.....the hot-mic tape displaying Donald Trump as a brutal, vile, woman-despising, sexually predatory vulgarian suddenly has set the elders of the Republican Party off to war with him. .......Why should this previously hidden mean-minded monologue mean more than all the other countless unhidden ones, which have already shown Trump to be a brutal, vile vulgarian? Mexican “rapists,” “she gained a massive amount of weight,” “blood coming out of her wherever”—all of these and more Paul Ryan and the rest passed by untroubled, until “grab them by the pussy”...
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
I applied to Cambridge in 1991 (25 years ago!), and went up in 1992. The Cambridge entrance exam was no more - which was one of the reasons I preferred it to Oxford - although you could still be asked to sit STEPs alongside your A-Levels.
The other reason I applied to Cambridge was that no-one from my school had ever gotten into before (loads had been to Oxford), and so I reckoned that if I was rejected I could just blame it on the irrational prejudice of the institution.
60 years ago (!) Oxbridge applicants at the State Grammar school I attended did a third year in the VIth, what were called Scholarship Level' A’ levels ..... S level meant something very different then ...... and IIRC had an interview. I don’t recall those of my friends who went there having a separate exam, but the Head didn’t encourage Biology students to apply, so I can’t recall any discussion about it. Those biologists who wanted to do medicine were encouraged to apply to the London Medical schools (although a good friend went to Bristol.)
.....the hot-mic tape displaying Donald Trump as a brutal, vile, woman-despising, sexually predatory vulgarian suddenly has set the elders of the Republican Party off to war with him. .......Why should this previously hidden mean-minded monologue mean more than all the other countless unhidden ones, which have already shown Trump to be a brutal, vile vulgarian? Mexican “rapists,” “she gained a massive amount of weight,” “blood coming out of her wherever”—all of these and more Paul Ryan and the rest passed by untroubled, until “grab them by the pussy”...
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
I applied to Cambridge in 1991 (25 years ago!), and went up in 1992. The Cambridge entrance exam was no more - which was one of the reasons I preferred it to Oxford - although you could still be asked to sit STEPs alongside your A-Levels.
Ten years earlier my college was a trail-blazer in not using the entrance exam, but most Cambridge colleges still did (although you could see even then the way the wind was blowing; the last all-male colleges were falling as well).
My college still had an entrance exam in the mid 90s and I would have assumed they still do. It must be subject specific.
More likely college-specific; admissions are decided by colleges rather than faculty.
I meant for both. I don't think they had entrance exams for arts subjects.
I would find that odd - not only not my recollection from some years earlier (as an aspiring arts applicant) but also because the nature of the Oxbridge entrance exam - principally wide-ranging essay questions demanding up-market waffle by way of response - was always more suited to the non-scientific mind.
Many schools give utterly crap advice about applying to Cambridge. The reality is that there isn't much luck involved, and personal statements matter little. Don't write that you are good at teamwork and leadership, because that will bore their socks off. And don't bother wearing a suit unless that's what you feel most comfortable in, which is unlikely. What matters is past exam performance, the report on how hard and well a student works and in particular what grades they're predicted, and performance at interview - those three factors. That applies to all colleges. In maths they interview almost everyone. They also make far more offers than there are places, and let STEP, which is a very well-written exam (well, three exams), sort out who to take. Oh, and at interview they are (or should be) looking for how well you approach and learn what you don't already know; they aren't testing you on what you do know.
On Blair it is a not insignificant fact that he ran a trade deficit every quarter of his entire Premiership. Despite this clear evidence of excessive demand and a consumer boom leading to dangerous levels of consumer debt he allowed his Chancellor to run pro-cyclical deficits in years of above trend growth accentuating that deficit and further encouraging consumption to the detriment of our economy and our future prosperity.
These truly disastrous policies meant the UK was terrifyingly unprepared for 2008 and our existing deficit immediately spiralled to levels never even contemplated before in peace time. By then Blair had left the bridge leaving the idiot that he had allowed to cause such damage during his Premiership in charge and his message was, "full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes." Brown was and is mad and delusional but any PM that leaves someone like that in charge of the money or the country cannot possibly rank highly.
The lies and catastrophic failures in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the lives of men whose boots he was not fit to clean and wasted the odd billion pounds but although shameful it did not have the long term negative effect on our future prosperity that the failed economic policies of growth by debt caused. The equipment failures and mismanagement of the MOD budget probably exceeded anything that we have seen since the Crimea but again in the overall picture was not the problem.
What makes Blair's failures particularly egregious is the benign legacy he was left by Major and Clarke. The contrast with what Cameron inherited and had to deal with during the term of the Coalition is stark. A ranking that has him at 3rd post war is a joke.
Many schools give utterly crap advice about applying to Cambridge. The reality is that there isn't much luck involved, and personal statements matter little. And don't bother wearing a suit unless that's what you feel most comfortable in, which is unlikely. What matters is past exam performance, the report on how hard and well a student works and in particular what grades they're predicted, and performance at interview - those three factors. That applies to all colleges. In maths they interview almost everyone. They also make far more offers than there are places, and let STEP, which is a very well-written exam (well, three exams), sort out who to take.
Interesting. The entrance exams are clearly now subject specific, which didn't used to be the case.
More likely college-specific; admissions are decided by colleges rather than faculty.
I meant for both. I don't think they had entrance exams for arts subjects.
I would find that odd - not only not my recollection from some years earlier (as an aspiring arts applicant) but also because the nature of the Oxbridge entrance exam - principally wide-ranging essay questions demanding up-market waffle by way of response - was always more suited to the non-scientific mind.
I may be misremembering slightly on that point. In my case it was for maths and we had an entrance exam which was just designed to test that you had the ability to think creatively, as well as an interview.
60 years ago (!) Oxbridge applicants at the State Grammar school I attended did a third year in the VIth, what were called Scholarship Level' A’ levels ..... S level meant something very different then ...... and IIRC had an interview. I don’t recall those of my friends who went there having a separate exam, but the Head didn’t encourage Biology students to apply, so I can’t recall any discussion about it. Those biologists who wanted to do medicine were encouraged to apply to the London Medical schools (although a good friend went to Bristol.)
The London medical schools had a higher reputation, and most Oxbridge medics did their clinical years in the London teaching hospitals anyway. More recently, the tide turned and it was felt they were too small -- the consultants went in two by two -- so there has been much consolidation and there are regional "deaneries" for specialist medical training.
One of my older teachers remembered it used to be the dullards who went on to medical school. That's changed too. (And if you go back to before the war, most doctors did not have medical degrees -- they'd qualified by the colleges' diplomas after what was basically an apprenticeship).
