Excellent, my copy of Stiglitz's new book has arrived. I'm told it is the best he's written.
The Euro?
Yes. I'm about a quarter of the way through. It's fantastic so far. Those who are expecting it to be purely a good kicking for the Euro will be disappointed - though he is enthusiastically beating the shit out of it. I shall say no more for risk of spoilers.
I’ve just had my ticket inspected. Without mentioning that I’m a journalist I try to get a conversation started: “Plenty of spare seats today...,” I say. “Aye, even enough for Mr Corbyn,” comes the reply.
Its the ridicule that does for politicians. Ed Miliband got more blasting from lefty comics than Cameron (before pig-gate), because he was such an easy target.
@MikeGapes Perhaps It was the Hogwarts Express. And all the children were wearing invisibility cloaks.
We are dealing from a strong hand on this one - the EU will want to make sure they can still do business with us without making the prospect of secession from the club so attractive as to tempt others into thinking about withdrawal.
Our geography alone means that a UK-EU deal will be quite unique and not be a template for many of the other European countries. From the EU's perspective this should be of some reassurance against break-up as even if we wanted to be a breakaway leader, we're too separate (other than Ireland) to be one.
In my fantasy world, we'd boost the defence budget to 3% (sorry NHS) and use that money for maritime security in the Baltic & Med.
Sadly, I don't think the EU will put that much value in our defence contribution - certainly it won't win us bank passporting and no free movement. At 3% of 15% our defence spending would be 0.45% of EU GDP which won't buy much of an army or Navy, and that doesn't even consider whether the UK public would be happy having our army serving under EU civilian control.
I'd rather be out of the single market than have our military under any kind of EU command and control structure.
We could provide maritime security outwith EU control. The EU would be an ally, just as the US is.
To provide maritime security we would need a proper navy considerably bigger than the one currently being planned.
CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....
Jeeza my old mucka, leader of the opposition, it ain't like appearing on Jeopardy. I want a NHS question for $100, I want an NHS question for $500..
To be fair, as well as adding considerably to the gaity of the nation, the Labour leadership contest has started to force some policies out of Jezza.
One of the more bizarre bits of the banking crisis is that we did nationalise a fair amount of PFI as a lot of the loans were via RBS and Lloyds. It leaves us in the interesting position that we are charging commercial levels of interest to PFI consortia and then to our own NHS, while the NHS could borrow at record low rates itself.
I’ve just had my ticket inspected. Without mentioning that I’m a journalist I try to get a conversation started: “Plenty of spare seats today...,” I say. “Aye, even enough for Mr Corbyn,” comes the reply.
Its the ridicule that does for politicians. Ed Miliband got more blasting from lefty comics than Cameron (before pig-gate), because he was such an easy target.
@MikeGapes Perhaps It was the Hogwarts Express. And all the children were wearing invisibility cloaks.
Bloody Tories...oh wait he's Labour....no my mistake, the Moamentum mob think he is a closet Tory.
CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....
Jeeza my old mucka, leader of the opposition, it ain't like appearing on Jeopardy. I want a NHS question for $100, I want an NHS question for $500..
To be fair, as well as adding considerably to the gaity of the nation, the Labour leadership contest has started to force some policies out of Jezza.
One of the more bizarre bits of the banking crisis is that we did nationalise a fair amount of PFI as a lot of the loans were via RBS and Lloyds. It leaves us in the interesting position that we are charging commercial levels of interest to PFI consortia and then to our own NHS, while the NHS could borrow at record low rates itself.
I do wonder whether the government should step into the market and wind down its own PFI schemes at a time it can borrow cheaply. Whilst I am in general opposed to the government playing at investment banker, it would help secure the financial future of a raft of schools and hospitals, at a time when that security is most needed.
CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....
Jeeza my old mucka, leader of the opposition, it ain't like appearing on Jeopardy. I want a NHS question for $100, I want an NHS question for $500..
To be fair, as well as adding considerably to the gaity of the nation, the Labour leadership contest has started to force some policies out of Jezza.
