It might be the grim reaper witnessing the final moments of the Labour party.
The brand is so strong even Tristram can get elected as Labour
Roll on Mandotory reselection.
Thats the only way we will a united party and see if a Socialist Labour is as unpopular with voters as the Plotters think.
2010/2015 Labour lost i think.
No evidence to say that it lost because it was not left wing enough. Tories seemed quite able to take votes off Labour.
At the very best Corbyn is a cul-de-sac that Labour will one-day recover from.
Why do you think Lab lost in 2010 and 2015?
Not Tory Lite enough?
Returning to New Labour is also a cul-de-sac thats resulted in 2 defeats dont you think.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Eire torn between its two gods, the US and the EU. I think we can laugh.
The EU bureaucracy are being asshats as usual. They'll push Eire out if they keep this one up - just as they pushed us away.
That would be stupid. Those companies are only invested in Ireland because it's in the EU. That's Ireland's pitch
But if Ireland cannot provide low enough tax breaks, then they lose their advantage anyway.
Isn't the real problem that the US want to collect all the tax revenue for themselves, hence them being upset with the EU's pronouncement?
They'll be all right. Ireland's corporate tax level is 12.5%, half the UK's and much less than the typical 30% levied elsewhere in the EU. The objection is with the effective 1% Apple were paying under their sweetheart deal.
It might be the grim reaper witnessing the final moments of the Labour party.
The brand is so strong even Tristram can get elected as Labour
Roll on Mandotory reselection.
Thats the only way we will a united party and see if a Socialist Labour is as unpopular with voters as the Plotters think.
2010/2015 Labour lost i think.
No evidence to say that it lost because it was not left wing enough. Tories seemed quite able to take votes off Labour.
At the very best Corbyn is a cul-de-sac that Labour will one-day recover from.
Why do you think Lab lost in 2010 and 2015?
Not Tory Lite enough?
Returning to New Labour is also a cul-de-sac thats resulted in 2 defeats dont you think.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions, why did Labour win.
Labour lost because Brown fucked the economy good and proper.
Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.
At some point, the EU have to get some political control on the way things are done and communicated. Whatever the merits of the EC's case here, the political tone-deafness to Ireland's realities and to the timing of this in the immediate wake of Brexit is beyond astounding.
Issues such as this need to be run through some sort of political and communications review at the highest EC and Council of Ministers level before a final decision is made and especially before the decision is announced so that the fall-out can be assessed properly before the decision is made and thereafter managed better once it is announced.
Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.
Messy with them in the Euro though.
I wonder how many Irish now in hindsight wished they'd stayed out of the Euro? Was entry partly driven by political considerations of wanting to appear ultra "European" and therefore "not British". Economically for Ireland above all, it always looked very risky, given so much of what they do is/was tied up with the Dollar and Sterling, in a way that say Austria would not have had to really worry about vis a vis its big same language neighbour.
To what extent has Ireland been using Britain as "big brother in the playground" to protect them from some of the EU's wilder moments because we were too big and awkward to ignore on many matters, when they are not? They're about the size of a two or three large German cities and will have about the same clout, sadly for them.
Had this Apple incident happened six months ago, doubtless we'd have led the charge calling Brussels all kinds of names on our own behalf, which would've suited Ireland fine on the quiet. Post June 23rd we are already commenting from afar not really caring, or worse (from an Irish viewpoint) showing a bit of leg to the likes of Apple suggesting "well you know what to do if you want rid of Brussels and its bonkers rulings".
It might be the grim reaper witnessing the final moments of the Labour party.
The brand is so strong even Tristram can get elected as Labour
Roll on Mandotory reselection.
Thats the only way we will a united party and see if a Socialist Labour is as unpopular with voters as the Plotters think.
2010/2015 Labour lost i think.
No evidence to say that it lost because it was not left wing enough. Tories seemed quite able to take votes off Labour.
At the very best Corbyn is a cul-de-sac that Labour will one-day recover from.
Why do you think Lab lost in 2010 and 2015?
Not Tory Lite enough?
Returning to New Labour is also a cul-de-sac thats resulted in 2 defeats dont you think.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
It might be the grim reaper witnessing the final moments of the Labour party.
The brand is so strong even Tristram can get elected as Labour
Roll on Mandotory reselection.
Thats the only way we will a united party and see if a Socialist Labour is as unpopular with voters as the Plotters think.
2010/2015 Labour lost i think.
No evidence to say that it lost because it was not left wing enough. Tories seemed quite able to take votes off Labour.
At the very best Corbyn is a cul-de-sac that Labour will one-day recover from.
Why do you think Lab lost in 2010 and 2015?
Not Tory Lite enough?
Returning to New Labour is also a cul-de-sac thats resulted in 2 defeats dont you think.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions, why did Labour win.
Labour lost because Brown fucked the economy good and proper.
As things turned out the economy was a lot stronger than people expected. It may have been damaged (and you can argue whether that was Brown or not), but it certainly wasn't fucked.
''Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.''
That is a fascinating article in a number of ways.
First, if Ireland's ''industrial revolution'' was so precious, then why didn;t they ensure their biggest potential free market backer in the EU (Britain) remained? Why didn';t they vote with us sometimes?
We also have the answer in that article. The sly, chippy emnity to the former colonial power.
Ireland's EU policy, like that of all the smaller countries, has been a gargantuan failure. Their overriding priority should have been to ensure the free market balancer and second largest writer of cheques stayed at all costs.
Instead they took Britain for granted. They must live with the consequences.
Good or bad, the one thing the Apple decision has done is make it even harder for Britain to consider rejoining.
This widening of the gulf will continue. In a few years it will be practically and emotionally inconceivable that we would ever return.
I don't know... if the Remoaners have their way, we'll never leave.
Sterling is absolutely surging today. Weak manufacturing figures from the US have sent it above $1.33 and €1.19, so much for that depreciation! If Monday's figures are good ans the NFP is bad tomorrow then we might breach $1.35, still low by historical standards but it could be a good balance between inflation and a competitive currency.
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
It might be the grim reaper witnessing the final moments of the Labour party.
The brand is so strong even Tristram can get elected as Labour
Roll on Mandotory reselection.
Thats the only way we will a united party and see if a Socialist Labour is as unpopular with voters as the Plotters think.
2010/2015 Labour lost i think.
No evidence to say that it lost because it was not left wing enough. Tories seemed quite able to take votes off Labour.
At the very best Corbyn is a cul-de-sac that Labour will one-day recover from.