Depending on how pro EU you are, I'd argue that if you quite liked the way things were in this country circa 2002-04, then I think you should rank Blair last. He allowed the EU to expand and then didn't put in transition controls on migration. He sowed the seeds of Brexit.
Blair sowed the seeds of much of what's happening in British politics today.
On Blair it is a not insignificant fact that he ran a trade deficit every quarter of his entire Premiership. Despite this clear evidence of excessive demand and a consumer boom leading to dangerous levels of consumer debt he allowed his Chancellor to run pro-cyclical deficits in years of above trend growth accentuating that deficit and further encouraging consumption to the detriment of our economy and our future prosperity.
These truly disastrous policies meant the UK was terrifyingly unprepared for 2008 and our existing deficit immediately spiralled to levels never even contemplated before in peace time. By then Blair had left the bridge leaving the idiot that he had allowed to cause such damage during his Premiership in charge and his message was, "full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes." Brown was and is mad and delusional but any PM that leaves someone like that in charge of the money or the country cannot possibly rank highly.
The lies and catastrophic failures in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the lives of men whose boots he was not fit to clean and wasted the odd billion pounds but although shameful it did not have the long term negative effect on our future prosperity that the failed economic policies of growth by debt caused. The equipment failures and mismanagement of the MOD budget probably exceeded anything that we have seen since the Crimea but again in the overall picture was not the problem.
What makes Blair's failures particularly egregious is the benign legacy he was left by Major and Clarke. The contrast with what Cameron inherited and had to deal with during the term of the Coalition is stark. A ranking that has him at 3rd post war is a joke.
Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
On the international stage, it was Blair's hubris that partly led to the disastrous Middle East policy, though doubtless the Americans would have gone ahead anyway. We must remember though that this followed several successful overseas military interventions, such as Sierra Leone -- praised less than a fortnight ago by the Foreign Secretary in his conference speech.
More likely college-specific; admissions are decided by colleges rather than faculty.
I meant for both. I don't think they had entrance exams for arts subjects.
I would find that odd - not only not my recollection from some years earlier (as an aspiring arts applicant) but also because the nature of the Oxbridge entrance exam - principally wide-ranging essay questions demanding up-market waffle by way of response - was always more suited to the non-scientific mind.
I may be misremembering slightly on that point. In my case it was for maths and we had an entrance exam which was just designed to test that you had the ability to think creatively, as well as an interview.
Neither Oxford or Cambridge ask applicants for maths to write essays nowadays. Oxford give a single exam in November, before interview. Cambridge, who receive applications from far more very strong mathematicians than any other British university, give their exams, STEP, long after interview, in June.
On Blair it is a not insignificant fact that he ran a trade deficit every quarter of his entire Premiership. Despite this clear evidence of excessive demand and a consumer boom leading to dangerous levels of consumer debt he allowed his Chancellor to run pro-cyclical deficits in years of above trend growth accentuating that deficit and further encouraging consumption to the detriment of our economy and our future prosperity.
These truly disastrous policies meant the UK was terrifyingly unprepared for 2008 and our existing deficit immediately spiralled to levels never even contemplated before in peace time. By then Blair had left the bridge leaving the idiot that he had allowed to cause such damage during his Premiership in charge and his message was, "full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes." Brown was and is mad and delusional but any PM that leaves someone like that in charge of the money or the country cannot possibly rank highly.
The lies and catastrophic failures in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the lives of men whose boots he was not fit to clean and wasted the odd billion pounds but although shameful it did not have the long term negative effect on our future prosperity that the failed economic policies of growth by debt caused. The equipment failures and mismanagement of the MOD budget probably exceeded anything that we have seen since the Crimea but again in the overall picture was not the problem.
What makes Blair's failures particularly egregious is the benign legacy he was left by Major and Clarke. The contrast with what Cameron inherited and had to deal with during the term of the Coalition is stark. A ranking that has him at 3rd post war is a joke.
I have little time for Blair or Labour, but suggest you need to recognise that the economic approach you outline was essentially the consensus approach with the US (where the crisis first broke) leading the way. And that the few siren voices as the potential breaking point started to loom were LibDem or nonconformist rather than from the Tory official opposition.
The political-economic system of most of the developed west has become excessively short-term and dependent on debt, politicians finding new ways to deliver benefits now and push the cost forward for their successors to bear. You are right that New Labour were in charge in the UK whilst this was going on - but can we really say that things have changed since?
Depending on how pro EU you are, I'd argue that if you quite liked the way things were in this country circa 2002-04, then I think you should rank Blair last. He allowed the EU to expand and then didn't put in transition controls on migration. He sowed the seeds of Brexit.
Blair sowed the seeds of much of what's happening in British politics today.
I regard his 'forces of conservatism' speech as far more fascistic than anything we've heard in recent years, even post-Brexit.
Theresa May’s party, buoyed by huge support from women and older voters, has taken a 17-point lead against Labour, according to ICM, its largest while in power since 1987.
This triumph has gone almost unnoticed, for one simple reason: Elite Britain, a much smaller but hugely influential section of the population, is aghast and in open revolt. It cannot believe that the Tories are truly intent on pulling us out of the EU and that they even want to limit immigration.
In provincial, post-referendum, post-Blair/Cameron England and Wales, the Prime Minister’s style, approach and rhetoric chimes with the new mood; in Westminster, the City and Canary Wharf, her pronouncements have been met with incomprehension, anger and another substantial sell off of the pound.
60 years ago (!) Oxbridge applicants at the State Grammar school I attended did a third year in the VIth, what were called Scholarship Level' A’ levels ..... S level meant something very different then ...... and IIRC had an interview. I don’t recall those of my friends who went there having a separate exam, but the Head didn’t encourage Biology students to apply, so I can’t recall any discussion about it. Those biologists who wanted to do medicine were encouraged to apply to the London Medical schools (although a good friend went to Bristol.)
The London medical schools had a higher reputation, and most Oxbridge medics did their clinical years in the London teaching hospitals anyway. More recently, the tide turned and it was felt they were too small -- the consultants went in two by two -- so there has been much consolidation and there are regional "deaneries" for specialist medical training.
One of my older teachers remembered it used to be the dullards who went on to medical school. That's changed too. (And if you go back to before the war, most doctors did not have medical degrees -- they'd qualified by the colleges' diplomas after what was basically an apprenticeship).