One of the more bizarre bits of the banking crisis is that we did nationalise a fair amount of PFI as a lot of the loans were via RBS and Lloyds. It leaves us in the interesting position that we are charging commercial levels of interest to PFI consortia and then to our own NHS, while the NHS could borrow at record low rates itself.
I do wonder whether the government should step into the market and wind down its own PFI schemes at a time it can borrow cheaply. Whilst I am in general opposed to the government playing at investment banker, it would help secure the financial future of a raft of schools and hospitals, at a time when that security is most needed.
How much of a penalty would we incur if we were to buy out the various PFI schemes? I suspect it would be quite big!
CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....
Jeeza my old mucka, leader of the opposition, it ain't like appearing on Jeopardy. I want a NHS question for $100, I want an NHS question for $500..
To be fair, as well as adding considerably to the gaity of the nation, the Labour leadership contest has started to force some policies out of Jezza.
One of the more bizarre bits of the banking crisis is that we did nationalise a fair amount of PFI as a lot of the loans were via RBS and Lloyds. It leaves us in the interesting position that we are charging commercial levels of interest to PFI consortia and then to our own NHS, while the NHS could borrow at record low rates itself.
I do wonder whether the government should step into the market and wind down its own PFI schemes at a time it can borrow cheaply. Whilst I am in general opposed to the government playing at investment banker, it would help secure the financial future of a raft of schools and hospitals, at a time when that security is most needed.
How much of a penalty would we incur if we were to buy out the various PFI schemes? I suspect it would be quite big!
Along the lines of buying out the carrier contracts from BAe I imagine. Brown and his team were never very good at negotiating contracts.
CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....
Jeeza my old mucka, leader of the opposition, it ain't like appearing on Jeopardy. I want a NHS question for $100, I want an NHS question for $500..
To be fair, as well as adding considerably to the gaity of the nation, the Labour leadership contest has started to force some policies out of Jezza.
One of the more bizarre bits of the banking crisis is that we did nationalise a fair amount of PFI as a lot of the loans were via RBS and Lloyds. It leaves us in the interesting position that we are charging commercial levels of interest to PFI consortia and then to our own NHS, while the NHS could borrow at record low rates itself.
I do wonder whether the government should step into the market and wind down its own PFI schemes at a time it can borrow cheaply. Whilst I am in general opposed to the government playing at investment banker, it would help secure the financial future of a raft of schools and hospitals, at a time when that security is most needed.
How much of a penalty would we incur if we were to buy out the various PFI schemes? I suspect it would be quite big!
Along the lines of buying out the carrier contracts from BAe I imagine. Brown and his team were never very good at negotiating contracts.
Presently "The Donald" has no path to 270. He has to turn around Pennsylvania and Florida and hope to cling on elsewhere. Lose either and even taking Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and all Romney and he still can't make 270. Not looking hopeful for Trumpsters.
I've not seen a recent PA poll but the last I saw had Clinton 10 points up and FL much the same. As you say, IF HRC wins OH, PA and FL it's over and the question then becomes how deep HRC can go into the GOP states.
If she can pick up states like MO, GA, AZ and both NC (currently 9 points up) and SC it will be a landslide. The only 2012 Dem states that seem close to me at the moment are IA and NV.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Interesting to check out the Senate races too. Going by RealClearpolitics' Senate battleground map and recent polls, it looks very much like around 50-50, but if the GOP can gain a couple of points they should hold on, which will somewhat tie the hands of Clinton if she wins.
We are dealing from a strong hand on this one - the EU will want to make sure they can still do business with us without making the prospect of secession from the club so attractive as to tempt others into thinking about withdrawal.
Our geography alone means that a UK-EU deal will be quite unique and not be a template for many of the other European countries. From the EU's perspective this should be of some reassurance against break-up as even if we wanted to be a breakaway leader, we're too separate (other than Ireland) to be one.
A breakaway leader of a confederation of independent European states? And the EU are countering this threat by creating a (grand) army? Where have I heard this before??
I don't think the EU army plans have anything to do with us. To quote the book, it's not all about you.
Presently "The Donald" has no path to 270. He has to turn around Pennsylvania and Florida and hope to cling on elsewhere. Lose either and even taking Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and all Romney and he still can't make 270. Not looking hopeful for Trumpsters.
