But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
I did some consulting with Birmingham Central Library about 15 years ago. The library seemed only to be used by the long term unemployed, refugees etc. In turn, Birmingham increasingly focused towards the needs of this group, further alienating a mainstream audience.
Things may have changed since they built the new library.
In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds.
The book trade is finally getting this too, hence improvements in Waterstones since Daunt took charge.
We need more libraries in the Internet age. So people can be reminded what a book is. I am only half joking.
Do Richard and Judy still do their book club or whatever the equivalent is? I read dozens of books a year whilst commuting, but only a handful now as I've little dead time / fewer prompts re titles waiting for trains.
Mr. Viewcode, no links (as this is based on my memory) but I recall one reportedly showing a 1% Leave victory, the rest showed healthy (double digit, I think) Remain triumphs.
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
I did some consulting with Birmingham Central Library about 15 years ago. The library seemed only to be used by the long term unemployed, refugees etc. In turn, Birmingham increasingly focused towards the needs of this group, further alienating a mainstream audience.
Things may have changed since they built the new library.
In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds.
The book trade is finally getting this too, hence improvements in Waterstones since Daunt took charge.
We need more libraries in the Internet age. So people can be reminded what a book is. I am only half joking.
The poor dear, she certainly doesn’t take kindly to reality, piercing her safe-space existence.
She reminds me of a PB regular who appears never to have experience a differing opinion in her life and gets in a huff when others question her dogmata.
I've never been to Aussie but I gather that as a culture it is not renowned for a safe space type experience. Sledging for example.
A sledging classic...
Glenn McGrath to Eddie Brandes
GM: "Oi Brandes why are you so fat?" EB: "Because everytime I shag your wife she gives me a biscuit"
Shorthand from an arch europhile that whatever we do it will be worse than being in the EU and it will be impossible to get any meaningful agreement from these spiteful Europeans.
Clegg's obviously bitter that his EU job prospects are zero.
Actually, I think that he is looking more statesman like with time.
Increasingly the Coalition looks like a golden age of mostly sane government, Clegg is young and well presented. If Farron fails to make progress then in 2020 Clegg could easily return as Leader.
Have you already forgotten how the LDs spent half the time pretending to be in opposition?
I'm not sure that's true: it's more fair to say that Vince Cable and Tim Farron pretended to be in opposition. And there are a fair number of Conservative backbenchers who seem to be permanently in opposition too.
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
I did some consulting with Birmingham Central Library about 15 years ago. The library seemed only to be used by the long term unemployed, refugees etc. In turn, Birmingham increasingly focused towards the needs of this group, further alienating a mainstream audience.
Things may have changed since they built the new library.
In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds.
The book trade is finally getting this too, hence improvements in Waterstones since Daunt took charge.
We need more libraries in the Internet age. So people can be reminded what a book is. I am only half joking.
Do Richard and Judy still do their book club or whatever the equivalent is? I read dozens of books a year whilst commuting, but only a handful now as I've little dead time / fewer prompts re titles waiting for trains.
I don't know, but about two years ago, a saw a furtive looking Richard Madeley lurking in WH Smith Heathrow T5. A shopkeeper, not recognising him, asked him if he needed any help, and he said he was checking how well the book he had just published was selling.
Shorthand from an arch europhile that whatever we do it will be worse than being in the EU and it will be impossible to get any meaningful agreement from these spiteful Europeans.
Clegg's obviously bitter that his EU job prospects are zero.
I've no time for Clegg for many reasons that I have explained on here many times.
However his 2nd paper on Brexit (referenced above) is a well researched thought provoking paper that is worth reading by anyone interested in Brexit.
The difficulties he outlines will slowly dawn on the three Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox and Davies).
I suspect that Johnson and Davies will recognise these difficulties and modify their stance. Fox, on the other hand, will not. If Brexit hurts British business - tough - they should get on their metaphorical bikes and deal with it. I think he will be the first to leave the cabinet as he becomes a minority of one as reality creeps up on the rest of them.
Arguing that grammar schools are un-Conservative seems bizarre. But the new policy, insofar as it's been spelled out, suffers from the recent obsession with the centralisation of the education system. Each city or county should be left alone to make this decision, and they will put a plan in place to ensure appropriate provision across their area. The concept of individual schools applying to become grammar schools is a farce, as is much of what's gone on for the last six years.
It's unravelling. Fox's appalling slander on Britain's movers and shakers has made him look like the most ill-informed, snarling-at-the-modern-world, Trumpite blowhard. One more gaffe like that and he's out.
What did he say? That too many bosses are on the golf course on a Friday afternoon? An appalling slander indeed, my heart bleeds for them.
Arguing that grammar schools are un-Conservative seems bizarre. But the new policy, insofar as it's been spelled out, suffers from the recent obsession with the centralisation of the education system. Each city or county should be left alone to make this decision, and they will put a plan in place to ensure appropriate provision across their area. The concept of individual schools applying to become grammar schools is a farce, as is much of what's gone on for the last six years.
True, but actually, if HMG simply does what it intends, the reality won't be that different. Relaxing the existing restriction on new grammars will allow those councils - essentially Tory councils in the shires - to establish new grammar schools where there is demand. It won't change anything in the rest of the country where there are non-Tory councils or where there is no need for new schools. Indeed the risk is that, even if the new policy carries (which given the Tories' small Commons majority and Lords minority is far from assured), May will raise expectations that simply cannot be delivered.
Shorthand from an arch europhile that whatever we do it will be worse than being in the EU and it will be impossible to get any meaningful agreement from these spiteful Europeans.
Clegg's obviously bitter that his EU job prospects are zero.
Actually, I think that he is looking more statesman like with time.
Increasingly the Coalition looks like a golden age of mostly sane government, Clegg is young and well presented. If Farron fails to make progress then in 2020 Clegg could easily return as Leader.
Have you already forgotten how the LDs spent half the time pretending to be in opposition?
I'm not sure that's true: it's more fair to say that Vince Cable and Tim Farron pretended to be in opposition. And there are a fair number of Conservative backbenchers who seem to be permanently in opposition too.
Backbenchers, yes. Not normally ministers.
Agreed: and Vince Cable, arch meddler that he is, should never have been in the cabinet. Nevertheless, I think we have a tendency to miss the fact that the vast majority of the LibDem ministers did a good and loyal job. (Ed Davey did not do a particularly good job, IMHO.)