Thanks, John. Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries or something like that, wasn’t it? Due to the fact that, professionally speaking, GP’s in England, Wales and I think Ireland were descended from apotrhecaries, as opposed to physicians, as in the rest of Europe (including Scotalnd).
Theresa May’s party, buoyed by huge support from women and older voters, has taken a 17-point lead against Labour, according to ICM, its largest while in power since 1987.
This triumph has gone almost unnoticed, for one simple reason: Elite Britain, a much smaller but hugely influential section of the population, is aghast and in open revolt. It cannot believe that the Tories are truly intent on pulling us out of the EU and that they even want to limit immigration.
In provincial, post-referendum, post-Blair/Cameron England and Wales, the Prime Minister’s style, approach and rhetoric chimes with the new mood; in Westminster, the City and Canary Wharf, her pronouncements have been met with incomprehension, anger and another substantial sell off of the pound.
More likely that most people know a honeymoon when they see one and the poll lead won't be a story until the dust settles? And that Labour's woe is now old old news.
And the falling £ is because the world is selling Britain rather than simply a few unhappy Remainer-traders sitting in Canary Wharf.
I have little time for Blair or Labour, but suggest you need to recognise that the economic approach you outline was essentially the consensus approach with the US (where the crisis first broke) leading the way. And that the few siren voices as the potential breaking point started to loom were LibDem or nonconformist rather than from the Tory official opposition.
The political-economic system of most of the developed west has become excessively short-term and dependent on debt, politicians finding new ways to deliver benefits now and push the cost forward for their successors to bear. You are right that New Labour were in charge in the UK whilst this was going on - but can we really say that things have changed since?
I am not saying they were alone or unique in making these mistakes but the UK was a leading example and will continue to suffer for it. Under Osborne attempts were made to bring the deficit down in very difficult circumstances with an economy that no longer had the oxygen of easy credit struggling to grow in a depressed international economy. Cameron and Osborne (with a fair bit of help from Danny Alexander) played a poor hand with consummate skill but the road back to sanity is long and arduous.
Theresa May’s party, buoyed by huge support from women and older voters, has taken a 17-point lead against Labour, according to ICM, its largest while in power since 1987.
This triumph has gone almost unnoticed, for one simple reason: Elite Britain, a much smaller but hugely influential section of the population, is aghast and in open revolt. It cannot believe that the Tories are truly intent on pulling us out of the EU and that they even want to limit immigration.
In provincial, post-referendum, post-Blair/Cameron England and Wales, the Prime Minister’s style, approach and rhetoric chimes with the new mood; in Westminster, the City and Canary Wharf, her pronouncements have been met with incomprehension, anger and another substantial sell off of the pound.
As the article makes very clear, May is failing utterly to go beyond her comfort zone. For Brexit to work, she has to lead a government which reaches out beyond the non-metropolitan Conservative party. Metropolitans may be utterly disgusting, liberal and treacherous, but they also create and own a lot of this country's wealth. Alienating them is not a great idea.
60 years ago (!) Oxbridge applicants at the State Grammar school I attended did a third year in the VIth, what were called Scholarship Level' A’ levels ..... S level meant something very different then ...... and IIRC had an interview. I don’t recall those of my friends who went there having a separate exam, but the Head didn’t encourage Biology students to apply, so I can’t recall any discussion about it. Those biologists who wanted to do medicine were encouraged to apply to the London Medical schools (although a good friend went to Bristol.)
The London medical schools had a higher reputation, and most Oxbridge medics did their clinical years in the London teaching hospitals anyway. More recently, the tide turned and it was felt they were too small -- the consultants went in two by two -- so there has been much consolidation and there are regional "deaneries" for specialist medical training.
One of my older teachers remembered it used to be the dullards who went on to medical school. That's changed too. (And if you go back to before the war, most doctors did not have medical degrees -- they'd qualified by the colleges' diplomas after what was basically an apprenticeship).
Passing by the Conjoint Boards of the Colleges, or the LMSSA did not mean not going to Medical School. It was still possible in the Eighties when I qualified.
These were all the same as Medical School finals, but run by the post graduate Colleges rather than the individual Medical Schools. The advantage was that the successful candidate could take up jobs in advance of the formal final exam, though most took them just as insurance against not passing finals and having to wait 6 months to resit. It was also a cheap form of diplomatosis, at that time costing about £25 per letter. I could have been Dr Foxinsoxuk MBBS MRCP LRCS LMSSA having only done one degree.
I think that Medical School only really became very competitive in the Sixties, prior to that it was considered a fairly solid professional career, but not really top draw. The rise of scientific medicine was a late 20th Century phenomenon.
I was offered a place at Oxford to do Chemistry, but fancied the bright lights of London for Medical School. Friends of mine who went to Oxford or Cambridge are fairly evenly divided between those who loved it and those who couldn't wait to escape, so not very different to most universities.
University is a Marmite experience. I hated much of it, nearly dropped out, but saw it through as a means to an end.
< Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
Not true. Between 1997 and 2000, the budget was in surplus and debt was reducing, partly due to tight restraints put in place by Clarke and partly due to one-off windfalls such as £47 billion for selling off various radio and TV digital frequencies. After 2000 public sector debt grew rapidly in both relative and absolute terms, partly due to the Iraq war but also due to huge public sector salary increases (headteachers' pay more than doubled in this period) which is one reason they are proving so hard to reverse. It had risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 36% in 2007, and that year we had a deficit of £50 billion. Bearing in mind rapid headline economic growth in this period, that was a sign of truly terrible financial management.
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
Theresa May’s party, buoyed by huge support from women and older voters, has taken a 17-point lead against Labour, according to ICM, its largest while in power since 1987.
This triumph has gone almost unnoticed, for one simple reason: Elite Britain, a much smaller but hugely influential section of the population, is aghast and in open revolt. It cannot believe that the Tories are truly intent on pulling us out of the EU and that they even want to limit immigration.
In provincial, post-referendum, post-Blair/Cameron England and Wales, the Prime Minister’s style, approach and rhetoric chimes with the new mood; in Westminster, the City and Canary Wharf, her pronouncements have been met with incomprehension, anger and another substantial sell off of the pound.
No more of that touchy feely focus group led crap that has so inhibited him to date. Tell it like it is Donald!
Interestingly I see that the "unshackled Trump" tweet has just been deleted from Trump's timeline. Maybe the responses it was generating were too much to bear?
< Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
Not true. Between 1997 and 2000, the budget was in surplus and debt was reducing, partly due to tight restraints put in place by Clarke and partly due to one-off windfalls such as £47 billion for selling off various radio and TV digital frequencies. After 2000 public sector debt grew rapidly in both relative and absolute terms, partly due to the Iraq war but also due to huge public sector salary increases (headteachers' pay more than doubled in this period) which is one reason they are proving so hard to reverse. It had risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 36% in 2007, and that year we had a deficit of £50 billion. Bearing in mind rapid headline economic growth in this period, that was a sign of truly terrible financial management.
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
Absolutely. Brown should be condemned not because his decisions caused the crisis but because - just as the biggest boom was building towards a very big bust - this self-claimed economic genius was hubristicly telling his public that he had single-handedly abolished both.
No more of that touchy feely focus group led crap that has so inhibited him to date. Tell it like it is Donald!
Interestingly I see that the "unshackled Trump" tweet has just been deleted from Trump's timeline. Maybe the responses it was generating were too much to bear?
Depending on how pro EU you are, I'd argue that if you quite liked the way things were in this country circa 2002-04, then I think you should rank Blair last. He allowed the EU to expand and then didn't put in transition controls on migration. He sowed the seeds of Brexit.
Blair sowed the seeds of much of what's happening in British politics today.
I regard his 'forces of conservatism' speech as far more fascistic than anything we've heard in recent years, even post-Brexit.
It's a great speech. Tackling the cancer of conservatism remains a critical task.
Some Pharmaceuticals seem to be in short supply (particularly generics) at the moment, causing us a few prescribing issues. I am told that because of the low profiteability of these lines (driven down by NHS monopoly purchasing) that the companies supply other markets instead, particularly since the fall in the value of Sterling. Any thoughts or inside knowledge of this?
< Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
Not true. Between 1997 and 2000, the budget was in surplus and debt was reducing, partly due to tight restraints put in place by Clarke and partly due to one-off windfalls such as £47 billion for selling off various radio and TV digital frequencies. After 2000 public sector debt grew rapidly in both relative and absolute terms, partly due to the Iraq war but also due to huge public sector salary increases (headteachers' pay more than doubled in this period) which is one reason they are proving so hard to reverse. It had risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 36% in 2007, and that year we had a deficit of £50 billion. Bearing in mind rapid headline economic growth in this period, that was a sign of truly terrible financial management.
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
Absolutely. Brown should be condemned not because his decisions caused the crisis but because - just as the biggest boom was building towards a very big bust - this self-claimed economic genius was hubristicly telling his public that he had single-handedly abolished both.
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
Depending on how pro EU you are, I'd argue that if you quite liked the way things were in this country circa 2002-04, then I think you should rank Blair last. He allowed the EU to expand and then didn't put in transition controls on migration. He sowed the seeds of Brexit.
Blair sowed the seeds of much of what's happening in British politics today.
I regard his 'forces of conservatism' speech as far more fascistic than anything we've heard in recent years, even post-Brexit.
It's a great speech. Tackling the cancer of conservatism remains a critical task.
Indeed. Particularly for your party. It is a real shame Blair couldn't get rid of arch-conservatives and reactionaries like Corbyn and Abbott.
(That's a serious comment, incidentally. I know how you feel about Labour right now and have every sympathy.)
< Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
Not true. Between 1997 and 2000, the budget was in surplus and debt was reducing, partly due to tight restraints put in place by Clarke and partly due to one-off windfalls such as £47 billion for selling off various radio and TV digital frequencies. After 2000 public sector debt grew rapidly in both relative and absolute terms, partly due to the Iraq war but also due to huge public sector salary increases (headteachers' pay more than doubled in this period) which is one reason they are proving so hard to reverse. It had risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 36% in 2007, and that year we had a deficit of £50 billion. Bearing in mind rapid headline economic growth in this period, that was a sign of truly terrible financial management.
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
Absolutely. Brown should be condemned not because his decisions caused the crisis but because - just as the biggest boom was building towards a very big bust - this self-claimed economic genius was hubristicly telling his public that he had single-handedly abolished both.
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
He destoyed industry, boosted casino banking, ignored infrastructure, bribed voters with benefits we couldnt afford, made the tax system incomprehensible.
Cameron and Blair will have Iraq and Europe engraved on their hearts. They will be defined by their failures. Blair's achievement was to build Britain's political consensus around social liberalism. It's similar to Reagan's greatest achievement of the shift to conservatism in the US. One tribute to the social ly liberal centre ground is Cameron as Conservative leader
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
The problem with that analysis is that he was not doing counter-cyclical spending after 2000 - he was indulging in huge pro-cyclical spending. Otherwise, how do we account for a six point (20%) rise in relative debt during a period when the economy officially near doubled in size?
Brown started well, then because he is insanely arrogant swallowed his own hype and believed he could spend without limit for ever. Those whom the gods wish to destroy...
< Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
Not true. Between 1997 and 2000, the budget was in surplus and debt was reducing, partly due to tight restraints put in place by Clarke and partly due to one-off windfalls such as £47 billion for selling off various radio and TV digital frequencies. After 2000 public sector debt grew rapidly in both relative and absolute terms, partly due to the Iraq war but also due to huge public sector salary increases (headteachers' pay more than doubled in this period) which is one reason they are proving so hard to reverse. It had risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 36% in 2007, and that year we had a deficit of £50 billion. Bearing in mind rapid headline economic growth in this period, that was a sign of truly terrible financial management.
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
Absolutely. Brown should be condemned not because his decisions caused the crisis but because - just as the biggest boom was building towards a very big bust - this self-claimed economic genius was hubristicly telling his public that he had single-handedly abolished both.
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
< Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
Not true. Between 1997 and 2000, the budget was in surplus and debt was reducing, partly due to tight restraints put in place by Clarke and partly due to one-off windfalls such as £47 billion for selling off various radio and TV digital frequencies. After 2000 public sector debt grew rapidly in both relative and absolute terms, partly due to the Iraq war but also due to huge public sector salary increases (headteachers' pay more than doubled in this period) which is one reason they are proving so hard to reverse. It had risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 36% in 2007, and that year we had a deficit of £50 billion. Bearing in mind rapid headline economic growth in this period, that was a sign of truly terrible financial management.
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
Absolutely. Brown should be condemned not because his decisions caused the crisis but because - just as the biggest boom was building towards a very big bust - this self-claimed economic genius was hubristicly telling his public that he had single-handedly abolished both.
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
Counter-cyclical spending?
Awful man. Deserves no credit. Cost god knows how much that we will be paying off for centuries.
< Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
Not true. Between 1997 and 2000, the budget was in surplus and debt was reducing, partly due to tight restraints put in place by Clarke and partly due to one-off windfalls such as £47 billion for selling off various radio and TV digital frequencies. After 2000 public sector debt grew rapidly in both relative and absolute terms, partly due to the Iraq war but also due to huge public sector salary increases (headteachers' pay more than doubled in this period) which is one reason they are proving so hard to reverse. It had risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 36% in 2007, and that year we had a deficit of £50 billion. Bearing in mind rapid headline economic growth in this period, that was a sign of truly terrible financial management.
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
Absolutely. Brown should be condemned not because his decisions caused the crisis but because - just as the biggest boom was building towards a very big bust - this self-claimed economic genius was hubristicly telling his public that he had single-handedly abolished both.
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
He destoyed industry, boosted casino banking, ignored infrastructure, bribed voters with benefits we couldnt afford, made the tax system incomprehensible.
A disaster.
He had a lot of help - the Fed was pushing a monetary policy that the world swallowed with great glee. Until it blew up.
< Before the global financial crisis, Brown had been reducing debt inherited from the Conservatives, whose benign inheritance was caused directly by the complete collapse of their economic policy (indeed, you may recall that after being forced out of the EMU, Ken Clarke remarked it was the first time he'd known a government that did not have an economic policy). Neither debt nor deficit under Blair/Brown were particularly high by historical or international standards.
Not true. Between 1997 and 2000, the budget was in surplus and debt was reducing, partly due to tight restraints put in place by Clarke and partly due to one-off windfalls such as £47 billion for selling off various radio and TV digital frequencies. After 2000 public sector debt grew rapidly in both relative and absolute terms, partly due to the Iraq war but also due to huge public sector salary increases (headteachers' pay more than doubled in this period) which is one reason they are proving so hard to reverse. It had risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 36% in 2007, and that year we had a deficit of £50 billion. Bearing in mind rapid headline economic growth in this period, that was a sign of truly terrible financial management.
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
Absolutely. Brown should be condemned not because his decisions caused the crisis but because - just as the biggest boom was building towards a very big bust - this self-claimed economic genius was hubristicly telling his public that he had single-handedly abolished both.
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
He destoyed industry, boosted casino banking, ignored infrastructure, bribed voters with benefits we couldnt afford, made the tax system incomprehensible.
A disaster.
Has any Labour Chancellor, in your eyes, ever been anything else? If not, why should Labour still be a legal Party?
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
The problem with that analysis is that he was not doing counter-cyclical spending after 2000 - he was indulging in huge pro-cyclical spending. Otherwise, how do we account for a six point (20%) rise in relative debt during a period when the economy officially near doubled in size?
Brown started well, then because he is insanely arrogant swallowed his own hype and believed he could spend without limit for ever. Those whom the gods wish to destroy...
Brown's spending after 2000 had a strong political factor:
2001 - Keep the government popular to be re-elected 2003 - Keep the government popular for Iraq war 2005 - Keep the government popular to be re-elected 2007 - Keep the government popular to become Labour leader
More likely college-specific; admissions are decided by colleges rather than faculty.
I meant for both. I don't think they had entrance exams for arts subjects.
I would find that odd - not only not my recollection from some years earlier (as an aspiring arts applicant) but also because the nature of the Oxbridge entrance exam - principally wide-ranging essay questions demanding up-market waffle by way of response - was always more suited to the non-scientific mind.
I may be misremembering slightly on that point. In my case it was for maths and we had an entrance exam which was just designed to test that you had the ability to think creatively, as well as an interview.
Neither Oxford or Cambridge ask applicants for maths to write essays nowadays. Oxford give a single exam in November, before interview. Cambridge, who receive applications from far more very strong mathematicians than any other British university, give their exams, STEP, long after interview, in June.
I think you're point about quick reactions to changed information - or reactions to entirely new material - is a key part of Oxbridge acceptance. For history mine was the first year of the newly introduced entrance test. Two interviews, one much more rigorous and detail orientated. After backing myself into a corner arguing for the tactical nous of Mussolini I'd offhandly called him a statesman; my future tutor smiled the smile of academic victory and said 'do you really think Mussolini was a great statesman given X, y and z?' - pivoting and responding 'no, I should have said an effective political operative domestically given c, d and e' with hindsight, was the smartest move of the entire few days...
More likely college-specific; admissions are decided by colleges rather than faculty.
I meant for both. I don't think they had entrance exams for arts subjects.
I would find that odd - not only not my recollection from some years earlier (as an aspiring arts applicant) but also because the nature of the Oxbridge entrance exam - principally wide-ranging essay questions demanding up-market waffle by way of response - was always more suited to the non-scientific mind.
I may be misremembering slightly on that point. In my case it was for maths and we had an entrance exam which was just designed to test that you had the ability to think creatively, as well as an interview.
Neither Oxford or Cambridge ask applicants for maths to write essays nowadays. Oxford give a single exam in November, before interview. Cambridge, who receive applications from far more very strong mathematicians than any other British university, give their exams, STEP, long after interview, in June.
I think you're point about quick reactions to changed information - or reactions to entirely new material - is a key part of Oxbridge acceptance. For history mine was the first year of the newly introduced entrance test. Two interviews, one much more rigorous and detail orientated. After backing myself into a corner arguing for the tactical nous of Mussolini I'd offhandly called him a statesman; my future tutor smiled the smile of academic victory and said 'do you really think Mussolini was a great statesman given X, y and z?' - pivoting and responding 'no, I should have said an effective political operative domestically given c, d and e' with hindsight, was the smartest move of the entire few days...
Brilliant!
Except that both you and the tutor appear to have taken A and B for granted?
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
The problem with that analysis is that he was not doing counter-cyclical spending after 2000 - he was indulging in huge pro-cyclical spending. Otherwise, how do we account for a six point (20%) rise in relative debt during a period when the economy officially near doubled in size?
Brown started well, then because he is insanely arrogant swallowed his own hype and believed he could spend without limit for ever. Those whom the gods wish to destroy...
Brown's spending after 2000 had a strong political factor:
2001 - Keep the government popular to be re-elected 2003 - Keep the government popular for Iraq war 2005 - Keep the government popular to be re-elected 2007 - Keep the government popular to become Labour leader
If you read the various biographies about the early years in government, you'd realise that your 2007 line applies to all the others as well. Everything Brown did was about Brown becoming PM.
Yes but can they subpoena during the next three weeks before the election? Trump is presumably suing to warn off the others. After that, he can settle.
Mr. B2, because it's sourced entirely in the UK, you mean?