Why do you think Lab lost in 2010 and 2015?
Not Tory Lite enough?
Returning to New Labour is also a cul-de-sac thats resulted in 2 defeats dont you think.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions, why did Labour win.
Labour lost because Brown fucked the economy good and proper.
As things turned out the economy was a lot stronger than people expected. It may have been damaged (and you can argue whether that was Brown or not), but it certainly wasn't fucked.
I think economic historians will disagree with you.. Tell your story to the millions who had to suffer hardship because of Brown's undoubted mismanagement of the economy.
At least Darling knew what was what and said so whilst the "Dark forces"inside No 10 were trying to discredit him.
It might be the grim reaper witnessing the final moments of the Labour party.
The brand is so strong even Tristram can get elected as Labour
Roll on Mandotory reselection.
Thats the only way we will a united party and see if a Socialist Labour is as unpopular with voters as the Plotters think.
2010/2015 Labour lost i think.
No evidence to say that it lost because it was not left wing enough. Tories seemed quite able to take votes off Labour.
At the very best Corbyn is a cul-de-sac that Labour will one-day recover from.
Why do you think Lab lost in 2010 and 2015?
Not Tory Lite enough?
Returning to New Labour is also a cul-de-sac thats resulted in 2 defeats dont you think.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions, why did Labour win.
Labour lost because Brown fucked the economy good and proper.
As things turned out the economy was a lot stronger than people expected. It may have been damaged (and you can argue whether that was Brown or not), but it certainly wasn't fucked.
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
It's a fair point.
A lot of the free trading nations are now going to find it tough in the EU as the French and southern axis take over trade policy. Germany and the Netherlands are going to find it the toughest if we do sign solid trade deals with Canada, Australia, Japan and others over the next few years. These trade deals are now never going to happen within the EU structure and their companies may find themselves at a disadvantage to UK companies bidding for the same business.
Sterling is absolutely surging today. Weak manufacturing figures from the US have sent it above $1.33 and €1.19, so much for that depreciation! If Monday's figures are good ans the NFP is bad tomorrow then we might breach $1.35, still low by historical standards but it could be a good balance between inflation and a competitive currency.
Current 1.329$ but could yet go higher. Parity, anyone?!
Trust TSE to go over the edge in his Osborne worship. To compare George with Winston is like comparing chalk and cheese; one is dead stone and white, the other moves and is full of flavour.
''Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.''
That is a fascinating article in a number of ways.
First, if Ireland's ''industrial revolution'' was so precious, then why didn;t they ensure their biggest potential free market backer in the EU (Britain) remained? Why didn';t they vote with us sometimes?
We also have the answer in that article. The sly, chippy emnity to the former colonial power.
Ireland's EU policy, like that of all the smaller countries, has been a gargantuan failure. Their overriding priority should have been to ensure the free market balancer and second largest writer of cheques stayed at all costs.
Instead they took Britain for granted. They must live with the consequences.
Good or bad, the one thing the Apple decision has done is make it even harder for Britain to consider rejoining.
This widening of the gulf will continue. In a few years it will be practically and emotionally inconceivable that we would ever return.
Brexit is beginning to look like an inspired decision - getting the hell out of Dodge before it all goes tits up. But then that was true on the morning of Jun23rd too. We'll thrive. The EU unreformed I'm not so sure about.
Sterling is absolutely surging today. Weak manufacturing figures from the US have sent it above $1.33 and €1.19, so much for that depreciation! If Monday's figures are good ans the NFP is bad tomorrow then we might breach $1.35, still low by historical standards but it could be a good balance between inflation and a competitive currency.
Current 1.329$ but could yet go higher. Parity, anyone?!
I'm sure our friend Samuel Tombs is modifying and plotting new graphs to show parity with USD. I wonder what his reaction might be if the Monday data is as strong as today's. Surely his state of denial will have to lift or Pantheon will need to take action. Their chief economist can't be such a doofus.
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
It's a fair point.
A lot of the free trading nations are now going to find it tough in the EU as the French and southern axis take over trade policy. Germany and the Netherlands are going to find it the toughest if we do sign solid trade deals with Canada, Australia, Japan and others over the next few years. These trade deals are now never going to happen within the EU structure and their companies may find themselves at a disadvantage to UK companies bidding for the same business.
If we have the sense to abolish all import tariffs as well, that will be another inducement.
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
It's a fair point.
A lot of the free trading nations are now going to find it tough in the EU as the French and southern axis take over trade policy. Germany and the Netherlands are going to find it the toughest if we do sign solid trade deals with Canada, Australia, Japan and others over the next few years. These trade deals are now never going to happen within the EU structure and their companies may find themselves at a disadvantage to UK companies bidding for the same business.
People may look back in the future and say that Brexit was just the first domino to fall.
If the EU continues its current path, then it may squeeze countries out one-by-one. Britain may have broken the social mores of Leaving.
''A lot of the free trading nations are now going to find it tough in the EU as the French and southern axis take over trade policy.''
Germany will be fine because it has huge power, a great manufacturing base and an artificially cheap currency. Its the smaller nations that will struggle, for me.
A Labour Party member has been suspended after a series of offensive remarks on Jews, Nazis and Mossad.
Action was taken against Terence Flanagan, who had been a member in Hampstead and Kilburn, after a dossier including 17 separate pieces of evidence was submitted to the party’s compliance unit. Many of the remarks were in no way linked go Israel.
Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.
At some point, the EU have to get some political control on the way things are done and communicated. Whatever the merits of the EC's case here, the political tone-deafness to Ireland's realities and to the timing of this in the immediate wake of Brexit is beyond astounding.
Issues such as this need to be run through some sort of political and communications review at the highest EC and Council of Ministers level before a final decision is made and especially before the decision is announced so that the fall-out can be assessed properly before the decision is made and thereafter managed better once it is announced.
Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.
Messy with them in the Euro though.
Also David Davis making friendly in Northern Ireland:
We had a common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland many years before either country was a member of the European Union.
We are clear we do not want a hard border - no return to the past - and no unnecessary barriers to trade.
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
It's a fair point.
A lot of the free trading nations are now going to find it tough in the EU as the French and southern axis take over trade policy. Germany and the Netherlands are going to find it the toughest if we do sign solid trade deals with Canada, Australia, Japan and others over the next few years. These trade deals are now never going to happen within the EU structure and their companies may find themselves at a disadvantage to UK companies bidding for the same business.
