It seems to me that an awful lot of people are not only anxious that Trump doesn't win, but also that he doesn;t run.
They don;t want the politics Trump represents put before the American people.
I was just about to say the same thing - the GOP are actively sabotaging the ground war, the media are almost 99% against - RNC bigwigs are using every excuse to run in the other direction.
My timeline is rammed with angry Trumpers - it's getting most heated. The GOP seems to be thinking that they'd rather kill off their own candidate than let him continue for another 30ish days.
And Trump is going CAPS LOCK on sticking with it.
Someone who's willing to describe his own daughter as "a piece of ass" is plainly unsuitable to be a Presidential nominee.
Unfortunately, so is his opponent.
Ridiculous. A father praising his daughter's attractiveness is the most natural thing in the world.
Not in those terms.
Stern's a vulgarian, it's his idiom. Trump didn't use those words.
When a grown-up man talks about a 14-year-old girl as a sex object, it's more than vulgarity. Vulgarity might be if he picks his nose in public or announces to a roomful of people that he's got to "take a dump".
Trump said if she wasn't his daughter he'd be dating her, which implies having sex with her. I've never heard any other father say anything like that. Have you? It's not the same as saying she's becoming beautiful and she's going to have a lot of interest from boys, which would be a normal and unremarkable thing to say.
When she was 14 he also entrusted her as a model to his friend John Casablancas of Elite Model Management, a man who was by then publicly known (and surely known for much longer by Trump himself) as sexually exploitative of underage girls. You can read about it in this article in the Daily Kos. Then there are photos of Ivanka Trump with her father, such as this and this.
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
Can't remember, but its a bit beside the point, they are not running the country.
That is true, although since many people including those senior in government are pretending the vote said all sorts of things it didn't on the basis of what it represented, or they claim it represented, it could be a relevant point depending how much remaining In the single market to sone spdegree, if such a thing is even possible, is attacked as a betrayal of the vote.
Some Guardian articles on the danger the UK's current account deficit posed:
Larry Elliott (June 2015)
' Britain’s balance of payments has never been more deeply in the red. There have been some monster external deficits down the years but the one notched up in 2014 trumped them all.
Little is said in official circles about the nation’s current account. George Osborne talks about boosting exports and rebalancing the economy, but, the chancellor is not nearly as worried about the trade deficit as he is about the budget deficit. And not nearly as worried as he should be.
The trend is clear. The UK ran a current account deficit of 3.5% of national income in 2012. The next year it rose to 4.7% of gross domestic product. Last year, it hit 5.9% of GDP. ... But warning bells are clanging. Consumers are running down their savings to fund their spending. That will suck in imports. The pound is rising on the foreign exchanges. That will make imports cheaper. The current account deficit is set to get bigger. Sooner or later, the markets will notice and get alarmed. A good old-fashioned sterling crisis will follow. '
' A record balance of payments deficit of £96.2bn (5.2% of GDP) for 2015, and £32.7bn (7% of GDP) for the fourth quarter alone – both higher in percentage terms than in any year since the second world war – and the first, instinctive reaction of the government is to let what is left of our steel industry go hang, so that imports can be boosted even further.
These latest figures are horrifying in both cash terms and as a percentage of GDP. During the war, when this country was, economically, on its uppers, the balance of payments deficit reached some 10%, financed by the Lend Lease arrangements with Washington and by running down our overseas assets.
Every schoolchild should know what happened after that: years of austerity, because our war-oriented productive capacity had slowly to be adapted to peacetime conditions and the expectations of the public for a recovery and improvement in living standards. This involved a succession of export drives so that we could, once again, “pay our way” in the world. '
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
Yes
Britain will quit Europe’s single market if the country votes to leave the EU, Michael Gove, the Leave campaign’s most senior figure, has confirmed for the first time
I know remainers love talking about GDP because it suits their narrative, but they seem to be very quiet about the FTSE250, currently about 10% up on BrExit, so British business doing well, even those that are not multinationals benefiting from earning in USD.
FTSE350 is up considerably as well.
so is the FTSE All Shares Index.
DOOOM! DOOM! I say!
If you'll excuse the salty language, shrinking the ruler does not make your dick bigger.
Christ this place is getting to be a bore. Endless banging on about the fictional "hard" and "soft" BrExit when there is patently no such thing, the only BrExit is the one that we are able to negotiate with the EU, which is almost certainly going to be fairly hard, because their choice is going to be "four freedoms" or "f*ck off", and any politician opting for four freedoms is committing electoral suicide.
Yes, we might get a few tidbits around free trade in agriculture and maybe machinery, but that will be about it. EEA/EFTA isn't going to happen, and as I have said many times before is never going to happen, because it's political suicide, it was political suicide before the referendum, and its doubly so now. So lets just stop all this hard, harder, hardest cr@p it might be good for point scoring, but its vapid bilge.
Yes, people should not be able to speculate about ideal or likely possibilities on PB of all places.
Could you point me to informed speculation on the subject, all l can see is grandstanding and point scoring.
As is most commentary. I'm bored by much of the talk as well, but there's no need to be a dick about it, particularly by acting like the only person who can see the way it will, for definite, go. And plenty of people have made informed speculation on the subject. Is that the balance of comment right now, this morning? For everyone to judge, but to pretend it has all been grandstanding, apart from your own speculation which is exempt apparently, is itself pure posturing. And believe me, I'm no stranger to posturing sanctimony. It's kind of my thing.
If we take Case A, Mrs May is a soppy soft BrExitter, she wants basically EEA/EFTA but in order not to get completely hung out to dry in by-elections, and the 2020 GE she needs some movement on FoM, mostly likely to be Freedom of Workers, ie, needing a job before you can come. Assuming everything else is window dressing.
Now we take Case B, Mrs May is a red in the tooth rock-hard BrExiteer, she wants all the way out with no dicking around to the WTO, and then negotiate new free trade agreements from the position of minimum entanglements.
In March 2017 she enacts Article 50 and goes to her first meeting, in which Barnier tells he he has absolute instructions from the remaining 27 to tell her that its full Four Freedoms or "piss off*", they have other fish to fry and they are not interested in messing around with us.
Two years later what would be the difference in outcome ? The only benefit of B is in the first meeting should could tell them to get lost and pull us out immediately, and get a two year headstart on fixing the economy and doing the trade deals.
(* with minimal agreement on agriculture and machinery)
How on earth did the GOP end up landing themselves with such a contemptible shit as Trump. I shake my head in disbelief with each successive gobbing off.
So then how long before sterling recovers v the euro... my g and is costing me.more every day....
Instead of listening to people saying there is no shark attack, the girl was hit by a speedboat and the kids are probably off playing somewhere, it's probably best if you tell your family to just sunbathe on the sand. Leavers are convnced that £1=$1.24 and falling is a GOOD THING and NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT HONEST, so probably best to just get out of GBP for a while.
Perhaps you'd like to say whether the sterling exchange rate should be rising or falling given that the UK has had a current account deficit of nearly £300bn during the last three years ?
Do you think the rest of the world is going to permanently give the UK more goods and services than it gets in return ?
I think (see my previous posts) that current account deficits should be coped with by earning more and spending less, instead of devaluing the currency. The wanton profligacy of the Government since 2001 since Blair/Brown decided to splurge it up the wall like a demented sailor, unmitigated by Cameron's upper-class conviction that money just appears somehow and talking about it is just so retrousse, was not approved of by me.
A short-term problem is that reorganising UK PLC to eventually pay our way via higher productivity/efficiency in the workplace would actually need major reform; e.g., vocational education, forcing 16-17 year olds to take a 7 year education and training programme while in work to learn about their chosen career and become proficient in it (e.g., German builders can put up a house which a surveyor won't condemn and point out 150 defects (as happened to a client of mine).
Devaluation seems 'painless' ... except for all of us who in our lifetime see the £ go from worth S.Fr 12.00+ to 1.20, which has more effect than not being able to have as many Swiss holidays as we might like.
It's an amazing coincidence it started immediately after May's speech then.
So to summarise.
* The drop in the pound between Autumn 2015 (when the renegotations started) and the days before polling was a coincidence. * The rise in the pound on polling day when the markets thought an IN vote was baked in was a coincidence. * The 15cent fall in the value of the pound the day after when LEAVE won was a coincidence * The 5-ishcent fall last week after May gave her speech was a coincidence.