No, that would relate to cost, not price.
The elasticity of price is about how sensitive demand is to changes in price - if you halve the price would you sell a lot more? If you double the price would you sell a lot less?
Inelastic products are where the answers to both are 'not so much'. A food product that its consumers love and everyone else hates is a classic case!
In which case the price increase is entirely logical, economically.
Edit/Particularly as they have just one factory which looks to be old; probably flexing production significantly up or down would be difficult for them in the short term, anyway.
More likely college-specific; admissions are decided by colleges rather than faculty.
I meant for both. I don't think they had entrance exams for arts subjects.
I would find that odd - not only not my recollection from some years earlier (as an aspiring arts applicant) but also because the nature of the Oxbridge entrance exam - principally wide-ranging essay questions demanding up-market waffle by way of response - was always more suited to the non-scientific mind.
I may be misremembering slightly on that point. In my case it was for maths and we had an entrance exam which was just designed to test that you had the ability to think creatively, as well as an interview.
Neither Oxford or Cambridge ask applicants for maths to write essays nowadays. Oxford give a single exam in November, before interview. Cambridge, who receive applications from far more very strong mathematicians than any other British university, give their exams, STEP, long after interview, in June.
I think you're point about quick reactions to changed information - or reactions to entirely new material - is a key part of Oxbridge acceptance. For history mine was the first year of the newly introduced entrance test. Two interviews, one much more rigorous and detail orientated. After backing myself into a corner arguing for the tactical nous of Mussolini I'd offhandly called him a statesman; my future tutor smiled the smile of academic victory and said 'do you really think Mussolini was a great statesman given X, y and z?' - pivoting and responding 'no, I should have said an effective political operative domestically given c, d and e' with hindsight, was the smartest move of the entire few days...
Brilliant!
Except that both you and the tutor appear to have taken A and B for granted?
Best academic lesson that actually studying there gave me was to write more simply. It gets a bit tedious having essays handed back with comments like 'your writing is tortuous'. The best practical lesson was to have the confidence to wade into a situation, learn quickly and provide insights. I'm sort of surprise more historians don't become consultants - it is tremendous training...
Still, could have been worse. A lawyer pal had a comment along the lines of 'you write like a 4 year old'.
I wonder how long it will be before British people are a minority in Remainastan:
' Net change from internal migration can be in both directions. As a whole there was a net flow from city regions to the Rest of the UK, with Greater London in particular having a large net outflow. However, some city regions, especially Bristol and Edinburgh, had net inflow.
All areas saw a population gain from international migration, meaning there were more immigrants than emigrants. However, the proportional increase in Greater London was more than twice that in any other city region and 3 city regions (Cardiff, Liverpool and Glasgow) had a lower proportional increase than the Rest of the UK.
...
On internal migration estimates too Greater London is distinctive, as demonstrated in Figure 4. Its net internal migration outflow between mid-2011 and mid-2015 was equivalent to 3.1% of its mid-2011 population; this was more than 3 times greater than for West Midlands, the city region with the next highest net outflow rate. Bristol had the highest net inflow rate over this period, at 1.4% of its mid-2011 population. '
Renting a room in a flat above a Lambeth shop or Hackney takeaway might be the dream of immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Third World. But I suspect the average British person would rather own their own semi detached in Blueland.
More likely college-specific; admissions are decided by colleges rather than faculty.
I meant for both. I don't think they had entrance exams for arts subjects.
I would find that odd - not only not my recollection from some years earlier (as an aspiring arts applicant) but also because the nature of the Oxbridge entrance exam - principally wide-ranging essay questions demanding up-market waffle by way of response - was always more suited to the non-scientific mind.
I may be misremembering slightly on that point. In my case it was for maths and we had an entrance exam which was just designed to test that you had the ability to think creatively, as well as an interview.
Neither Oxford or Cambridge ask applicants for maths to write essays nowadays. Oxford give a single exam in November, before interview. Cambridge, who receive applications from far more very strong mathematicians than any other British university, give their exams, STEP, long after interview, in June.
I think you're point about quick reactions to changed information - or reactions to entirely new material - is a key part of Oxbridge acceptance. For history mine was the first year of the newly introduced entrance test. Two interviews, one much more rigorous and detail orientated. After backing myself into a corner arguing for the tactical nous of Mussolini I'd offhandly called him a statesman; my future tutor smiled the smile of academic victory and said 'do you really think Mussolini was a great statesman given X, y and z?' - pivoting and responding 'no, I should have said an effective political operative domestically given c, d and e' with hindsight, was the smartest move of the entire few days...
Brilliant!
Except that both you and the tutor appear to have taken A and B for granted?
Best academic lesson that actually studying there gave me was to write more simply. It gets a bit tedious having essays handed back with comments like 'your writing is tortuous'. The best practical lesson was to have the confidence to wade into a situation, learn quickly and provide insights. I'm sort of surprise more historians don't become consultants - it is tremendous training...
Still, could have been worse. A lawyer pal had a comment along the lines of 'you write like a 4 year old'.
Yeah, and the ability quickly to get to the nub of the matter. As Churchill once said, "I am sorry that this letter is so long; I don't have time to write a short one".
Yes but can they subpoena during the next three weeks before the election? Trump is presumably suing to warn off the others. After that, he can settle.
He's not actually suing tho is he? just writing a letter
Yes but can they subpoena during the next three weeks before the election? Trump is presumably suing to warn off the others. After that, he can settle.
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
May I present the current structural budget deficit built upon working tax credits. May I present the sheer number of Eastern Europeans here with children on working tax credits - this is probably the reason behind the leave vote. And that's before I look back to 97 and the stamp duty changes that were the initial cause of the destruction of final salary pensions. You can argue that they were not viable in the long term but you can point at least one trigger to Brown's changes.
I think history will regard Brown as one of the worst chancellors of all time.
Presently Trump's "Rust Belt Plus" strategy is in tatters. Pennsylvania and Michigan have deserted him. New Hampshire has gone, Trump has pulled out of Virginia, Ohio is trending Clinton as is Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona. His one brighter spot in Iowa is teetering too.
There is no path to 270 as the race stands for the Donald.
Mr. Mortimer, yeah, it's an issue in fiction writing too. Can vary a bit, but I generally go for minimal description for Sir Edric and a bit more for the 'serious' stuff. [In the first four stories, two unpublished, of Sir Edric, I haven't yet described his manservant's age, race, height, build, hair or any other feature beyond being an adult male. Nobody's pointed to it as a flaw, so far].