I've not seen a recent PA poll but the last I saw had Clinton 10 points up and FL much the same. As you say, IF HRC wins OH, PA and FL it's over and the question then becomes how deep HRC can go into the GOP states.
If she can pick up states like MO, GA, AZ and both NC (currently 9 points up) and SC it will be a landslide. The only 2012 Dem states that seem close to me at the moment are IA and NV.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Trump presently leads in MO, GA, AZ and SC in the latest polls and is only just behind in NC. Iowa and Nevada and Florida are also closer to Trump than the national average and Ohio at the national average. In any case the debates are key, if Trump wins the first debate and wins the second too it will be neck and neck again. In 2012 Romney trailed by about the same as Trump after the DNC convention but took the lead after winning the first debate before he lost the second debate
We are dealing from a strong hand on this one - the EU will want to make sure they can still do business with us without making the prospect of secession from the club so attractive as to tempt others into thinking about withdrawal.
Our geography alone means that a UK-EU deal will be quite unique and not be a template for many of the other European countries. From the EU's perspective this should be of some reassurance against break-up as even if we wanted to be a breakaway leader, we're too separate (other than Ireland) to be one.
In my fantasy world, we'd boost the defence budget to 3% (sorry NHS) and use that money for maritime security in the Baltic & Med.
Sadly, I don't think the EU will put that much value in our defence contribution - certainly it won't win us bank passporting and no free movement. At 3% of 15% our defence spending would be 0.45% of EU GDP which won't buy much of an army or Navy, and that doesn't even consider whether the UK public would be happy having our army serving under EU civilian control.
I'd rather be out of the single market than have our military under any kind of EU command and control structure.
We could provide maritime security outwith EU control. The EU would be an ally, just as the US is.
To provide maritime security we would need a proper navy considerably bigger than the one currently being planned.
Or even a Navy never mind a proper one, the current handful of bathtubs and expensive boats that don't work when the sun shines etc are pathetic.
CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....
Jeeza my old mucka, leader of the opposition, it ain't like appearing on Jeopardy. I want a NHS question for $100, I want an NHS question for $500..
To be fair, as well as adding considerably to the gaity of the nation, the Labour leadership contest has started to force some policies out of Jezza.
One of the more bizarre bits of the banking crisis is that we did nationalise a fair amount of PFI as a lot of the loans were via RBS and Lloyds. It leaves us in the interesting position that we are charging commercial levels of interest to PFI consortia and then to our own NHS, while the NHS could borrow at record low rates itself.
I do wonder whether the government should step into the market and wind down its own PFI schemes at a time it can borrow cheaply. Whilst I am in general opposed to the government playing at investment banker, it would help secure the financial future of a raft of schools and hospitals, at a time when that security is most needed.
How much of a penalty would we incur if we were to buy out the various PFI schemes? I suspect it would be quite big!
Be a fortune , an £80M prison in Scotland is costing £1B on PFI, the numbers are staggering. Also the schools built and being paid on same are falling down, used cheap ties and they have been collapsing.
We are dealing from a strong hand on this one - the EU will want to make sure they can still do business with us without making the prospect of secession from the club so attractive as to tempt others into thinking about withdrawal.
Our geography alone means that a UK-EU deal will be quite unique and not be a template for many of the other European countries. From the EU's perspective this should be of some reassurance against break-up as even if we wanted to be a breakaway leader, we're too separate (other than Ireland) to be one.
In my fantasy world, we'd boost the defence budget to 3% (sorry NHS) and use that money for maritime security in the Baltic & Med.
Sadly, I don't think the EU will put that much value in our defence contribution - certainly it won't win us bank passporting and no free movement. At 3% of 15% our defence spending would be 0.45% of EU GDP which won't buy much of an army or Navy, and that doesn't even consider whether the UK public would be happy having our army serving under EU civilian control.
I'd rather be out of the single market than have our military under any kind of EU command and control structure.
We could provide maritime security outwith EU control. The EU would be an ally, just as the US is.
