Apologies for the lack of a piece this morning. Arthur Robin Herdson was born at 2.30am and so gave his dad an even higher priority than PB. He and his mum are doing fine. Have to give a lot of credit to the NHS staff who have given a lot of support throughout. That said, he was born by a last-minute-decision c-section and was originally due on Sept 20. I worry what might have been had he gone to term.
Congratulations, though I'm disappointed you didn't call him something sensible like Moon Unit.
Or have a middle name like 'subsamples' or 'swingback'.
Did the Bury branch of Manchester Metrolink yesterday afternoon, also walked across to Bury Bolton Street, site of the East Lancs Railway, though I missed the last train. Only after I got back home that I read that Bolton Street was the actual terminus of the Bury Branch in BR days, up until 1980. I think the branch became a tram line in 1992.
Apologies for the lack of a piece this morning. Arthur Robin Herdson was born at 2.30am and so gave his dad an even higher priority than PB. He and his mum are doing fine. Have to give a lot of credit to the NHS staff who have given a lot of support throughout. That said, he was born by a last-minute-decision c-section and was originally due on Sept 20. I worry what might have been had he gone to term.
Congratulations, though I'm disappointed you didn't call him something sensible like Moon Unit.
Or have a middle name like 'subsamples' or 'swingback'.
"Mike TSE Herdson"
Please, a little subtlety - TSE - screaming eagles, so you use a name like Ezio or Altair which both reference eagles.
Apologies for the lack of a piece this morning. Arthur Robin Herdson was born at 2.30am and so gave his dad an even higher priority than PB. He and his mum are doing fine. Have to give a lot of credit to the NHS staff who have given a lot of support throughout. That said, he was born by a last-minute-decision c-section and was originally due on Sept 20. I worry what might have been had he gone to term.
Congratulations, though I'm disappointed you didn't call him something sensible like Moon Unit.
Or have a middle name like 'subsamples' or 'swingback'.
"Mike TSE Herdson"
Call him Arthur Scottish Tory surge Herdson. congratulations.
Apologies for the lack of a piece this morning. Arthur Robin Herdson was born at 2.30am and so gave his dad an even higher priority than PB. He and his mum are doing fine. Have to give a lot of credit to the NHS staff who have given a lot of support throughout. That said, he was born by a last-minute-decision c-section and was originally due on Sept 20. I worry what might have been had he gone to term.
Congratulations, though I'm disappointed you didn't call him something sensible like Moon Unit.
According to Giles Coren today - that's the perfect name for those born in the right half of 1969
"So it was all fights in the playground over whether it was cooler to have been born just before or just after the official beginning of the Moon Age?"
Well not in Scotland. Indeed a good friend of my daughter had an interesting twist. She complained that the Universities were taking a 50:50 ratio and that this made it much harder for girls to get in than boys. She said that there were something like 9K girls applying (all with 5 As) and only about 3.5K boys. I think there were something like 3K places (can't swear to these numbers).
My friend has a theory on this, he thinks that the government are becoming increasingly irritated by women who study medicine for 6/7 years then do all the post-degree training and bugger off to get married and have kids to shift to becoming a part time locum. He says that from his course which was about 50/50 loads of his female friends have already done this. From my own family I know one doctor and one dentist who have both done this and moved to part time locum work in their early thirties.
That is not a theory it is a fact. And many doctors marry doctors (they don't have time to meet anyone else) so going part time is an easy economic decision when the kids come along. It results in most of the shortfalls suffered by the NHS, particularly in the GP end of the profession. The 50:50 ratios are a response to this. If it was purely on the qualifications of the applicants medicine would be female dominated by now.
Well that's based on A-Levels which are biased towards women. It will be interesting to see how the gap changes with the new system which is probably more favourable to men. I got a B in biology because I was basically much lazier than my female friends who wrote up to 4 drafts of their coursework and had them marked by the teacher and made endless revisions. I did two and then handed the second one in without any changes. Smashed the exams but the damage was done. That experience is repeated thousands of times at schools and colleges across the country.
Who is doing the coursework, the pupils or the teachers?
Well therein lies the problem with coursework based qualifications and pay/bonuses based on student performance. The teachers know that if they "help" students do their coursework they are more likely to get a decent bonus. We should eliminate coursework entirely or have a no revision single submission with external marking rule, though I'm not sure how easily that could be policed.
Meanwhile, how many hundreds of people are marching for Europe today.
What a disgrace - trying to overturn a democratic decision.
To be fair this is not a petition to have a second referendum to keep the UK in the EU, which was the question on the referendum ballot paper (unlike the earlier petition which was not from BSE) but to keep the UK in the Single Market, which was not. Polls show most voters (including almost half those who voted Leave) want at least some membership of the Single Market and a free trade deal even if they also want control of free movement so I don't think it is really trying to overturn a democratic decision
True, but I was referring to the march for europers...
That is certainly a lost cause, especially as it is the LDs who are organising it!
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
Leave campaigned on many things, not all within it agreed on everything. I imagine not being in the single market will be more popular - particularly as it will be much easier to portray it as staying in the EU by the back door, which is what any option other than towing us into the Atlantic will be portrayed as - but there's plenty of time for the debate.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
F1: surprised to actually offer a tip on qualifying, but something leapt out at me. Rosberg, each way, for pole at 4.33. If he's 2nd, it's slightly green.
Hamilton should be favourite but that's a bit long.
I've taken the 1-6 here. Hunt has the (genuine) full support of May and in effect this is taking the 'other side' of next minister out the cabinet (Which I can't find the market for) as the time scale is quite low.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
The junior doctors dispute reminds me of the miners strike in some ways. I think we'll see a similar result. The BMA is providing poor leadership IMHO. The escalation is a mistake.
The relationships between the patient, GPs A&E and Hospitals are dysfunctional.
...
...
For the elderly with lots of comorbidities, it is a nightmare, but not only that it is inefficient. If Someone with diabetes, a couple of previous heart attacks, COPD, perhaps RA on 10-15 drugs pitches up to someone who they have never met before, you can spend 10 minutes getting your head around all the different medications and conditions. Their breathlessness has increased - it takes time to look back and see what has been tried.
However if they have a known GP who is up to speed, they saw a couple of weeks ago then the process moves hugely quicker. This efficiency time saving isn't really realised by a lot of people until it affects them, usually when they are 70+. The supposed optimum practice size seems to be about 4 doctors looking after about 9000ish patients.
Simple approach to that. The market.
As with this ridiculous idea that broadband giving people an advantage meaning reversion to the stone age, having medical provision modelled only around the chronically ill is rigid public sector thinking.
You don't seem to understand quite how practices are funded - the practice for the over 70's would collapse as there is a per person payment premium, topped up by payments for certain targets
However even if that were sorted, these practices would have to cover huge areas to reach enough people to make them work. But what at the point of crossover? At any time a chronic health complaint could happen.
Essentially there is a trade off of continuity vs access. These instant access services already exist in the market, there are multiple private online GPs who will see for a price. Some large cities also have walk in centres for this kind of stuff. But it is difficult to roll out accross a huge area due to trying to match populations, obligations for visits etc. If this super practice existed, but were say 10 miles away or a closer one 2 miles away what would get chosen? I could not see this working in practice.
So meanwhile methods don't change despite the working age non-chronically ill population subsiding the NHS.
Simple solution. Stop paying GPs via per person payment premium. Pay per appointment and other measures.
