It's an excellent article. The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river. Managed decline and asset stripping. And New Labour was happy to confer its assent through continuity policies. How can you take back control over this?
What will happen when the CDEs realise they've been duped again by Bozo and assorted other demagogues? How do you deliver the outcome they want, which is better jobs, with higher pay? A question I've asked on here repeatedly in various guises and only had 1-2 attempts at an answer.
I'm intrigued by your description of the UK post-1977 - one of the world's most successful economies in that time - as "asset stripping"...
Be serious... The story of GEC is virtually the text book of how to destroy a successful company by short termism and asset stripping. And that's just one example. Austin Rover is another equally sad one. BHS more recent.
Oh, the City prospered but look at the cost? Levered to buggery, endless austerity and a housing market overvalued by 100% that we can't afford to reboot. Very successful!
You know where to look to see a well run economy, and they had to absorb the transformation of the East.
Mr. Eagles, Rachel's fault. You can't call for a break then complain when you get a break. It's like hosting an orgy and complaining your husband's sleeping with someone else.
It ain't over until she changes her relationship status on Facebook.
It's amazing how much 'old' telly, even a few decades old is now completely outdated by modern tech. About 90% of old comedy and probably 95% of old dedective shows simply don't work in this day and age of mobiles, internet social media etc.
I wish twitter existed when The West Wing was on.
Just imagine Toby's reaction to stuff said on Twitter.
... The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river...
We run a welfare state (=fiscal deficit) and a huge trade deficit. Trade deficits demand asset sales - simple but uncomfortable economic reality. We badly need to trade more and import less. Maybe British industry is too short-termist? Deciding to leave the EU appears to have helped a lot as Sterling is weaker now (reversion to true value). If you deplore asset sales then agitate for increased competitiveness. A good place to start understanding that is the World Economic Forum competitiveness index. We do reasonably well but are hampered by excessive borrowing (welfare state drag) and affordability (things like a minimum wage set above true value - which is, in turn, impacted by cheap labour immigration). Personally I think many governments could do a lot worse than setting themselves WEFCI targets and focus policy on precisely those things which drive the index score.
Lots of EV chat this morning. I've been driving a Leaf since 2013, bought second hand at a good price. Don't buy a new one, the depreciation is brutal. I love it - mainly used for the 15 mile commute and running around at weekends. Beautifully smooth and quiet, very cheap to run, fast away when you need it to be, most enjoyable car I've ever had.
I won't buy another ICE (internal combustion engine) car.
It's an excellent article. The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river. Managed decline and asset stripping. And New Labour was happy to confer its assent through continuity policies. How can you take back control over this?
What will happen when the CDEs realise they've been duped again by Bozo and assorted other demagogues? How do you deliver the outcome they want, which is better jobs, with higher pay? A question I've asked on here repeatedly in various guises and only had 1-2 attempts at an answer.
I'm intrigued by your description of the UK post-1977 - one of the world's most successful economies in that time - as "asset stripping"...
Be serious... The story of GEC is virtually the text book of how to destroy a successful company by short termism and asset stripping.
I didn't realise that it was Tory philosophy that caused the retirement and death of Arnold Weinstock.
Lots of EV chat this morning. I've been driving a Leaf since 2013, bought second hand at a good price. Don't buy a new one, the depreciation is brutal. I love it - mainly used for the 15 mile commute and running around at weekends. Beautifully smooth and quiet, very cheap to run, fast away when you need it to be, most enjoyable car I've ever had.
I won't buy another ICE (internal combustion engine) car.
I expect the solution will actually be personal electic cars for local travel, and bookable driverless petrol cars for longer trips.
It's an excellent article. The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river. Managed decline and asset stripping. And New Labour was happy to confer its assent through continuity policies. How can you take back control over this?
What will happen when the CDEs realise they've been duped again by Bozo and assorted other demagogues? How do you deliver the outcome they want, which is better jobs, with higher pay? A question I've asked on here repeatedly in various guises and only had 1-2 attempts at an answer.
I'm intrigued by your description of the UK post-1977 - one of the world's most successful economies in that time - as "asset stripping"...
Be serious... The story of GEC is virtually the text book of how to destroy a successful company by short termism and asset stripping.
I didn't realise that it was Tory philosophy that caused the retirement and death of Arnold Weinstock.
Don't be obtuse.. was GEC not destroyed by short termism and asset stripping?
Third - Like the car manufacturers when Jezza has banned petrol cars!
It's another example of people betting the future on technology that isn't here yet. Yes, there are electric cars, but the ones that exist are at neither the price point or performance (e.g. range) to replace fossil-fuelled cars.
I'm struggling to think of when an inferior technology last replaced a superior one (at least from the consumers' point of view).
Also, are all petrol cars banned, or only new ones from being registered? If the former there'll be chaos and uproar. If the latter then grandfather rights will make cars purchased immediately before the ban rather valuable.