If we have the sense to abolish all import tariffs as well, that will be another inducement.
I hope we have the profound good sense to open our market to agricultural imports. This could have a big effect on the cost of living and would do a million times more good for the developing world than foreign aid. Freedom for bananas!
''Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.''
That is a fascinating article in a number of ways.
First, if Ireland's ''industrial revolution'' was so precious, then why didn;t they ensure their biggest potential free market backer in the EU (Britain) remained? Why didn';t they vote with us sometimes?
We also have the answer in that article. The sly, chippy emnity to the former colonial power.
Ireland's EU policy, like that of all the smaller countries, has been a gargantuan failure. Their overriding priority should have been to ensure the free market balancer and second largest writer of cheques stayed at all costs.
Instead they took Britain for granted. They must live with the consequences.
Good or bad, the one thing the Apple decision has done is make it even harder for Britain to consider rejoining.
This widening of the gulf will continue. In a few years it will be practically and emotionally inconceivable that we would ever return.
Brexit is beginning to look like an inspired decision - getting the hell out of Dodge before it all goes tits up. But then that was true on the morning of Jun23rd too. We'll thrive. The EU unreformed I'm not so sure about.
We really need the EU to do well. If they prosper it benefits us in two fairly obvious ways and (in my view) one more subtle one. Firstly, it will reduce the push factor for emigration to the UK. Secondly, it helps our exports. Finally, a prosperous EU is a benign EU. We don't need a sullen, economically stagnant neighbour.
Sterling is absolutely surging today. Weak manufacturing figures from the US have sent it above $1.33 and €1.19, so much for that depreciation! If Monday's figures are good ans the NFP is bad tomorrow then we might breach $1.35, still low by historical standards but it could be a good balance between inflation and a competitive currency.
Current 1.329$ but could yet go higher. Parity, anyone?!
I think it was TSE who was saying 85 cents to the pound in the early hours of June 24.
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
Short term advantage instead of long term benefits. Can also be said the same for Germany etc in dozens of decisions such as they preferred to have Juncker rather than go with the British view. We of course had no right to expect everything go our way but if more things had done so the EU economies would have been stronger and our chance of remaining would have improved. Water under the bridge but it does beg the question of what exactly organisations such as the "Centre for European Reform" achieved in the 20 years of its existence? Other than breaching the trades description act for a "REFORM" organisation?
Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.
At some point, the EU have to get some political control on the way things are done and communicated. Whatever the merits of the EC's case here, the political tone-deafness to Ireland's realities and to the timing of this in the immediate wake of Brexit is beyond astounding.
Issues such as this need to be run through some sort of political and communications review at the highest EC and Council of Ministers level before a final decision is made and especially before the decision is announced so that the fall-out can be assessed properly before the decision is made and thereafter managed better once it is announced.
Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.
Messy with them in the Euro though.
Also David Davis making friendly in Northern Ireland:
We had a common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland many years before either country was a member of the European Union.
We are clear we do not want a hard border - no return to the past - and no unnecessary barriers to trade.
Yeah, but that is really only possible if we have free trade with the rest of the single market. Which is why I suspect that the EU are finding Eire just a little embarrassing at the moment.
''If the EU continues its current path, then it may squeeze countries out one-by-one. Britain may have broken the social mores of Leaving.''
For those in the euro though Mr Mark, that will surely be extremely difficult. Some of these nations are essentially supplicants now, their economies laid waste, subject to the strictures of their lenders.
''Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.''
That is a fascinating article in a number of ways.
First, if Ireland's ''industrial revolution'' was so precious, then why didn;t they ensure their biggest potential free market backer in the EU (Britain) remained? Why didn';t they vote with us sometimes?
We also have the answer in that article. The sly, chippy emnity to the former colonial power.
Ireland's EU policy, like that of all the smaller countries, has been a gargantuan failure. Their overriding priority should have been to ensure the free market balancer and second largest writer of cheques stayed at all costs.
Instead they took Britain for granted. They must live with the consequences.
Good or bad, the one thing the Apple decision has done is make it even harder for Britain to consider rejoining.
This widening of the gulf will continue. In a few years it will be practically and emotionally inconceivable that we would ever return.
Brexit is beginning to look like an inspired decision - getting the hell out of Dodge before it all goes tits up. But then that was true on the morning of Jun23rd too. We'll thrive. The EU unreformed I'm not so sure about.
We really need the EU to do well. If they prosper it benefits us in two fairly obvious ways and (in my view) one more subtle one. Firstly, it will reduce the push factor for emigration to the UK. Secondly, it helps our exports. Finally, a prosperous EU is a benign EU. We don't need a sullen, economically stagnant neighbour.
We need a reformed neighbour - not a control freaky socialist superstate. Listen to Sir Humphrey explaining our foreign policy for the last 500 years. It is absolutely good for the UK in the medium to long term for the EU to collapse and for free, independent, non-socialist nation states to re-emerge.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
[DRAMATIS PERSONAE: Remoan, a man who is WRONG about ALL THINGS. Reality an EVERYEMAN]
Remoan: DOOM IS COMING
Reality: Actually it's fine
Remoan: AH, BUT WE NEVER SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE A RECESSION
Reality: Actually you did, here
Remoan: OKAY BUT WE NEVER SAID IT WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY AF...
Reality: Yes, you did. Right here.
Remoan: NO WE DIDN'T PHONY WAR WE DON'T HAVE BREXIT YET THEN YOU'LL SEE THEN YOU'LL BE FORCED TO EAT YOUR OWN CHILDREN TO SURVIVE THE DOOM IS COMING JUST WAIT AND SEE!!!!
''A lot of the free trading nations are now going to find it tough in the EU as the French and southern axis take over trade policy.''
Germany will be fine because it has huge power, a great manufacturing base and an artificially cheap currency. Its the smaller nations that will struggle, for me.
I'm not do sure now, Germany have not had to compete on even terms with anyone for a while. Sterling has been historically stronger than this, Yen has only had a brief period of weakness, and USD is overvalued vs EUR because of ECB QE.
Having to compete with the UK, a similarly sized nation with similar resources and workforce is going to be a relatively new experience for a lot of businesses in Germany who are used to underbidding everyone because of low labour costs and weak EUR.
Obviously it isn't going to change overnight, but if the UK is able to agree favourable terms of trade with similarly sized economies while the EU is stuck in a French protectionist nightmare then it is a new dynamic.
Without the French and Italians being able to depreciate their own currencies over the last 10 years, the Germans haven't had the competition that is going arise from our own depreciation.