What counts as an appointment? A phonecall? A face to face? Minimum length? YOu would see rigid enforcement of 1 problem per appointment in this scenario. Again biasis against looking after the more complex, who inherently need more time per appointment
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
Did they? I don't remember that, indeed many of their posters pushed a Norway style deal. Around 25-30% of voters polled do indeed want to leave the Single Market and end free movement completely but that still leaves 70% of voters who want at least some Single Market membership and a free trade deal and are prepared to accept free movement with controls
Did the Bury branch of Manchester Metrolink yesterday afternoon, also walked across to Bury Bolton Street, site of the East Lancs Railway, though I missed the last train. Only after I got back home that I read that Bolton Street was the actual terminus of the Bury Branch in BR days, up until 1980. I think the branch became a tram line in 1992.
It did. They closed it for a a year or two while they did the conversion
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
Did they? I don't remember that, indeed many of their posters pushed a Norway style deal. Around 25-30% of voters polled do indeed want to leave the Single Market and end free movement completely but that still leaves 70% of voters who want at least some Single Market membership and a free trade deal and are prepared to accept free movement with controls
In a nutshell why this was a ridiculous decision to leave to a referendum.
The junior doctors dispute reminds me of the miners strike in some ways. I think we'll see a similar result. The BMA is providing poor leadership IMHO. The escalation is a mistake.
It does seem odd to say the least to me to ratchet from a day strike to five days in a row.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
Did they? I don't remember that, indeed many of their posters pushed a Norway style deal. Around 25-30% of voters polled do indeed want to leave the Single Market and end free movement completely but that still leaves 70% of voters who want at least some Single Market membership and a free trade deal and are prepared to accept free movement with controls
In a nutshell why this was a ridiculous decision to leave to a referendum.
Indeed, we have had BREXIT after Leave won the referendum, however that now just brings on the next battle, hard BREXITeers versus the rest
As far as I can see my GP does the appointments in the morning then goes off to a hospital and does rounds there and sometimes is back for second surgery of the day. Sounds busy to me in fairness though often they are not available for surgeries all the time so perhaps not quite as bad as that?
On the other hand I am offered private medical by the company I am involved with and the consultant I see also works at the NHS hospital at certain times of the day. It is not unusual to have a private consultation appointment at 7 or even 8 in the evening? Mind you the last appointment i had took around 10 mins and cost 148 quid for the insurers. One coming out and one after me at least meant a revenue of at least 450 quid for 1/2 hours work if all were the same. ( noted the doc doesn't get that full whack hence the term revenue was used no fee)
I did get a nice cup of tea brought to me though.
In the meantime there are apparently staff shortages where expensive agency replacements are required ensuring even more drain on available resources. It's the disconnection of various services their skill sets on top of the application of available skilled labour that seems to show the system is not working as effectively as it could, as one cohesive force and pulling in the same direction as a team.
Can I suggest that if an organisation is run with the bare minimum of staff, then when one or two of them are absent temporary replacements are essential.
More likely is they do house visits which are a huge issue for those who do not feel they should get to the surgery, but do manage to get out and go to other appointments and get their hair done etc. The thing you don't see is the HUGE amount of administrative work there is to cover as a GP. Each test ordered needs to be reviewed, often the notes looked at at the same time. Clinic letters read for all patients, AE/Discharge summaries, screening comments. Then all the solicitor requests, insurance reports, access requests etc.
With the private stuff they will collect the money one way or another therefore they don't mind a non attendance, although due to the cost people just don't not attend.
The relationships between the patient, GPs A&E and Hospitals are dysfunctional.
...
...
For the elderly with lots of comorbidities, it is a nightmare, but not only that it is inefficient. If Someone with diabetes, a couple of previous heart attacks, COPD, perhaps RA on 10-15 drugs pitches up to someone who they have never met before, you can spend 10 minutes getting your head around all the different medications and conditions. Their breathlessness has increased - it takes time to look back and see what has been tried.
However if they have a known GP who is up to speed, they saw a couple of weeks ago then the process moves hugely quicker. This efficiency time saving isn't really realised by a lot of people until it affects them, usually when they are 70+. The supposed optimum practice size seems to be about 4 doctors looking after about 9000ish patients.
Simple approach to that. The market.
As with this ridiculous idea that broadband giving people an advantage meaning reversion to the stone age, having medical provision modelled only around the chronically ill is rigid public sector thinking.
So meanwhile methods don't change despite the working age non-chronically ill population subsiding the NHS.
Simple solution. Stop paying GPs via per person payment premium. Pay per appointment and other measures.
What counts as an appointment? A phonecall? A face to face? Minimum length? YOu would see rigid enforcement of 1 problem per appointment in this scenario. Again biasis against looking after the more complex, who inherently need more time per appointment
Bear with him, he does build up a decent head of steam.
I used to develop software. Just the thought of addressing something as simple as a GP appointment system makes me cringe at the complexity, the edge cases, the variations on a theme. UK health provision employs ~ 1.7 million people.
A lot of obvious solutions don't scale well, or break down at the margins. It's inherently unfair as the well are not just subsidising the sick, but the chaotic sick, who can't manage their own health - the addicts, the alcoholics, the mentally ill.
That's not to say we throw our hands up and proclaim it's all too difficult. Just that most obvious solutions have been considered and discarded due to the aforementioned reasons.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in Europe than it is almost anywhere else because you do not have to worry about issues such as tax treatment, customs, employment law etc. We can open an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow. We can't in the US or China. That said, it's not a major problem. If the UK does look like leaving the single market, we'll open an office in the EU and do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
With membership you can be sure of no tariffs
Well access can do the same and may not come with as many strings attached.
The relationships between the patient, GPs A&E and Hospitals are dysfunctional.
...
...
...
However if they have a known GP who is up to speed, they saw a couple of weeks ago then the process moves hugely quicker. This efficiency time saving isn't really realised by a lot of people until it affects them, usually when they are 70+. The supposed optimum practice size seems to be about 4 doctors looking after about 9000ish patients.
Simple approach to that. The market.
As with this ridiculous idea that broadband giving people an advantage meaning reversion to the stone age, having medical provision modelled only around the chronically ill is rigid public sector thinking.
You don't seem to understand quite how practices are funded - the practice for the over 70's would collapse as there is a per person payment premium, topped up by payments for certain targets
However even if that were sorted, these practices would have to cover huge areas to reach enough people to make them work. But what at the point of crossover? At any time a chronic health complaint could happen.
Essentially there is a trade off of continuity vs access. These instant access services already exist in the market, there are multiple private online GPs who will see for a price. Some large cities also have walk in centres for this kind of stuff. But it is difficult to roll out accross a huge area due to trying to match populations, obligations for visits etc. If this super practice existed, but were say 10 miles away or a closer one 2 miles away what would get chosen? I could not see this working in practice.
So meanwhile methods don't change despite the working age non-chronically ill population subsiding the NHS.
Simple solution. Stop paying GPs via per person payment premium. Pay per appointment and other measures.
What counts as an appointment? A phonecall? A face to face? Minimum length? YOu would see rigid enforcement of 1 problem per appointment in this scenario. Again biasis against looking after the more complex, who inherently need more time per appointment
So the present system must stay because others are a faff?
As with all public service provision, there seems to be more focus on finding problems to future proposals than solutions to current problems. I wonder why that is?
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in Europe than it is almost anywhere else because you do not have to worry about issues such as tax treatment, customs, employment law etc. We can open an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow. We can't in the US or China. That said, it's not a major problem. If the UK does look like leaving the single market, we'll open an office in the EU and do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
With membership you can be sure of no tariffs
Well access can do the same and may not come with as many strings attached.