The focus at the moment should be on getting the diesel killers off the roads which is what Sadiq Khan is pressing for in London.
I confess i have a diesel at the moment, but i'll be changing back to petrol one next year.
My Spitfire only runs on 4*. Thankfully, it's in bits right now so this isn't a problem
*has image of Merlin engine in bits over the kitchen table....*
It's an excellent article. The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river. Managed decline and asset stripping. And New Labour was happy to confer its assent through continuity policies. How can you take back control over this?
What will happen when the CDEs realise they've been duped again by Bozo and assorted other demagogues? How do you deliver the outcome they want, which is better jobs, with higher pay? A question I've asked on here repeatedly in various guises and only had 1-2 attempts at an answer.
I'm intrigued by your description of the UK post-1977 - one of the world's most successful economies in that time - as "asset stripping"...
Be serious... The story of GEC is virtually the text book of how to destroy a successful company by short termism and asset stripping.
I didn't realise that it was Tory philosophy that caused the retirement and death of Arnold Weinstock.
Don't be obtuse.. was GEC not destroyed by short termism and asset stripping?
Of course, but blaming the Tories/Thatcher, rather than the management of the company is a bit like blaming the EU for the failings of the UK - it's misdirection. Business culture is influenced by the whole of society so to that extent we all have to take some responsibility.
Lots of EV chat this morning. I've been driving a Leaf since 2013, bought second hand at a good price. Don't buy a new one, the depreciation is brutal. I love it - mainly used for the 15 mile commute and running around at weekends. Beautifully smooth and quiet, very cheap to run, fast away when you need it to be, most enjoyable car I've ever had.
I won't buy another ICE (internal combustion engine) car.
I expect the solution will actually be personal electic cars for local travel, and bookable driverless petrol cars for longer trips.
Long distance will be trains and bookable driverless electric Ubers for either end.
Here's that scenario I posted earlier with a "Labour split", which I've just noticed EC have added*. Adjusted to include some LD/Con gains off the SNP, since EC won't let you do both at once.
You can see why the PLP are leery: Con Maj 194.
CON 41% 422
LAB 18% 108
LIB 13% 17
UKIP 8% 0
Green 3% 1
SNP 5% 50
PlaidC 1% 4
NewLAB 10% 28
N.Ire 18
*The original official Labour party ('LAB') and the new breakaway party (called 'NewLAB' for short) are shown separately. The model is based in each seat on a random simulation of Labour votes between the old and new parties, and it is not yet possible to give a definite seat-by-seat prediction or show changed seats.
Third - Like the car manufacturers when Jezza has banned petrol cars!
It's another example of people betting the future on technology that isn't here yet. Yes, there are electric cars, but the ones that exist are at neither the price point or performance (e.g. range) to replace fossil-fuelled cars.
I'm struggling to think of when an inferior technology last replaced a superior one (at least from the consumers' point of view).
Also, are all petrol cars banned, or only new ones from being registered? If the former there'll be chaos and uproar. If the latter then grandfather rights will make cars purchased immediately before the ban rather valuable.
The focus at the moment should be on getting the diesel killers off the roads which is what Sadiq Khan is pressing for in London.
I confess i have a diesel at the moment, but i'll be changing back to petrol one next year.
My Spitfire only runs on 4*. Thankfully, it's in bits right now so this isn't a problem
*has image of Merlin engine in bits over the kitchen table....*
Trump's choice of SoS is inspired. Who better to negotiate a new relationship with Russia than someone who understands the real power structures of their cronyistic energy business?
Lots of EV chat this morning. I've been driving a Leaf since 2013, bought second hand at a good price. Don't buy a new one, the depreciation is brutal. I love it - mainly used for the 15 mile commute and running around at weekends. Beautifully smooth and quiet, very cheap to run, fast away when you need it to be, most enjoyable car I've ever had.
I won't buy another ICE (internal combustion engine) car.
I expect the solution will actually be personal electic cars for local travel, and bookable driverless petrol cars for longer trips.
Long distance will be trains and bookable driverless electric Ubers for either end.
That's what I've been saying for some time: usage and ownership patterns will change when automated cars become dominant.
It's an excellent article. The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river. Managed decline and asset stripping. And New Labour was happy to confer its assent through continuity policies. How can you take back control over this?
What will happen when the CDEs realise they've been duped again by Bozo and assorted other demagogues? How do you deliver the outcome they want, which is better jobs, with higher pay? A question I've asked on here repeatedly in various guises and only had 1-2 attempts at an answer.
I'm intrigued by your description of the UK post-1977 - one of the world's most successful economies in that time - as "asset stripping"...
Be serious... The story of GEC is virtually the text book of how to destroy a successful company by short termism and asset stripping.