I am sympathetic to interest rates and divergent central bank activities being confounding factors. But looking at the big picture, if you were modelling this, you'd be going "Hmm. Brexit kills GBP".
Whatever the trigger, the Economic Fundamentals meant it was long overdue, just as it was in 1992. We can only benefit from the rebalancing just as we did in 1992
For a start the rise in shares (due to dollar earnings) and inevitable interest rate rises will save the pension industry.
A sharper rise in interest rates will hurt the buy to let sector and lower property prices. It will also hurt some people who have borrowed too much but May is focussed on those who cant get on the ladder at all so it will be largely a case of Oh Dear, what a shame, how sad, lets move on.
So. Brexit is going to cause the pound to fall and interest rates to rise. Can I put that on a poster? I was thinking something along the lines of "BREXIT MAKES EVERYTHING MORE EXPENSIVE AND MAKES YOUR MORTGAGE AND CREDIT CARD BILLS GO UP"
Incidentally, I'm not sure about the property prices thing. A cheaper pound would encourage people from outside the UK to buy UK property. People wandering around Belgravia with their strong currency going "Hmm, I'm not sure about those windows" and writing articles about how UK's so surprisingly cheap these days and how the locals are charming and will do anything for a Euro.
Jesus H...sterling tanking, high interest rates underpinned by the ongoing battle against poor productivity and stagnant wage growth. A Brexit, dystopic reality....
Welcome to bargain basement Britain where Poundland and Aldi rule, people get poorer, a downward march of ongoing austerity as our public services become starved of cash yet faced with much greater demands.
Well we can always blame the EU for giving us a bad deal, or failing that just hate foreigners and migrants more to make us feel better.
I can well remember people claiming the end was nigh when we left the ERM in 1992. It didn't turn out like that.
It seems to me that an awful lot of people are not only anxious that Trump doesn't win, but also that he doesn;t run.
They don;t want the politics Trump represents put before the American people.
It's the head-in-the-sand approach, if Trump doesnt win this time the resentment of the WWC and the dispossessed will simmer, Hillary is absolutely not the right president to hold out the olive branch to those parts of her country. In 2020 there will be a new populist republican candidate, only someone more plausible and less of a fscking idiot, and he will win with a landslide, and then do pretty much everything Trump is talking about doing and probably more. Trump would be an ineffectual lame dog populist president, the next guy wont be.
Its the same bullsh*t as the remain campaign believing that the EU is going to be a 400 year reich, rather than the more realistic view that it is either going to federalise or implode with in the next decade or so, both of which would be worse for us than the hardest BrExit now.
so, Let in a crazy, rapey racist because the next guy must be worse?
Trump will prob still be the nominee in Nov and will probably be crushed. The GOP will change their nomination process to stop someone like him being nominee again.
The 'deplorables' are still just a small percentage of the voting public.
Ted Cruz is desperate to get into the oval office, he will spend the next four years tacking in a more populist direction, and probably win. You will find him just as unacceptable as Trump, probably more so, but instead of a buffoon who will make the population fall out of love with populism as he screws stuff up, you will get a brilliant, effective, dangerous operator doing the same stuff, just much more competently, good luck with that.
Cruz fucked himself by backing Trump. Ivhed held out for 1 more week he would be a lock for 2020. Bubrevealin himself to be just as dependent on the money providers as every other politician has screwed him with RedState like folks. He will go on where.
he fucked himself with Trumpers with his convention speech, and then with nevertrumpers by endorsing trump last week. He is also a laughing stock for supporting a man who called wife ugly and his dad the man who murdered JFK
How on earth did the GOP end up landing themselves with such a contemptible shit as Trump. I shake my head in disbelief with each successive gobbing off.
same could be said of the Labour party and Corbyn.
So then how long before sterling recovers v the euro... my g and is costing me.more every day....
Instead of listening to people saying there is no shark attack, the girl was hit by a speedboat and the kids are probably off playing somewhere, it's probably best if you tell your family to just sunbathe on the sand. Leavers are convnced that £1=$1.24 and falling is a GOOD THING and NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT HONEST, so probably best to just get out of GBP for a while.
Perhaps you'd like to say whether the sterling exchange rate should be rising or falling given that the UK has had a current account deficit of nearly £300bn during the last three years ?
Do you think the rest of the world is going to permanently give the UK more goods and services than it gets in return ?
I think (see my previous posts) that current account deficits should be coped with by earning more and spending less, instead of devaluing the currency. The wanton profligacy of the Government since 2001 since Blair/Brown decided to splurge it up the wall like a demented sailor, unmitigated by Cameron's upper-class conviction that money just appears somehow and talking about it is just so retrousse, was not approved of by me.
That's fair enough.
But earning more is damn difficult ** and spending less is not something governments are ever going to either do or encourage because it will cost them votes.
** To earn some more you need to produce a good or service that someone else wants. You need to do it for less than it costs and at a lower price and/or higher quality than your competitors. You need to do it within all the laws and regulations and you get taxed on every stage of the process. Finally you need to be looking to continually improve your output because if you don't your competitors will. Its not easy.
In the 3 top jobs of the Govt, plus PM, we have 3 Remainers. 1 Remainer, Rudd, has proposed a set of her own meddling immigration ideas. Another Remainer, Hammond, forecasts project fear type downsides ahead. On top of this is the Bank of England Governor who carries on forecasting doom and reduces the attractiveness of the pound through a rate cut and promise of more cuts.... All of these have added to the appearance of major problems and invited attacks.
May said at least as much as Rudd, Hammond and Carney are responding to real events - mostly quite sensibly. that so many 'Leavers' don't wish to see this is very telling. The £ crash this week was a response to talk of Hard Brexit.
No, it wasn't.
It was a response to hardening interest expectations for the Fed (upwards) and the BoE comments that they would move away from data to an entirely politically driven interest policy (downwards).
So then how long before sterling recovers v the euro... my g and is costing me.more every day....
I'm not a currency trader, but there was an immediate depreciation post event from trading around 1.25-1.30 [I've only gone back to 1 June] to trading around 1.15-1.20. That feel's about right. There has been a subsequent decline to around 1.11 over the last week - not huge. My guess is that it will trade in the 1.10-1.15 range (possibly 1.10-1.20) pretty much until there is more clarity on the long-term relationship.
Or until something goes wrong in the Eurozone and they cut rates even more.
So then how long before sterling recovers v the euro... my g and is costing me.more every day....
Instead of listening to people saying there is no shark attack, the girl was hit by a speedboat and the kids are probably off playing somewhere, it's probably best if you tell your family to just sunbathe on the sand. Leavers are convnced that £1=$1.24 and falling is a GOOD THING and NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT HONEST, so probably best to just get out of GBP for a while.
Perhaps you'd like to say whether the sterling exchange rate should be rising or falling given that the UK has had a current account deficit of nearly £300bn during the last three years ?
Do you think the rest of the world is going to permanently give the UK more goods and services than it gets in return ?
I think (see my previous posts) that current account deficits should be coped with by earning more and spending less, instead of devaluing the currency. The wanton profligacy of the Government since 2001 since Blair/Brown decided to splurge it up the wall like a demented sailor, unmitigated by Cameron's upper-class conviction that money just appears somehow and talking about it is just so retrousse, was not approved of by me.
A short-term problem is that reorganising UK PLC to eventually pay our way via higher productivity/efficiency in the workplace would actually need major reform; e.g., vocational education, forcing 16-17 year olds to take a 7 year education and training programme while in work to learn about their chosen career and become proficient in it (e.g., German builders can put up a house which a surveyor won't condemn and point out 150 defects (as happened to a client of mine).
Devaluation seems 'painless' ... except for all of us who in our lifetime see the £ go from worth S.Fr 12.00+ to 1.20, which has more effect than not being able to have as many Swiss holidays as we might like.
Sterling has both fallen and risen during my lifetime. I can't say that it has had much of an impact one or the other.
How on earth did the GOP end up landing themselves with such a contemptible shit as Trump. I shake my head in disbelief with each successive gobbing off.
because there primary voters hate certaim types of women, muslims, and ethnic minorities.
..More a response to Hammond's doom and Carney's rate policy...
Although you may be right about Carney's rate policy (tho not in the way you'd like), I can't help thinking the international markets are too large to be moved by one man gobbing off.