To provide maritime security we would need a proper navy considerably bigger than the one currently being planned.
Or even a Navy never mind a proper one, the current handful of bathtubs and expensive boats that don't work when the sun shines etc are pathetic.
Considering we are an island you would think the primary focus of our military strength should always be as a naval power especially with the increasing strike capability modern technology allows. The new Aircraft carriers will be a big boost, but don't mention the planes lol
CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....CAN WE HAVE AN NHS QUESTION....
Jeeza my old mucka, leader of the opposition, it ain't like appearing on Jeopardy. I want a NHS question for $100, I want an NHS question for $500..
To be fair, as well as adding considerably to the gaity of the nation, the Labour leadership contest has started to force some policies out of Jezza.
One of the more bizarre bits of the banking crisis is that we did nationalise a fair amount of PFI as a lot of the loans were via RBS and Lloyds. It leaves us in the interesting position that we are charging commercial levels of interest to PFI consortia and then to our own NHS, while the NHS could borrow at record low rates itself.
I do wonder whether the government should step into the market and wind down its own PFI schemes at a time it can borrow cheaply. Whilst I am in general opposed to the government playing at investment banker, it would help secure the financial future of a raft of schools and hospitals, at a time when that security is most needed.
How much of a penalty would we incur if we were to buy out the various PFI schemes? I suspect it would be quite big!
Be a fortune , an £80M prison in Scotland is costing £1B on PFI, the numbers are staggering. Also the schools built and being paid on same are falling down, used cheap ties and they have been collapsing.
shyster ˈʃʌɪstə/Submit nouninformal a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business. "an ambulance-chasing shyster"
To me the combination of Brexiteer fundamentalist Bitter Enders and Europeans fed up with our antics will make a hard Brexit certain. Better to get on with it then construct a deal afterwards.
That has been my position from the start. There is too much emotion involved at this stage to negotiate a reasonable outcome that is as fair as possible to all parties.
So go into negotiations asking for what we truly want, but being prepared to fall back on hard Brexit very quickly if it is clear we won't get anything close to fair (i.e. at least as good as Canada)
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Interesting to check out the Senate races too. Going by RealClearpolitics' Senate battleground map and recent polls, it looks very much like around 50-50, but if the GOP can gain a couple of points they should hold on, which will somewhat tie the hands of Clinton if she wins.
A Clinton presidency with a Republican Congress is the most likely outcome and did not work out too badly last time
Gary Lineker @GaryLineker 7m7 minutes ago En route to Manchester and mildly disappointed that the train is not ram-packed.
Have the BBC stopped paying for the chauffeur driven car he used to get to take him from London to Manchester? Or is this his moonlighting gig, where they are tighter on the old expenses?
@Maomentum_: To be fair, ram-packed is one down from jam-packed, although one up from ham-packed.
Ah, thanks for the clarification, I’ve been wondering what ‘rampacked’ actually means. Given the source, I thought it may have been an old idiom that had fallen out of usage circa 1970…
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
It is good politics to appeal to the Labour membership, which he did by promising a referendum on the BREXIT terms
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
It's a dumb move. There is a space for a 'oh we made a terrible mistake' party, but that space is probably going to be taken by the LibDems. Saying to the residents of Sunderland - who voted clearly for Leave and which return Labour MPs - 'you made a terrible mistake', seems a very efficient way of ensuring UKIP scores well in the North.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Interesting to check out the Senate races too. Going by RealClearpolitics' Senate battleground map and recent polls, it looks very much like around 50-50, but if the GOP can gain a couple of points they should hold on, which will somewhat tie the hands of Clinton if she wins.
A Clinton presidency with a Republican Congress is the most likely outcome and did not work out too badly last time
No, all it did was lay the groundwork for the 2007/8/9 recession.
To me the combination of Brexiteer fundamentalist Bitter Enders and Europeans fed up with our antics will make a hard Brexit certain. Better to get on with it then construct a deal afterwards.
That has been my position from the start. There is too much emotion involved at this stage to negotiate a reasonable outcome that is as fair as possible to all parties.