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
I did some consulting with Birmingham Central Library about 15 years ago. The library seemed only to be used by the long term unemployed, refugees etc. In turn, Birmingham increasingly focused towards the needs of this group, further alienating a mainstream audience.
Things may have changed since they built the new library.
In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds.
The book trade is finally getting this too, hence improvements in Waterstones since Daunt took charge.
We need more libraries in the Internet age. So people can be reminded what a book is. I am only half joking.
Do Richard and Judy still do their book club or whatever the equivalent is? I read dozens of books a year whilst commuting, but only a handful now as I've little dead time / fewer prompts re titles waiting for trains.
I don't know, but about two years ago, a saw a furtive looking Richard Madeley lurking in WH Smith Heathrow T5. A shopkeeper, not recognising him, asked him if he needed any help, and he said he was checking how well the book he had just published was selling.
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
...In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds....
There is an unremarked danger here. The internet does not archive all data, it does not archive it for long, and the archive formats it uses are getting worse.
In the days of HTML and static web pages a post remained stable and could be captured. But as dynamic websites developed with Flash/HTML5/whateva, people linked to dynamic graphs instead of static tables, which become useless very quickly. Consider this post[1] from OGH in June 2016. It meant something at the time, but now it's useless because the dynamic website it linked to has run out. And that's only three months ago.
The internet does not hold election pamphlets and marginalia, things from the 60's, 70's and 80's are not necessarily on there (find me "the opinion polls for United Kingdom 1975", for example). This data is still mostly in print, tucked away in a corner of reference libraries, in pamphlets unread for thirty years.
I could also bang on about the loss if local amateur historian's books are lost, but I think that's enough for now.
[1] h ttp://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/30/on-an-explosive-day-the-latest-con-leader-betting-and-charts/
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
As a child I met my grandmother in the library once. She said she had gone in to get warm, not read books.
Some libraries e.g. Gosport and Winchester near me have re-designated themselves as Discovery Centres' and are popular. They also put on events and have cafes in addition to books.
Shorthand from an arch europhile that whatever we do it will be worse than being in the EU and it will be impossible to get any meaningful agreement from these spiteful Europeans.
Clegg's obviously bitter that his EU job prospects are zero.
Actually, I think that he is looking more statesman like with time.
Increasingly the Coalition looks like a golden age of mostly sane government, Clegg is young and well presented. If Farron fails to make progress then in 2020 Clegg could easily return as Leader.
Have you already forgotten how the LDs spent half the time pretending to be in opposition?
I'm not sure that's true: it's more fair to say that Vince Cable and Tim Farron pretended to be in opposition. And there are a fair number of Conservative backbenchers who seem to be permanently in opposition too.
To be honest, the mistake the LibDems made was not to do more of this. Contrary to what appears to be the common assumption, you go into coalition not to prop up your opponents, but to deny them absolute power. The modus operandi should be independence and a stubborn refusal to allow anything through that you don't support. The 'catch' with being in coalition is that you can only realistically block anything that the opposition will be guaranteed to oppose, therefore in a rather bizarre way your leverage as junior coalition partner depends on the approach adopted by the third, principal opposition party. Labour's resolutely anti-LibDem position during the coalition years ultimately did neither them nor the country any favours.
Arguing that grammar schools are un-Conservative seems bizarre. But the new policy, insofar as it's been spelled out, suffers from the recent obsession with the centralisation of the education system. Each city or county should be left alone to make this decision, and they will put a plan in place to ensure appropriate provision across their area. The concept of individual schools applying to become grammar schools is a farce, as is much of what's gone on for the last six years.
True, but actually, if HMG simply does what it intends, the reality won't be that different. Relaxing the existing restriction on new grammars will allow those councils - essentially Tory councils in the shires - to establish new grammar schools where there is demand. It won't change anything in the rest of the country where there are non-Tory councils or where there is no need for new schools. Indeed the risk is that, even if the new policy carries (which given the Tories' small Commons majority and Lords minority is far from assured), May will raise expectations that simply cannot be delivered.
I would have thought the great irony is that the shires are probably the worst place to introduce grammar schools, as the distance to the nearest grammar school will often be prohibitive, forcing people to go to the nearest secondary modern instead.
Shorthand from an arch europhile that whatever we do it will be worse than being in the EU and it will be impossible to get any meaningful agreement from these spiteful Europeans. Clegg's obviously bitter that his EU job prospects are zero.
Actually, I think that he is looking more statesman like with time. Increasingly the Coalition looks like a golden age of mostly sane government, Clegg is young and well presented. If Farron fails to make progress then in 2020 Clegg could easily return as Leader.
Have you already forgotten how the LDs spent half the time pretending to be in opposition?
I'm not sure that's true: it's more fair to say that Vince Cable and Tim Farron pretended to be in opposition. And there are a fair number of Conservative backbenchers who seem to be permanently in opposition too.
Was the last government a Coalition one, or was it a Conservative one?
If it was a Conservative one, as Tories now seem to claim that it was, then the Lib Dems ought to have been much more critical of it.
If it was a Coalition one, then the Tory MPs ought to have much more supportive of it at the time.
I wouldn't bank on it. As one wag said below that tweet you just quoted, "Economists are like meteorologists who tell you accurately why it rained yesterday, not if it will rain tomorrow." You can see the scale of some of their revisions for this year, now they actually have real data to go on, and the revision of Credit Suisse for next year - from outright contraction immediately after Brexit, to modest growth now - looks especially ridiculous. It's entirely possible that the 2017 numbers will keep being revised upwards as Armageddon stubbornly fails to materialise.
Moreover, even if there is a slowdown next year, the mere fact that people will blame it on the most obvious target (i.e. Brexit) doesn't necessarily make that true. The Eurozone is a slow motion train wreck that has been ongoing pretty much since the Financial Crisis, and besides it's also many years since the last slowdown. We're probably due another in the not-too-distant future anyway.
Florida: Trump +9 North Carolina: Trump +9 Iowa: Clinton +6 Arizona: Tie New Hampshire: Clinton +14 New Mexico: Trump +3 Nevada: Clinton +1 Ohio: Trump +6 Kansas : Clinton +2 Pennsylvania: Trump +2
Arguing that grammar schools are un-Conservative seems bizarre. But the new policy, insofar as it's been spelled out, suffers from the recent obsession with the centralisation of the education system. Each city or county should be left alone to make this decision, and they will put a plan in place to ensure appropriate provision across their area. The concept of individual schools applying to become grammar schools is a farce, as is much of what's gone on for the last six years.