Here's a thing. It might just be that the international markets have decided that Brexit is bad for the UK. You may disagree. You may even be right (altho' I don't). But that is their stance, Blaming remainers or using slurs ("remoaners") will not change their minds.
"One man gobbing off" being the man who has lead responsibility for UK interest rates.
Interest rates being one of the primary long-term drivers of currency rates?
Is there a betting market on when Mark Carney will cease to be Governor of the BoE? I expect him to be gone by 30 June 2017, i.e. a full year before his contract is due to expire.
So then how long before sterling recovers v the euro... my g and is costing me.more every day....
Instead of listening to people saying there is no shark attack, the girl was hit by a speedboat and the kids are probably off playing somewhere, it's probably best if you tell your family to just sunbathe on the sand. Leavers are convnced that £1=$1.24 and falling is a GOOD THING and NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT HONEST, so probably best to just get out of GBP for a while.
Perhaps you'd like to say whether the sterling exchange rate should be rising or falling given that the UK has had a current account deficit of nearly £300bn during the last three years ?
Do you think the rest of the world is going to permanently give the UK more goods and services than it gets in return ?
I think (see my previous posts) that current account deficits should be coped with by earning more and spending less, instead of devaluing the currency. The wanton profligacy of the Government since 2001 since Blair/Brown decided to splurge it up the wall like a demented sailor, unmitigated by Cameron's upper-class conviction that money just appears somehow and talking about it is just so retrousse, was not approved of by me.
That's fair enough.
But earning more is damn difficult ** and spending less is not something governments are ever going to either do or encourage because it will cost them votes.
** To earn some more you need to produce a good or service that someone else wants. You need to do it for less than it costs and at a lower price and/or higher quality than your competitors. You need to do it within all the laws and regulations and you get taxed on every stage of the process. Finally you need to be looking to continually improve your output because if you don't your competitors will. Its not easy.
I agree with your analysis. Please forgive me if I don't like the outcome...
I am sympathetic to interest rates and divergent central bank activities being confounding factors. But looking at the big picture, if you were modelling this, you'd be going "Hmm. Brexit kills GBP".
I know remainers love talking about GDP because it suits their narrative, but they seem to be very quiet about the FTSE250, currently about 10% up on BrExit, so British business doing well, even those that are not multinationals benefiting from earning in USD.
FTSE350 is up considerably as well.
so is the FTSE All Shares Index.
DOOOM! DOOM! I say!
I think you'll find a 20% devaluation in sterling overnight presented some value in companies listed on the FTSE.
Just a question....how much do you think sterling has to devalue before Brexit economic illiterates suddenly start realising we might have some kind of crisis in the UK economy?
You will notice I didnt mention the FTSE index, because I am aware of that effect, the same appears to be true on the indices of smaller companies as well.
Frankly this is getting to be a bore, you are so desperate for BrExit to be a failure, for us to get kicked into the WTO with nothing, just so you can gloat and say I told you so its sad.
With big questions marks over property, overseas stocks suddenly becoming 20% more expensive across the board, where else should investors put their money at the minute? The FTSE 250 comprising more British firms is still one of the least worst options.
You never answered my question....how low should sterling go before you think there might be some semblance of a problem with the good ship Brexit? I tell you one thing there are already alot of people panicking about sterling's weakness.
And, what are people like me to do? I would have kept my mouth shut if sterling was holding over 1.20/1.35 USD, or even looking like it was ticking there. From last years election when the threat of Brexit started to destabilise sterling it has fallen over 30%...a 10% devaluation, probably a good thing....a 20% devaluation- we can live with.....a 30% devaluation-WTF....and it's still sinking.
So how far does it have to go down before Brexit ideologues begin to think that the whole thing was somewhat of a misguided adventure and put the whole calamity down to experience?
I'm honestly surprised this Trump stuff has caused particular outrage. Not that the comments are not outrageous, but even if they are seen as more extreme in nature than other things he has said, they aren't that surprising either. Even if its only a few here and there, I'm surprised more aren't going the 'oh, everyone has said things like that at one time or another' and 'just a bad joke' kind of defence, given how close we now are to the end. They sucked it up this far after all.
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
Yes
Britain will quit Europe’s single market if the country votes to leave the EU, Michael Gove, the Leave campaign’s most senior figure, has confirmed for the first time
So then how long before sterling recovers v the euro... my g and is costing me.more every day....
Instead of listening to people saying there is no shark attack, the girl was hit by a speedboat and the kids are probably off playing somewhere, it's probably best if you tell your family to just sunbathe on the sand. Leavers are convnced that £1=$1.24 and falling is a GOOD THING and NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT HONEST, so probably best to just get out of GBP for a while.
Perhaps you'd like to say whether the sterling exchange rate should be rising or falling given that the UK has had a current account deficit of nearly £300bn during the last three years ?
Do you think the rest of the world is going to permanently give the UK more goods and services than it gets in return ?
I think (see my previous posts) that current account deficits should be coped with by earning more and spending less, instead of devaluing the currency. The wanton profligacy of the Government since 2001 since Blair/Brown decided to splurge it up the wall like a demented sailor, unmitigated by Cameron's upper-class conviction that money just appears somehow and talking about it is just so retrousse, was not approved of by me.
That's fair enough.
But earning more is damn difficult ** and spending less is not something governments are ever going to either do or encourage because it will cost them votes.
** To earn some more you need to produce a good or service that someone else wants. You need to do it for less than it costs and at a lower price and/or higher quality than your competitors. You need to do it within all the laws and regulations and you get taxed on every stage of the process. Finally you need to be looking to continually improve your output because if you don't your competitors will. Its not easy.
I agree with your analysis. Please forgive me if I don't like the outcome...
I can't see how there was an outcome of globalisation where were didn't end up relatively poorer than we were before. Two billion more people are working in the same market as our workers, almost all of them working harder for considerably less money, but at the same time feeling happy about it because their standard of living is improving noticeably year on year.
Where I live many people are earning less than $10 per day, but mostly they are pretty happy about that, because that is double what they were earning a decade ago, and a decade ago they didn't have mobile phones, or cable tv, or access to the internet, and now they do.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
I'm honestly surprised this Trump stuff has caused particular outrage. Not that the comments are not outrageous, but even if they are seen as more extreme in nature than other things he has said, they aren't that surprising either. Even if its only a few here and there, I'm surprised more aren't going the 'oh, everyone has said things like that at one time or another' and 'just a bad joke' kind of defence, given how close we now are to the end. They sucked it up this far after all.
Other Trump comments have been talk, these Trump comments have been about things done.
That's the only thing I can think that differentiates them.
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
The debate wasn't that nuanced... not even near. It was all about taking back control, or controlling our borders, or Brussels bureaucrats, or putting 350m into the NHS...
..More a response to Hammond's doom and Carney's rate policy...
Although you may be right about Carney's rate policy (tho not in the way you'd like), I can't help thinking the international markets are too large to be moved by one man gobbing off.
Here's a thing. It might just be that the international markets have decided that Brexit is bad for the UK. You may disagree. You may even be right (altho' I don't). But that is their stance, Blaming remainers or using slurs ("remoaners") will not change their minds.
"One man gobbing off" being the man who has lead responsibility for UK interest rates.
Interest rates being one of the primary long-term drivers of currency rates?
Yes, he can move markets.
If you believe that one person's speech can make such a difference, then you must by extension concede that it's possible that May's speech was the cause of this week's poundfart.
I'm honestly surprised this Trump stuff has caused particular outrage. Not that the comments are not outrageous, but even if they are seen as more extreme in nature than other things he has said, they aren't that surprising either. Even if its only a few here and there, I'm surprised more aren't going the 'oh, everyone has said things like that at one time or another' and 'just a bad joke' kind of defence, given how close we now are to the end. They sucked it up this far after all.
I think there was a genuine hope (and indeed expectation) that when the proper campaign got underway Trump would do the things candidates normally do - tack towards the political centre and appear more professional and presidential. And so I suggest the reaction to the latest stuff is the dawning realisation that, in this case, it is simply not going to happen. Trump will remain Trump to the end, and as republicans start to foresee the consequences they are steadily abandoning ship.
I am sympathetic to interest rates and divergent central bank activities being confounding factors. But looking at the big picture, if you were modelling this, you'd be going "Hmm. Brexit kills GBP".
I know remainers love talking about GDP because it suits their narrative, but they seem to be very quiet about the FTSE250, currently about 10% up on BrExit, so British business doing well, even those that are not multinationals benefiting from earning in USD.