So go into negotiations asking for what we truly want, but being prepared to fall back on hard Brexit very quickly if it is clear we won't get anything close to fair (i.e. at least as good as Canada)
There will almost certainly be a free trade deal, the majority of UK voters want it, even when the price is some freedom of movement and Merkel will not want tariffs on German car exports to Britain. Only about 25% of voters would consider hard BREXIT and they are mainly UKIP voters or potential UKIP voters
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
It is good politics to appeal to the Labour membership, which he did by promising a referendum on the BREXIT terms
HYUFD and RCS I agree with you both ! It's a super move for the Labour MEMBERSHIP (they're effing loonies!) but a ghastly one for potential Labour voters (esp oop north). I think my view of Smith is now settled - he's worse than Corbyn.
Corbyn is a genuinely left wing committed delusional idiot. Smith is a 'swings with the wind' not quite so committed delusional lefty idiot.
Either one will lead Labour to an electoral apocalypse. Might as well stick with beardy.
Presently "The Donald" has no path to 270. He has to turn around Pennsylvania and Florida and hope to cling on elsewhere. Lose either and even taking Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and all Romney and he still can't make 270. Not looking hopeful for Trumpsters.
I've not seen a recent PA poll but the last I saw had Clinton 10 points up and FL much the same. As you say, IF HRC wins OH, PA and FL it's over and the question then becomes how deep HRC can go into the GOP states.
If she can pick up states like MO, GA, AZ and both NC (currently 9 points up) and SC it will be a landslide. The only 2012 Dem states that seem close to me at the moment are IA and NV.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Trump presently leads in MO, GA, AZ and SC in the latest polls and is only just behind in NC. Iowa and Nevada and Florida are also closer to Trump than the national average and Ohio at the national average. In any case the debates are key, if Trump wins the first debate and wins the second too it will be neck and neck again. In 2012 Romney trailed by about the same as Trump after the DNC convention but took the lead after winning the first debate before he lost the second debate
not sure about that. looking at latest state polls, clinton is 10 points ahead in enough states to get to 270. current national leads are between 6-12 points for hilary.
unless there is a massive black swan event, the GOP are better of abandoning trump and trying to save the senate.
also, glad to see trump spending donor money wisely
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
It's a dumb move. There is a space for a 'oh we made a terrible mistake' party, but that space is probably going to be taken by the LibDems. Saying to the residents of Sunderland - who voted clearly for Leave and which return Labour MPs - 'you made a terrible mistake', seems a very efficient way of ensuring UKIP scores well in the North.
Why is it a bad idea to ask voters to ratify the terms of the final Brexit deal the government agrees?
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
It's a dumb move. There is a space for a 'oh we made a terrible mistake' party, but that space is probably going to be taken by the LibDems. Saying to the residents of Sunderland - who voted clearly for Leave and which return Labour MPs - 'you made a terrible mistake', seems a very efficient way of ensuring UKIP scores well in the North.
Why is it a bad idea to ask voters to ratify the terms of the final Brexit deal the government agrees?
Because the choice will be the terms agreed by the Government or WTO. We are leaving the EU.
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
It's a dumb move. There is a space for a 'oh we made a terrible mistake' party, but that space is probably going to be taken by the LibDems. Saying to the residents of Sunderland - who voted clearly for Leave and which return Labour MPs - 'you made a terrible mistake', seems a very efficient way of ensuring UKIP scores well in the North.
Why is it a bad idea to ask voters to ratify the terms of the final Brexit deal the government agrees?
If the public vote no, does that mean back to square one and more years of negotiation and possible uncertainty?
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
It's a dumb move. There is a space for a 'oh we made a terrible mistake' party, but that space is probably going to be taken by the LibDems. Saying to the residents of Sunderland - who voted clearly for Leave and which return Labour MPs - 'you made a terrible mistake', seems a very efficient way of ensuring UKIP scores well in the North.
Why is it a bad idea to ask voters to ratify the terms of the final Brexit deal the government agrees?
If the public vote no, does that mean back to square one and more years of negotiation and possible uncertainty?
Edited extra bit: that said, I now feel like a moron for not remembering this earlier and backing Rosberg (now 1.66 for the win) at about 2.75. Ah, well.