I didn't realise that it was Tory philosophy that caused the retirement and death of Arnold Weinstock.
Don't be obtuse.. was GEC not destroyed by short termism and asset stripping?
Of course, but blaming the Tories/Thatcher, rather than the management of the company is a bit like blaming the EU for the failings of the UK - it's misdirection. Business culture is influenced by the whole of society so to that extent we all have to take some responsibility.
Thatcherism created the business - and if you like societal - culture that resulted in changes to how businesses operated. From the long-term, essentially staid, and I grant you perhaps complacent way of doing things, to one where executives and managers have sought to enrich themselves in the short term at the expense of their companies long term future, and in more recent times this has sometimes appeared to be against their shareholders interests. I accept it's arguable whether the times created Thatcherism or vv but either way the effects have ultimately been felt in communities and are now being manifested in Brexit.
Germany has managed this transition better, through better governance. France through backdoor protectionism and consumer loyalty. Britain has played zero sum, the shelves are empty, and the Brexiteers are now tasked with sorting it out. Good luck to thrm, the people of the north are expecting better, not worse.
Don't be obtuse.. was GEC not destroyed by short termism and asset stripping?
No, it wasn't, as it happens. It was destroyed by an idiotic attempt at expansion - over-paying by a ludicrous degree for a company that wasn't worth it - rather like RBS. Pretty much the opposite of asset-stripping and short-termism.
In any case, why would the fate of just one company be evidence for your proposition? Of the top of my head I can cite lots of UK companies which have been extremely well-managed and have grown accordingly over the long-term, for example Vodafone, National Grid, Compass, Unilever (Anglo-Dutch), Reckeitt Benckiser (also Ango-Dutch now), Prudential, etc etc.
Third - Like the car manufacturers when Jezza has banned petrol cars!
It's another example of people betting the future on technology that isn't here yet. Yes, there are electric cars, but the ones that exist are at neither the price point or performance (e.g. range) to replace fossil-fuelled cars.
I'm struggling to think of when an inferior technology last replaced a superior one (at least from the consumers' point of view).
Also, are all petrol cars banned, or only new ones from being registered? If the former there'll be chaos and uproar. If the latter then grandfather rights will make cars purchased immediately before the ban rather valuable.
The focus at the moment should be on getting the diesel killers off the roads which is what Sadiq Khan is pressing for in London.
I confess i have a diesel at the moment, but i'll be changing back to petrol one next year.
My Spitfire only runs on 4*. Thankfully, it's in bits right now so this isn't a problem
*has image of Merlin engine in bits over the kitchen table....*
Stranger things have happened.
(Snip)
A working 1/5 scale one:
Looks a lovely piece of work, though shame about the sound. A lot easier to start than a 5000cc twin I imagine.
Don't be obtuse.. was GEC not destroyed by short termism and asset stripping?
No, it wasn't, as it happens. It was destroyed by an idiotic attempt at expansion - over-paying by a ludicrous degree for a company that wasn't worth it - rather like RBS. Pretty much the opposite of asset-stripping.
In any case, why would the fate of just one company be evidence for your proposition? Of the top of my head I can cite lots of UK companies which have been extremely well-managed and have grown accordingly over the long-term, for example Vodafone, National Grid, Compass, Unilever (Anglo-Dutch), Reckeitt Benckiser (also Ango-Dutch now), Prudential, etc etc.
Vodafone until the Italian asset stripper arrived!
Lots of EV chat this morning. I've been driving a Leaf since 2013, bought second hand at a good price. Don't buy a new one, the depreciation is brutal. I love it - mainly used for the 15 mile commute and running around at weekends. Beautifully smooth and quiet, very cheap to run, fast away when you need it to be, most enjoyable car I've ever had.
I won't buy another ICE (internal combustion engine) car.
I expect the solution will actually be personal electic cars for local travel, and bookable driverless petrol cars for longer trips.
Long distance will be trains and bookable driverless electric Ubers for either end.
That's what I've been saying for some time: usage and ownership patterns will change when automated cars become dominant.
I think this is more like a 2050 possibly scenario, rather than 2030 mind.
Lots of EV chat this morning. I've been driving a Leaf since 2013, bought second hand at a good price. Don't buy a new one, the depreciation is brutal. I love it - mainly used for the 15 mile commute and running around at weekends. Beautifully smooth and quiet, very cheap to run, fast away when you need it to be, most enjoyable car I've ever had.
I won't buy another ICE (internal combustion engine) car.
I expect the solution will actually be personal electic cars for local travel, and bookable driverless petrol cars for longer trips.
Long distance will be trains and bookable driverless electric Ubers for either end.
That's what I've been saying for some time: usage and ownership patterns will change when automated cars become dominant.
I think this is more like a 2050 possibly scenario, rather than 2030 mind.
I'd agree with that. I think I've mentioned my views on the immediate prospects for self-drive cars enough.