True, but actually, if HMG simply does what it intends, the reality won't be that different. Relaxing the existing restriction on new grammars will allow those councils - essentially Tory councils in the shires - to establish new grammar schools where there is demand. It won't change anything in the rest of the country where there are non-Tory councils or where there is no need for new schools. Indeed the risk is that, even if the new policy carries (which given the Tories' small Commons majority and Lords minority is far from assured), May will raise expectations that simply cannot be delivered.
I would have thought the great irony is that the shires are probably the worst place to introduce grammar schools, as the distance to the nearest grammar school will often be prohibitive, forcing people to go to the nearest secondary modern instead.
Introducing Grammars in the shires is particularly good if you want to keep out the riff raff, as they will not be able to travel so easily. A few poor but bright immigrants should be enough to keep the numbers up.
Cool, the more fun shows about science the better!
Speaking of TV, have you seen Skies Above Britain, BBB2 (I think) doc on planes and flying?
Ooh no - thanks for the tip.
For anyone interested in 9/11 docus - there's a couple on More4 this evening and tomorrow - I've seen two before - but going to watch again as they're simply heart stopping. I had my hand over my mouth for one of them. No commentary - just footage about 2hrs long. It really made an impression.
Shorthand from an arch europhile that whatever we do it will be worse than being in the EU and it will be impossible to get any meaningful agreement from these spiteful Europeans.
Clegg's obviously bitter that his EU job prospects are zero.
Actually, I think that he is looking more statesman like with time.
Increasingly the Coalition looks like a golden age of mostly sane government, Clegg is young and well presented. If Farron fails to make progress then in 2020 Clegg could easily return as Leader.
Have you already forgotten how the LDs spent half the time pretending to be in opposition?
I'm not sure that's true: it's more fair to say that Vince Cable and Tim Farron pretended to be in opposition. And there are a fair number of Conservative backbenchers who seem to be permanently in opposition too.
Backbenchers, yes. Not normally ministers.
Agreed: and Vince Cable, arch meddler that he is, should never have been in the cabinet. Nevertheless, I think we have a tendency to miss the fact that the vast majority of the LibDem ministers did a good and loyal job. (Ed Davey did not do a particularly good job, IMHO.)
So one of the few ministers who had a clue what he was talking about shouldn't have been there. Might I point out to you that pre-2010 Vince was haugle popular - much more so that Osborne and what sort of government would we have had withoutt he likes of Vince. A Tory dominated neoliberal government that the public never voted for. Still that's probably not how it seems to you chaps in the square mile where I'm sure 'democracy' is rather over-rated.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
Arguing that grammar schools are un-Conservative seems bizarre. But the new policy, insofar as it's been spelled out, suffers from the recent obsession with the centralisation of the education system. Each city or county should be left alone to make this decision, and they will put a plan in place to ensure appropriate provision across their area. The concept of individual schools applying to become grammar schools is a farce, as is much of what's gone on for the last six years.
True, but actually, if HMG simply does what it intends, the reality won't be that different. Relaxing the existing restriction on new grammars will allow those councils - essentially Tory councils in the shires - to establish new grammar schools where there is demand. It won't change anything in the rest of the country where there are non-Tory councils or where there is no need for new schools. Indeed the risk is that, even if the new policy carries (which given the Tories' small Commons majority and Lords minority is far from assured), May will raise expectations that simply cannot be delivered.
I would have thought the great irony is that the shires are probably the worst place to introduce grammar schools, as the distance to the nearest grammar school will often be prohibitive, forcing people to go to the nearest secondary modern instead.
Introducing Grammars in the shires is particularly good if you want to keep out the riff raff, as they will not be able to travel so easily. A few poor but bright immigrants should be enough to keep the numbers up.
On the contrary. Rural Comprehensives with catchment areas keeps out the riff raff
Here in Central beds the catchment area policy kept out Luton Riff Raff very effectively as the furthest distance admission given in last years admissions shows for our local upper school. (despite a frequent and fast train service meaning that some of them would have a shorter journey time than some catchment area kids)
We do have some local riff raff but there are not many of them and they are amateurs compared with Luton riff raff.
So by having the money to locaten to an agreeable middle class area you can send your kids to a comprehensive that is virtually a grammar school in all but name, however thick your kids are.
Meanwhile, bright kids whos parents can only afford to live in luton have to run the gauntlett and gangs of lutons hellhole schools.
Why would our school becoming grammar so that bright kids from luton could get instead of thick local kids be a disaster (unless you are local with thick kids)?
Personally it suits my interest for nothing to change, but my interest is not the same as the national interest.
Shorthand from an arch europhile that whatever we do it will be worse than being in the EU and it will be impossible to get any meaningful agreement from these spiteful Europeans.
Clegg's obviously bitter that his EU job prospects are zero.
Actually, I think that he is looking more statesman like with time.
Increasingly the Coalition looks like a golden age of mostly sane government, Clegg is young and well presented. If Farron fails to make progress then in 2020 Clegg could easily return as Leader.
That seems implausible, if he was even planning to stick around so long (he has shown enough willingness to take stick in fairness), the LDs as surviving seem to have no wish to pitch for votes as Clegg did and risk suggestions they might tolerate or work with Tories again. I think history will be kinder to him than the voters were, but that's about it. I'd vote for him though.
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
I did some consulting with Birmingham Central Library about 15 years ago. The library seemed only to be used by the long term unemployed, refugees etc. In turn, Birmingham increasingly focused towards the needs of this group, further alienating a mainstream audience.
Things may have changed since they built the new library.
In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds.
The book trade is finally getting this too, hence improvements in Waterstones since Daunt took charge.
We need more libraries in the Internet age. So people can be reminded what a book is. I am only half joking.
Do Richard and Judy still do their book club or whatever the equivalent is? I read dozens of books a year whilst commuting, but only a handful now as I've little dead time / fewer prompts re titles waiting for trains.
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
...In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds....
There is an unremarked danger here. The internet does not archive all data, it does not archive it for long, and the archive formats it uses are getting worse.