People aren't rational actors. Purely economic arguments don't work
I agree with this, albeit slightly modified.
People aren't purely rational actors. Rationality plays a varying degree of importance depending on the type of decision but is rarely, if ever, absent completely.
And saying that purely economic arguments don't work is true, but does not thereby prove that people aren't rational actors.
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
Wow, class 458 wit there, where's my notebook ?
More seriously, this will be forgotten in a month as other things come along to other platforms.
Those who want a stick with which to beat Corbyn have their fun - it's all getting a bit boring and tiresome now. Smith is effectively the 2010s Kinnock - he was to take back control of the Party (if he can) and start it on the road back to Government because, to be honest, Labour are still the only alternative Government.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
I don't see this as a trivial story. Jeremy Corbyn has been sold on his integrity. He seems to have told flagrant lies about this. It goes to character and does not fit with his previous public image. It's getting a lot of publicity and I expect the public will remember that he tells fibs.
Why is anyone surprised by the fact that Corbyn does tell fibs? He was less than straightforward in his answers to the questions that people put to him about his dealings with various Hamas people and other anti-Semites when he went for the leadership last year. He also spinned like mad over his dealings with Gerry Adams and co. He has never been the image he and his supporters have claimed.
If he wanted to make a point about inept railway companies why didn't he point to the well-attested problems of Southern Rail. No reason to embroider those and it would have got him a sympathetic hearing.
I heard Oily Smith on Radio 4 this morning promising another Brexit referendum. I find this totally odious - but was wondering if it's good politics or not. I suspect not. But what is the collective wisdom of the PB commentariat? Smart move or the politics of an asshat?
It is good politics to appeal to the Labour membership, which he did by promising a referendum on the BREXIT terms
HYUFD and RCS I agree with you both ! It's a super move for the Labour MEMBERSHIP (they're effing loonies!) but a ghastly one for potential Labour voters (esp oop north). I think my view of Smith is now settled - he's worse than Corbyn.
Corbyn is a genuinely left wing committed delusional idiot. Smith is a 'swings with the wind' not quite so committed delusional lefty idiot.
Either one will lead Labour to an electoral apocalypse. Might as well stick with beardy.
It will go down well with the membership less well with the white working class as you say, not that Corbyn would do any better with them given his pro immigration line
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Interesting to check out the Senate races too. Going by RealClearpolitics' Senate battleground map and recent polls, it looks very much like around 50-50, but if the GOP can gain a couple of points they should hold on, which will somewhat tie the hands of Clinton if she wins.
A Clinton presidency with a Republican Congress is the most likely outcome and did not work out too badly last time
No, all it did was lay the groundwork for the 2007/8/9 recession.
The Dubya presidency was as much to blame for that and there was a Democratic Congress by 2007
Presently "The Donald" has no path to 270. He has to turn around Pennsylvania and Florida and hope to cling on elsewhere. Lose either and even taking Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and all Romney and he still can't make 270. Not looking hopeful for Trumpsters.
I've not seen a recent PA poll but the last I saw had Clinton 10 points up and FL much the same. As you say, IF HRC wins OH, PA and FL it's over and the question then becomes how deep HRC can go into the GOP states.
If she can pick up states like MO, GA, AZ and both NC (currently 9 points up) and SC it will be a landslide. The only 2012 Dem states that seem close to me at the moment are IA and NV.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Trump presently leads in MO, GA, AZ and SC in the latest polls and is only just behind in NC. Iowa and Nevada and Florida are also closer to Trump than the national average and Ohio at the national average. In any case the debates are key, if Trump wins the first debate and wins the second too it will be neck and neck again. In 2012 Romney trailed by about the same as Trump after the DNC convention but took the lead after winning the first debate before he lost the second debate
not sure about that. looking at latest state polls, clinton is 10 points ahead in enough states to get to 270. current national leads are between 6-12 points for hilary.
unless there is a massive black swan event, the GOP are better of abandoning trump and trying to save the senate.