Trump's choice of SoS is inspired. Who better to negotiate a new relationship with Russia than someone who understands the real power structures of their cronyistic energy business?
An oil man should have good inside knowledge of governments in Russia, the Middle East and Nigeria.
Presumably the relevant Senate committee has been squared off, despite some ominous noises.
I'm wary of commenting too deeply, since I'd not heard of Tillerson before this week. But he certainly looks qualified for the role as Trump sees it and it will be very interesting to see how he handles the State Department, never mind the rest of the world.
It's an excellent article. The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river. Managed decline and asset stripping. And New Labour was happy to confer its assent through continuity policies. How can you take back control over this?
What will happen when the CDEs realise they've been duped again by Bozo and assorted other demagogues? How do you deliver the outcome they want, which is better jobs, with higher pay? A question I've asked on here repeatedly in various guises and only had 1-2 attempts at an answer.
I'm intrigued by your description of the UK post-1977 - one of the world's most successful economies in that time - as "asset stripping"...
Be serious... The story of GEC is virtually the text book of how to destroy a successful company by short termism and asset stripping. And that's just one example. Austin Rover is another equally sad one. BHS more recent.
Oh, the City prospered but look at the cost? Levered to buggery, endless austerity and a housing market overvalued by 100% that we can't afford to reboot. Very successful!
You know where to look to see a well run economy, and they had to absorb the transformation of the East.
" And that's just one example. Austin Rover is another equally sad one"
Sorry but that ruins the effect . AR failed due to poor models, low productivity and a toxic mix of Labour unrest/strikes/ and incompetent management.
It was NEVER "successful". When it was formed it had nearly 40% market share in the UK.. It managed to lose most of that by a series of crap models, and even worse reliability.. Quality Control did not exist for most of its life..
F1: more bibble-bobbling. Bottas remains favourite, Wehrlein close 2nd. Sainz had gone a bit longer.
Wehrlein now makes his (inexplicably late) entry onto the drivers' market (for the title). 17 isn't great compared to (as then) Bottas at 26 (currently 8) and Sainz 101.
Lots of EV chat this morning. I've been driving a Leaf since 2013, bought second hand at a good price. Don't buy a new one, the depreciation is brutal. I love it - mainly used for the 15 mile commute and running around at weekends. Beautifully smooth and quiet, very cheap to run, fast away when you need it to be, most enjoyable car I've ever had.
I won't buy another ICE (internal combustion engine) car.
EVs currently work well for those who live and work in the same town, are able to charge the car at either place and travel away infrequently enough to either go by train and taxi or to rent a car. The biggest short-term issues are the cost of the EV and the charging station network.
Driverless cars are a different subject entirely, the breakthoughs there will be in autonomous truck convoys which save fuel and labour, and when autonomous cars can drive empty - therefore can drop me at the office door before parking out of town, then returning to pick me up from the pub at the end of the evening.
Presumably the relevant Senate committee has been squared off, despite some ominous noises.
I'm wary of commenting too deeply, since I'd not heard of Tillerson before this week. But he certainly looks qualified for the role as Trump sees it and it will be very interesting to see how he handles the State Department, never mind the rest of the world.
I give him 12 months, before he finds it impossible to work with Trump. As CEO of one of the world's biggest companies his experience of how to deal with people and manage organizations will be completely different to Trump's methods of working.
If Mike is excluding Batley from his figures then he should also exclude Richmond where the Conservatives stood aside.
Would Goldsmith have got more or less votes as the Tory candidate?
FEWER not less
If Zac had been the CON candidate then UKIP would have almost certainly fielded a candidate which would have knocked 2-3% off his total. But the CON machine and database would have been available to him and it would have been closer. My guess is that he'd have won. His campaign as an independent was very much impeded by the lack of data which had a big impact on election day itself.
I wonder if we're seeing the start of the split in labour now, with the lib dems being a more moderate attractive option for the 'moderates/new labour' voters, if not the politicans (at the moment).
The question is now how far can that be taken, could the lib dems get back to the high teens and labour fall to the low 20s I wonder?
It's an excellent article. The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river. Managed decline and asset stripping. And New Labour was happy to confer its assent through continuity policies. How can you take back control over this?
What will happen when the CDEs realise they've been duped again by Bozo and assorted other demagogues? How do you deliver the outcome they want, which is better jobs, with higher pay? A question I've asked on here repeatedly in various guises and only had 1-2 attempts at an answer.
I'm intrigued by your description of the UK post-1977 - one of the world's most successful economies in that time - as "asset stripping"...
Be serious... The story of GEC is virtually the text book of how to destroy a successful company by short termism and asset stripping. And that's just one example. Austin Rover is another equally sad one. BHS more recent.
Oh, the City prospered but look at the cost? Levered to buggery, endless austerity and a housing market overvalued by 100% that we can't afford to reboot. Very successful!