In the days of HTML and static web pages a post remained stable and could be captured. But as dynamic websites developed with Flash/HTML5/whateva, people linked to dynamic graphs instead of static tables, which become useless very quickly. Consider this post[1] from OGH in June 2016. It meant something at the time, but now it's useless because the dynamic website it linked to has run out. And that's only three months ago.
The internet does not hold election pamphlets and marginalia, things from the 60's, 70's and 80's are not necessarily on there (find me "the opinion polls for United Kingdom 1975", for example). This data is still mostly in print, tucked away in a corner of reference libraries, in pamphlets unread for thirty years.
I could also bang on about the loss if local amateur historian's books are lost, but I think that's enough for now.
[1] h ttp://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/30/on-an-explosive-day-the-latest-con-leader-betting-and-charts/
I remember reading somewhere that this will be the most photographed and documented period of all time, yet in 100 years time no evidence will be around regarding any of it...
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
I'd have thought removing an unlimited source of cheap labour would force managers to increase productivity. That's assuming we do leave the single market.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
I'd have thought removing an unlimited source of cheap labour would force managers to increase productivity. That's assuming we do leave the single market.
But even if you do that it's worth remembering that there is a darker side to flexible labour market. If it's harder to get rid of people you have no choice but to invest in them. British businesses don't have the same worries.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
I'd have thought removing an unlimited source of cheap labour would force managers to increase productivity. That's assuming we do leave the single market.
Productivity is not a problem elsewhere in the EU. If we leave the single market, plenty of UK companies will establish a physical presence inside the EU to ensure continuity. They will, therefore invest less within the UK and create fewer jobs here.
Liam Fox is absolutely correct. It's another reason why I opposed leaving the EU, more specifically the single market. It's not the EU holding us back, it's the fact that not enough people around the world want to buy our stuff. There are two reasons for this: (1) it's not good enough; (2) too many British businesses do not put the money, time and effort into finding new markets. In both cases management is primarily to blame. All leaving the single market does is punish those companies that have made the effort to build overseas (while forcing them into creating a presence elsewhere in the EU to stay in the single market), while doing nothing to encourage those which haven't. In being correct, therefore, Fox has shown himself to be an idiot. No surprise there!
You undermine your own conclusion. By definition leaving the single market will make selling into the EU a bit more expensive. But as you so lucidly point out, these few pennies saved were never the issue.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
I'd have thought removing an unlimited source of cheap labour would force managers to increase productivity. That's assuming we do leave the single market.
But even if you do that it's worth remembering that there is a darker side to flexible labour market. If it's harder to get rid of people you have no choice but to invest in them. British businesses don't have the same worries.
Why are productivity rates higher in other EU member states?
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet,
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
...In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds....
There is an unremarked danger here. The internet does not archive all data, it does not archive it for long, and the archive formats it uses are getting worse.
In the days of HTML and static web pages a post remained stable and could be captured. But as dynamic websites developed with Flash/HTML5/whateva, people linked to dynamic graphs instead of static tables, which become useless very quickly. Consider this post[1] from OGH in June 2016. It meant something at the time, but now it's useless because the dynamic website it linked to has run out. And that's only three months ago.
The internet does not hold election pamphlets and marginalia, things from the 60's, 70's and 80's are not necessarily on there (find me "the opinion polls for United Kingdom 1975", for example). This data is still mostly in print, tucked away in a corner of reference libraries, in pamphlets unread for thirty years.
I could also bang on about the loss if local amateur historian's books are lost, but I think that's enough for now.
[1] h ttp://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/30/on-an-explosive-day-the-latest-con-leader-betting-and-charts/
I remember reading somewhere that this will be the most photographed and documented period of all time, yet in 100 years time no evidence will be around regarding any of it...
That's sadly true. How many of us print photos on archive-quality paper any more, or even keep a folder of selected photos on the computer, with sufficient backups around the place?
I think the only photos I've had printed in the last five years is my wedding album!
Liam Fox is absolutely correct. It's another reason why I opposed leaving the EU, more specifically the single market. It's not the EU holding us back, it's the fact that not enough people around the world want to buy our stuff. There are two reasons for this: (1) it's not good enough; (2) too many British businesses do not put the money, time and effort into finding new markets. In both cases management is primarily to blame. All leaving the single market does is punish those companies that have made the effort to build overseas (while forcing them into creating a presence elsewhere in the EU to stay in the single market), while doing nothing to encourage those which haven't. In being correct, therefore, Fox has shown himself to be an idiot. No surprise there!
You undermine your own conclusion. By definition leaving the single market will make selling into the EU a bit more expensive. But as you so lucidly point out, these few pennies saved were never the issue.
I have to say that if I was a highish income parent and I had to send my kids to a poor quality school whilst other parents who paid less tax could send theirs to a good one I'd be pretty annoyed about it. Having had something to do with Special Educational Needs what strikes me is the effort parents will put in to helping their kids who are 'strugglers'. Perhaps more so than their kids who are academic. There is a certain logic to it aswell. The bright kid is likely to be able to fair well in the modern world, the struggler needs all the help they can get. Has Theresa May used the words Secondary Modern yet?
I remember reading somewhere that this will be the most photographed and documented period of all time, yet in 100 years time no evidence will be around regarding any of it...
She's been saying the same basic phrase for days now in public interviews.
It's part of the Democratic messaging.
Because motivating your opponent's voters to stick two fingers up to you worked so well in the EU referendum....
She's dividing the Republican votership. Either you are a racist or a decent person and here's a policy to appeal to decent people who have been abandoned by millionaires like Trump.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
I'd have thought removing an unlimited source of cheap labour would force managers to increase productivity. That's assuming we do leave the single market.
But even if you do that it's worth remembering that there is a darker side to flexible labour market. If it's harder to get rid of people you have no choice but to invest in them. British businesses don't have the same worries.
Why are productivity rates higher in other EU member states?
Well I'm guessing they are higher in some EU states. There probably isn't an easy answer to that. But the cost of land, short term financial focus of businesses rather than big picture investing, lack of skills and the fact we became dominated by an enormous financial sector pushing up sterling and making our other exports less competitive, the legacy of which was nothing more than a giant hole in the ground.