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
Short term advantage instead of long term benefits. Can also be said the same for Germany etc in dozens of decisions such as they preferred to have Juncker rather than go with the British view. We of course had no right to expect everything go our way but if more things had done so the EU economies would have been stronger and our chance of remaining would have improved. Water under the bridge but it does beg the question of what exactly organisations such as the "Centre for European Reform" achieved in the 20 years of its existence? Other than breaching the trades description act for a "REFORM" organisation?
I view "reform" in an organisation's name, the same way I view "democratic" in a country's.
Mr. Taffys, Sweden may be interesting. Polling pre-referendum suggested a majority would want to leave if we did [not because they'd just follow the British, but because they'd be almost the only non-euro country left].
The Republic of Ireland's got a tricky problem. A land border with a much larger neighbour with whom they do a vast amount of trade, but a currency in common with much of the continent. I imagine it'll stay in, but we'll see.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
''Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.''
That is a fascinating article in a number of ways.
First, if Ireland's ''industrial revolution'' was so precious, then why didn;t they ensure their biggest potential free market backer in the EU (Britain) remained? Why didn';t they vote with us sometimes?
We also have the answer in that article. The sly, chippy emnity to the former colonial power.
Ireland's EU policy, like that of all the smaller countries, has been a gargantuan failure. Their overriding priority should have been to ensure the free market balancer and second largest writer of cheques stayed at all costs.
Instead they took Britain for granted. They must live with the consequences.
Good or bad, the one thing the Apple decision has done is make it even harder for Britain to consider rejoining.
This widening of the gulf will continue. In a few years it will be practically and emotionally inconceivable that we would ever return.
Brexit is beginning to look like an inspired decision - getting the hell out of Dodge before it all goes tits up. But then that was true on the morning of Jun23rd too. We'll thrive. The EU unreformed I'm not so sure about.
We really need the EU to do well. If they prosper it benefits us in two fairly obvious ways and (in my view) one more subtle one. Firstly, it will reduce the push factor for emigration to the UK. Secondly, it helps our exports. Finally, a prosperous EU is a benign EU. We don't need a sullen, economically stagnant neighbour.
Exactly. Whatever you think of the EU, if it goes tits up it is nonsense to think we will significantly less affected because we are no longer a member. The Channel is no wider. Of all the arguments for Brexit this was always one of the least convincing.
''Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.''
That is a fascinating article in a number of ways.
First, if Ireland's ''industrial revolution'' was so precious, then why didn;t they ensure their biggest potential free market backer in the EU (Britain) remained? Why didn';t they vote with us sometimes?
We also have the answer in that article. The sly, chippy emnity to the former colonial power.
Ireland's EU policy, like that of all the smaller countries, has been a gargantuan failure. Their overriding priority should have been to ensure the free market balancer and second largest writer of cheques stayed at all costs.
Instead they took Britain for granted. They must live with the consequences.
Good or bad, the one thing the Apple decision has done is make it even harder for Britain to consider rejoining.
This widening of the gulf will continue. In a few years it will be practically and emotionally inconceivable that we would ever return.
Brexit is beginning to look like an inspired decision - getting the hell out of Dodge before it all goes tits up. But then that was true on the morning of Jun23rd too. We'll thrive. The EU unreformed I'm not so sure about.
We really need the EU to do well. If they prosper it benefits us in two fairly obvious ways and (in my view) one more subtle one. Firstly, it will reduce the push factor for emigration to the UK. Secondly, it helps our exports. Finally, a prosperous EU is a benign EU. We don't need a sullen, economically stagnant neighbour.
I take a different view, if the EU prospers it will not be benign, it will in fact become more belligerent and throw it's weight around more than it does currently. That would be a sub-optimal development IMO.
What would work in our favour is peeling away the non-EMU nations and changing the nature of the EU into something unacceptable to the northern (and eastern) core so they either break off or leave of their own volition. I'd take the Dutch, Danes, Swedes and Finns along with the Swiss, Icelandics and Norwegians into a new free trade grouping (though not customs union). Forget the four freedoms and just stick with one, free trade in goods and the ability to sell services across the group from any location.
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
Short term advantage instead of long term benefits. Can also be said the same for Germany etc in dozens of decisions such as they preferred to have Juncker rather than go with the British view. We of course had no right to expect everything go our way but if more things had done so the EU economies would have been stronger and our chance of remaining would have improved. Water under the bridge but it does beg the question of what exactly organisations such as the "Centre for European Reform" achieved in the 20 years of its existence? Other than breaching the trades description act for a "REFORM" organisation?
I view "reform" in an organisation's name, the same way I view "democratic" in a country's. If you need to say it...
True, but what a wonderful job creation scheme it has been supported by Roland Rudd etc. AFAIK it was originally co-sharing the same building as the dripping wet Tory Reform group.
Sterling is absolutely surging today. Weak manufacturing figures from the US have sent it above $1.33 and €1.19, so much for that depreciation! If Monday's figures are good ans the NFP is bad tomorrow then we might breach $1.35, still low by historical standards but it could be a good balance between inflation and a competitive currency.
Current 1.329$ but could yet go higher. Parity, anyone?!
I think it was TSE who was saying 85 cents to the pound in the early hours of June 24.
Now now please do not mock the afflicted. They get very very upset and scweam and scweam when reminded of their europhilia...
It's only on the Business page, not the news home page.
Yes, it is on the News home page. At least, it is for me. It's the fourth news item after striking doctors, SpaceX explosion and police chase crash victims.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
Problem with 3 is if "family homes" are now to be part of a tax free chunk of IHT allowance, there's an incentive for the olds to stay on and not downsize, so they pass a chunk of tax free dosh to their offspring when they do pop their clogs.
1 though could be a great opportunity to help sort out the pensions mess if X% were built for rent at say a nice stable 4% post inflation rate of return, as I'm sure pension funds would fall over themselves to invest in nice safe boring stuff like this, with returns panning far out into the future to help raise their overall rates of return currently residing in the U bend thanks to Mr Carney and his ultra low interest and QE headbangers on the monetary committee..
''Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.''
Given that, what was Ireland's policy in the EU? Back Britain? throw its weight behind the free market agenda??
Was it f8ck. They were right behind the French and Germans in all the key votes. What monumental idiocy.