You know where to look to see a well run economy, and they had to absorb the transformation of the East.
We had a GEC television back in the day. For the channels, it had six strange touch-sensitive buttons with the following headings:
BBC1, BBC2, IBA1, IBA2, an asterisk and a blank.
But, for the best picture, ITV had to be on the 'BBC2' button, BBC1 on the blank, BBC2 on 'IBA1' etc.
It's an excellent article. The entire Tory philosophy since 1977 has been sell our country's assets down the river. Managed decline and asset stripping. And New Labour was happy to confer its assent through continuity policies. How can you take back control over this?
What will happen when the CDEs realise they've been duped again by Bozo and assorted other demagogues? How do you deliver the outcome they want, which is better jobs, with higher pay? A question I've asked on here repeatedly in various guises and only had 1-2 attempts at an answer.
I'm intrigued by your description of the UK post-1977 - one of the world's most successful economies in that time - as "asset stripping"...
Be serious... The story of GEC is virtually the text book of how to destroy a successful company by short termism and asset stripping. And that's just one example. Austin Rover is another equally sad one. BHS more recent.
Oh, the City prospered but look at the cost? Levered to buggery, endless austerity and a housing market overvalued by 100% that we can't afford to reboot. Very successful!
You know where to look to see a well run economy, and they had to absorb the transformation of the East.
We had a GEC television back in the day. For the channels, it had six strange touch-sensitive buttons with the following headings:
BBC1, BBC2, IBA1, IBA2, an asterisk and a blank.
But, for the best picture, ITV had to be on the 'BBC2' button, BBC1 on the blank, BBC2 on 'IBA1' etc.
If Mike is excluding Batley from his figures then he should also exclude Richmond where the Conservatives stood aside.
Would Goldsmith have got more or less votes as the Tory candidate?
FEWER not less
If Zac had been the CON candidate then UKIP would have almost certainly fielded a candidate which would have knocked 2-3% off his total. But the CON machine and database would have been available to him and it would have been closer. My guess is that he'd have won. His campaign as an independent was very much impeded by the lack of data which had a big impact on election day itself.
Indeed, and with the expectation that Tory election expenses saga will lead to criminal in at least one seat, you can see why Tory HQ didn't want to go near that minefield in Richmond.
Presumably the relevant Senate committee has been squared off, despite some ominous noises.
That's a very persuasive article.
It's going to be a fascinating experiment in getting some heavy-hitting businessmen in to run key departments. It could go one way or the other, but many people have said that these depts are unfit for purpose right now, and at least the president-elect is willing to take a chance.
"You sent a number of seemingly reasonable requests with the apparent sole purpose of communicating rude subliminal messages in their subjects."
Applications Rejected Seeking Excessive House Of Lords Expenses Tabulated Oxfordshire Social Services Early Retirement Statistics Thames Water Added Trace Substances Bus Operators' Luggage Limits On Corby-Kettering Services
"You sent a number of seemingly reasonable requests with the apparent sole purpose of communicating rude subliminal messages in their subjects."
Applications Rejected Seeking Excessive House Of Lords Expenses Tabulated Oxfordshire Social Services Early Retirement Statistics Thames Water Added Trace Substances Bus Operators' Luggage Limits On Corby-Kettering Services
Presumably the relevant Senate committee has been squared off, despite some ominous noises.
I'm wary of commenting too deeply, since I'd not heard of Tillerson before this week. But he certainly looks qualified for the role as Trump sees it and it will be very interesting to see how he handles the State Department, never mind the rest of the world.
Very much the ambassador for America Inc. Noteworthy about Tillerson: Very close to Putin and the security services faction in Russia. Strong supporter of the Trans Pacific Partnership that Trump campaigned against - I think he will be concerned about the US competitive influence against China. Strong ties with Arab countries and therefore not particularly interested in Israel.
If Mike is excluding Batley from his figures then he should also exclude Richmond where the Conservatives stood aside.
Would Goldsmith have got more or less votes as the Tory candidate?
FEWER not less
If Zac had been the CON candidate then UKIP would have almost certainly fielded a candidate which would have knocked 2-3% off his total. But the CON machine and database would have been available to him and it would have been closer. My guess is that he'd have won. His campaign as an independent was very much impeded by the lack of data which had a big impact on election day itself.
Mike, would the counterfactual not be if the Tories had stood against Zac, given that the incumbent MP had already resigned from the party?
Do you think a Tory could have won, or would a split vote seen the LD come through even more emphatically?
Presumably the relevant Senate committee has been squared off, despite some ominous noises.
I'm wary of commenting too deeply, since I'd not heard of Tillerson before this week. But he certainly looks qualified for the role as Trump sees it and it will be very interesting to see how he handles the State Department, never mind the rest of the world.