If we only get access and cease membership of the Single Market completely there is a significant chance the EU will then impose tariffs on UK goods and services to discourage any other members from leaving and the UK will respond in kind. In the end I think some membership is most likely both as the City wants access to the Single Market as does the German car industry with the number of cars it sells in the UK
'If imposition is as bodged as I expect (and Hospital HR departments are notoriously hopeless), then I expect that we will see further rota gaps appearing. I also expect absenteeism to worsen as a reflection of poor morale.'
So because the junior doctors don't like a change in their contract (which their union said was a good deal ) they are going to pretend to be sick. We also know from the leaked BMA emails that the strikes were never about patient care and only about money.
Have these greedy callous scumbags got no limits on what they they are prepared to inflict on their patients ?
Meanwhile my sister will no doubt have her cancer treatment delayed again.
"Envy of the world" my arse
Anyone who's ever lived broad will agree with that. Pretty much nowhere else in the developed world is it so difficult to see a doctor.
But almost everywhere else in the developed world spends more public money on health care per head ( include the USA)
The junior doctors dispute reminds me of the miners strike in some ways. I think we'll see a similar result. The BMA is providing poor leadership IMHO. The escalation is a mistake.
When do mounted police start charging at the picket lines?
More likely that some of the strikers will go riding on their extra days off.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in Europe than it is almost anywhere else because you do not have to worry about issues such as tax treatment, customs, employment law etc. We can open an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow. We can't in the US or China. That said, it's not a major problem. If the UK does look like leaving the single market, we'll open an office in the EU and do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has a number of bilateral free trade deals with the EU and it presently has full freedom of movement from and to the EU too (though like the UK following a recent referendum it may try and control that)
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
With membership you can be sure of no tariffs
Well access can do the same and may not come with as many strings attached.
If we only get access and cease membership of the Single Market completely there is a significant chance the EU will then impose tariffs on UK goods and services to discourage any other members from leaving and the UK will respond in kind. In the end I think some membership is most likely both as the City wants access to the Single Market as does the German car industry with the number of cars it sells in the UK
Which is why we need to agree a tariff free deal so that British companies can sell in to the EU without tariffs and EU companies can sell into the UK without tariffs. If we can add "or other impediments" to the Heads of Terms that will be a very successful deal indeed.
Well not in Scotland. Indeed a good friend of my daughter had an interesting twist. She complained that the Universities were taking a 50:50 ratio and that this made it much harder for girls to get in than boys. She said that there were something like 9K girls applying (all with 5 As) and only about 3.5K boys. I think there were something like 3K places (can't swear to these numbers).
My friend has a theory on this, he thinks that the government are becoming increasingly irritated by women who study medicine for 6/7 years then do all the post-degree training and bugger off to get married and have kids to shift to becoming a part time locum. He says that from his course which was about 50/50 loads of his female friends have already done this. From my own family I know one doctor and one dentist who have both done this and moved to part time locum work in their early thirties.
That is not a theory it is a fact. And many doctors marry doctors (they don't have time to meet anyone else) so going part time is an easy economic decision when the kids come along. It results in most of the shortfalls suffered by the NHS, particularly in the GP end of the profession. The 50:50 ratios are a response to this. If it was purely on the qualifications of the applicants medicine would be female dominated by now.
Well that's based on A-Levels which are biased towards women. It will be interesting to see how the gap changes with the new system which is probably more favourable to men. I got a B in biology because I was basically much lazier than my female friends who wrote up to 4 drafts of their coursework and had them marked by the teacher and made endless revisions. I did two and then handed the second one in without any changes. Smashed the exams but the damage was done. That experience is repeated thousands of times at schools and colleges across the country.
Who is doing the coursework, the pupils or the teachers?
Women 'do well' in A'-levels because:
a) They are better at languages - for English and b) only the best do maths, chemistry, physics
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in Europe than it is almost anywhere else because you do not have to worry about issues such as tax treatment, customs, employment law etc. We can open an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow. We can't in the US or China. That said, it's not a major problem. If the UK does look like leaving the single market, we'll open an office in the EU and do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has a number of bilateral free trade deals with the EU and it presently has full freedom of movement from and to the EU too (though like the UK following a recent referendum it may try and control that)
Yes, which is another option for the UK as well rather than membership. That's the reason I'm open to both options.
As far as I can see my GP does the appointments in the morning then goes off to a hospital and does rounds there and sometimes is back for second surgery of the day. Sounds busy to me in fairness though often they are not available for surgeries all the time so perhaps not quite as bad as that?
On the other hand I am offered private medical by the company I am involved with and the consultant I see also works at the NHS hospital at certain times of the day. It is not unusual to have a private consultation appointment at 7 or even 8 in the evening? Mind you the last appointment i had took around 10 mins and cost 148 quid for the insurers. One coming out and one after me at least meant a revenue of at least 450 quid for 1/2 hours work if all were the same. ( noted the doc doesn't get that full whack hence the term revenue was used no fee)
I did get a nice cup of tea brought to me though.
In the meantime there are apparently staff shortages where expensive agency replacements are required ensuring even more drain on available resources. It's the disconnection of various services their skill sets on top of the application of available skilled labour that seems to show the system is not working as effectively as it could, as one cohesive force and pulling in the same direction as a team.
Can I suggest that if an organisation is run with the bare minimum of staff, then when one or two of them are absent temporary replacements are essential.
More likely is they do house visits which are a huge issue for those who do not feel they should get to the surgery, but do manage to get out and go to other appointments and get their hair done etc. The thing you don't see is the HUGE amount of administrative work there is to cover as a GP. Each test ordered needs to be reviewed, often the notes looked at at the same time. Clinic letters read for all patients, AE/Discharge summaries, screening comments. Then all the solicitor requests, insurance reports, access requests etc.
With the private stuff they will collect the money one way or another therefore they don't mind a non attendance, although due to the cost people just don't not attend.
Absolutely; I’ve worked in and with GP practices for many years. The back office work is enormous and increasing.
My comment was directed at those outside the NHS who complain about staff costs, then complain when, if those staff are absent for whatever reason, there’s no in-house replacement available, so that agency staff has to be used, and the agency, understandably as it’s a commercial organisation, seeks to make a profit.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a homeand do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
No, we are a publishing and events business.
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
On the other hand I am offered private medical by the company I am involved with and the consultant I see also works at the NHS hospital at certain times of the day. It is not unusual to have a private consultation appointment at 7 or even 8 in the evening? Mind you the last appointment i had took around 10 mins and cost 148 quid for the insurers. One coming out and one after me at least meant a revenue of at least 450 quid for 1/2 hours work if all were the same. ( noted the doc doesn't get that full whack hence the term revenue was used no fee)
I did get a nice cup of tea brought to me though.
In the meantime there are apparently staff shortages where expensive agency replacements are required ensuring even more drain on available resources. It's the disconnection of various services their skill sets on top of the application of available skilled labour that seems to show the system is not working as effectively as it could, as one cohesive force and pulling in the same direction as a team.
Can I suggest that if an organisation is run with the bare minimum of staff, then when one or two of them are absent temporary replacements are essential.
More likely is they do house visits which are a huge issue for those who do not feel they should get to the surgery, but do manage to get out and go to other appointments and get their hair done etc. The thing you don't see is the HUGE amount of administrative work there is to cover as a GP. Each test ordered needs to be reviewed, often the notes looked at at the same time. Clinic letters read for all patients, AE/Discharge summaries, screening comments. Then all the solicitor requests, insurance reports, access requests etc.