Liam Fox is absolutely correct. It's another reason why I opposed leaving the EU, more specifically the single market. It's not the EU holding us back, it's the fact that not enough people around the world want to buy our stuff. There are two reasons for this: (1) it's not good enough; (2) too many British businesses do not put the money, time and effort into finding new markets. In both cases management is primarily to blame. All leaving the single market does is punish those companies that have made the effort to build overseas (while forcing them into creating a presence elsewhere in the EU to stay in the single market), while doing nothing to encourage those which haven't. In being correct, therefore, Fox has shown himself to be an idiot. No surprise there!
You undermine your own conclusion. By definition leaving the single market will make selling into the EU a bit more expensive. But as you so lucidly point out, these few pennies saved were never the issue.
Not sure I get that!
Opponents of Brexit were at pains to point out how dreadful it would be for the British economy if we left the single market. But as I pointed out at the time, and as you illustrate so well, what drives an economy is actually making stuff people want. When you do that, people don't notice a few pennies more or less being added to their shop, just as one doesn't choose Spanish wine over Aussie wine due to price. It's an irrelevance. You make that case splendidly.
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
...In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds....
There is an unrem/
I remember reading somewhere that this will be the most photographed and documented period of all time, yet in 100 years time no evidence will be around regarding any of it...
Could well be a tragedy.
Start preparing epic monographs of your own and store them securely, maybe one day you will be the definitive source for the era!
Must say, I don't read a lot of books as I said, though I do listen to a lot, but I've recently been filling out my collection since I got some more bookcases - completing trilogies, that sort of thing - and I do find the tactile sensation of a book hard to beat, and something very satisfying about row upon row of your own books.
It also seems like the standard height of paperbacks has gone up by a centremetre of so, if the reprints and new books I've purchased are an indication.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
I'd have thought removing an unlimited source of cheap labour would force managers to increase productivity. That's assuming we do leave the single market.
But even if you do that it's worth remembering that there is a darker side to flexible labour market. If it's harder to get rid of people you have no choice but to invest in them. British businesses don't have the same worries.
Good point. Are there any figures around for the amount of time and money spent on training by British companies, as opposed to similar overseas companies who are more productive?
I remember reading somewhere that this will be the most photographed and documented period of all time, yet in 100 years time no evidence will be around regarding any of it...
It's horrible...
Thats why I'm delighted that the petition to reverse the replacement of vellum won the day.
When you've got something that works for hundreds of years - stick with it.
I lost thousands of pix when Kodak closed their Gallery website. I couldn't access my archive as my email account from the time was long dead... All gone.
I'd oodles on VHS too - ditto. Such a shame that so much will deteriorate/lost format.
Liam Fox is absolutely correct. It's another reason why I opposed leaving the EU, more specifically the single market. It's not the EU holding us back, it's the fact that not enough people around the world want to buy our stuff. There are two reasons for this: (1) it's not good enough; (2) too many British businesses do not put the money, time and effort into finding new markets. In both cases management is primarily to blame. All leaving the single market does is punish those companies that have made the effort to build overseas (while forcing them into creating a presence elsewhere in the EU to stay in the single market), while doing nothing to encourage those which haven't. In being correct, therefore, Fox has shown himself to be an idiot. No surprise there!
You undermine your own conclusion. By definition leaving the single market will make selling into the EU a bit more expensive. But as you so lucidly point out, these few pennies saved were never the issue.
Not sure I get that!
Opponents of Brexit were at pains to point out how dreadful it would be for the British economy if we left the single market. But as I pointed out at the time, and as you illustrate so well, what drives an economy is actually making stuff people want. When you do that, people don't notice a few pennies more or less being added to their shop, just as one doesn't choose Spanish wine over Aussie wine due to price. It's an irrelevance. You make that case splendidly.
People often want to buy stuff because of its price. A lot of wine is bought on cost.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
I agree, and the angry response makes me think he struck a nerve.
I was reading Nicky Morgans piece on grammar schools, which in retrospect is extremely hypocritical. After all, she was happy to plough on with forced academisation without any evidence they improve results overall.
I have to say that if I was a highish income parent and I had to send my kids to a poor quality school whilst other parents who paid less tax could send theirs to a good one I'd be pretty annoyed about it. Having had something to do with Special Educational Needs what strikes me is the effort parents will put in to helping their kids who are 'strugglers'. Perhaps more so than their kids who are academic. There is a certain logic to it aswell. The bright kid is likely to be able to fair well in the modern world, the struggler needs all the help they can get. Has Theresa May used the words Secondary Modern yet?
No. The speech was quite short, quite interesting, but used a trigger word for all the once and future class warriors. Transcript here.
She's been saying the same basic phrase for days now in public interviews.
It's part of the Democratic messaging.
Because motivating your opponent's voters to stick two fingers up to you worked so well in the EU referendum....
She's dividing the Republican votership. Either you are a racist or a decent person and here's a policy to appeal to decent people who have been abandoned by millionaires like Trump.
She really isn't. She's displaying exactly the same smug, liberal left attitude that lost Brexit.
The Dems had illegal immigrants on stage during their convention FFS. Imagine that here.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
I'd have thought removing an unlimited source of cheap labour would force managers to increase productivity. That's assuming we do leave the single market.
Productivity is not a problem elsewhere in the EU. If we leave the single market, plenty of UK companies will establish a physical presence inside the EU to ensure continuity. They will, therefore invest less within the UK and create fewer jobs here.
We have incredibly flexible labour rules and generous corporate wage subsidies. We can't have those and unlimited cheap labour and expect business to invest in productivity gains. Still, I'm not going to absolve them completely because there are still things they could do even within the limits of our Byzantine benefits, employment and welfare system.
Liam Fox is absolutely correct. It's another reason why I opposed leaving the EU, more specifically the single market. It's not the EU holding us back, it's the fact that not enough people around the world want to buy our stuff. There are two reasons for this: (1) it's not good enough; (2) too many British businesses do not put the money, time and effort into finding new markets. In both cases management is primarily to blame. All leaving the single market does is punish those companies that have made the effort to build overseas (while forcing them into creating a presence elsewhere in the EU to stay in the single market), while doing nothing to encourage those which haven't. In being correct, therefore, Fox has shown himself to be an idiot. No surprise there!
You undermine your own conclusion. By definition leaving the single market will make selling into the EU a bit more expensive. But as you so lucidly point out, these few pennies saved were never the issue.
Not sure I get that!