Short term advantage instead of long term benefits. Can also be said the same for Germany etc in dozens of decisions such as they preferred to have Juncker rather than go with the British view. We of course had no right to expect everything go our way but if more things had done so the EU economies would have been stronger and our chance of remaining would have improved. Water under the bridge but it does beg the question of what exactly organisations such as the "Centre for European Reform" achieved in the 20 years of its existence? Other than breaching the trades description act for a "REFORM" organisation?
I view "reform" in an organisation's name, the same way I view "democratic" in a country's.
If you need to say it...
Yes, the CER wanted 'reform' in the same way as the term used to be used in the eastern bloc countries in the 1970s ie no reform...
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
Labour needs to jump on two things, and fast, before May does. And they are linked. One is contributory elements for the benefits system and the second is financial security sufficient to bring up a family.
If we accept that in the modern, technical world of rapid change there are few jobs for life and we will need to re-skill and change several times (and work longer) over a 40 or 50 year span - then people need something more than a very very basic safety net. The Dutch are doing interesting things here with something called 'flexi security' iirc.
Contribute more but have the security of not being plunged into penury because of a redundancy or an industry closing.
Sterling is absolutely surging today. Weak manufacturing figures from the US have sent it above $1.33 and €1.19, so much for that depreciation! If Monday's figures are good ans the NFP is bad tomorrow then we might breach $1.35, still low by historical standards but it could be a good balance between inflation and a competitive currency.
Good news, I don't want to have to pay nearly £10 for a coffee in Australia again like I did a few weeks ago.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
There's a point 4. I think - allow more self-build. This is how 80% of the homes in Austria and 60% in France or Germany are built, but only 10% in the UK. And if a house is self-built at least one person can presumably bear to look at it and live in it, rather than the jerry-built monstrosities that comprise too many new-built estates. If somebody owns land and can build a house according to the building regs, they should be allowed to do so.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a r...
.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
Problem with 3 is if "family homes" are now to be part of a tax free chunk of IHT allowance, there's an incentive for the olds to stay on so they pass a chunk of cash free dosh to their offspring when they do pop their clogs.
1 though could be a great opportunity to help sort out the pensions mess if X% were built for rent at say a nice stable 4% post inflation rate of return, as I'm sure pension funds would fall over themselves to invest in nice safe boring stuff like this, with returns panning far out into the future to help raise their overall rates of return currently residing in the U bend thanks to Mr Carney and his ultra low interest and QE headbangers on the monetary committee..
Agree on your IHT £1m point - a piece of daft Osborne fiddling that will eventually get undone into a straight £500k a person. Saves a £1bn pa but freezes up the senior citizen housing market in London.... utter madness.
Good point on pensions funding house building. The peer to peer FINtech people will eventually tackle that one, but it could be setup within months.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
Problem with 3 is if "family homes" are now to be part of a tax free chunk of IHT allowance, there's an incentive for the olds to stay on and not downsize, so they pass a chunk of tax free dosh to their offspring when they do pop their clogs.
1 though could be a great opportunity to help sort out the pensions mess if X% were built for rent at say a nice stable 4% post inflation rate of return, as I'm sure pension funds would fall over themselves to invest in nice safe boring stuff like this, with returns panning far out into the future to help raise their overall rates of return currently residing in the U bend thanks to Mr Carney and his ultra low interest and QE headbangers on the monetary committee..
Promontoria and some other, eh, funds are looking to build such portfolios with a view to offering them as a better paying alternative to bonds. They are buying up a lot of distressed stock from the Banks across Europe for this purpose.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
Labour needs to jump on two things, and fast, before May does. And they are linked. One is contributory elements for the benefits system and the second is financial security sufficient to bring up a family.
If we accept that in the modern, technical world of rapid change there are few jobs for life and we will need to re-skill and change several times (and work longer) over a 40 or 50 year span - then people need something more than a very very basic safety net. The Dutch are doing interesting things here with something called 'flexi security' iirc.
Contribute more but have the security of not being plunged into penury because of a redundancy or an industry closing.
Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.
At some point, the EU have to get some political control on the way things are done and communicated. Whatever the merits of the EC's case here, the political tone-deafness to Ireland's realities and to the timing of this in the immediate wake of Brexit is beyond astounding.
Issues such as this need to be run through some sort of political and communications review at the highest EC and Council of Ministers level before a final decision is made and especially before the decision is announced so that the fall-out can be assessed properly before the decision is made and thereafter managed better once it is announced.
Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.
Messy with them in the Euro though.
Also David Davis making friendly in Northern Ireland:
We had a common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland many years before either country was a member of the European Union.
We are clear we do not want a hard border - no return to the past - and no unnecessary barriers to trade.
Yeah, but that is really only possible if we have free trade with the rest of the single market. Which is why I suspect that the EU are finding Eire just a little embarrassing at the moment.
To paraphrase Lady Bracknell:
To lose one member may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
There's a point 4. I think - allow more self-build. This is how 80% of the homes in Austria and 60% in France or Germany are built, but only 10% in the UK. And if a house is self-built at least one person can presumably bear to look at it and live in it, rather than the jerry-built monstrosities that comprise too many new-built estates. If somebody owns land and can build a house according to the building regs, they should be allowed to do so.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
There's a point 4. I think - allow more self-build. This is how 80% of the homes in Austria and 60% in France or Germany are built, but only 10% in the UK. And if a house is self-built at least one person can presumably bear to look at it and live in it, rather than the jerry-built monstrosities that comprise too many new-built estates. If somebody owns land and can build a house according to the building regs, they should be allowed to do so.
Agreed. The question is why have a succession of Housing Ministers completely failed to do these things? The current one spends a lot of time on publicity.... https://www.gov.uk/government/people/gavin-barwell An MP who is a legend in his own local press releases (just look into Croyden newspapers).
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
There's a point 4. I think - allow more self-build. This is how 80% of the homes in Austria and 60% in France or Germany are built, but only 10% in the UK. And if a house is self-built at least one person can presumably bear to look at it and live in it, rather than the jerry-built monstrosities that comprise too many new-built estates. If somebody owns land and can build a house according to the building regs, they should be allowed to do so.
The system seems to make it easier in Germany. Rather than selling land to large developers, local authorities generally assign an area of land for development, and then sell plots of land to individuals, who then employ architects and builders to design and build their house.
Labour needs to jump on two things, and fast, before May does. And they are linked. One is contributory elements for the benefits system and the second is financial security sufficient to bring up a family.
If we accept that in the modern, technical world of rapid change there are few jobs for life and we will need to re-skill and change several times (and work longer) over a 40 or 50 year span - then people need something more than a very very basic safety net. The Dutch are doing interesting things here with something called 'flexi security' iirc.