With the private stuff they will collect the money one way or another therefore they don't mind a non attendance, although due to the cost people just don't not attend.
Absolutely; I’ve worked in and with GP practices for many years. The back office work is enormous and increasing.
My comment was directed at those outside the NHS who complain about staff costs, then complain when, if those staff are absent for whatever reason, there’s no in-house replacement available, so that agency staff has to be used, and the agency, understandably as it’s a commercial organisation, seeks to make a profit.
If back office work is the issue and we're seeing more and more desire for salaried staff, there will surely be a nationwide chain set up soon which is more able to scale efficient back office processes, arrange better care coverage and please patients better.
The junior doctors dispute reminds me of the miners strike in some ways. I think we'll see a similar result. The BMA is providing poor leadership IMHO. The escalation is a mistake.
When do mounted police start charging at the picket lines?
More likely that some of the strikers will go riding on their extra days off.
"In some ways". I was thinking of poor/agenda-driven leaders playing straight into the government's hands and letting down ordinary members.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in Europe than it is almost anywhere else because you do not have to worry about issues such as tax treatment, customs, employment law etc. We can open an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow. We can't in the US or China. That said, it's not a major problem. If the UK does look like leaving the single market, we'll open an office in the EU and do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has bilateral agreements with the EU that coincides with large parts of the Single Markets. Where they don't Swiss businesses are operating at a real disadvantage compared with their EU counterparts. For that reason Switzerland wants to open new bilaterals on banking and drugs certification (drugs certification must take place in the EU - it's a valuable bit of business). The EU isn't talking to Switzerland nowadays so there isn't a prospect of that happening soon.
There is a question of whether the UK could negotiate a similar set of bilateral arrangements. I think it's unlikely. There isn't the time or the will to compromise on either side IMO. I should note that HYUFD has a different view on this.
Also the issue with services anywhere isn't tariffs, it's non-tariff barriers. The EU and ECJ put a fair amount of effort into eliminating these when they find them. It isn't perfect by any means but it is a lot better than any other international market.
Glad to see the Junior Doctors are starting to lose public support and also from senior doctors in their profession. It has long gone from being an issue about wages and patient safety to now being purely a political one. If the strikes go ahead they are going to lose even more public support with thousands of operations and appointments cancelled.
I think May will stand firm both in the governments stance that the contract now has to be enforced and keeping Hunt in place.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
With membership you can be sure of no tariffs
Well access can do the same and may not come with as many strings attached.
If we only get access and cease membership of the Single Market completely there is a significant chance the EU will then impose tariffs on UK goods and services to discourage any other members from leaving and the UK will respond in kind. In the end I think some membership is most likely both as the City wants access to the Single Market as does the German car industry with the number of cars it sells in the UK
Which is why we need to agree a tariff free deal so that British companies can sell in to the EU without tariffs and EU companies can sell into the UK without tariffs. If we can add "or other impediments" to the Heads of Terms that will be a very successful deal indeed.
There are no guarantees we would get such a tariff free deal without any membership of the Single Market
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As you pointed out during the campaign, the economy was a secondary concern to too many people (including me).
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
With membership you can be sure of no tariffs
Well access can do the same and may not come with as many strings attached.
If we only get access and cease membership of the Single Market completely there is a significant chance the EU will then impose tariffs on UK goods and services to discourage any other members from leaving and the UK will respond in kind. In the end I think some membership is most likely both as the City wants access to the Single Market as does the German car industry with the number of cars it sells in the UK
Which is why we need to agree a tariff free deal so that British companies can sell in to the EU without tariffs and EU companies can sell into the UK without tariffs. If we can add "or other impediments" to the Heads of Terms that will be a very successful deal indeed.
There are no guarantees we would get such a tariff free deal without any membership of the Single Market
As per my comments below, tariffs aren't the only issue anyway.
That was a vote to leave the EU, not the Single Market
You know what?
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
I think access and membership will be the next flash point. I'm personally open to either argument, though I've begun to lean towards access rather than membership. No one has yet pointed out any tangible benefit from membership vs access.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in Europe than it is almost anywhere else because you do not have to worry about issues such as tax treatment, customs, employment law etc. We can open an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow. We can't in the US or China. That said, it's not a major problem. If the UK does look like leaving the single market, we'll open an office in the EU and do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has a number of bilateral free trade deals with the EU and it presently has full freedom of movement from and to the EU too (though like the UK following a recent referendum it may try and control that)
Yes, which is another option for the UK as well rather than membership. That's the reason I'm open to both options.
However such bilateral agreements would rely on us accepting at least some free movement from and to the EU as the Swiss presently do
My experience with Reuters polls isbi can only find breakdowns by Democrats/Republicans/ Independents which is the least interesting breakdown possible.
Reuters 'state of the nation' has been updated http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/ Currently predicts Clinton by 85 EC votes (less than last time but still significant).
Interesting data is Florida - which is Clinton +3 , Michigan - which has Trump +1, and Wisconsin - tie, Maine - tie. New Hampshire - Trump+1. Ohio is Trump +3 but best news for Clinton is Pennsylvania. - Clinton +6
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As you pointed out during the campaign, the economy was a secondary concern to too many people (including me).
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
The junior doctors dispute reminds me of the miners strike in some ways. I think we'll see a similar result. The BMA is providing poor leadership IMHO. The escalation is a mistake.
When do mounted police start charging at the picket lines?
More likely that some of the strikers will go riding on their extra days off.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in Europe than it is almost anywhere else because you do not have to worry about issues such as tax treatment, customs, employment law etc. We can open an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow. We can't in the US or China. That said, it's not a major problem. If the UK does look like leaving the single market, we'll open an office in the EU and do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has bilateral agreements with the EU that coincides with large parts of the Single Markets. Where they don't Swiss businesses are operating at a real disadvantage compared with their EU counterparts. For that reason Switzerland wants to open new bilaterals on banking and drugs certification (drugs certification must take place in the EU - it's a valuable bit of business). The EU isn't talking to Switzerland nowadays so there isn't a prospect of that happening soon.
There is a question of whether the UK could negotiate a similar set of bilateral arrangements. I think it's unlikely. There isn't the time or the will to compromise on either side IMO. I should note that HYUFD has a different view on this.
Also the issue with services anywhere isn't tariffs, it's non-tariff barriers. The EU and ECJ put a fair amount of effort into eliminating these when they find them. It isn't perfect by any means but it is a lot better than any other international market.
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
My experience with Reuters polls isbi can only find breakdowns by Democrats/Republicans/ Independents which is the least interesting breakdown possible.
The junior doctors dispute reminds me of the miners strike in some ways. I think we'll see a similar result. The BMA is providing poor leadership IMHO. The escalation is a mistake.
When do mounted police start charging at the picket lines?
More likely that some of the strikers will go riding on their extra days off.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in Europe than it is almost anywhere else because you do not have to worry about issues such as tax treatment, customs, employment law etc. We can open an office anywhere in the EU tomorrow. We can't in the US or China. That said, it's not a major problem. If the UK does look like leaving the single market, we'll open an office in the EU and do our European business from there. The only effect will be less opportunities for current UK-based employees and less reason to recruit in the UK, and new opportunities for people living where we do open up.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has bilateral agreements with the EU that coincides with large parts of the Single Markets. Where they don't Swiss businesses are operating at a real disadvantage compared with their EU counterparts. For that reason Switzerland wants to open new bilaterals on banking and drugs certification (drugs certification must take place in the EU - it's a valuable bit of business). The EU isn't talking to Switzerland nowadays so there isn't a prospect of that happening soon.