Best academic lesson that actually studying there gave me was to write more simply. It gets a bit tedious having essays handed back with comments like 'your writing is tortuous'. The best practical lesson was to have the confidence to wade into a situation, learn quickly and provide insights. I'm sort of surprise more historians don't become consultants - it is tremendous training...
On that note, some say it was Guy Burgess's Oxford history training that made him such an asset -- he could quickly absorb and summarise new information and deduce how the diplomatic winds were blowing. Shame he was working for the KGB really.
The bust that came had little to do with the economic cycle that Brown thought he had tamed through counter-cyclical spending. Brown should be condemned for PFI but was otherwise one of our better chancellors.
May I present the current structural deficit built upon working tax credits. May I present the sheer number of Eastern Europeans here with children on working tax credits. And that's before I look back to 97 and the stamp duty changes that were the initial cause of the destruction of final salary pensions. You can argue that they were not viable in the long term but you can point at least one trigger to Brown's changes.
I think history will regard Brown as one of the worst chancellors of all time.
The malign meme of 'my property is my pension' took hold during the Brown years as well.
Re Unilever, there's an opportunity for UK based manufacturers to re-light the 'Made in Britain' campaign. Fly the flag!
I suspect this will be an eye opener for many people as to how much stuff is imported.
And they'll wonder who gained from shifting the production of so many 'British' brands abroad.
The problem is that for a great deal of stuff, and particularly complex consumer items, the concept of what is made here and abroad is rather elastic.
Is a radio assembled in this country from parts made abroad 'British'? Are the first few Hitachi trains, assembled at Newton Aycliffe fro components imported from Japan, British?
If someone want anything including electronics to be fully 'British' then they're out of luck. We're not well known for our fab plants ...
Presently Trump's "Rust Belt Plus" strategy is in tatters. Pennsylvania and Michigan have deserted him. New Hampshire has gone, Trump has pulled out of Virginia, Ohio is trending Clinton as is Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona. His one brighter spot in Iowa is teetering too.
There is no path to 270 as the race stands for the Donald.
Trump needs one of these Wikileaks email surprises to contain anything even slightly surprising about Hillary. So far they've all been overhyped (not least by Trump's own pb PR team) damp squibs.
Re Unilever, there's an opportunity for UK based manufacturers to re-light the 'Made in Britain' campaign. Fly the flag!
I suspect this will be an eye opener for many people as to how much stuff is imported.
And they'll wonder who gained from shifting the production of so many 'British' brands abroad.
The problem is that for a great deal of stuff, and particularly complex consumer items, the concept of what is made here and abroad is rather elastic.
Is a radio assembled in this country from parts made abroad 'British'? Are the first few Hitachi trains, assembled at Newton Aycliffe fro components imported from Japan, British?
If someone want anything including electronics to be fully 'British' then they're out of luck. We're not well known for our fab plants ...
Certainly engineering has always had a dispersed and international component chain.
And few people are going to regard Hitachi as a British brand. Or Toyota and Nissan for that matter.
But there will be plenty who thought Colman's Mustard was made in Norfolk.
Comments
.....the hot-mic tape displaying Donald Trump as a brutal, vile, woman-despising, sexually predatory vulgarian suddenly has set the elders of the Republican Party off to war with him.
.......Why should this previously hidden mean-minded monologue mean more than all the other countless unhidden ones, which have already shown Trump to be a brutal, vile vulgarian? Mexican “rapists,” “she gained a massive amount of weight,” “blood coming out of her wherever”—all of these and more Paul Ryan and the rest passed by untroubled, until “grab them by the pussy”...
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-narcissist-creep-loser
http://jackofkent.com/2016/10/the-four-tensions-of-brexit/
These truly disastrous policies meant the UK was terrifyingly unprepared for 2008 and our existing deficit immediately spiralled to levels never even contemplated before in peace time. By then Blair had left the bridge leaving the idiot that he had allowed to cause such damage during his Premiership in charge and his message was, "full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes." Brown was and is mad and delusional but any PM that leaves someone like that in charge of the money or the country cannot possibly rank highly.
The lies and catastrophic failures in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the lives of men whose boots he was not fit to clean and wasted the odd billion pounds but although shameful it did not have the long term negative effect on our future prosperity that the failed economic policies of growth by debt caused. The equipment failures and mismanagement of the MOD budget probably exceeded anything that we have seen since the Crimea but again in the overall picture was not the problem.
What makes Blair's failures particularly egregious is the benign legacy he was left by Major and Clarke. The contrast with what Cameron inherited and had to deal with during the term of the Coalition is stark. A ranking that has him at 3rd post war is a joke.
One of my older teachers remembered it used to be the dullards who went on to medical school. That's changed too. (And if you go back to before the war, most doctors did not have medical degrees -- they'd qualified by the colleges' diplomas after what was basically an apprenticeship).
All sense had left the building
On the international stage, it was Blair's hubris that partly led to the disastrous Middle East policy, though doubtless the Americans would have gone ahead anyway. We must remember though that this followed several successful overseas military interventions, such as Sierra Leone -- praised less than a fortnight ago by the Foreign Secretary in his conference speech.
The political-economic system of most of the developed west has become excessively short-term and dependent on debt, politicians finding new ways to deliver benefits now and push the cost forward for their successors to bear. You are right that New Labour were in charge in the UK whilst this was going on - but can we really say that things have changed since?
.@realDonaldTrump issues demand for retraction to Carlos Slim's blog (NYT) for defamatory & false article https://t.co/M01NewmOvI
This triumph has gone almost unnoticed, for one simple reason: Elite Britain, a much smaller but hugely influential section of the population, is aghast and in open revolt. It cannot believe that the Tories are truly intent on pulling us out of the EU and that they even want to limit immigration.
In provincial, post-referendum, post-Blair/Cameron England and Wales, the Prime Minister’s style, approach and rhetoric chimes with the new mood; in Westminster, the City and Canary Wharf, her pronouncements have been met with incomprehension, anger and another substantial sell off of the pound.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/brexit-has-revealed-that-britain-is-two-countries-both-getting-i/
And the falling £ is because the world is selling Britain rather than simply a few unhappy Remainer-traders sitting in Canary Wharf.
These were all the same as Medical School finals, but run by the post graduate Colleges rather than the individual Medical Schools. The advantage was that the successful candidate could take up jobs in advance of the formal final exam, though most took them just as insurance against not passing finals and having to wait 6 months to resit. It was also a cheap form of diplomatosis, at that time costing about £25 per letter. I could have been Dr Foxinsoxuk MBBS MRCP LRCS LMSSA having only done one degree.