FTSE350 is up considerably as well.
so is the FTSE All Shares Index.
DOOOM! DOOM! I say!
I think you'll find a 20% devaluation in sterling overnight presented some value in companies listed on the FTSE.
Just a question....how much do you think sterling has to devalue before Brexit economic illiterates suddenly start realising we might have some kind of crisis in the UK economy?
You will notice I didnt mention the FTSE index, because I am aware of that effect, the same appears to be true on the indices of smaller companies as well.
Frankly this is getting to be a bore, you are so desperate for BrExit to be a failure, for us to get kicked into the WTO with nothing, just so you can gloat and say I told you so its sad.
With big questions marks over property, overseas stocks suddenly becoming 20% more expensive across the board, where else should investors put their money at the minute? The FTSE 250 comprising more British firms is still one of the least worst options.
You never answered my question....how low should sterling go before you think there might be some semblance of a problem with the good ship Brexit? I tell you one thing there are already alot of people panicking about sterling's weakness.
And, what are people like me to do? I would have kept my mouth shut if sterling was holding over 1.20/1.35 USD, or even looking like it was ticking there. From last years election when the threat of Brexit started to destabilise sterling it has fallen over 30%...a 10% devaluation, probably a good thing....a 20% devaluation- we can live with.....a 30% devaluation-WTF....and it's still sinking.
So how far does it have to go down before Brexit ideologues begin to think that the whole thing was somewhat of a misguided adventure and put the whole calamity down to experience?
And it's not an opinion poll - the £ only goes down because people are selling £s and taking their money elsewhere.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
as nate silver says, the big bad stuff (the khans, bad debate e.t.c) did hurt him. The Ptsd and him wanting to sleep with his daughter is just to add to his negatives.
the video is bad because he is boasting about committing sexual assault. The vast majority of suburban women will not accept that at all. And he cant explain it away as a misunderstanding or misinterpration.
So then how long before sterling recovers v the euro... my g and is costing me.more every day....
Instead of listening to people saying there is no shark attack, the girl was hit by a speedboat and the kids are probably off playing somewhere, it's probably best if you tell your family to just sunbathe on the sand. Leavers are convnced that £1=$1.24 and falling is a GOOD THING and NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT HONEST, so probably best to just get out of GBP for a while.
Perhaps you'd like to say whether the sterling exchange rate should be rising or falling given that the UK has had a current account deficit of nearly £300bn during the last three years ?
Do you think the rest of the world is going to permanently give the UK more goods and services than it gets in return ?
I think (see my previous posts) that current account deficits should be coped with by earning more and spending less, instead of devaluing the currency. The wanton profligacy of the Government since 2001 since Blair/Brown decided to splurge it up the wall like a demented sailor, unmitigated by Cameron's upper-class conviction that money just appears somehow and talking about it is just so retrousse, was not approved of by me.
That's fair enough.
But earning more is damn difficult ** and spending less is not something governments are ever going to either do or encourage because it will cost them votes.
** To earn some more you need to produce a good or service that someone else wants. You need to do it for less than it costs and at a lower price and/or higher quality than your competitors. You need to do it within all the laws and regulations and you get taxed on every stage of the process. Finally you need to be looking to continually improve your output because if you don't your competitors will. Its not easy.
I agree with your analysis. Please forgive me if I don't like the outcome...
I can't see how there was an outcome of globalisation where were didn't end up relatively poorer than we were before. Two billion more people are working in the same market as our workers, almost all of them working harder for considerably less money, but at the same time feeling happy about it because their standard of living is improving noticeably year on year.
Where I live many people are earning less than $10 per day, but mostly they are pretty happy about that, because that is double what they were earning a decade ago, and a decade ago they didn't have mobile phones, or cable tv, or access to the internet, and now they do.
, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. .
They are absolutely supposed to be admiring and that is why they are so horrible. If you look at the sum totality of Trump's comments on women they are all in terms of sexual attractiveness.
Women exist to be fucked in Trump's world. That have no other purpose or worthwhile qualities, they are not people.
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
Yes
Britain will quit Europe’s single market if the country votes to leave the EU, Michael Gove, the Leave campaign’s most senior figure, has confirmed for the first time
"Now Ms Patel has decided that, while not formally revoking the ‘0.7’, she will underspend her budget if it is in taxpayers’ interests to do so – and then explain her actions to the Commons.
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
The debate wasn't that nuanced... not even near. It was all about taking back control, or controlling our borders, or Brussels bureaucrats, or putting 350m into the NHS...
The broad lines of the debate on both sides were as nuanced as a car crash, that doesn't mean there were not nuanced arguments attempted on both sides as well. Yes, we only remember the big, bold lines and core repeated messages, but other stuff does get brought up. By your presentation, manifestos in GEs don't exist, because the only thing that really happened was the basic lines - a future fair for all, strong economy, what have you. No, the basic lines are simplistic and overshadowing, but there was more detailed stuff out there.
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
The debate wasn't that nuanced... not even near. It was all about taking back control, or controlling our borders, or Brussels bureaucrats, or putting 350m into the NHS...
, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. .
They are absolutely supposed to be admiring and that is why they are so horrible. If you look at the sum totality of Trump's comments on women they are all in terms of sexual attractiveness.
Women exist to be fucked in Trump's world. That have no other purpose or worthwhile qualities, they are not people.
You're being very hard on him.
They are also there to bring up kids and possibly have some utility value like cook and clean too.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
F1: keeping things vague (but you'll know what I mean if you've seen/heard the race already), someone has lodged a formal protest against the driving of someone else.
To be honest, even if you haven't seen it you can probably guess who one of the someone's is.
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
Yes
Britain will quit Europe’s single market if the country votes to leave the EU, Michael Gove, the Leave campaign’s most senior figure, has confirmed for the first time
Perhaps you'd like to say whether the sterling exchange rate should be rising or falling given that the UK has had a current account deficit of nearly £300bn during the last three years ?
Do you think the rest of the world is going to permanently give the UK more goods and services than it gets in return ?
I think (see my previous posts) that current account deficits should be coped with by earning more and spending less, instead of devaluing the currency. The wanton profligacy of the Government since 2001 since Blair/Brown decided to splurge it up the wall like a demented sailor, unmitigated by Cameron's upper-class conviction that money just appears somehow and talking about it is just so retrousse, was not approved of by me.
That's fair enough.
But earning more is damn difficult ** and spending less is not something governments are ever going to either do or encourage because it will cost them votes.
** To earn some more you need to produce a good or service that someone else wants. You need to do it for less than it costs and at a lower price and/or higher quality than your competitors. You need to do it within all the laws and regulations and you get taxed on every stage of the process. Finally you need to be looking to continually improve your output because if you don't your competitors will. Its not easy.
I agree with your analysis. Please forgive me if I don't like the outcome...
I can't see how there was an outcome of globalisation where were didn't end up relatively poorer than we were before. Two billion more people are working in the same market as our workers, almost all of them working harder for considerably less money, but at the same time feeling happy about it because their standard of living is improving noticeably year on year.
Where I live many people are earning less than $10 per day, but mostly they are pretty happy about that, because that is double what they were earning a decade ago, and a decade ago they didn't have mobile phones, or cable tv, or access to the internet, and now they do.
Back in 2007-8 I asked how the UK was to compete in a globalised world economy against peoples who were as intelligent and educated as us but who were willing to work harder for lower pay and under fewer restrictions.
I've never received an answer that makes sense.
Meanwhile the government's response was to borrow a trillion quid to subsidise consumer spending and house prices.
Quick q. Did Vote Leave campaign on the basis of leaving the single market?
Yes
Britain will quit Europe’s single market if the country votes to leave the EU, Michael Gove, the Leave campaign’s most senior figure, has confirmed for the first time
Surely Boris was the Leave campaign's most senior figure?
Messy. He was neither the Chairman (Gisela Stuart MP), the CEO (Elliott) or the Campaign Director (Cummings) although he was on the board, as was Gove. He was certainly the most well known, but that isn't quite the same thing.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
"Now Ms Patel has decided that, while not formally revoking the ‘0.7’, she will underspend her budget if it is in taxpayers’ interests to do so – and then explain her actions to the Commons.