There is a question of whether the UK could negotiate a similar set of bilateral arrangements. I think it's unlikely. There isn't the time or the will to compromise on either side IMO. I should note that HYUFD has a different view on this.
Also the issue with services anywhere isn't tariffs, it's non-tariff barriers. The EU and ECJ put a fair amount of effort into eliminating these when they find them. It isn't perfect by any means but it is a lot better than any other international market.
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
And lots of British companies outside the city currently fully integrated into the single market.
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
A nightmare? I think not. I drive a Japanese car which was made in Japan, I have a telephone which was made in Korea, my second favourite drinking wine comes from New Zealand and so on. None of those countries are member of the single market yet they manage to sell their products to us very successfully.
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has bilateral agreements with the EU that coincides with large parts of the Single Markets. Where they don't Swiss businesses are operating at a real disadvantage compared with their EU counterparts. For that reason Switzerland wants to open new bilaterals on banking and drugs certification (drugs certification must take place in the EU - it's a valuable bit of business). The EU isn't talking to Switzerland nowadays so there isn't a prospect of that happening soon.
There is a question of whether the UK could negotiate a similar set of bilateral arrangements. I think it's unlikely. There isn't the time or the will to compromise on either side IMO. I should note that HYUFD has a different view on this.
Also the issue with services anywhere isn't tariffs, it's non-tariff barriers. The EU and ECJ put a fair amount of effort into eliminating these when they find them. It isn't perfect by any means but it is a lot better than any other international market.
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
Elimination of tariffs on goods (automotive and wine etc) should be uncontroversial. I think the City will see its business shrink. I am not an expert in this but others who are suggest it will retain areas of expertise at a global level (multidisciplinary project work) while no longer being the European finance centre (transactional work) as that will migrate to the market and legal jurisdiction it serves - ie the EU
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
A nightmare? I think not. I drive a Japanese car which was made in Japan, I have a telephone which was made in Korea, my second favourite drinking wine comes from New Zealand and so on. None of those countries are member of the single market yet they manage to sell their products to us very successfully.
None of them have ever been in it. Their companies, therefore, have never been asked to re-engineer supply chains or strategies to comply with withdrawal. That is going to be complicated for many and will involve many tough decisions. But it will all be sorted out in the end.
Reuters 'state of the nation' has been updated http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/ Currently predicts Clinton by 85 EC votes (less than last time but still significant).
Interesting data is Florida - which is Clinton +3 , Michigan - which has Trump +1, and Wisconsin - tie, Maine - tie. New Hampshire - Trump+1. Ohio is Trump +3 but best news for Clinton is Pennsylvania. - Clinton +6
Why are we talking about Reuters? Whether they have Hillary up by 15 or Trump tied their headline numbers are always junk.
In this case their "State of the Nation" is based on polling with samples less than 300 in most states, in New Hampshire it's about a sample of 150. And on top of that it's through a computer simulation.
If you want to use it fine, but only for the largest states and only if you have no other option.
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
But on the other side we may open up new markets to benefit from while Europe continues to stagnate. The European market is not the be all and end all for British business. In fact it is less important than ever and will continue to dwindle in importance as it struggles to find growth and the rest of the world gets on with life. Some companies who trade exclusively within the EU might find life hard, but they must also seize new opportunities that come along as well. Our views obviously differ on the importance of the EU market and I guess that comes from what we do, my job is mostly aimed at Asia yours to Europe, I think over time I will be proved correct in my assessment that the European single market will continue to lose its value both in global terms and for UK companies.
The Eurocentric view that the single market is the single most important economic zone in the world is going to be a minority view in the future, especially if the UK leaves and prospers outside of it.
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As you pointed out during the campaign, the economy was a secondary concern to too many people (including me).
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
The problem with all these airy assertions is, that they just aren't supported by the evidence.
The UK's export growth to the EU since the single market started has been considerably slower than before, not faster.
The share of UK exports of goods going to the EU has dropped sharply as well.
Countries outside the single market have had just as much success, or more, selling into it than we have.
UK productivity growth has not been faster than before, it has been slower.
'I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided'
Single market access with free movement would be the EU constitution renamed the Lisbon agreement.
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As you pointed out during the campaign, the economy was a secondary concern to too many people (including me).
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
The problem with all these airy assertions is, that they just aren't supported by the evidence.
The UK's export growth to the EU since the single market started has been considerably slower than before, not faster.
The share of UK exports of goods going to the EU has dropped sharply as well.
Countries outside the single market have had just as much success, or more, selling into it than we have.
UK productivity growth has not been faster than before, it has been slower.
etc. etc.
How do you define an export? Is our company organising an event in Barcelona from London exporting?
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As you pointed out during the campaign, the economy was a secondary concern to too many people (including me).
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
The problem with all these airy assertions is, that they just aren't supported by the evidence.
The UK's export growth to the EU since the single market started has been considerably slower than before, not faster.
The share of UK exports of goods going to the EU has dropped sharply as well.
Countries outside the single market have had just as much success, or more, selling into it than we have.
UK productivity growth has not been faster than before, it has been slower.
etc. etc.
How do you define an export? Is our company organising an event in Barcelona from London exporting?
It depends, are you selling the service to a UK company or European company? When a German company exhibits their business at, say, the Ideal Home show in Earls court, is that an export?
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
But on the other side we may open up new markets to benefit from while Europe continues to stagnate. The European market is not the be all and end all for British business. In fact it is less important than ever and will continue to dwindle in importance as it struggles to find growth and the rest of the world gets on with life. Some companies who trade exclusively within the EU might find life hard, but they must also seize new opportunities that come along as well. Our views obviously differ on the importance of the EU market and I guess that comes from what we do, my job is mostly aimed at Asia yours to Europe, I think over time I will be proved correct in my assessment that the European single market will continue to lose its value both in global terms and for UK companies.
The Eurocentric view that the single market is the single most important economic zone in the world is going to be a minority view in the future, especially if the UK leaves and prospers outside of it.
Asia is our biggest growth market, the US our biggest market overall. Where we differ, I think, is over the likelihood of the UK getting much improved access to the US and key Asian markets than we have now and that compensating for our withdrawal from the single market. I doubt it, you are much more bullish. We'll see.
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As you pointed out during the campaign, the economy was a secondary concern to too many people (including me).
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
The problem with all these airy assertions is, that they just aren't supported by the evidence.
The UK's export growth to the EU since the single market started has been considerably slower than before, not faster.
The share of UK exports of goods going to the EU has dropped sharply as well.
Countries outside the single market have had just as much success, or more, selling into it than we have.
UK productivity growth has not been faster than before, it has been slower.
etc. etc.
How do you define an export? Is our company organising an event in Barcelona from London exporting?
It probably should be recorded as a service export, yes. It may not be, of course - you'd be best placed to tell me that.
But we have a decent breakdown of services exports too. Only a minority of them (c40%) go the EU. For the biggest sector, other business services, it's only around a third, and falling.
And of course, there is no real single market in services, as the EU itself would freely admit.
Reuters 'state of the nation' has been updated http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/ Currently predicts Clinton by 85 EC votes (less than last time but still significant).
Interesting data is Florida - which is Clinton +3 , Michigan - which has Trump +1, and Wisconsin - tie, Maine - tie. New Hampshire - Trump+1. Ohio is Trump +3 but best news for Clinton is Pennsylvania. - Clinton +6
Why are we talking about Reuters? Whether they have Hillary up by 15 or Trump tied their headline numbers are always junk.
