was comparable or greater than our neighbours spending. Maybe all this socialism in the NHS has prevented the spending on private health tah tour neighbours encourage?
We also spend a lot less on preventative care than in Europe. Short termism isn't just a private sector malaise in the UK.
Cricket - the bowlers have had a rest, the score on a decent pitch is now ungettable with two days to bowl them out and the captain has selflessly declared his own innings in the 70s. Good thinking.
"I think when you put all this together, it's a disturbing picture," says her campaign manager Robby Mook. Well yes, I suppose you could say that the Kremlin being close to installing its man in the Oval Office might be considered "disturbing" by some. The Clinton side's problem is that they can't shout accusations in the way that Trump shouted about Obama's birthplace and will shout about Benghazi.
“The NHS in England remains under significant financial pressure which is demonstrated in its accounts. It has again used a range of short term measures to manage its budgetary position but this is not a sustainable answer to the financial problems which it faces. The Department and its partners need to create and implement a robust, credible and comprehensive plan to move the NHS to a more sustainable financial footing.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
Good find Mr. Owls, but noting the problem does nothing to solve it. To do that we must first ask why the problem exists, do we not? What is causing these financial pressures? Just throwing money at the NHS hasn't worked and will continue not to work until the underlying causes are addressed. Nobody seems to want to talk about those. I wonder why.
The USA 'throws' 17% of GDP at its healthcare system. UK spending is 7-8%. France and Germany spend >10%. Canada, which has a similar approach to us; i.e., direct use of tax revenues, without the extra admin. of 'insurance' and billing and reclaims, spends >10%.
Unless all the 30-40 systems in other developed countries are even more wastefully organised, it appears that part of the NHS's problem clearly *is* lack of money, to the tune of 3-4% of GDP.
One graph i saw indicated that the pronblem was the lack of private money spent on health and not the tax payer spend which was comparable or greater than our neighbours spending. Maybe all this socialism in the NHS has prevented the spending on private health tah tour neighbours encourage?
The whole argument about "NHS Top up payments" a few years ago shows what the mindset is here.
Root has to be the best player ever for England in the modern age, surely? The only English person likely to catch Cook's stats as well.
His ability to be be one of the best in all forms of the game in all conditions is quite outstanding. Cook is great at test cricket, but he has never been able to adapt to ODIs, let alone T20. Pietersen great at limited overs and had some good test average, but you would never back him to dig in for 8hrs on difficult test pitches.
Root also good in the slips. Only thing that lets him down is those lollypop deliveries, but I think we can let him off.
I can't think of another English player in the modern age like Root.
“The NHS in England remains under significant financial pressure which is demonstrated in its accounts. It has again used a range of short term measures to manage its budgetary position but this is not a sustainable answer to the financial problems which it faces. The Department and its partners need to create and implement a robust, credible and comprehensive plan to move the NHS to a more sustainable financial footing.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
Good find Mr. Owls, but noting the problem does nothing to solve it. To do that we must first ask why the problem exists, do we not? What is causing these financial pressures? Just throwing money at the NHS hasn't worked and will continue not to work until the underlying causes are addressed. Nobody seems to want to talk about those. I wonder why.
The USA 'throws' 17% of GDP at its healthcare system. UK spending is 7-8%. France and Germany spend >10%. Canada, which has a similar approach to us; i.e., direct use of tax revenues, without the extra admin. of 'insurance' and billing and reclaims, spends >10%.
Unless all the 30-40 systems in other developed countries are even more wastefully organised, it appears that part of the NHS's problem clearly *is* lack of money, to the tune of 3-4% of GDP.
I am not sure that wholly makes sense. A few years ago the NHS was not permanently in financial trouble. Spending on the NHS has increased year on year. So if it wasn't in trouble before and expenditure has increased why is it in trouble now?
On top of that are the health systems in, say, France are reportedly in deficit too. So maybe proportion of GDP spent is not really a useful measure in working out what is causing the problem.
I think we need a bit more thought and analysis before we decide to throw another 3-4% of GDP at the NHS. That sort of money has to come from somewhere and it ain't going to be from other government departments. So it can only come from the productive economy, which means less investment and less wealth.
Comments
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 21 July 2016
It's all good in the hood.
We're all Brexiteers now Leave won. Remain lost. It's a result. Discussion moves from whether to how. There's no going back. Unfortunately we may not go forward much either, because :-
Brexit doesn't resolve anything People who voted Leave because they don't like the EU very much and wish it would go away will be disappointed to find the EU impacting even more now we are out. The EU is the only show in town, or rather in Europe, which despite everything is where the UK is located. Our relationship with the EU informs our other relationships, not just with every other European country, but also third party countries. The world remains a globalised place despite the backlash, of which Brexit is a part. Success comes from playing the globalisation game well. Brexit complicates that for us.
On another topic, immigration is likely remain high, beyond the effect of a Brexit induced recession, which no-one should celebrate.
Brexit won't be a disaster, probably, but it will be costly There aren't any real economic upsides to Brexit. The question is how much the downsides will weigh, in terms of uncertainty and the narrowing of horizons. It may not be huge. It will take a lot of effort in damage limitation, replacement of existing agreements and endless negotiation to get to a situation that is rather more mediocre than what we had previously.
BBC News and the BBC World News was the answer.
Meanwhile I note that the Remoaners are still around on this website.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/757511830348660736
2 overs down and still 10 Pakistani wickets to get.
David Lloyd, on Sky Sports, joked that England might be tempted to put Pakistan in for an hour tonight.