"Recent crises show why aid is so important to us all. Whether it is helping to prevent deadly diseases like Ebola from coming to the UK from West Africa, or enabling Syrian refugees and other would-be migrants to stay in their home region, our aid tackles the root causes of global problems that affect all of us. Over the last five years UK aid has been life-saving and life-changing for millions of the poorest people around the world. It has supported 11 million children through school and helped more than 60 million people get access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene conditions. DFID is also leading the global effort to save millions of girls from child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation."
So then how long before sterling recovers v the euro... my g and is costing me.more every day....
Instead of listening to people saying there is no shark attack, the girl was hit by a speedboat and the kids are probably off playing somewhere, it's probably best if you tell your family to just sunbathe on the sand. Leavers are convnced that £1=$1.24 and falling is a GOOD THING and NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT HONEST, so probably best to just get out of GBP for a while.
Perhaps you'd like to say whether the sterling exchange rate should be rising or falling given that the UK has had a current account deficit of nearly £300bn during the last three years ?
Do you think the rest of the world is going to permanently give the UK more goods and services than it gets in return ?
I think (see my previous posts) that current account deficits should be coped with by earning more and spending less, instead of devaluing the currency. The wanton profligacy of the Government since 2001 since Blair/Brown decided to splurge it up the wall like a demented sailor, unmitigated by Cameron's upper-class conviction that money just appears somehow and talking about it is just so retrousse, was not approved of by me.
A short-term problem is that reorganising UK PLC to eventually pay our way via higher productivity/efficiency in the workplace would actually need major reform; e.g., vocational education, forcing 16-17 year olds to take a 7 year education and training programme while in work to learn about their chosen career and become proficient in it (e.g., German builders can put up a house which a surveyor won't condemn and point out 150 defects (as happened to a client of mine).
Devaluation seems 'painless' ... except for all of us who in our lifetime see the £ go from worth S.Fr 12.00+ to 1.20, which has more effect than not being able to have as many Swiss holidays as we might like.
Sterling has both fallen and risen during my lifetime. I can't say that it has had much of an impact one or the other.
AFAIK one can partly think of a currency as a country's share price.
In fact, I'm more an advocate of the mixed economy that we had 1945/79, with lots of govt. regulation, not 'market will provide' nonsense of the last 37 years. But I accept the analogy. On that basis, maybe phone your broker, sell some £/shares in UK PLC and buy some $Can. or D.Kr.
A further crunch time may be if this nonsense continues and it ever approaches $US 1.00. Traders will then get the jitters and there'll be further bad publicity for UK PLC and its management.
DFID is also leading the global effort to save millions of girls from child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation.
Meanwhile in the UK, how many cases of FGM are estimated to be carried out each year inside our borders, and how many successful prosecutions have been brought, and how true is it that the UK is actually becoming known for FGM tourism.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
I'm centre left. I know Corbyn is a terrible choice for Labour, terrible and unfit to be PM, not just because of his inability to adapt his thinking to the modern world, living in the past, but also his competence. The re-shuffle this week displayed his inability to understand how to go about creating a plausible alternative.
That said, I am not so lefty partisan to say that Corbyn is terrible, but May is just as bad because she isn't. She is much more competent.
"Now Ms Patel has decided that, while not formally revoking the ‘0.7’, she will underspend her budget if it is in taxpayers’ interests to do so – and then explain her actions to the Commons.
"Recent crises show why aid is so important to us all. Whether it is helping to prevent deadly diseases like Ebola from coming to the UK from West Africa, or enabling Syrian refugees and other would-be migrants to stay in their home region, our aid tackles the root causes of global problems that affect all of us. Over the last five years UK aid has been life-saving and life-changing for millions of the poorest people around the world. It has supported 11 million children through school and helped more than 60 million people get access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene conditions. DFID is also leading the global effort to save millions of girls from child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation."
As I understand it, the main problem with the 0.7% aid target is that continual revisions of the GDP data can leave DFID in possession of large piles of extra cash, which it is obliged to spend with indecent haste in order to keep within the rules. Significant amounts of taxpayers' money is thus at risk of being sprayed around like confetti on various ill-considered projects, and wasted.
If the Government wants to continue to keep to the 0.7% target then it ought really to base the aid budget for each year upon an agreed, fixed value for last year's GDP - but presumably this would require that the relevant piece of flawed legislation be amended, and for understandable reasons I imagine that they have many higher priorities at the moment than arguing the toss over the technicalities of overseas aid spending.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
as nate silver says, the big bad stuff (the khans, bad debate e.t.c) did hurt him. The Ptsd and him wanting to sleep with his daughter is just to add to his negatives.
the video is bad because he is boasting about committing sexual assault. The vast majority of suburban women will not accept that at all. And he cant explain it away as a misunderstanding or misinterpration.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
Trump is a bigot and a racist, Clinton is criminally negligent about national security information including the names of deep cover agents on non-protected email servers (which gets people killed). I wouldn't even consider voting for either.
Heroic stuff - makes Corbyn look good at interviews.
It's a lot easier pontificating from the side lines when the default assumption of the media is that you are the moral guardian of the nation's conscience. I don't think she is enjoying life in the trenches at all and wonder how long she will want to keep at it.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
Trump is a bigot and a racist, Clinton is criminally negligent about national security information including the names of deep cover agents on non-protected email servers (which gets people killed). I wouldn't even consider voting for either.
Indeed.
When two candidates are each unfit for office, the question of which is worse doesn't matter.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
Trump is a bigot and a racist, Clinton is criminally negligent about national security information including the names of deep cover agents on non-protected email servers (which gets people killed). I wouldn't even consider voting for either.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
But trying to make an equivalence between the two candidates is just plain silly.
Boston Bobblehead Whoopsie Daisy! Media Narrative goes South seems MSM purposely hid Billy Bush's part in all this. Plus Actress admissions h/t @carriedaway16https://t.co/ag6Cvi8xOC
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
Trump is a bigot and a racist, Clinton is criminally negligent about national security information including the names of deep cover agents on non-protected email servers (which gets people killed). I wouldn't even consider voting for either.
Indeed.
When two candidates are each unfit for office, the question of which is worse doesn't matter.
In a two horse rates backing neither when your future depends on the choice made isn't really an option. The best you can do is get a nose peg as you vote...
But trying to make an equivalence between the two candidates is just plain silly.
You feel that having nasty views is more of a problem than getting people killed, its a view I suppose.
You may be right she won't do it again, but history is against you, people who do stuff, do it again, you condemn Trump (rightly) because he might behave aberrantly toward woman again, but you wont accept that Clinton might seeking to evade accountability in a dangerous ways again.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
Trump is a bigot and a racist, Clinton is criminally negligent about national security information including the names of deep cover agents on non-protected email servers (which gets people killed). I wouldn't even consider voting for either.
Clinton has also been deeply corrupted by the system she has worked in for 40 years plus. A system that has a desperate need for obscene amounts of cash to feed the beast, a system where any politician who wants to be in the game needs to sell themselves, access to themselves, their principles and their values to get that money from the haves. The fact she and Bill managed to so spectacularly enrich themselves along the way is a vivid demonstration of the cynicism and moral turpitude that such a system creates and her failings.
Mr. L, indeed. Being responsible and accountable is much more difficult than preaching to the converted.
She's moved from a fan on the terrace shouting advice to the footballers below, to being a player herself. With two left feet and the pace of a dalek* in a stairwell.
Boston Bobblehead Whoopsie Daisy! Media Narrative goes South seems MSM purposely hid Billy Bush's part in all this. Plus Actress admissions h/t @carriedaway16https://t.co/ag6Cvi8xOC
Have you spent any time verifying you aren't just posting made up shit?
Heroic stuff - makes Corbyn look good at interviews.
She just looks lost on the media trying to justify the hypocrisy and the way she joined labour and within weeks was in the House of Lords and Shadow Attorney General. I used to listen to her with interest and though I did disagree with her on occasions I did respect her. Not anymore, she is just a trougher
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
Trump is a bigot and a racist, Clinton is criminally negligent about national security information including the names of deep cover agents on non-protected email servers (which gets people killed). I wouldn't even consider voting for either.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
But trying to make an equivalence between the two candidates is just plain silly.
alao to add to this, zero evidence that using a private server led to any deaths.
"Now Ms Patel has decided that, while not formally revoking the ‘0.7’, she will underspend her budget if it is in taxpayers’ interests to do so – and then explain her actions to the Commons.