also, glad to see trump spending donor money wisely
Considering we are an island you would think the primary focus of our military strength should always be as a naval power especially with the increasing strike capability modern technology allows. The new Aircraft carriers will be a big boost, but don't mention the planes lol
The carriers are fine, or will be one day. The problem is that with only 6 air-defence vessels and 8 ASW frigates and 7 submarines all we will have is two carrier groups. In addition it is planned to have 5 "light frigates" whose specification is completely unknown (they were suddenly announced at the last defence review to replace 5 of the planned 13 T26 but no details have been released as to what their purpose is or how they will be equipped, probably because nobody had thought about it). That is about the size of a war fighting RN*, too small to cover existing commitments let alone the new ones that will be introduced by the carriers.
There has also to be a question about the RN's anti-surface vessel capability. Some, but not all of the frigates will carry the very old and probably obsolete Harpoon, after that it is a single 3inch (more or less) gun on each ship, frigate and destroyer. I am not aware of any plan to equip the planes flying off the carriers with any purpose built anti-ship missiles. Recommissioning HMS Belfast would add greatly to the RN's anti-surface capability.
The Astutes of course are great killers of surface vessels and other submarines. But with only seven of them there will not be enough to protect the Trident boats and the carrier battle groups and go off hunting.
*There will also be half a dozen offshore patrol vessels, the first of a new class of which, HMS Forth is currently fitting out. This new class was ordered as make work for BAe because the MoD couldn't get its act together to order the Type 26 frigate class. Armed with a 30mm gun two 20mm chain guns and a couple of machine guns, they seem too heavily armed for fishery protection and other paramilitary work but not heavily enough for actual war fighting. At £348 million pound for three very expensive for such limited capability.
Mine counter measure vessels and such like are also present but do not form part of the RN's combat capability.
Presently "The Donald" has no path to 270. He has to turn around Pennsylvania and Florida and hope to cling on elsewhere. Lose either and even taking Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and all Romney and he still can't make 270. Not looking hopeful for Trumpsters.
I've not seen a recent PA poll but the last I saw had Clinton 10 points up and FL much the same. As you say, IF HRC wins OH, PA and FL it's over and the question then becomes how deep HRC can go into the GOP states.
If she can pick up states like MO, GA, AZ and both NC (currently 9 points up) and SC it will be a landslide. The only 2012 Dem states that seem close to me at the moment are IA and NV.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Trump presently leads in MO, GA, AZ and SC in the latest polls and is only just behind in NC. Iowa and Nevada and Florida are also closer to Trump than the national average and Ohio at the national average. In any case the debates are key, if Trump wins the first debate and wins the second too it will be neck and neck again. In 2012 Romney trailed by about the same as Trump after the DNC convention but took the lead after winning the first debate before he lost the second debate
not sure about that. looking at latest state polls, clinton is 10 points ahead in enough states to get to 270. current national leads are between 6-12 points for hilary.
unless there is a massive black swan event, the GOP are better of abandoning trump and trying to save the senate.
also, glad to see trump spending donor money wisely
Hillary actually leads by 5% in the RCP national poll average and as I said the debates are key
Only NC OH IA FL PA and NH matter really. BUT watch out for the undecided - fivethirtyeight assumes even split - 10%. Plenty to decide the election - if we have shy Trumpers.
Presently "The Donald" has no path to 270. He has to turn around Pennsylvania and Florida and hope to cling on elsewhere. Lose either and even taking Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and all Romney and he still can't make 270. Not looking hopeful for Trumpsters.
I've not seen a recent PA poll but the last I saw had Clinton 10 points up and FL much the same. As you say, IF HRC wins OH, PA and FL it's over and the question then becomes how deep HRC can go into the GOP states.