Would it be fair to say the blow really is on sentiment - the numbers themselves seem to be OK?
Satellite data will get further revisions as errors get weeded out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMsYXzmUYk
Trump 48 Clinton 45
With third parties:
Trump 44 Clinton 39
http://www.libdemvoice.org/paddy-ashdown-responds-to-questions-to-more-united-51424.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
http://www.moreunited.uk/
First time I've actually seen it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/24/eu-britain-must-suffer-for-brexit
In addition: not everything that starts off statistically negligible stays that way. Paedophilia as a threat keeps within limits because most people aren't that way and are not capable of being converted to being that way. Terrorism doesn't necessarily. We are already near the point where "don't go to large organised events in France" looks like a rational rule of thumb.
Forecast Summary
Tuesday
We will get a mixture of bright spells and showers tomorrow. Showers will mostly stay light but there may be a few heavy bursts over the Pennines later.
I'm half hoping it pisses it down in Manchester to teach Cook a lesson.
Meanwhile the domestic source of unskilled labour dosent fancy it because its easier to live on benefits.
Up until the 50s trainloads of people left the cities to spend the summer as hop pickers and the like.
Not sure that modern benefit recipients would much want to live in a tent for two months though.
When he's finished Cook will be England's greatest batsman by some degree, at least as far as stats are concerned.
"Who was the first candidate for president to comment on the Brussels bombing Tuesday? Who issued the most assertive, saber-rattling denunciations on the morning shows, making the rest of the field look timid? Of course, Mr. First was Donald Trump, whose verbal fleetness and willingness to talk to almost any reporter at almost any time of the day about almost any topic have made him the pacesetter this election year.
According to MSNBC, Hillary Clinton declined interview requests yesterday “until she saw that Trump was calling in to morning news shows,” and then went on the air to criticize him, although not by name. By diving in so late, Clinton was reduced to replowing a field that Trump had already turned. Like the Republican candidates before her, Clinton was already caught inside Trump’s OODA loop.
...OODA stands for observation; orientation; decision; action—the four steps an individual goes through when reacting to an event...”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-2016-fighter-jock-213761#ixzz4FPnXobmy
Trump 48% (+6)
Clinton 45% (-4)
1st significant convention bounce CNN has found since 2000
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html
John Redwood has pointed out that Trump's offer includes big tax cuts for America's middle class.
Some of his opponents are so obsessed with calling him names they seem to have missed this rather important topic.
It ain't exactly the sahara.
Not much I reckon
So, whatever the merits of the London visa, I don't think using the regional referendum result as justification is valid. If it's in the national interest for London to have a different rule, then fair enough I'm sure the rest of the country would understand
This is given that betting on the election is unlawful in the US, for some definition of "in".
The reason I ask is that the Betfair prices (Trump 30% probability) seem way out of line with the polls (1.9% Clinton lead - RCP average; Trump probability 40%-44% - Five Thirty-Eight forecasts; Trump 3% in the lead - latest CNN poll).
Are Brits rushing to buy the favourite, as they did with a hung parliament and Remain? I wouldn't stretch the latter analogy too far - there aren't many shy Trumpers. Barring cataclysms in the few days before the election, if Trump wins he's unlikely to have been trailing in the polls going into the vote.
Geoffrey Boycott
Ex-England batsman on BBC Test Match Special
It's like commentating on a charity match - just chuck it up. It's overkill. Pakistan wouldn't get these runs if I was bowling!
https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/757361348757991424
Same for Hillary.
Cook's highest for all innings facing at least 22 balls.
Unless all the 30-40 systems in other developed countries are even more wastefully organised, it appears that part of the NHS's problem clearly *is* lack of money, to the tune of 3-4% of GDP.
@malcolmg you're underestimating. London got £5.3k per head of capital investment in 2014, versus £223 per head in the NE. No figures for Scotland I'm afraid. That's roughly 2,400%
% Hillary is ahead/last measured:
10/07/2016 -2.0% Nevada
20/07/2016 0.0% Ohio
15/07/2016 0.5% Iowa
11/07/2016 1.0% Florida
11/07/2016 1.0% Pennsylvania
Nintendo shares dropped by 17.7% after they more than doubled in value since the game's launch on 6 July.
.....and there was I thinking that the summers of 1975 and 1976 were hotter than 2016. We even had a Minister for Drought in 1976. Maybe the sun just missed our little land in June 2016?
"I think when you put all this together, it's a disturbing picture," says her campaign manager Robby Mook. Well yes, I suppose you could say that the Kremlin being close to installing its man in the Oval Office might be considered "disturbing" by some. The Clinton side's problem is that they can't shout accusations in the way that Trump shouted about Obama's birthplace and will shout about Benghazi.
Getting runs in England probably harder than Australia's hard but predictable pitches - so I'd rate him over Smith.
Best batter certainly. Still think beefy is the best cricketer tho'.
With the emergence of Woakes, England potentially have a pretty exciting side.
I think that's what they call a double whammy.
Root also good in the slips. Only thing that lets him down is those lollypop deliveries, but I think we can let him off.
I can't think of another English player in the modern age like Root.
On top of that are the health systems in, say, France are reportedly in deficit too. So maybe proportion of GDP spent is not really a useful measure in working out what is causing the problem.
I think we need a bit more thought and analysis before we decide to throw another 3-4% of GDP at the NHS. That sort of money has to come from somewhere and it ain't going to be from other government departments. So it can only come from the productive economy, which means less investment and less wealth.