Contribute more but have the security of not being plunged into penury because of a redundancy or an industry closing.
Sounds a good idea in principle.
Sounds like job insurance. Didn't someone already have that idea?
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
Labour needs to jump on two things, and fast, before May does. And they are linked. One is contributory elements for the benefits system and the second is financial security sufficient to bring up a family. If we accept that in the modern, technical world of rapid change there are few jobs for life and we will need to re-skill and change several times (and work longer) over a 40 or 50 year span - then people need something more than a very very basic safety net. The Dutch are doing interesting things here with something called 'flexi security' iirc. Contribute more but have the security of not being plunged into penury because of a redundancy or an industry closing.
To do this (which I agree), the rules would need to toughen up on housing subsidies as that is a massive incentive to remain on benefits.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
There's a point 4. I think - allow more self-build. This is how 80% of the homes in Austria and 60% in France or Germany are built, but only 10% in the UK. And if a house is self-built at least one person can presumably bear to look at it and live in it, rather than the jerry-built monstrosities that comprise too many new-built estates. If somebody owns land and can build a house according to the building regs, they should be allowed to do so.
The system seems to make it easier in Germany. Rather than selling land to large developers, local authorities generally assign an area of land for development, and then sell plots of land to individuals, who then employ architects and builders to design and build their house.
In this context, does self-build include custom homes?
Labour needs to jump on two things, and fast, before May does. And they are linked. One is contributory elements for the benefits system and the second is financial security sufficient to bring up a family.
If we accept that in the modern, technical world of rapid change there are few jobs for life and we will need to re-skill and change several times (and work longer) over a 40 or 50 year span - then people need something more than a very very basic safety net. The Dutch are doing interesting things here with something called 'flexi security' iirc.
Contribute more but have the security of not being plunged into penury because of a redundancy or an industry closing.
Sounds a good idea in principle.
Sounds like job insurance. Didn't someone already have that idea?
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
There's a point 4. I think - allow more self-build. This is how 80% of the homes in Austria and 60% in France or Germany are built, but only 10% in the UK. And if a house is self-built at least one person can presumably bear to look at it and live in it, rather than the jerry-built monstrosities that comprise too many new-built estates. If somebody owns land and can build a house according to the building regs, they should be allowed to do so.
The system seems to make it easier in Germany. Rather than selling land to large developers, local authorities generally assign an area of land for development, and then sell plots of land to individuals, who then employ architects and builders to design and build their house.
In this context, does self-build include custom homes?
I'm not sure what you mean. The houses are all custom homes, built by the owner (normally with the help of an architect and builder). They all look different to one another.
Edit: Depending on your money and skills, you might do more or less of the work yourself, though you'd obviously employ professionals for such things as wiring and plumbing.
Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.
At some point, the EU have to get some political control on the way things are done and communicated. Whatever the merits of the EC's case here, the political tone-deafness to Ireland's realities and to the timing of this in the immediate wake of Brexit is beyond astounding.
Issues such as this need to be run through some sort of political and communications review at the highest EC and Council of Ministers level before a final decision is made and especially before the decision is announced so that the fall-out can be assessed properly before the decision is made and thereafter managed better once it is announced.
Its really almost as if they think life would be easier if Ireland just followed Britain and that having a member whose economy depends so heavily on free trade with the UK is more trouble than it is worth.
Messy with them in the Euro though.
Also David Davis making friendly in Northern Ireland:
We had a common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland many years before either country was a member of the European Union.
We are clear we do not want a hard border - no return to the past - and no unnecessary barriers to trade.
Yeah, but that is really only possible if we have free trade with the rest of the single market. Which is why I suspect that the EU are finding Eire just a little embarrassing at the moment.
To paraphrase Lady Bracknell:
To lose one member may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.
But if they did lose Eire they could be much tougher in their trade negotiations with us. Of course it is probably just a coincidence.....
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
There's a point 4. I think - allow more self-build. This is how 80% of the homes in Austria and 60% in France or Germany are built, but only 10% in the UK. And if a house is self-built at least one person can presumably bear to look at it and live in it, rather than the jerry-built monstrosities that comprise too many new-built estates. If somebody owns land and can build a house according to the building regs, they should be allowed to do so.
The system seems to make it easier in Germany. Rather than selling land to large developers, local authorities generally assign an area of land for development, and then sell plots of land to individuals, who then employ architects and builders to design and build their house.
In this context, does self-build include custom homes?
I'm not sure what you mean. The houses are all custom homes, built by the owner (normally with the help of an architect and builder). They all look different to one another.
Edit: Depending on your money and skills, you might do more or less of the work yourself, though you'd obviously employ professionals for such things as wiring and plumbing.
When I was a kid in the UK, there was a craze for 'self-build' where a small consortium of regular people and people with trades skills would get together and build their own houses. Literally. So that is one possible meaning of 'self-build'.
In the US, if you hire an architect and then hire a bespoke builder, that is called a 'custom home' not 'self-build' which is reserved another situation - for those who act as their own general contractor while not actually doing the building work themselves, rather organizing the series of sub-contractors to dig foundations, pour foundations, frame the house, do the masonry, roof it, etc.. .
PS Thus in the US the market for single-family homes is mainly:
1. self-built where you are the GC 2. custom built, where a builder builds to your design 3. spec, where a builder builds a bespoke house without a buyer 4. production, where a big developer builds rabbit hutches.
Mr. Hopkins, well, if someone wants her to shut up about obesity all they need to do is get Farage to front the campaign.
There is a sound point with one of the forms of obesity (I forget if it's hyperplastic or something else), whereby overfeeding a child leads to an increase in adipocytes (fat cells) which is a permanent change, effectively increasing the baseline of their fatness for their life.
I have difficulty relating to this sort of thing as most of the time my parents had more difficulty getting me to eat sufficiently, rather than stopping me trying to consume my own bodyweight in pie.
''Irexit is certainly getting a surprising amount of serious thought.''
That is a fascinating article in a number of ways.
First, if Ireland's ''industrial revolution'' was so precious, then why didn;t they ensure their biggest potential free market backer in the EU (Britain) remained? Why didn';t they vote with us sometimes?
We also have the answer in that article. The sly, chippy emnity to the former colonial power.
Ireland's EU policy, like that of all the smaller countries, has been a gargantuan failure. Their overriding priority should have been to ensure the free market balancer and second largest writer of cheques stayed at all costs.