I give him 12 months, before he finds it impossible to work with Trump. As CEO of one of the world's biggest companies his experience of how to deal with people and manage organizations will be completely different to Trump's methods of working.
6 months ago that sentiment was expressed thus:
"Even if Trump wins he'll struggle to form a Cabinet. None of the best Republicans will want to be associated with the disaster of his administration and he'll have to fill important jobs with second-rate people."
"You sent a number of seemingly reasonable requests with the apparent sole purpose of communicating rude subliminal messages in their subjects."
Applications Rejected Seeking Excessive House Of Lords Expenses Tabulated Oxfordshire Social Services Early Retirement Statistics Thames Water Added Trace Substances Bus Operators' Luggage Limits On Corby-Kettering Services
That's hillarious! I'd love to know the process by which the pattern was noticed though - complex data analysis software, or just someone pointing it out to them?
F1: more bibble-bobbling. Bottas remains favourite, Wehrlein close 2nd. Sainz had gone a bit longer.
Wehrlein now makes his (inexplicably late) entry onto the drivers' market (for the title). 17 isn't great compared to (as then) Bottas at 26 (currently 8) and Sainz 101.
It is clear that Labour are as divided over this as the rest of the country.
Personally, I now think there is a good chance there won't be a Europe Union to leave by the time we get it sorted. The Italians and French are about to blow the whole thing up.
Personally, I now think there is a good chance there won't be a Europe Union to leave by the time we get it sorted. The Italians and French are about to blow the whole thing up.
In that case why not wait and save the hassle of a negotiated exit with something that won't exist?
Needless to say I think this prediction is as wrong as your one about Trump.
F1: more bibble-bobbling. Bottas remains favourite, Wehrlein close 2nd. Sainz had gone a bit longer.
Wehrlein now makes his (inexplicably late) entry onto the drivers' market (for the title). 17 isn't great compared to (as then) Bottas at 26 (currently 8) and Sainz 101.
Personally, I now think there is a good chance there won't be a Europe Union to leave by the time we get it sorted. The Italians and French are about to blow the whole thing up.
In that case why not wait and save the hassle of a negotiated exit with something that won't exist?
Needless to say I think this prediction is as wrong as your one about Trump.
LOL. Yes, you are probably right. My predictions this year have been appalling except for the Leave vote winning, which was a handsome payout. Oh, and Ed Balls making it to the last few on Strictly.
Best result for me would be Sainz, though the stakes are super low (but the bets long odds). Bottas should be eminently hedgeable, and Wehrlein means a small instant profit.
Reasonably pleased with how things stand.
I'd prefer (if I were making the decision) Bottas to Wehrlein.
If Mike is excluding Batley from his figures then he should also exclude Richmond where the Conservatives stood aside.
Would Goldsmith have got more or less votes as the Tory candidate?
Not an option. Goldsmith was just a pillock. Who else resigns on a point of principle - only to find that all his opponents agree with him. "So - what else shall we talk about instead? Brexit?"
F1: more bibble-bobbling. Bottas remains favourite, Wehrlein close 2nd. Sainz had gone a bit longer.
Wehrlein now makes his (inexplicably late) entry onto the drivers' market (for the title). 17 isn't great compared to (as then) Bottas at 26 (currently 8) and Sainz 101.
Incidentally, some South American journalists have reported Maldonado's in the frame. [I do not give such reports huge credence...].
LOL. If Maldonado were to get it, then Hammy should stand down so Grosjean could partner him at Mercedes. I doubt Merc would ever get a car past the first corner!
Incidentally, some South American journalists have reported Maldonado's in the frame. [I do not give such reports huge credence...].
LOL. If Maldonado were to get it, then Hammy should stand down so Grosjean could partner him at Mercedes. I doubt Merc would ever get a car past the first corner!
I'm not sure there wouldn't be a fight between Hamilton and Maldonado, after what happened at Spa a few years back!
Labour didnt/dont want to fight elections- whether the referendum in June, or locals or byelections, where is the desire for power that should be evident at this stage of the electoral cycle? They even managed to turn a win in the Scottish referendum into a defeat. Labour need to start showing that they are serious about gaining votes and I think the problem goes much deeper than JC.......at least Tony looked like he wanted to win (which I am not sure Brown was good at either). Voters will or have sensed this and it is potentially terminal - not even like we have euro elections as a consolation prize to look forward to....JC and the hierarchy must start articulating a position that is meaningful in the current climate.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
"My view, and that of probably most of the population now, is that Brexit is bad for Britain"
The latest YouGov poll showed LEAVE still has the same small majority.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
Yes, 68%
It's certainly self-harming for Labour. I suggest Wolmar joins the Lib Dems given his views; Labour would be better off "backing Brexit" on democratic grounds, helping to expedite it, and waiting for things to go wrong (whether or not they can be directly attributed to Brexit).