I think that Medical School only really became very competitive in the Sixties, prior to that it was considered a fairly solid professional career, but not really top draw. The rise of scientific medicine was a late 20th Century phenomenon.
I was offered a place at Oxford to do Chemistry, but fancied the bright lights of London for Medical School. Friends of mine who went to Oxford or Cambridge are fairly evenly divided between those who loved it and those who couldn't wait to escape, so not very different to most universities.
University is a Marmite experience. I hated much of it, nearly dropped out, but saw it through as a means to an end.
No more of that touchy feely focus group led crap that has so inhibited him to date. Tell it like it is Donald!
As an aside, although national debt was indeed low by historic standards the massive amount of private debt generated at the same time by massive mortgages in particular meant the economy as a whole was far more highly leveraged than in e.g. The 1950s.
Yes, it is true this was an international phenomenon. But that doesn't really let Brown off given that he posed as the man who had insulated Britain from the worst financial shocks, when what he was really doing by his policies was buying off short term trouble with the near certainty of long term catastrophe, which because of his hubris and lack of understanding of basic economics he simply could not see coming.
https://twitter.com/JoshRosenau/status/786401899171811328
Some Pharmaceuticals seem to be in short supply (particularly generics) at the moment, causing us a few prescribing issues. I am told that because of the low profiteability of these lines (driven down by NHS monopoly purchasing) that the companies supply other markets instead, particularly since the fall in the value of Sterling. Any thoughts or inside knowledge of this?
(That's a serious comment, incidentally. I know how you feel about Labour right now and have every sympathy.)
A disaster.
Brown started well, then because he is insanely arrogant swallowed his own hype and believed he could spend without limit for ever. Those whom the gods wish to destroy...
2001 - Keep the government popular to be re-elected
2003 - Keep the government popular for Iraq war
2005 - Keep the government popular to be re-elected
2007 - Keep the government popular to become Labour leader
Clinton 47 .. Trump 33
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/12/presidential-poll-michigan/91964392/
New Hampshire - PPP - Sample 600 - 7-9 Oct
Clinton 49 .. Trump 37
Nevada - PPP - Sample 983 - 10-11 Oct
Clinton 47 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NV_101216.pdf
A crucial blow has been struck against the Yeastian heretics! Huzzah for Tesco!
[Not fussed either way by Marmite, but do find the story quite interesting].
Except that both you and the tutor appear to have taken A and B for granted?
And then when he got the job:
http://allcartooncharacters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Wile-E-Coyote-To-Catch-Road-Runner-01.jpg
Clinton 44.4 .. Trump 44.0
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
The elasticity of price is about how sensitive demand is to changes in price - if you halve the price would you sell a lot more? If you double the price would you sell a lot less?
Inelastic products are where the answers to both are 'not so much'. A food product that its consumers love and everyone else hates is a classic case!
In which case the price increase is entirely logical, economically.
Edit/Particularly as they have just one factory which looks to be old; probably flexing production significantly up or down would be difficult for them in the short term, anyway.
Best academic lesson that actually studying there gave me was to write more simply. It gets a bit tedious having essays handed back with comments like 'your writing is tortuous'. The best practical lesson was to have the confidence to wade into a situation, learn quickly and provide insights. I'm sort of surprise more historians don't become consultants - it is tremendous training...
Still, could have been worse. A lawyer pal had a comment along the lines of 'you write like a 4 year old'.
' Net change from internal migration can be in both directions. As a whole there was a net flow from city regions to the Rest of the UK, with Greater London in particular having a large net outflow. However, some city regions, especially Bristol and Edinburgh, had net inflow.
All areas saw a population gain from international migration, meaning there were more immigrants than emigrants. However, the proportional increase in Greater London was more than twice that in any other city region and 3 city regions (Cardiff, Liverpool and Glasgow) had a lower proportional increase than the Rest of the UK.
...
On internal migration estimates too Greater London is distinctive, as demonstrated in Figure 4. Its net internal migration outflow between mid-2011 and mid-2015 was equivalent to 3.1% of its mid-2011 population; this was more than 3 times greater than for West Midlands, the city region with the next highest net outflow rate. Bristol had the highest net inflow rate over this period, at 1.4% of its mid-2011 population. '
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/populationdynamicsofukcityregionssincemid2011/2016-10-11#components-of-population-change
Renting a room in a flat above a Lambeth shop or Hackney takeaway might be the dream of immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Third World. But I suspect the average British person would rather own their own semi detached in Blueland.
May I present the sheer number of Eastern Europeans here with children on working tax credits - this is probably the reason behind the leave vote.
And that's before I look back to 97 and the stamp duty changes that were the initial cause of the destruction of final salary pensions. You can argue that they were not viable in the long term but you can point at least one trigger to Brown's changes.
I think history will regard Brown as one of the worst chancellors of all time.
And they'll wonder who gained from shifting the production of so many 'British' brands abroad.
Presently Trump's "Rust Belt Plus" strategy is in tatters. Pennsylvania and Michigan have deserted him. New Hampshire has gone, Trump has pulled out of Virginia, Ohio is trending Clinton as is Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona. His one brighter spot in Iowa is teetering too.
There is no path to 270 as the race stands for the Donald.
Mr. Mortimer, yeah, it's an issue in fiction writing too. Can vary a bit, but I generally go for minimal description for Sir Edric and a bit more for the 'serious' stuff. [In the first four stories, two unpublished, of Sir Edric, I haven't yet described his manservant's age, race, height, build, hair or any other feature beyond being an adult male. Nobody's pointed to it as a flaw, so far].
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835447/Scotland-s-bigger-economic-basket-case-Greece.html
Is a radio assembled in this country from parts made abroad 'British'? Are the first few Hitachi trains, assembled at Newton Aycliffe fro components imported from Japan, British?
If someone want anything including electronics to be fully 'British' then they're out of luck. We're not well known for our fab plants ...
It won't be a toss up state until Breitbart says it is.
Terrorism, the economy and not being purged has to be high on the list of worry's of ever Turk not just the ones I know.
He just doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word.
Unlike Clinton, who was firmly told 'no' by the Democratic establishment in 2008.
If only Scotland was independent.....
That's incredible. And he's in charge of international trade?
And few people are going to regard Hitachi as a British brand. Or Toyota and Nissan for that matter.
But there will be plenty who thought Colman's Mustard was made in Norfolk.
Anyone else watch the piece on Sky news this morning
"rising transport costs" - remind me of the price of marmite when fuel was much higher priced than it is now.