Instead they took Britain for granted. They must live with the consequences.
Lots of EU countries took Britain for granted. That was the trouble. They assumed that the people would do what they were told.
It's an easy mistake to make if you take a "top down" approach to politics.
Incidentally I don't have much sympathy with the US on this. The US has form in claiming extra territorial jurisdiction over all sorts of matters and only fining foreign banks over misbehavior when US banks were equally as guilty. They're just cross that the EU has played them at their own game and targeted a US company.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
There's a point 4. I think - allow more self-build. This is how 80% of the homes in Austria and 60% in France or Germany are built, but only 10% in the UK. And if a house is self-built at least one person can presumably bear to look at it and live in it, rather than the jerry-built monstrosities that comprise too many new-built estates. If somebody owns land and can build a house according to the building regs, they should be allowed to do so.
The system seems to make it easier in Germany. Rather than selling land to large developers, local authorities generally assign an area of land for development, and then sell plots of land to individuals, who then employ architects and builders to design and build their house.
In this context, does self-build include custom homes?
I'm not sure what you mean. The houses are all custom homes, built by the owner (normally with the help of an architect and builder). They all look different to one another.
Edit: Depending on your money and skills, you might do more or less of the work yourself, though you'd obviously employ professionals for such things as wiring and plumbing.
When I was a kid in the UK, there was a craze for 'self-build' where a small consortium of regular people and people with trades skills would get together and build their own houses. Literally. So that is one possible meaning of 'self-build'.
In the US, if you hire an architect and then hire a bespoke builder, that is called a 'custom home' not 'self-build' which is reserved another situation - for those who act as their own general contractor while not actually doing the building work themselves, rather organizing the series of sub-contractors to dig foundations, pour foundations, frame the house, do the masonry, roof it, etc.. .
There still is: friends of ours were involved in such a community scheme in Cambridge. They got so fed up with waiting for everyone to agree that they just bought a house here instead.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
The only thing that really needs to be sorted is PLANNING. The UK has plenty of suitable land, plenty of capital, plenty of builders and plenty of demand. What it lacks is freedom to build and an insane system that makes 90% of the value of a house the planning permission. Massively liberalise the planning laws and the market will sort the rest out PDQ. Any government that really has any intention of resolving the housing crisis and making ownership possible / affordable has to take on the NIMBY tendency and drive a truck through our planning laws.
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
The elephant in the room for the Tories is the falling rate of home ownership. Just as people like a state run NHS, people want to own their own homes, that has been established. Unfortunately, too many in Labour consider accepting this as an acceptance of Thatcher and all she stood for. The opportunity will be there for Labour, but I don't think they'll take it.
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
The only thing that really needs to be sorted is PLANNING. The UK has plenty of suitable land, plenty of capital, plenty of builders and plenty of demand. What it lacks is freedom to build and an insane system that makes 90% of the value of a house the planning permission. Massively liberalise the planning laws and the market will sort the rest out PDQ. Any government that really has any intention of resolving the housing crisis and making ownership possible / affordable has to take on the NIMBY tendency and drive a truck through our planning laws.
At least with Spacex noone seems to have been injured, which always adds at least a year onto any investigation/outcome.
Six months setback would be my estimate - Elon can afford the $200 mill bill if it comes to that too.
They'll have to rebuild the pad, although apparently they have a second pad ready that they haven't used yet - though I don't know whether that can launch into the same orbits.
When it comes to people like Musk and Branson, I always wonder how much they are *really* worth. Remember, Musk nearly bankrupted himself keeping SpaceX and Tesla going in 2008. Things are better for him now, but how much of that is just volatile valuations of his three main ventures?
Labour lost in 2010 because it was tired after 13 years in power, was tarnished by the credit crunch and Brown was unpopular.
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
Great post.
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
snip
The Govt need to fix the faults in the market to supply more homes. Amongst the items are are:- 1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job? 2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50. 3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
Labour needs to jump on two things, and fast, before May does. And they are linked. One is contributory elements for the benefits system and the second is financial security sufficient to bring up a family. If we accept that in the modern, technical world of rapid change there are few jobs for life and we will need to re-skill and change several times (and work longer) over a 40 or 50 year span - then people need something more than a very very basic safety net. The Dutch are doing interesting things here with something called 'flexi security' iirc. Contribute more but have the security of not being plunged into penury because of a redundancy or an industry closing.
To do this (which I agree), the rules would need to toughen up on housing subsidies as that is a massive incentive to remain on benefits.
You might be right. I'm no expert, but seems the whole housing benefit/private landlord situation is a total mess.
Comments
Labour lost in 2015 because the leader was not seen as a credible PM. The policies were ill defined. It was neither too left, nor too right. It was too wooly. The EdStone did not finish the sentence, I will be better off voting Labour because ...
I do agree that a return to new Labour is not the answer, it worked in 97 but it is not for today.
However, Corbyn's approach is even worse. His ideas have never worked and, rooted in the early 1980s, are an even greater anachronism.
To win, Labour needs to find something genuinely fresh, future looking and relevant as it did in 45, 64, 66, 97 and 01.
You should be asking the questions: why did Labour win, not why did it lose.
To what extent has Ireland been using Britain as "big brother in the playground" to protect them from some of the EU's wilder moments because we were too big and awkward to ignore on many matters, when they are not? They're about the size of a two or three large German cities and will have about the same clout, sadly for them.
Had this Apple incident happened six months ago, doubtless we'd have led the charge calling Brussels all kinds of names on our own behalf, which would've suited Ireland fine on the quiet. Post June 23rd we are already commenting from afar not really caring, or worse (from an Irish viewpoint) showing a bit of leg to the likes of Apple suggesting "well you know what to do if you want rid of Brussels and its bonkers rulings".
Also, ask what are the pressing social and economic questions of the day for which the Tories have no answers.
I don't know... if the Remoaners have their way, we'll never leave.
I think economic historians will disagree with you.. Tell your story to the millions who had to suffer hardship because of Brown's undoubted mismanagement of the economy.
At least Darling knew what was what and said so whilst the "Dark forces"inside No 10 were trying to discredit him.
Which either means it's a superlative example of 'poking the [anti-Osborne] bear', or means that TSE is in dire need of professional help.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/
http://order-order.com/2016/09/01/kay-burley-tells-owen-smith-youre-toast/
People may look back in the future and say that Brexit was just the first domino to fall.