"Recent crises show why aid is so important to us all. Whether it is helping to prevent deadly diseases like Ebola from coming to the UK from West Africa, or enabling Syrian refugees and other would-be migrants to stay in their home region, our aid tackles the root causes of global problems that affect all of us. Over the last five years UK aid has been life-saving and life-changing for millions of the poorest people around the world. It has supported 11 million children through school and helped more than 60 million people get access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene conditions. DFID is also leading the global effort to save millions of girls from child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation."
As I understand it, the main problem with the 0.7% aid target is that continual revisions of the GDP data can leave DFID in possession of large piles of extra cash, which it is obliged to spend with indecent haste in order to keep within the rules. Significant amounts of taxpayers' money is thus at risk of being sprayed around like confetti on various ill-considered projects, and wasted.
If the Government wants to continue to keep to the 0.7% target then it ought really to base the aid budget for each year upon an agreed, fixed value for last year's GDP - but presumably this would require that the relevant piece of flawed legislation be amended, and for understandable reasons I imagine that they have many higher priorities at the moment than arguing the toss over the technicalities of overseas aid spending.
There maybe an accounting issue, but that's not the main problem.
This is ashcroft - and his ideological bedfellows - flexing their muscles.
Boston Bobblehead Whoopsie Daisy! Media Narrative goes South seems MSM purposely hid Billy Bush's part in all this. Plus Actress admissions h/t @carriedaway16https://t.co/ag6Cvi8xOC
Have you spent any time verifying you aren't just posting made up shit?
If it mentions the magic phrases "liberal", "elite", "MSM" or "metropolitan" it gets retweeted without further thought.
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
Boston Bobblehead Whoopsie Daisy! Media Narrative goes South seems MSM purposely hid Billy Bush's part in all this. Plus Actress admissions h/t @carriedaway16https://t.co/ag6Cvi8xOC
Have you spent any time verifying you aren't just posting made up shit?
If it mentions the magic phrases "liberal", "elite", "MSM" or "metropolitan" it gets retweeted without further thought.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
I think that critics of Trump weaken their case by picking on every vagary and making them into outrageous offences - when he does something serious, it invites the "there you go again" response. For instance, his PTSD comments seemed intended to be sympathetic, just badly phrased, and I think his comments about his daughter were intended to be admiring, rather than the near-paedophilia that some seem to think. He's a vulgar bloke who doesn't think before he speaks and expressses these things vulgarly and/or casually - very un-Presidential, but not necessarily wicked.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's why I find people (universally right wing) drawing equivalence between the two candidates quite disingenuous. They know that GOP have made a terrible choice and chosen probably one of the most unfit candidates to be President ever, but they always qualify this by saying Hillary is just as bad or words to that effect. They must know this isn't the case, but they cannot hide their right wing prejudices (sean fear is one of the worst culprits).
Trump is a bigot and a racist, Clinton is criminally negligent about national security information including the names of deep cover agents on non-protected email servers (which gets people killed). I wouldn't even consider voting for either.
Indeed.
When two candidates are each unfit for office, the question of which is worse doesn't matter.
In a two horse rates backing neither when your future depends on the choice made isn't really an option. The best you can do is get a nose peg as you vote...
That's true if you're the only one voting. When 100 million others are too your vote is irrelevant. You might as well do what you want to salve your conscience and move on.
Heroic stuff - makes Corbyn look good at interviews.
This comes up frequently - some people feel it's hypocritical to want to have good services for everyone but to choose the best service available for your family. I don't see that at all. Suppose that the only treatment for cancer was private, you could afford it, and your child had cancer. Would it be hypocritical to pay for the treatment while arguing that the situation was appalling and it needed to be made generally available? Surely not.
For education, the choice is less apocalyptic, but it's still true that if the system currently gives an advantage to some types of school, you need as a parent to try to get your children there. That's not inconsistnet with wanting schools to be so good that the choice is unncssary. In Denmark, for instance, private schools are mainly for people with very special interests - e.g. somone who is passionately into music and wants to spend as much time as possible studying that. But because the state schools are mearly all pretty good, there isn't a market for provision of good general private schools.
I do think there's a case for politicians to avoid privilege for themselves (e.g. I don't use private healthcare although I could afford it), so they can understand the normal situaiton better. But to project that onto your non-political family? No.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
Still quite a lot better than the alternative.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
Still quite a lot better than the alternative.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
I thought Clinton was in the "back of the queue" party ?
"Now Ms Patel has decided that, while not formally revoking the ‘0.7’, she will underspend her budget if it is in taxpayers’ interests to do so – and then explain her actions to the Commons.
"Recent crises show why aid is so important to us all. Whether it is helping to prevent deadly diseases like Ebola from coming to the UK from West Africa, or enabling Syrian refugees and other would-be migrants to stay in their home region, our aid tackles the root causes of global problems that affect all of us. Over the last five years UK aid has been life-saving and life-changing for millions of the poorest people around the world. It has supported 11 million children through school and helped more than 60 million people get access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene conditions. DFID is also leading the global effort to save millions of girls from child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation."
As I understand it, the main problem with the 0.7% aid target is that continual revisions of the GDP data can leave DFID in possession of large piles of extra cash, which it is obliged to spend with indecent haste in order to keep within the rules. Significant amounts of taxpayers' money is thus at risk of being sprayed around like confetti on various ill-considered projects, and wasted.
If the Government wants to continue to keep to the 0.7% target then it ought really to base the aid budget for each year upon an agreed, fixed value for last year's GDP - but presumably this would require that the relevant piece of flawed legislation be amended, and for understandable reasons I imagine that they have many higher priorities at the moment than arguing the toss over the technicalities of overseas aid spending.
I'm in a similar boat to you. I have no problems in spending money in the third world, especially when that spending saves us money down the line in terms of fewer refugees coming our way.
But I agree that having an artificial "target" is dumb. You spend money when it can make a difference. And sometimes that might be more than 0.7% of GDP, and sometimes is might be less, maybe much less. Having a rigid structures encourages, as you say, money being sprayed around - almost certainly worsening the governance of third world countries - towards the end of fiscal year.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
Still quite a lot better than the alternative.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
She won't be excellent. Merely "shitty", which is about the same as Obama.
Heroic stuff - makes Corbyn look good at interviews.
This comes up frequently - some people feel it's hypocritical to want to have good services for everyone but to choose the best service available for your family. I don't see that at all. Suppose that the only treatment for cancer was private, you could afford it, and your child had cancer. Would it be hypocritical to pay for the treatment while arguing that the situation was appalling and it needed to be made generally available? Surely not.
For education, the choice is less apocalyptic, but it's still true that if the system currently gives an advantage to some types of school, you need as a parent to try to get your children there. That's not inconsistnet with wanting schools to be so good that the choice is unncssary. In Denmark, for instance, private schools are mainly for people with very special interests - e.g. somone who is passionately into music and wants to spend as much time as possible studying that. But because the state schools are mearly all pretty good, there isn't a market for provision of good general private schools.
I do think there's a case for politicians to avoid privilege for themselves (e.g. I don't use private healthcare although I could afford it), so they can understand the normal situaiton better. But to project that onto your non-political family? No.
With the greatest of respect Nick this is just an attempted apology at Shami Chakrabarti's absolute hypocrisy and it really shows when she is interviewed - this will be the theme whenever she appears on the media and as has been said, I doubt she will be able to take the heat indefinately
Heroic stuff - makes Corbyn look good at interviews.
This comes up frequently - some people feel it's hypocritical to want to have good services for everyone but to choose the best service available for your family. I don't see that at all. Suppose that the only treatment for cancer was private, you could afford it, and your child had cancer. Would it be hypocritical to pay for the treatment while arguing that the situation was appalling and it needed to be made generally available? Surely not.
For education, the choice is less apocalyptic, but it's still true that if the system currently gives an advantage to some types of school, you need as a parent to try to get your children there. That's not inconsistnet with wanting schools to be so good that the choice is unncssary. In Denmark, for instance, private schools are mainly for people with very special interests - e.g. somone who is passionately into music and wants to spend as much time as possible studying that. But because the state schools are mearly all pretty good, there isn't a market for provision of good general private schools.
I do think there's a case for politicians to avoid privilege for themselves (e.g. I don't use private healthcare although I could afford it), so they can understand the normal situaiton better. But to project that onto your non-political family? No.