Opponents of Brexit were at pains to point out how dreadful it would be for the British economy if we left the single market. But as I pointed out at the time, and as you illustrate so well, what drives an economy is actually making stuff people want. When you do that, people don't notice a few pennies more or less being added to their shop, just as one doesn't choose Spanish wine over Aussie wine due to price. It's an irrelevance. You make that case splendidly.
People often want to buy stuff because of its price. A lot of wine is bought on cost.
Yes. But there is no discernable difference in shelf price, presumably because the efficiency of Australian wine production renders any tiny price difference from being outside the EU an irrelevance. See also every other product in the world, ever.
But the real danger to education, in the broadest sense, is the destruction of libraries.
Nonsense. The Victorian idea of a place with a massive load of books where one goes to educate one self is totally outdated. We now have this thing called the internet, which can provide more information in many different ways. For kids, something like Khan academy is a far superior resource than a massive pile of GCSE textbooks.
Even university libraries are massively reducing the amount of physical books they carry, instead their job is often managing the wide ranging subscriptions for journals and e-versions of texts, while academics don't actually set foot in the physical location because they access all this information via their pc.
Pew did some research on public library use in the USA - IIRC only about 25% used it to read books, the rest were college kids surfing with free Wifi/homework in a quiet environment - and a small % of refuge types enjoying the central heating.
...In the Internet age of course we need far fewer libraries, but they still have a role. Nothing beats a well stocked and curated library for the discovery of new worlds....
There is an unrem/
I remember reading somewhere that this will be the most photographed and documented period of all time, yet in 100 years time no evidence will be around regarding any of it...
Could well be a tragedy.
Start preparing epic monographs of your own and store them securely, maybe one day you will be the definitive source for the era!
Must say, I don't read a lot of books as I said, though I do listen to a lot, but I've recently been filling out my collection since I got some more bookcases - completing trilogies, that sort of thing - and I do find the tactile sensation of a book hard to beat, and something very satisfying about row upon row of your own books.
It also seems like the standard height of paperbacks has gone up by a centremetre of so, if the reprints and new books I've purchased are an indication.
I find Kindle books just too distant - I get distracted within a few pages and do something else/discard it/device goes flat/can't be bothered to recharge.
A paperback I can dog-ear and sits next to me on the sofa is hardly ever left unfinished.
Miss Plato, I remember a young chap at a Labour conference, one of Miliband's, talking about poverty or suchlike.
He later tweeted from his iPad. Poor deprived lamb.
I particularly enjoy iPad/iPhone users tweeting outrage at Apple's tax exploits. As a brand - I stick them in the B&O bracket - totally overpriced kit designed to appeal to the customer's vanity.
Liam Fox is absolutely correct. It's another reason why I opposed leaving the EU, more specifically the single market. It's not the EU holding us back, it's the fact that not enough people around the world want to buy our stuff. There are two reasons for this: (1) it's not good enough; (2) too many British businesses do not put the money, time and effort into finding new markets. In both cases management is primarily to blame. All leaving the single market does is punish those companies that have made the effort to build overseas (while forcing them into creating a presence elsewhere in the EU to stay in the single market), while doing nothing to encourage those which haven't. In being correct, therefore, Fox has shown himself to be an idiot. No surprise there!
You undermine your own conclusion. By definition leaving the single market will make selling into the EU a bit more expensive. But as you so lucidly point out, these few pennies saved were never the issue.
Not sure I get that!
Opponents of Brexit were at pains to point out how dreadful it would be for the British economy if we left the single market. But as I pointed out at the time, and as you illustrate so well, what drives an economy is actually making stuff people want. When you do that, people don't notice a few pennies more or less being added to their shop, just as one doesn't choose Spanish wine over Aussie wine due to price. It's an irrelevance. You make that case splendidly.
People often want to buy stuff because of its price. A lot of wine is bought on cost.
Yes. But there is no discernable difference in shelf price, presumably because the efficiency of Australian wine production renders any tiny price difference from being outside the EU an irrelevance. See also every other product in the world, ever.
There are huge differences in the price of wine.
Margins and sales volumes dictate how important a few pennies make to a product's attractiveness. Leaving the single market will be a significant burden to many companies, which is why they will make sure they don't leave it. That's bad news for investment and job creation in the UK.
Individually, I prefer a physical book to an e-book, but time, space and delivery are better for e-books.
From the other side, I'm now leaning towards what seems a standard practice (for small presses anyway) and releasing a physical edition of my next thingummyjig a couple of weeks after the e-book launch. [From a self-publishing perspective it's not great because the overheads mean a physical book can cost thrice as much but provide less in royalties, but that's better than no sale because a browser much prefers physical copies].
Miss Plato, I remember a young chap at a Labour conference, one of Miliband's, talking about poverty or suchlike.
He later tweeted from his iPad. Poor deprived lamb.
I particularly enjoy iPad/iPhone users tweeting outrage at Apple's tax exploits. As a brand - I stick them in the B&O bracket - totally overpriced kit designed to appeal to the customer's vanity.
I'm told for some things their products are worth the price, but it can be amusing sometimes to spot the aggrieved apple fanboy trying to insist they are not a fanboy (as opposed to the one's who will happily admit to it), or suggesting windows fans are just as bad (even if some were, there's no question fanboys are a higher proportion of apple's base).
She's been saying the same basic phrase for days now in public interviews.
It's part of the Democratic messaging.
Because motivating your opponent's voters to stick two fingers up to you worked so well in the EU referendum....
She's dividing the Republican votership. Either you are a racist or a decent person and here's a policy to appeal to decent people who have been abandoned by millionaires like Trump.
That is the strategy. It is a stupid strategy when there is a vast reservoir of voters who don't normally vote.but who are toying with voting for Trump. These comments will deliver no extra votes for Hillary, but could infuriate those "patriots" who might be tempted away from the Can't Be Arsed Party.
I have no affection for Trump, but it does make me shake my head at Clinton. She will be a wretched President.
She's been saying the same basic phrase for days now in public interviews.
It's part of the Democratic messaging.
Because motivating your opponent's voters to stick two fingers up to you worked so well in the EU referendum....
She's dividing the Republican votership. Either you are a racist or a decent person and here's a policy to appeal to decent people who have been abandoned by millionaires like Trump.
She really isn't. She's displaying exactly the same smug, liberal left attitude that lost Brexit.
The Dems had illegal immigrants on stage during their convention FFS. Imagine that here.