"You sent a number of seemingly reasonable requests with the apparent sole purpose of communicating rude subliminal messages in their subjects."
Applications Rejected Seeking Excessive House Of Lords Expenses Tabulated Oxfordshire Social Services Early Retirement Statistics Thames Water Added Trace Substances Bus Operators' Luggage Limits On Corby-Kettering Services
Someone should put in a Freedom of Information request to ask how much those cost. My council tax went towards answering these:
"We were asked how many drawing pins the council owns, and how many of those are presently installed in pinboards. Others have asked how much we have spent on biscuits for council meetings or on bottled water in a year."
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Yes, remarkable. Only 31% now want to stay in the EU, after the vote.
That's the bitter reality for hardcore Remoaners. The country is firmly against them.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Yes, remarkable. Only 31% now want to stay in the EU, after the vote.
That's the bitter reality for hardcore Remoaners. The country is firmly against them.
That's the wrong way to interpret the figure. Almost a third of people in one of the oldest democracies in the world want to overturn the result of an election. That shows the depth of support for remaining in the EU, and it will only grow as the intractable problems of Brexit stubbornly refuse to go away. That's the bitter reality for starry-eyed Brexiteers.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Yes, remarkable. Only 31% now want to stay in the EU, after the vote.
That's the bitter reality for hardcore Remoaners. The country is firmly against them.
Which is why this place is not representative of real life. We have hardcore Remainers who want to stay in the EU via some undemocratic means vs leavers who would pick the least popular choice of leaving (EFTA at 17%).
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Yes, remarkable. Only 31% now want to stay in the EU, after the vote.
That's the bitter reality for hardcore Remoaners. The country is firmly against them.
That's the wrong way to interpret the figure. Almost a third of people in one of the oldest democracies in the world want to overturn the result of an election. That shows the depth of support for remaining in the EU, and it will only grow as the intractable problems of Brexit stubbornly refuse to go away. That's the bitter reality for starry-eyed Brexiteers.
Once we've left that 31% will diminish, not grow. Eventually remain turns into re-entry and that will garner just 15-20% initially and eventually under 10%.
"My view, and that of probably most of the population now, is that Brexit is bad for Britain"
The latest YouGov poll showed LEAVE still has the same small majority.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
Yes, 68%
It's certainly self-harming for Labour. I suggest Wolmar joins the Lib Dems given his views; Labour would be better off "backing Brexit" on democratic grounds, helping to expedite it, and waiting for things to go wrong (whether or not they can be directly attributed to Brexit).
Agree. I voted Labour, Remain and back Brexit on democratic grounds. There are quite a few of us.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Yes, remarkable. Only 31% now want to stay in the EU, after the vote.
That's the bitter reality for hardcore Remoaners. The country is firmly against them.
But only 26% want a hard Brexit.
Sure. I don't want hard Brexit either.
Incidentally these stats tally with my personal experience: most of my Remainer friends have accepted the vote, and - reluctantly or not - decided we must get on with it. Many of them recognise that ignoring the vote, or reversing it, would be far more damaging to British democracy and politics, and therefore Britain iself, than any economic harm done by Leaving.
The diehard Remainers are a fast dwindling minority. But noisy.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Yes, remarkable. Only 31% now want to stay in the EU, after the vote.
That's the bitter reality for hardcore Remoaners. The country is firmly against them.
That's the wrong way to interpret the figure. Almost a third of people in one of the oldest democracies in the world want to overturn the result of an election. That shows the depth of support for remaining in the EU, and it will only grow as the intractable problems of Brexit stubbornly refuse to go away. That's the bitter reality for starry-eyed Brexiteers.
Once we've left...
That's the operative clause. You still think we're leaving. The reality is that we haven't yet even made a constitutional decision to leave, let alone left.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Yes, remarkable. Only 31% now want to stay in the EU, after the vote.
That's the bitter reality for hardcore Remoaners. The country is firmly against them.
That's the wrong way to interpret the figure. Almost a third of people in one of the oldest democracies in the world want to overturn the result of an election. That shows the depth of support for remaining in the EU, and it will only grow as the intractable problems of Brexit stubbornly refuse to go away. That's the bitter reality for starry-eyed Brexiteers.
Once we've left...
That's the operative clause. You still think we're leaving. The reality is that we haven't yet even made a constitutional decision to leave, let alone left.
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Just imagine the reaction had the referendum been on those four options with that result. My guess is that some hitherto firm supporters of FPTP might be converted to that titan of electoral systems, AV!
Moreover, recent polling shows that 68% of Brits, Leave or Remain, think we should just get on with Brexiting.
From the same poll: "Asked what outcome they would most like to see, remaining in the EU is picked by 31% of people, a “hard Brexit” falling back onto WTO rules is picked by 26%, a Canada style deal by 26%, and EFTA membership by 17%. Continuing EU membership is the first choice of most of those who voted Remain in June, followed by EFTA membership."