In this case their "State of the Nation" is based on polling with samples less than 300 in most states, in New Hampshire it's about a sample of 150. And on top of that it's through a computer simulation.
If you want to use it fine, but only for the largest states and only if you have no other option.
538 do the same - except they aggregate polls - but the 27.2% or 30.6% Trump chances of winning are also via monte-carlo simulations. The current FO projections (D +1.9, 2/1) are too close for comfort for Clinton. It looks as if P will save her, but isn't it only now (post Labor Day) that the real action starts?
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As you pointed out during the campaign, the economy was a secondary concern to too many people (including me).
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
The problem with all these airy assertions is, that they just aren't supported by the evidence.
The UK's export growth to the EU since the single market started has been considerably slower than before, not faster.
The share of UK exports of goods going to the EU has dropped sharply as well.
Countries outside the single market have had just as much success, or more, selling into it than we have.
UK productivity growth has not been faster than before, it has been slower.
etc. etc.
How do you define an export? Is our company organising an event in Barcelona from London exporting?
It depends, are you selling the service to a UK company or European company? When a German company exhibits their business at, say, the Ideal Home show in Earls court, is that an export?
We are selling the service globally. We are not exporting anything to Spain, just using facilities there because they are the most attractive to us and our customers. This is the joy of being part of the single market, which is why we'll ensure we will continue to be so.
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
A nightmare? I think not. I drive a Japanese car which was made in Japan, I have a telephone which was made in Korea, my second favourite drinking wine comes from New Zealand and so on. None of those countries are member of the single market yet they manage to sell their products to us very successfully.
I've just cast my mind over the contents of my house and fridge - and none of them are notably from the EU.
Sheepskins rugs from Yorkshire, fine beans from Kenya, various hifi thingies from the Far East, silk flowers from China... TV shows from the USA.
I've found cooking brandy with an EU label - but given it's probably resided in a plastic 10000 gallon vat - I'm not too bothered.
If the software for an appointments system is so fiendishly complicated perhaps the NHS should invest in quantum computers. Then they could cope with patients who appear and disappear for no apparent reason and doctors could be in two places at the same time.
If the software for an appointments system is so fiendishly complicated perhaps the NHS should invest in quantum computers. Then they could cope with patients who appear and disappear for no apparent reason and doctors could be in two places at the same time.
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
But on the other side we may open up new markets to benefit from while Europe continues to stagnate. The European market is not the be all and end all for British business. In fact it is less important than ever and will continue to dwindle in importance as it struggles to find growth and the rest of the world gets on with life. Some companies who trade exclusively within the EU might find life hard, but they must also seize new opportunities that come along as well. Our views obviously differ on the importance of the EU market and I guess that comes from what we do, my job is mostly aimed at Asia yours to Europe, I think over time I will be proved correct in my assessment that the European single market will continue to lose its value both in global terms and for UK companies.
The Eurocentric view that the single market is the single most important economic zone in the world is going to be a minority view in the future, especially if the UK leaves and prospers outside of it.
Asia is our biggest growth market, the US our biggest market overall. Where we differ, I think, is over the likelihood of the UK getting much improved access to the US and key Asian markets than we have now and that compensating for our withdrawal from the single market. I doubt it, you are much more bullish. We'll see.
Well already we're seeing a backlash within the EU against the CETA and TTIP. I doubt the Japanese trade deal gets anywhere either, the UK could easily do a better than CETA deal and get a deal done with Japan pretty quickly for bilateral tariff elimination at least. Those are two specific examples of where the UK will open up new opportunities in North America and a key Asian market that won't be possible (at least not for while) within the EU.
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
But on the other side we may open up new markets to benefit from while Europe continues to stagnate. The European market is not the be all and end all for British business. In fact it is less important than ever and will continue to dwindle in importance as it struggles to find growth and the rest of the world gets on with life. Some companies who trade exclusively within the EU might find life hard, but they must also seize new opportunities that come along as well. Our views obviously differ on the importance of the EU market and I guess that comes from what we do, my job is mostly aimed at Asia yours to Europe, I think over time I will be proved correct in my assessment that the European single market will continue to lose its value both in global terms and for UK companies.
The Eurocentric view that the single market is the single most important economic zone in the world is going to be a minority view in the future, especially if the UK leaves and prospers outside of it.
I partly agree with this. The EU isn't stagnating in terms of exports, but the UK is stagnating as part of the EU. As the chart linked below shows, back in the mists of time the UK was a leading exporting country compared with our competitors. Joining the EU in 1975 boosted our exports but they have remained static since. The Euro seems to have done its job of encouraging exports for members of the single currency. Exportts haven't just increased to each other in relative terms but outside the EU as well. The UK just isn't the exporting powerhouse it used to be. Our EU competitors are ahead of us now.
Obviously we're never going to join the Euro, so it's moot. But I don't see a solution in further separation.
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As you pointed out during the campaign, the economy was a secondary concern to too many people (including me).
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
The problem with all these airy assertions is, that they just aren't supported by the evidence.
The UK's export growth to the EU since the single market started has been considerably slower than before, not faster.
The share of UK exports of goods going to the EU has dropped sharply as well.
Countries outside the single market have had just as much success, or more, selling into it than we have.
UK productivity growth has not been faster than before, it has been slower.
etc. etc.
How do you define an export? Is our company organising an event in Barcelona from London exporting?
It depends, are you selling the service to a UK company or European company? When a German company exhibits their business at, say, the Ideal Home show in Earls court, is that an export?
If you organise an event to promote a good or service then that is an import as money is leaving the UK. If you charge people abroad to attend an event abroad then that is an export as money is entering the UK. As they say ... follow the money.
538 do the same - except they aggregate polls - but the 27.2% or 30.6% Trump chances of winning are also via monte-carlo simulations. The current FO projections (D +1.9, 2/1) are too close for comfort for Clinton. It looks as if P will save her, but isn't it only now (post Labor Day) that the real action starts?
Actually voting starts on Sept. 21st if I remember correctly. Sure election day is on Nov. 8th, but people can vote early. Trump may even win the election day vote only to lose the election because of early voting.
Pennsylvania voting to the left of Michigan sure helps Hillary. But Trump can replace Pennsylvania with Michigan and turn F.O.P. into F.O.M.+ME-02 or Iowa, to win.
I'm in the view than Michigan is more winnable for Trump than Pennsylvania at the moment for 3 reasons:
A. More republican friendly, they have elected a GOP governor. B. No Philadelphia. C. It's economically more distressed, Detroit for instance.
"To the intellectual vanguard of liberalism, it seems as if mankind faces a choice – in the words of the political scientist Yascha Mounk – between “undemocratic liberalism and illiberal democracy”. One is elitist but respectful of the rights of minorities and thus benign. The other is the will of the majority imposed through the ballot box. Liberals fear that the majority has become bigoted and near-suicidal. If only we could vote the voters out!
But liberals have to take their own share of blame for the state of the West. After all, they’ve been running it for several decades. Badly..."
"To the intellectual vanguard of liberalism, it seems as if mankind faces a choice – in the words of the political scientist Yascha Mounk – between “undemocratic liberalism and illiberal democracy”. One is elitist but respectful of the rights of minorities and thus benign. The other is the will of the majority imposed through the ballot box. Liberals fear that the majority has become bigoted and near-suicidal. If only we could vote the voters out!
But liberals have to take their own share of blame for the state of the West. After all, they’ve been running it for several decades. Badly..."