If the EU continues its current path, then it may squeeze countries out one-by-one. Britain may have broken the social mores of Leaving.
Germany will be fine because it has huge power, a great manufacturing base and an artificially cheap currency. Its the smaller nations that will struggle, for me.
Action was taken against Terence Flanagan, who had been a member in Hampstead and Kilburn, after a dossier including 17 separate pieces of evidence was submitted to the party’s compliance unit. Many of the remarks were in no way linked go Israel.
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-suspension-over-jews-nazis-and-mossad-remarks/
We had a common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland many years before either country was a member of the European Union.
We are clear we do not want a hard border - no return to the past - and no unnecessary barriers to trade.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/david-davis-we-dont-want-hard-border-post-brexit-northern-ireland-still-open-for-business-35011702.html
@DavidL – naughty
Expensive day for either Spacex or their insurers..
For those in the euro though Mr Mark, that will surely be extremely difficult. Some of these nations are essentially supplicants now, their economies laid waste, subject to the strictures of their lenders.
Also rumour atm: the rocket itself did not explode initially; something else on the pad did.
Remoan: DOOM IS COMING
Reality: Actually it's fine
Remoan: AH, BUT WE NEVER SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE A RECESSION
Reality: Actually you did, here
Remoan: OKAY BUT WE NEVER SAID IT WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY AF...
Reality: Yes, you did. Right here.
Remoan: NO WE DIDN'T PHONY WAR WE DON'T HAVE BREXIT YET THEN YOU'LL SEE THEN YOU'LL BE FORCED TO EAT YOUR OWN CHILDREN TO SURVIVE THE DOOM IS COMING JUST WAIT AND SEE!!!!
[EXEUNT]
Having to compete with the UK, a similarly sized nation with similar resources and workforce is going to be a relatively new experience for a lot of businesses in Germany who are used to underbidding everyone because of low labour costs and weak EUR.
Obviously it isn't going to change overnight, but if the UK is able to agree favourable terms of trade with similarly sized economies while the EU is stuck in a French protectionist nightmare then it is a new dynamic.
Without the French and Italians being able to depreciate their own currencies over the last 10 years, the Germans haven't had the competition that is going arise from our own depreciation.
I view "reform" in an organisation's name, the same way I view "democratic" in a country's.
If you need to say it...
The Republic of Ireland's got a tricky problem. A land border with a much larger neighbour with whom they do a vast amount of trade, but a currency in common with much of the continent. I imagine it'll stay in, but we'll see.
1. Too few homes built by small builders and inadequate financing for small builders - so why not some form of Govt backed financing since our banks are not up to the job?
2. Need for smaller packets of land made available to suit small builders such as in plot sizes under 50.
3. Remove Prescott's density rules for outside Greater London to get more bungalows built to enable 60+ year olds to move on and free up other housing.
Linked onto the front page. I like as good a moan about the BBC as the next person but not this time.
What would work in our favour is peeling away the non-EMU nations and changing the nature of the EU into something unacceptable to the northern (and eastern) core so they either break off or leave of their own volition. I'd take the Dutch, Danes, Swedes and Finns along with the Swiss, Icelandics and Norwegians into a new free trade grouping (though not customs union). Forget the four freedoms and just stick with one, free trade in goods and the ability to sell services across the group from any location.
https://twitter.com/keirshiels/status/771331798773161984
Anyone know when TSE is moving to Paris?
1 though could be a great opportunity to help sort out the pensions mess if X% were built for rent at say a nice stable 4% post inflation rate of return, as I'm sure pension funds would fall over themselves to invest in nice safe boring stuff like this, with returns panning far out into the future to help raise their overall rates of return currently residing in the U bend thanks to Mr Carney and his ultra low interest and QE headbangers on the monetary committee..
If we accept that in the modern, technical world of rapid change there are few jobs for life and we will need to re-skill and change several times (and work longer) over a 40 or 50 year span - then people need something more than a very very basic safety net. The Dutch are doing interesting things here with something called 'flexi security' iirc.
Contribute more but have the security of not being plunged into penury because of a redundancy or an industry closing.
Good point on pensions funding house building. The peer to peer FINtech people will eventually tackle that one, but it could be setup within months.
To lose one member may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.
The current one spends a lot of time on publicity.... https://www.gov.uk/government/people/gavin-barwell
An MP who is a legend in his own local press releases (just look into Croyden newspapers).
Looks like it's meant to be a European model.
Edit: Depending on your money and skills, you might do more or less of the work yourself, though you'd obviously employ professionals for such things as wiring and plumbing.
Sarah Wollaston"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/01/public-health-crisis-government-theresa-may-childhood-obesity?CMP=share_btn_tw
Six months setback would be my estimate - Elon can afford the $200 mill bill if it comes to that too.
I lost all respect for Wollaston after her EU-turn.
In the US, if you hire an architect and then hire a bespoke builder, that is called a 'custom home' not 'self-build' which is reserved another situation - for those who act as their own general contractor while not actually doing the building work themselves, rather organizing the series of sub-contractors to dig foundations, pour foundations, frame the house, do the masonry, roof it, etc.. .
PS Thus in the US the market for single-family homes is mainly:
1. self-built where you are the GC
2. custom built, where a builder builds to your design
3. spec, where a builder builds a bespoke house without a buyer
4. production, where a big developer builds rabbit hutches.
There is a sound point with one of the forms of obesity (I forget if it's hyperplastic or something else), whereby overfeeding a child leads to an increase in adipocytes (fat cells) which is a permanent change, effectively increasing the baseline of their fatness for their life.
I have difficulty relating to this sort of thing as most of the time my parents had more difficulty getting me to eat sufficiently, rather than stopping me trying to consume my own bodyweight in pie.
It's an easy mistake to make if you take a "top down" approach to politics.
Incidentally I don't have much sympathy with the US on this. The US has form in claiming extra territorial jurisdiction over all sorts of matters and only fining foreign banks over misbehavior when US banks were equally as guilty. They're just cross that the EU has played them at their own game and targeted a US company.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/14/uk-housebuilding-held-up-lack-bricklayers-report-rics
When it comes to people like Musk and Branson, I always wonder how much they are *really* worth. Remember, Musk nearly bankrupted himself keeping SpaceX and Tesla going in 2008. Things are better for him now, but how much of that is just volatile valuations of his three main ventures?
It's David Gauke isn't it?
"It is hard to escape the conclusion that the pound has been over-valued for some time and the Brexit vote was just the shock it required to instigate a necessary correction"