Rather than moderate their language to appeal to floating voters, both candidates are doubling down on the rhetoric and personal attacks of the primaries. Only eight weeks of it to go!
Liam Fox is absolutely correct. It's another reason why I opposed leaving the EU, more specifically the single market. It's not the EU holding us back, it's the fact that not enough people around the world want to buy our stuff. There are two reasons for this: (1) it's not good enough; (2) too many British businesses do not put the money, time and effort into finding new markets. In both cases management is primarily to blame. All leaving the single market does is punish those companies that have made the effort to build overseas (while forcing them into creating a presence elsewhere in the EU to stay in the single market), while doing nothing to encourage those which haven't. In being correct, therefore, Fox has shown himself to be an idiot. No surprise there!
You undermine your own conclusion. By definition leaving the single market will make selling into the EU a bit more expensive. But as you so lucidly point out, these few pennies saved were never the issue.
Not sure I get that!
Opponents of Brexit were at pains to point out how dreadful it would be for the British economy if we left the single market. But as I pointed out at the time, and as you illustrate so well, what drives an economy is actually making stuff people want. When you do that, people don't notice a few pennies more or less being added to their shop, just as one doesn't choose Spanish wine over Aussie wine due to price. It's an irrelevance. You make that case splendidly.
People often want to buy stuff because of its price. A lot of wine is bought on cost.
Yes. But there is no discernable difference in shelf price, presumably because the efficiency of Australian wine production renders any tiny price difference from being outside the EU an irrelevance. See also every other product in the world, ever.
Pence price differences only matter to those who bring cash when they go shopping/have an extremely tight budget.
I went from having no idea what most groceries cost, to an expert on value priced goods after getting divorced. When you're checking the change in your wallet - that's when price margins really matter. Everything else is preference.
This is where I get most irritated with SJW who bang on about fresh food being out of reach for the poor - it's complete rubbish.
Miss Plato, I remember a young chap at a Labour conference, one of Miliband's, talking about poverty or suchlike.
He later tweeted from his iPad. Poor deprived lamb.
I've been digitising my Mum's photo collection. There's one of her in 1940, wearing calipers after Polio. Her brother had rickets. I remember my Gran bursting into tears when my Dad bought her a twin-tub in 1972 - the first washing machine she'd had - she was 59. It's all very four Yorkshiremen I know, but I do think we often fail to count our blessings at how far we've come in under a century.
Mr. M, a lack of historical (even recent stuff) perspective makes people believe they're living in the most dreadful of times. That may be true, if you live in Syria. In the UK, it generally is quite wrong.
I don't know why so many are angry at Fox, it's the first thing he's said that I agree with. There is far too much truth in his comments to ignore. British businesses and managers have become lazy in chasing opportunity. We've seen some improvements in the last few years, but overall attitudes towards exporting in smaller and medium sized companies are still poor.
As for dropping tariffs, doing so on a bilateral basis with certain countries who we know aren't interested in industrial subsidies would be a good step forwards, but I'm not in favour of unilateral trade disarmament.
Look at productivity in the UK. It shames our managerial class.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
I'd have thought removing an unlimited source of cheap labour would force managers to increase productivity. That's assuming we do leave the single market.
Productivity is not a problem elsewhere in the EU. If we leave the single market, plenty of UK companies will establish a physical presence inside the EU to ensure continuity. They will, therefore invest less within the UK and create fewer jobs here.
We have incredibly flexible labour rules and generous corporate wage subsidies. We can't have those and unlimited cheap labour and expect business to invest in productivity gains. Still, I'm not going to absolve them completely because there are still things they could do even within the limits of our Byzantine benefits, employment and welfare system.
Generous corporate wage subsidies you must be having a laugh. What about Employers National Insurance is generous?
If we increase our wages then not only does the employee pay income tax, not only do they pay National Insurance, not only do they potentially lose tax credits if they have any, but we pay National Insurance too. An outright payroll tax.
If I want to give an employee on Basic Rate tax with no tax credits another £100 a week it can cost me £165 to do so. That's on Basic Rate tax. Generous my arse.
Mr. M, a lack of historical (even recent stuff) perspective makes people believe they're living in the most dreadful of times. That may be true, if you live in Syria. In the UK, it generally is quite wrong.
No kidding. I've said it before, but a jehovah's witness I shared a conversation with once could not seem to get on board with the idea the 14th century, just to pick an example, might be worse than now.
I seem to recall some german politico a few years back during a row about american spying apparently calling it an unprecedented breach of trust in german american relations. I'll be generous and assume they accidentally omitted the words 'since WW2' or something similar.
Individually, I prefer a physical book to an e-book, but time, space and delivery are better for e-books.
From the other side, I'm now leaning towards what seems a standard practice (for small presses anyway) and releasing a physical edition of my next thingummyjig a couple of weeks after the e-book launch. [From a self-publishing perspective it's not great because the overheads mean a physical book can cost thrice as much but provide less in royalties, but that's better than no sale because a browser much prefers physical copies].
I was incredibly impressed by an artist I employed whilst at DWP. He specialised in book covers/promotional related materials - and turned up at the intv with a hard copy book of his portfolio.
It was gobsmackingly good and made him look serious, successful and uber professional. I asked how he'd done it = self published for £8 a copy - on demand. We're talking full colour glossy 250 pages.
I'm trying to recall his name. Lee Something - he did a lot of work for Dr Who under Russell and dozens of books for different markets. He was really worried in 2008 when the market imploded and hence wanted a safe HMG job instead. I nabbed him immediately for my internal publishing vacancy.
Comments
Beyond that, I can't add much, I'm afraid.
Glenn McGrath to Eddie Brandes
GM: "Oi Brandes why are you so fat?"
EB: "Because everytime I shag your wife she gives me a biscuit"
However his 2nd paper on Brexit (referenced above) is a well researched thought provoking paper that is worth reading by anyone interested in Brexit.
The difficulties he outlines will slowly dawn on the three Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox and Davies).
I suspect that Johnson and Davies will recognise these difficulties and modify their stance. Fox, on the other hand, will not. If Brexit hurts British business - tough - they should get on their metaphorical bikes and deal with it. I think he will be the first to leave the cabinet as he becomes a minority of one as reality creeps up on the rest of them.