If the software for an appointments system is so fiendishly complicated perhaps the NHS should invest in quantum computers. Then they could cope with patients who appear and disappear for no apparent reason and doctors could be in two places at the same time.
We can pick a number on the 2030 economic impact of Brexit. Given May's comments, the IFS summary of the NIESR model predicted a 1.8% shortfall based on an FTA (which is the closest we can get atm. EEA is slightly worse at 2.1%).
I think we're onto the next level down, which is that the economy, while not being too badly affected (1.8% is around 8 months of trend growth, if we use 1973-2015 as trend), the mix of industries that will make up that GDP will likely be very different to the UK's current portfolio.
538 do the same - except they aggregate polls - but the 27.2% or 30.6% Trump chances of winning are also via monte-carlo simulations. The current FO projections (D +1.9, 2/1) are too close for comfort for Clinton. It looks as if P will save her, but isn't it only now (post Labor Day) that the real action starts?
Actually voting starts on Sept. 21st if I remember correctly. Sure election day is on Nov. 8th, but people can vote early. Trump may even win the election day vote only to lose the election because of early voting.
Pennsylvania voting to the left of Michigan sure helps Hillary. But Trump can replace Pennsylvania with Michigan and turn F.O.P. into F.O.M.+ME-02 or Iowa, to win.
I'm in the view than Michigan is more winnable for Trump than Pennsylvania at the moment for 3 reasons:
A. More republican friendly, they have elected a GOP governor. B. No Philadelphia. C. It's economically more distressed, Detroit for instance.
RCP has Trump doing better in Pennsylvania than Michigan and Detroit is dominated by poor blacks, even Philadelphia and its suburbs are better prospects for Trump than Detroit. Though basically they are pretty similar, if Trump wins Pennsylvania he has a good chance of winning Michigan too and he will almost certainly have won the election anyway
538 do the same - except they aggregate polls - but the 27.2% or 30.6% Trump chances of winning are also via monte-carlo simulations. The current FO projections (D +1.9, 2/1) are too close for comfort for Clinton. It looks as if P will save her, but isn't it only now (post Labor Day) that the real action starts?
Actually voting starts on Sept. 21st if I remember correctly. Sure election day is on Nov. 8th, but people can vote early. Trump may even win the election day vote only to lose the election because of early voting.
Pennsylvania voting to the left of Michigan sure helps Hillary. But Trump can replace Pennsylvania with Michigan and turn F.O.P. into F.O.M.+ME-02 or Iowa, to win.
I'm in the view than Michigan is more winnable for Trump than Pennsylvania at the moment for 3 reasons:
A. More republican friendly, they have elected a GOP governor. B. No Philadelphia. C. It's economically more distressed, Detroit for instance.
If poor white turnout surges and the GOP still lose will that be the catalyst for them to go back to the drawing board?
Yep, we won't know how important being part of the single market was until we are not a part of it anymore. Most businesses will no doubt do as we plan to do, so will be largely unaffected. The impact will be most likely felt in fewer job opportunities and less government income. But, then, how do you measure "what might have been"?
But on the other side we may open up new markets to benefit from while Europe continues to stagnate. The European market is not the be all and end all for British business. In fact it is less important than ever and will continue to dwindle in importance as it struggles to find growth and the rest of the world gets on with life. Some companies who trade exclusively within the EU might find life hard, but they must also seize new opportunities that come along as well. Our views obviously differ on the importance of the EU market and I guess that comes from what we do, my job is mostly aimed at Asia yours to Europe, I think over time I will be proved correct in my assessment that the European single market will continue to lose its value both in global terms and for UK companies.
The Eurocentric view that the single market is the single most important economic zone in the world is going to be a minority view in the future, especially if the UK leaves and prospers outside of it.
Other than the U.S., China and Switzerland all the top 10 nations the UK exports too are in the EU
We can pick a number on the 2030 economic impact of Brexit. Given May's comments, the IFS summary of the NIESR model predicted a 1.8% shortfall based on an FTA (which is the closest we can get atm. EEA is slightly worse at 2.1%).
I think we're onto the next level down, which is that the economy, while not being too badly affected (1.8% is around 8 months of trend growth, if we use 1973-2015 as trend), the mix of industries that will make up that GDP will likely be very different to the UK's current portfolio.
We'll never know whether that 2% materialises or not, or whether it is +2%, especially as estimates of trend growth growth itself are highly uncertain (and the trend changes!).
But the second part of your post is surely right and exactly what I have been communicating to my clients. Brexit may not mean a lot in aggregate terms but it will certainly mean considerable structural adjustment over 20 years or so. But that adjustment will be, in my view, mostly positive.
Much of the opposition to Brexit is about vested producer interests trying to halt adjustment.
The benefits are intangible mostly. Being able to business in a home market of 500 million people is better than just having access to that market because it is easier. That makes it quicker and cheaper. We won't know by how much until we do leave. In my area it is currently much easier to get things done in
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has bilateral agreements with the EU that coincides with large parts of the Single Markets. Where they don't Swiss businesses are operating at a real disadvantage compared with their EU counterparts. For that reason Switzerland wants to open new bilaterals on banking and drugs certification (drugs certification must take place in the EU - it's a valuable bit of business). The EU isn't talking to Switzerland nowadays so there isn't a prospect of that happening soon.
There is a question of whether the UK could negotiate a similar set of bilateral arrangements. I think it's unlikely. There isn't the time or the will to compromise on either side IMO. I should note that HYUFD has a different view on this.
Also the issue with services anywhere isn't tariffs, it's non-tariff barriers. The EU and ECJ put a fair amount of effort into eliminating these when they find them. It isn't perfect by any means but it is a lot better than any other international market.
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
And lots of British companies outside the city currently fully integrated into the single market.
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
A nightmare? I think not. I drive a Japanese car which was made in Japan, I have a telephone which was made in Korea, my second favourite drinking wine comes from New Zealand and so on. None of those countries are member of the single market yet they manage to sell their products to us very successfully.
Well of course we trade with non-EU nations too but the fact remains a plurality of our trade is with the EU
There are no tariffs for legal services (which is what you provide at the moment iirc) for non-EU companies selling into the EU. If we left the single market I doubt that the EU would impose an all new tariff on the UK that it doesn't apply to other countries. I don't see what changes as long as you can sell services into the market. Switzerland are not single market members and are as successful at selling legal, financial and business services into the EU as us.
Switzerland has bilateral agreements with the EU that coincides with large parts of the Single Markets. Where they don't Swiss businesses are operating at a real disadvantage compared with their EU counterparts. For that reason Switzerland wants to open new bilaterals on banking and drugs certification (drugs certification must take place in the EU - it's a valuable bit of business). The EU isn't talking to Switzerland nowadays so there isn't a prospect of that happening soon.
There is a question of whether the UK could negotiate a similar set of bilateral arrangements. I think it's unlikely. There isn't the time or the will to compromise on either side IMO. I should note that HYUFD has a different view on this.
Also the issue with services anywhere isn't tariffs, it's non-tariff barriers. The EU and ECJ put a fair amount of effort into eliminating these when they find them. It isn't perfect by any means but it is a lot better than any other international market.
I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided
Elimination of tariffs on goods (automotive and wine etc) should be uncontroversial. I think the City will see its business shrink. I am not an expert in this but others who are suggest it will retain areas of expertise at a global level (multidisciplinary project work) while no longer being the European finance centre (transactional work) as that will migrate to the market and legal jurisdiction it serves - ie the EU
If the EU offers no protection for the City in any BREXIT deal the UK will have no choice but to put tariffs on German cars and French wine exported to the UK
'I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided'
Single market access with free movement would be the EU constitution renamed the Lisbon agreement.