That interesting Nick, I see it completely the other way around. If an Minister or even just an MP needs an operation and goes private to effectively jump the queue, fine. Our politicians are important (at least, they should be), so I have no problem with them getting special treatment.
Their children, however, are not special. The cancer example you give is (thankfully) rare, but yes I wouldn't complain if the unlikely scenario arose whereby a politician paid for their child to get a treatment that would otherwise not be available on the NHS.
But when it comes to education, I believe our politicians should set an example. Even those who don't have a problem with private education should send their kids to state schools.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
Heroic stuff - makes Corbyn look good at interviews.
This comes up frequently - some people feel it's hypocritical to want to have good services for everyone but to choose the best service available for your family. I don't see that at all. Suppose that the only treatment for cancer was private, you could afford it, and your child had cancer. Would it be hypocritical to pay for the treatment while arguing that the situation was appalling and it needed to be made generally available? Surely not.
For education, the choice is less apocalyptic, but it's still true that if the system currently gives an advantage to some types of school, you need as a parent to try to get your children there. That's not inconsistnet with wanting schools to be so good that the choice is unncssary. In Denmark, for instance, private schools are mainly for people with very special interests - e.g. somone who is passionately into music and wants to spend as much time as possible studying that. But because the state schools are mearly all pretty good, there isn't a market for provision of good general private schools.
I do think there's a case for politicians to avoid privilege for themselves (e.g. I don't use private healthcare although I could afford it), so they can understand the normal situaiton better. But to project that onto your non-political family? No.
That interesting Nick, I see it completely the other way around. If an Minister or even just an MP needs an operation and goes private to effectively jump the queue, fine. Our politicians are important (at least, they should be), so I have no problem with them getting special treatment.
Their children, however, are not special. The cancer example you give is (thankfully) rare, but yes I wouldn't complain if the unlikely scenario arose whereby a politician paid for their child to get a treatment that would otherwise not be available on the NHS.
But when it comes to education, I believe our politicians should set an example. Even those who don't have a problem with private education should send their kids to state schools.
Completely disagree, why should children be forced to be subject to their parents' political views, especially in a "one-shot" scenario like education? It may be that the child themself goes on to have significantly different views from the parent.
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
Still quite a lot better than the alternative.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
She won't be excellent. Merely "shitty", which is about the same as Obama.
5% unemployment, 55% approval rating, obamacare reducing uninsured people by millions, killing Osama and making up with Cuba
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness? As opposed to wanting lines of communication with her team and advisors that was not on the official record, that could not be examined (it was thought) by Congress and her legion of enemies?
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
This was the line Trump should have taken: that it was to evade FoI laws. It would have been far more effective with wavering Hillary (and Bernie Sanders) supporters than preaching to the choir with the overblown official secrets attack that convinced mainly the ex-services types who vote Republican anyway.
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
Does anyone seriously believe, even for a moment, that Clinton's use of a private server was mere carelessness?
I've read a lot on this subject, and from what I've seen nobody remotely technically minded seems to believe Clinton. Her side's justifications and explanations are simply implausible. But it would be the hottest of hot potatoes to prosecute and end her candidacy so she has got away with it. It stinks.
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
It wasn't a terrible error, the actions of Clinton and her staff were quite deliberate. Colin Powell had discussed the issue with her, so she can not plausibly claim that she was unaware that the rules were being broken.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
Actually, I think it's even worse than that.
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
Comments
Trump said if she wasn't his daughter he'd be dating her, which implies having sex with her. I've never heard any other father say anything like that. Have you? It's not the same as saying she's becoming beautiful and she's going to have a lot of interest from boys, which would be a normal and unremarkable thing to say.
When she was 14 he also entrusted her as a model to his friend John Casablancas of Elite Model Management, a man who was by then publicly known (and surely known for much longer by Trump himself) as sexually exploitative of underage girls. You can read about it in this article in the Daily Kos. Then there are photos of Ivanka Trump with her father, such as this and this.
Larry Elliott (June 2015)
' Britain’s balance of payments has never been more deeply in the red. There have been some monster external deficits down the years but the one notched up in 2014 trumped them all.
Little is said in official circles about the nation’s current account. George Osborne talks about boosting exports and rebalancing the economy, but, the chancellor is not nearly as worried about the trade deficit as he is about the budget deficit. And not nearly as worried as he should be.
The trend is clear. The UK ran a current account deficit of 3.5% of national income in 2012. The next year it rose to 4.7% of gross domestic product. Last year, it hit 5.9% of GDP.
...
But warning bells are clanging. Consumers are running down their savings to fund their spending. That will suck in imports. The pound is rising on the foreign exchanges. That will make imports cheaper. The current account deficit is set to get bigger. Sooner or later, the markets will notice and get alarmed. A good old-fashioned sterling crisis will follow. '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2015/jun/30/uk-current-account-deficit-the-forgotten-deficit
William Keegan (April 2016)
' A record balance of payments deficit of £96.2bn (5.2% of GDP) for 2015, and £32.7bn (7% of GDP) for the fourth quarter alone – both higher in percentage terms than in any year since the second world war – and the first, instinctive reaction of the government is to let what is left of our steel industry go hang, so that imports can be boosted even further.
These latest figures are horrifying in both cash terms and as a percentage of GDP. During the war, when this country was, economically, on its uppers, the balance of payments deficit reached some 10%, financed by the Lend Lease arrangements with Washington and by running down our overseas assets.
Every schoolchild should know what happened after that: years of austerity, because our war-oriented productive capacity had slowly to be adapted to peacetime conditions and the expectations of the public for a recovery and improvement in living standards. This involved a succession of export drives so that we could, once again, “pay our way” in the world. '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/03/steel-shrivels-balance-of-payments-crisis-grows
Whatever the result of the Referendum the UK would sooner or later have to rebalance its economy - and the longer it was left the harder it would be.
Britain will quit Europe’s single market if the country votes to leave the EU, Michael Gove, the Leave campaign’s most senior figure, has confirmed for the first time
https://www.ft.com/content/0c5c74bc-151e-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e
Now we take Case B, Mrs May is a red in the tooth rock-hard BrExiteer, she wants all the way out with no dicking around to the WTO, and then negotiate new free trade agreements from the position of minimum entanglements.
In March 2017 she enacts Article 50 and goes to her first meeting, in which Barnier tells he he has absolute instructions from the remaining 27 to tell her that its full Four Freedoms or "piss off*", they have other fish to fry and they are not interested in messing around with us.
Two years later what would be the difference in outcome ? The only benefit of B is in the first meeting should could tell them to get lost and pull us out immediately, and get a two year headstart on fixing the economy and doing the trade deals.
(* with minimal agreement on agriculture and machinery)
Devaluation seems 'painless' ... except for all of us who in our lifetime see the £ go from worth S.Fr 12.00+ to 1.20, which has more effect than not being able to have as many Swiss holidays as we might like.
Taniel @Taniel 4h
The latest: 30% of the GOP Senate caucus is not supporting Trump (16 of 54); that includes 19% of men and 83% of women.
But earning more is damn difficult ** and spending less is not something governments are ever going to either do or encourage because it will cost them votes.
** To earn some more you need to produce a good or service that someone else wants. You need to do it for less than it costs and at a lower price and/or higher quality than your competitors. You need to do it within all the laws and regulations and you get taxed on every stage of the process. Finally you need to be looking to continually improve your output because if you don't your competitors will. Its not easy.
Or until something goes wrong in the Eurozone and they cut rates even more.
Interest rates being one of the primary long-term drivers of currency rates?
Yes, he can move markets.
Is there a betting market on when Mark Carney will cease to be Governor of the BoE?
I expect him to be gone by 30 June 2017, i.e. a full year before his contract is due to expire.
Derek Gatopoulos @dgatopoulos 14h14 hours ago
Golden Dawn declares support for Donald Trump as "true patriot"
#Greece
You never answered my question....how low should sterling go before you think there might be some semblance of a problem with the good ship Brexit? I tell you one thing there are already alot of people panicking about sterling's weakness.
And, what are people like me to do? I would have kept my mouth shut if sterling was holding over 1.20/1.35 USD, or even looking like it was ticking there. From last years election when the threat of Brexit started to destabilise sterling it has fallen over 30%...a 10% devaluation, probably a good thing....a 20% devaluation- we can live with.....a 30% devaluation-WTF....and it's still sinking.
So how far does it have to go down before Brexit ideologues begin to think that the whole thing was somewhat of a misguided adventure and put the whole calamity down to experience?