How quickly forecasts change... #Brexit https://t.co/9Iym3D0h8N
In the days of HTML and static web pages a post remained stable and could be captured. But as dynamic websites developed with Flash/HTML5/whateva, people linked to dynamic graphs instead of static tables, which become useless very quickly. Consider this post[1] from OGH in June 2016. It meant something at the time, but now it's useless because the dynamic website it linked to has run out. And that's only three months ago.
The internet does not hold election pamphlets and marginalia, things from the 60's, 70's and 80's are not necessarily on there (find me "the opinion polls for United Kingdom 1975", for example). This data is still mostly in print, tucked away in a corner of reference libraries, in pamphlets unread for thirty years.
I could also bang on about the loss if local amateur historian's books are lost, but I think that's enough for now.
[1] h ttp://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/30/on-an-explosive-day-the-latest-con-leader-betting-and-charts/
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/09/team-trump-responds-to-hillarys-deplorables-flub-she-ripped-off-her-mask/
Crap politics from her.
If it was a Conservative one, as Tories now seem to claim that it was, then the Lib Dems ought to have been much more critical of it.
If it was a Coalition one, then the Tory MPs ought to have much more supportive of it at the time.
Zap It
MythBusters team of @ToryBelleci @KariByron @grantimahara coming to new @netflix show #TheWhiteRabbitProject https://t.co/9L3OLMrBmZ
Speaking of TV, have you seen Skies Above Britain, BBB2 (I think) doc on planes and flying?
Moreover, even if there is a slowdown next year, the mere fact that people will blame it on the most obvious target (i.e. Brexit) doesn't necessarily make that true. The Eurozone is a slow motion train wreck that has been ongoing pretty much since the Financial Crisis, and besides it's also many years since the last slowdown. We're probably due another in the not-too-distant future anyway.
It's part of the Democratic messaging.
"These strikes are wrong at a time when..." ?
For anyone interested in 9/11 docus - there's a couple on More4 this evening and tomorrow - I've seen two before - but going to watch again as they're simply heart stopping. I had my hand over my mouth for one of them. No commentary - just footage about 2hrs long. It really made an impression.
Of course, leaving the single market merely penalises those companies doing what Fox thinks they should be doing.
Here in Central beds the catchment area policy kept out Luton Riff Raff very effectively as the furthest distance admission given in last years admissions shows for our local upper school. (despite a frequent and fast train service meaning that some of them would have a shorter journey time than some catchment area kids)
We do have some local riff raff but there are not many of them and they are amateurs compared with Luton riff raff.
So by having the money to locaten to an agreeable middle class area you can send your kids to a comprehensive that is virtually a grammar school in all but name, however thick your kids are.
Meanwhile, bright kids whos parents can only afford to live in luton have to run the gauntlett and gangs of lutons hellhole schools.
Why would our school becoming grammar so that bright kids from luton could get instead of thick local kids be a disaster (unless you are local with thick kids)?
Personally it suits my interest for nothing to change, but my interest is not the same as the national interest.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3780998/Indonesian-villagers-dig-dead-relatives-dress-Ma-nene-festival.html
"I thought black people were supposed to vote for Hillary"
#BasketOfDeplorables https://t.co/58rsa5tbdZ
I think the only photos I've had printed in the last five years is my wedding album!
What's the US equivalent of Little Englander? Trailer Trash/Red Neck?
Start preparing epic monographs of your own and store them securely, maybe one day you will be the definitive source for the era!
Must say, I don't read a lot of books as I said, though I do listen to a lot, but I've recently been filling out my collection since I got some more bookcases - completing trilogies, that sort of thing - and I do find the tactile sensation of a book hard to beat, and something very satisfying about row upon row of your own books.
It also seems like the standard height of paperbacks has gone up by a centremetre of so, if the reprints and new books I've purchased are an indication.
When you've got something that works for hundreds of years - stick with it.
I lost thousands of pix when Kodak closed their Gallery website. I couldn't access my archive as my email account from the time was long dead... All gone.
I'd oodles on VHS too - ditto. Such a shame that so much will deteriorate/lost format.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/theresa-mays-school-reforms-plan-8798858
The Dems had illegal immigrants on stage during their convention FFS. Imagine that here.
He later tweeted from his iPad. Poor deprived lamb.
A paperback I can dog-ear and sits next to me on the sofa is hardly ever left unfinished.
If in future 20% go to grammar school and 7% go to private school then at least 23% of those going to university will come from other schools.
Will this 23% have had an academic education.
I my day only 7% went to grammar school and 5% went to university.
Margins and sales volumes dictate how important a few pennies make to a product's attractiveness. Leaving the single market will be a significant burden to many companies, which is why they will make sure they don't leave it. That's bad news for investment and job creation in the UK.
Individually, I prefer a physical book to an e-book, but time, space and delivery are better for e-books.
From the other side, I'm now leaning towards what seems a standard practice (for small presses anyway) and releasing a physical edition of my next thingummyjig a couple of weeks after the e-book launch. [From a self-publishing perspective it's not great because the overheads mean a physical book can cost thrice as much but provide less in royalties, but that's better than no sale because a browser much prefers physical copies].
I have no affection for Trump, but it does make me shake my head at Clinton. She will be a wretched President.
I went from having no idea what most groceries cost, to an expert on value priced goods after getting divorced. When you're checking the change in your wallet - that's when price margins really matter. Everything else is preference.
This is where I get most irritated with SJW who bang on about fresh food being out of reach for the poor - it's complete rubbish.
If we increase our wages then not only does the employee pay income tax, not only do they pay National Insurance, not only do they potentially lose tax credits if they have any, but we pay National Insurance too. An outright payroll tax.
If I want to give an employee on Basic Rate tax with no tax credits another £100 a week it can cost me £165 to do so. That's on Basic Rate tax. Generous my arse.
I seem to recall some german politico a few years back during a row about american spying apparently calling it an unprecedented breach of trust in german american relations. I'll be generous and assume they accidentally omitted the words 'since WW2' or something similar.
It was gobsmackingly good and made him look serious, successful and uber professional. I asked how he'd done it = self published for £8 a copy - on demand. We're talking full colour glossy 250 pages.
I'm trying to recall his name. Lee Something - he did a lot of work for Dr Who under Russell and dozens of books for different markets. He was really worried in 2008 when the market imploded and hence wanted a safe HMG job instead. I nabbed him immediately for my internal publishing vacancy.
NEW THREAD