I really don't think that will fly.
Not if it is only limited access and limited movement
Comments
Did the Bury branch of Manchester Metrolink yesterday afternoon, also walked across to Bury Bolton Street, site of the East Lancs Railway, though I missed the last train. Only after I got back home that I read that Bolton Street was the actual terminus of the Bury Branch in BR days, up until 1980. I think the branch became a tram line in 1992.
REMAIN 48%
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/im-far-too-young-to-read-winceyette-weekly-qv8xv9hh9
"So it was all fights in the playground over whether it was cooler to have been born just before or just after the official beginning of the Moon Age?"
F**k the single market.
Leave campaigned on leaving it, and that's what is necessary to regain meaningful border control.
Betting PostF1: surprised to actually offer a tip on qualifying, but something leapt out at me. Rosberg, each way, for pole at 4.33. If he's 2nd, it's slightly green.
Hamilton should be favourite but that's a bit long.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/italy-pre-qualifying-2016.html
Come down to #marchforeurope along with @PeterTatchell @eddieizzard @OwenJones84
Line up a political B listers says it all, this is a March for EU, not Europe. #Losers4Remain
With the private stuff they will collect the money one way or another therefore they don't mind a non attendance, although due to the cost people just don't not attend.
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html
Bear with him, he does build up a decent head of steam.
I used to develop software. Just the thought of addressing something as simple as a GP appointment system makes me cringe at the complexity, the edge cases, the variations on a theme. UK health provision employs ~ 1.7 million people.
A lot of obvious solutions don't scale well, or break down at the margins. It's inherently unfair as the well are not just subsidising the sick, but the chaotic sick, who can't manage their own health - the addicts, the alcoholics, the mentally ill.
That's not to say we throw our hands up and proclaim it's all too difficult. Just that most obvious solutions have been considered and discarded due to the aforementioned reasons.
As with all public service provision, there seems to be more focus on finding problems to future proposals than solutions to current problems. I wonder why that is?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1182PT
More likely that some of the strikers will go riding on their extra days off.
a) They are better at languages - for English and
b) only the best do maths, chemistry, physics
My comment was directed at those outside the NHS who complain about staff costs, then complain when, if those staff are absent for whatever reason, there’s no in-house replacement available, so that agency staff has to be used, and the agency, understandably as it’s a commercial organisation, seeks to make a profit.
It's not about tariffs, it's about ease of doing business. If we send materials to the US or China, say, they may or may not get stuck in customs, and getting them out may or may not cost money, take time. That is not currently an issue inside the EU, just as it isn't if we send materials to Manchester or Leeds. Likewise, there are no issues about tax treatments of events we might put on in, say, Barcelona. There are when we do them in Boston or Shanghai. To open an office in the US would be a bureaucratic nightmare with major tax compliance, employment, healthcare and other issues to work through; same thing in most of Asia (not Hong Kong, which is why we're there). There are no such issues currently as part of the single market. And so on.
But, as I say, it's not a huge issue for us as a business: we'll open an office inside the EU and operate in the EU from there. All it will mean is less opportuniyies for our UK-based employees and less need to recruit in the UK.
Paul Kirkby
The narcissistic capitals of the U.K.
@YouGov poll https://t.co/zEfUuqKsaX
There is a question of whether the UK could negotiate a similar set of bilateral arrangements. I think it's unlikely. There isn't the time or the will to compromise on either side IMO. I should note that HYUFD has a different view on this.
Also the issue with services anywhere isn't tariffs, it's non-tariff barriers. The EU and ECJ put a fair amount of effort into eliminating these when they find them. It isn't perfect by any means but it is a lot better than any other international market.
I think May will stand firm both in the governments stance that the contract now has to be enforced and keeping Hunt in place.
Currently predicts Clinton by 85 EC votes (less than last time but still significant).
Interesting data is Florida - which is Clinton +3 , Michigan - which has Trump +1, and Wisconsin - tie, Maine - tie. New Hampshire - Trump+1. Ohio is Trump +3 but best news for Clinton is Pennsylvania. - Clinton +6
Whether they have Hillary up by 15 or Trump tied their headline numbers are always junk.
In this case their "State of the Nation" is based on polling with samples less than 300 in most states, in New Hampshire it's about a sample of 150.
And on top of that it's through a computer simulation.
If you want to use it fine, but only for the largest states and only if you have no other option.
The Eurocentric view that the single market is the single most important economic zone in the world is going to be a minority view in the future, especially if the UK leaves and prospers outside of it.
The UK's export growth to the EU since the single market started has been considerably slower than before, not faster.
The share of UK exports of goods going to the EU has dropped sharply as well.
Countries outside the single market have had just as much success, or more, selling into it than we have.
UK productivity growth has not been faster than before, it has been slower.
etc. etc.
'I take the view in the end some form of limited single market access or bilateral agreements in return for limited free movement is most likely otherwise it will be a nightmare for the City and German car makers and French wine producers exporting to the UK, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers as you say even if tariffs are avoided'
Single market access with free movement would be the EU constitution renamed the Lisbon agreement.
I really don't think that will fly.
But we have a decent breakdown of services exports too. Only a minority of them (c40%) go the EU. For the biggest sector, other business services, it's only around a third, and falling.
And of course, there is no real single market in services, as the EU itself would freely admit.
Sheepskins rugs from Yorkshire, fine beans from Kenya, various hifi thingies from the Far East, silk flowers from China... TV shows from the USA.
I've found cooking brandy with an EU label - but given it's probably resided in a plastic 10000 gallon vat - I'm not too bothered.
Obviously we're never going to join the Euro, so it's moot. But I don't see a solution in further separation.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=XC-GB
Sure election day is on Nov. 8th, but people can vote early.
Trump may even win the election day vote only to lose the election because of early voting.
Pennsylvania voting to the left of Michigan sure helps Hillary.
But Trump can replace Pennsylvania with Michigan and turn F.O.P. into F.O.M.+ME-02 or Iowa, to win.
I'm in the view than Michigan is more winnable for Trump than Pennsylvania at the moment for 3 reasons:
A. More republican friendly, they have elected a GOP governor.
B. No Philadelphia.
C. It's economically more distressed, Detroit for instance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/03/liberals-should-blame-themselves-for-their-decline--they-got-so/
"To the intellectual vanguard of liberalism, it seems as if mankind faces a choice – in the words of the political scientist Yascha Mounk – between “undemocratic liberalism and illiberal democracy”. One is elitist but respectful of the rights of minorities and thus benign. The other is the will of the majority imposed through the ballot box. Liberals fear that the majority has become bigoted and near-suicidal. If only we could vote the voters out!
But liberals have to take their own share of blame for the state of the West. After all, they’ve been running it for several decades. Badly..."
I think we're onto the next level down, which is that the economy, while not being too badly affected (1.8% is around 8 months of trend growth, if we use 1973-2015 as trend), the mix of industries that will make up that GDP will likely be very different to the UK's current portfolio.
But the second part of your post is surely right and exactly what I have been communicating to my clients. Brexit may not mean a lot in aggregate terms but it will certainly mean considerable structural adjustment over 20 years or so. But that adjustment will be, in my view, mostly positive.
Much of the opposition to Brexit is about vested producer interests trying to halt adjustment.
So Corbyn wants to ban "early evening socialisation". Dancing will be the next to go. Then Christmas. We've been here before #Cromwell