Where I live many people are earning less than $10 per day, but mostly they are pretty happy about that, because that is double what they were earning a decade ago, and a decade ago they didn't have mobile phones, or cable tv, or access to the internet, and now they do.
By contrast, his comments about how power makes women put up with his sexual aggression seem to me very serious and a good reason to pause before giving him lots more power, not only because he might be emboldened to take advantage of more women but because it suggests an atittude to power (something to use for personal advantage) which could have dangerous applications in other spheres too.
This is the same sort of pattern of criticism that led Remain astray - by producing another warning from someone obscure every day ("The head of the Newcastle chamber of Commerce says leavin oul be a disaster"), it devalued the really major warnings that were coming through.
That's the only thing I can think that differentiates them.
The debate wasn't that nuanced... not even near. It was all about taking back control, or controlling our borders, or Brussels bureaucrats, or putting 350m into the NHS...
the video is bad because he is boasting about committing sexual assault. The vast majority of suburban women will not accept that at all. And he cant explain it away as a misunderstanding or misinterpration.
This is a good clip to show why its so visceral
https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/784688870726176768
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3829008/PETER-HITCHENS-isn-t-revolution-s-New-Labour-blue-frock.html
This isn't a revolution - it's New Labour in a blue frock
Women exist to be fucked in Trump's world. That have no other purpose or worthwhile qualities, they are not people.
"Now Ms Patel has decided that, while not formally revoking the ‘0.7’, she will underspend her budget if it is in taxpayers’ interests to do so – and then explain her actions to the Commons.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3828927/I-ll-defy-order-blow-12billion-foreign-aid-vows-Priti-Patel-hits-spending-spree-waste-corruption.html
They are also there to bring up kids and possibly have some utility value like cook and clean too.
https://twitter.com/richardosman/status/784681397256646656
To be honest, even if you haven't seen it you can probably guess who one of the someone's is.
I've never received an answer that makes sense.
Meanwhile the government's response was to borrow a trillion quid to subsidise consumer spending and house prices.
"Recent crises show why aid is so important to us all. Whether it is helping to prevent deadly diseases like Ebola from coming to the UK from West Africa, or enabling Syrian refugees and other would-be migrants to stay in their home region, our aid tackles the root causes of global problems that affect all of us. Over the last five years UK aid has been life-saving and life-changing for millions of the poorest people around the world. It has supported 11 million children through school and helped more than 60 million people get access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene conditions. DFID is also leading the global effort to save millions of girls from child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation."
http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/statement-on-new-dfid-role/
Comps not good enough for her boy.
In fact, I'm more an advocate of the mixed economy that we had 1945/79, with lots of govt. regulation, not 'market will provide' nonsense of the last 37 years. But I accept the analogy. On that basis, maybe phone your broker, sell some £/shares in UK PLC and buy some $Can. or D.Kr.
A further crunch time may be if this nonsense continues and it ever approaches $US 1.00. Traders will then get the jitters and there'll be further bad publicity for UK PLC and its management.
Answer are respectively
Around 1 every 109 minutes (about 2500 per month)
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/fgm-cases-in-england-reported-every-109-minutes-a6854911.html
None and Yes
I'm centre left. I know Corbyn is a terrible choice for Labour, terrible and unfit to be PM, not just because of his inability to adapt his thinking to the modern world, living in the past, but also his competence. The re-shuffle this week displayed his inability to understand how to go about creating a plausible alternative.
That said, I am not so lefty partisan to say that Corbyn is terrible, but May is just as bad because she isn't. She is much more competent.
If the Government wants to continue to keep to the 0.7% target then it ought really to base the aid budget for each year upon an agreed, fixed value for last year's GDP - but presumably this would require that the relevant piece of flawed legislation be amended, and for understandable reasons I imagine that they have many higher priorities at the moment than arguing the toss over the technicalities of overseas aid spending.
When two candidates are each unfit for office, the question of which is worse doesn't matter.
On the email....I can actually understand how she got into using her own server. It's not difficult...laziness, careless convenience, probably something about freedom and not being accountable. I'm sure she wouldn't do it again, and she handled the fallout terribly making it worse by not just coming out and saying that she made a terrible error. And there is always that Clinton evasiveness.....but they have had years of being scrutinised and scrutinised and attacked.
But trying to make an equivalence between the two candidates is just plain silly.
Boston Bobblehead
Whoopsie Daisy! Media Narrative goes South seems MSM purposely hid Billy Bush's part in all this. Plus Actress admissions h/t @carriedaway16 https://t.co/ag6Cvi8xOC
You may be right she won't do it again, but history is against you, people who do stuff, do it again, you condemn Trump (rightly) because he might behave aberrantly toward woman again, but you wont accept that Clinton might seeking to evade accountability in a dangerous ways again.
It's a terrible choice.
She's moved from a fan on the terrace shouting advice to the footballers below, to being a player herself. With two left feet and the pace of a dalek* in a stairwell.
*A 1963-era dalek.
That plays sharply into the elite/Establishment angle, although Trump's so odious he'll probably help Clinton win.
This is ashcroft - and his ideological bedfellows - flexing their muscles.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/09/lord-ashcroft-patels-approach-to-aid-is-correct-but-i-fear-she-is-already-doomed.html
Half of the tory party are on a mission to turn the once Great Britain into little England.
"Donald Trump is known for his hyperbole, but now the the news media seem to have adopted his penchant for exaggeration. Throughout the election, journalists and news publications have warned voters that Trump is a threat to nearly everything.
Here are six things the news media have said Trump will "destroy" by the time he either wins or loses the presidency:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/six-things-the-media-says-trump-will-destroy/article/2603989?custom_click=rss
This wasn't an accident. It was deliberate and it was a part of a pattern by which the Clintons always need an out, always fear (with a lot of justification) that everything they say and do is going to be criticised and analysed and distorted. It is justified paranoia but it is paranoia nonetheless. We haven't seen a US President or candidate like this since Nixon. These are going to be 4 unhappy years for the USA.
You might as well do what you want to salve your conscience and move on.
For education, the choice is less apocalyptic, but it's still true that if the system currently gives an advantage to some types of school, you need as a parent to try to get your children there. That's not inconsistnet with wanting schools to be so good that the choice is unncssary. In Denmark, for instance, private schools are mainly for people with very special interests - e.g. somone who is passionately into music and wants to spend as much time as possible studying that. But because the state schools are mearly all pretty good, there isn't a market for provision of good general private schools.
I do think there's a case for politicians to avoid privilege for themselves (e.g. I don't use private healthcare although I could afford it), so they can understand the normal situaiton better. But to project that onto your non-political family? No.
Clinton will be an excellent president, and her support for open and free trade is something sorely needed by Brexit Britain.
we can see that FROM HIS OWN WORDS
A striking statistic in the S Times: "the only hate murders of British Muslims in the past 3 years were committed by other Muslims."
But I agree that having an artificial "target" is dumb. You spend money when it can make a difference. And sometimes that might be more than 0.7% of GDP, and sometimes is might be less, maybe much less. Having a rigid structures encourages, as you say, money being sprayed around - almost certainly worsening the governance of third world countries - towards the end of fiscal year.
Their children, however, are not special. The cancer example you give is (thankfully) rare, but yes I wouldn't complain if the unlikely scenario arose whereby a politician paid for their child to get a treatment that would otherwise not be available on the NHS.
But when it comes to education, I believe our politicians should set an example. Even those who don't have a problem with private education should send their kids to state schools.
Clinton was the Secretary of State where more or less everything she deals with is sensitive, and much of it needs to be kept secret. Unless she is a total idiot she surely understands that her communications need to be secure, yet she bypassed her own governments rules in defiance of advice by those who are meant to handle her communications.
To top if off she claimed not to understand the classification system. "Oh I didn't realise that meant classified".
Clinton is either a liar or a fool, but either way she clearly broke the rules, and isn't fit to be a candidate for any public office, never mind President.
I think that the only reason the DoJ aren't prosecuting her is that in effect they would be vetoing a candidate and nobody wants to stir up that hornet's nest.
What a terrible president
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/japan-post-race-analysis-2016.html
Clearly a mistake by Corbyn
She broke the rules so that her communications with various parties would not be logged.
It wasn't for convenience. It was a deliberate desire to avoid oversight.
I pity Americans, I really do.