If she can pick up states like MO, GA, AZ and both NC (currently 9 points up) and SC it will be a landslide. The only 2012 Dem states that seem close to me at the moment are IA and NV.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
Trump presently leads in MO, GA, AZ and SC in the latest polls and is only just behind in NC. Iowa and Nevada and Florida are also closer to Trump than the national average and Ohio at the national average. In any case the debates are key, if Trump wins the first debate and wins the second too it will be neck and neck again. In 2012 Romney trailed by about the same as Trump after the DNC convention but took the lead after winning the first debate before he lost the second debate
not sure about that. looking at latest state polls, clinton is 10 points ahead in enough states to get to 270. current national leads are between 6-12 points for hilary.
unless there is a massive black swan event, the GOP are better of abandoning trump and trying to save the senate.
also, glad to see trump spending donor money wisely
Hillary actually leads by 5% in the RCP national poll average and as I said the debates are key
Only NC OH IA FL PA and NH matter really. BUT watch out for the undecided - fivethirtyeight assumes even split - 10%. Plenty to decide the election - if we have shy Trumpers.
Comments
Perhaps It was the Hogwarts Express. And all the children were wearing invisibility cloaks.
One of the more bizarre bits of the banking crisis is that we did nationalise a fair amount of PFI as a lot of the loans were via RBS and Lloyds. It leaves us in the interesting position that we are charging commercial levels of interest to PFI consortia and then to our own NHS, while the NHS could borrow at record low rates itself.
Perhaps It was the Hogwarts Express. And all the children were wearing invisibility cloaks.
Bloody Tories...oh wait he's Labour....no my mistake, the Moamentum mob think he is a closet Tory.
He wrote "infer" instead of "imply".
I don't think they cared.
If she can pick up states like MO, GA, AZ and both NC (currently 9 points up) and SC it will be a landslide. The only 2012 Dem states that seem close to me at the moment are IA and NV.
At the moment I'm at 373-165 for HRC but of course there's a huge amount of time and the debates to come.
En route to Manchester and mildly disappointed that the train is not ram-packed.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-making-more-states-competitive-red-states/
shyster
ˈʃʌɪstə/Submit
nouninformal
a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business.
"an ambulance-chasing shyster"
So go into negotiations asking for what we truly want, but being prepared to fall back on hard Brexit very quickly if it is clear we won't get anything close to fair (i.e. at least as good as Canada)
Corbyn is a genuinely left wing committed delusional idiot.
Smith is a 'swings with the wind' not quite so committed delusional lefty idiot.
Either one will lead Labour to an electoral apocalypse. Might as well stick with beardy.
not sure about that. looking at latest state polls, clinton is 10 points ahead in enough states to get to 270. current national leads are between 6-12 points for hilary.
unless there is a massive black swan event, the GOP are better of abandoning trump and trying to save the senate.
also, glad to see trump spending donor money wisely
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/24/donald-trump-used-campaign-donations-to-buy-55-000-of-his-own-book.html
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37172485
Edited extra bit: that said, I now feel like a moron for not remembering this earlier and backing Rosberg (now 1.66 for the win) at about 2.75. Ah, well.
People aren't purely rational actors. Rationality plays a varying degree of importance depending on the type of decision but is rarely, if ever, absent completely.
And saying that purely economic arguments don't work is true, but does not thereby prove that people aren't rational actors.
If he wanted to make a point about inept railway companies why didn't he point to the well-attested problems of Southern Rail. No reason to embroider those and it would have got him a sympathetic hearing.
There has also to be a question about the RN's anti-surface vessel capability. Some, but not all of the frigates will carry the very old and probably obsolete Harpoon, after that it is a single 3inch (more or less) gun on each ship, frigate and destroyer. I am not aware of any plan to equip the planes flying off the carriers with any purpose built anti-ship missiles. Recommissioning HMS Belfast would add greatly to the RN's anti-surface capability.
The Astutes of course are great killers of surface vessels and other submarines. But with only seven of them there will not be enough to protect the Trident boats and the carrier battle groups and go off hunting.
*There will also be half a dozen offshore patrol vessels, the first of a new class of which, HMS Forth is currently fitting out. This new class was ordered as make work for BAe because the MoD couldn't get its act together to order the Type 26 frigate class. Armed with a 30mm gun two 20mm chain guns and a couple of machine guns, they seem too heavily armed for fishery protection and other paramilitary work but not heavily enough for actual war fighting. At £348 million pound for three very expensive for such limited capability.
Mine counter measure vessels and such like are also present but do not form part of the RN's combat capability.