Yes, remarkable. Only 31% now want to stay in the EU, after the vote.
That's the bitter reality for hardcore Remoaners. The country is firmly against them.
That's the wrong way to interpret the figure. Almost a third of people in one of the oldest democracies in the world want to overturn the result of an election. That shows the depth of support for remaining in the EU, and it will only grow as the intractable problems of Brexit stubbornly refuse to go away. That's the bitter reality for starry-eyed Brexiteers.
Once we've left...
That's the operative clause. You still think we're leaving. The reality is that we haven't yet even made a constitutional decision to leave, let alone left.
1. Bad. Bad. Bad. Brexit is a bad idea and we should do everything we can to stop it. The Tim Farrons.
2. We are we are. The country has voted for Brexit so we need to make it happen with the least damage possible. Phil Hammond.
3. Brexit will be great Nothing to worry about. We have a great future in front of us. No need to compromise or to do deals. We will get everything we want. David Davis.
4. We're being robbed The EU, Remoaners, the liberal elite will do everything to ensure Brexit will be a failure. Nigel Farage.
There is no consensus to proceed on. Personally I go for (2) - making the best of it. That however requires people to accept Brexit is entirely about damage limitation AND despite that it will go ahead anyway. Not an attractive line to sign up to for either Remainers or Leavers.
Comments
That said, it's hard to think of a worse leader than Corbyn. He's the Honorius of Labour.
Oh, the City prospered but look at the cost? Levered to buggery, endless austerity and a housing market overvalued by 100% that we can't afford to reboot. Very successful!
You know where to look to see a well run economy, and they had to absorb the transformation of the East.
:Places head in hands:
We run a welfare state (=fiscal deficit) and a huge trade deficit. Trade deficits demand asset sales - simple but uncomfortable economic reality. We badly need to trade more and import less. Maybe British industry is too short-termist? Deciding to leave the EU appears to have helped a lot as Sterling is weaker now (reversion to true value).
If you deplore asset sales then agitate for increased competitiveness. A good place to start understanding that is the World Economic Forum competitiveness index. We do reasonably well but are hampered by excessive borrowing (welfare state drag) and affordability (things like a minimum wage set above true value - which is, in turn, impacted by cheap labour immigration). Personally I think many governments could do a lot worse than setting themselves WEFCI targets and focus policy on precisely those things which drive the index score.
I won't buy another ICE (internal combustion engine) car.
It's Tillerson! In a Trump Cabinet that's less America First than it is Business First. All very Harding/Coolidge
His nickname T Rex is endless media trivia fodder
https://youtu.be/H70OqfF0AWY
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-12-13/argos-delivery-drivers-to-strike-for-three-days-during-run-up-to-christmas/
You can see why the PLP are leery: Con Maj 194.
CON 41% 422 LAB 18% 108 LIB 13% 17 UKIP 8% 0 Green 3% 1 SNP 5% 50 PlaidC 1% 4 NewLAB 10% 28 N.Ire 18*The original official Labour party ('LAB') and the new breakaway party (called 'NewLAB' for short) are shown separately. The model is based in each seat on a random simulation of Labour votes between the old and new parties, and it is not yet possible to give a definite seat-by-seat prediction or show changed seats.
http://bit.ly/2hzIOTn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xe1LL1IC7Y
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1022751/columns
Presumably the relevant Senate committee has been squared off, despite some ominous noises.
Germany has managed this transition better, through better governance. France through backdoor protectionism and consumer loyalty. Britain has played zero sum, the shelves are empty, and the Brexiteers are now tasked with sorting it out. Good luck to thrm, the people of the north are expecting better, not worse.
In any case, why would the fate of just one company be evidence for your proposition? Of the top of my head I can cite lots of UK companies which have been extremely well-managed and have grown accordingly over the long-term, for example Vodafone, National Grid, Compass, Unilever (Anglo-Dutch), Reckeitt Benckiser (also Ango-Dutch now), Prudential, etc etc.
Would Goldsmith have got more or less votes as the Tory candidate?
Cooler, three days.
Sorry but that ruins the effect . AR failed due to poor models, low productivity and a toxic mix of Labour unrest/strikes/ and incompetent management.
It was NEVER "successful". When it was formed it had nearly 40% market share in the UK.. It managed to lose most of that by a series of crap models, and even worse reliability.. Quality Control did not exist for most of its life..
Wehrlein now makes his (inexplicably late) entry onto the drivers' market (for the title). 17 isn't great compared to (as then) Bottas at 26 (currently 8) and Sainz 101.
Driverless cars are a different subject entirely, the breakthoughs there will be in autonomous truck convoys which save fuel and labour, and when autonomous cars can drive empty - therefore can drop me at the office door before parking out of town, then returning to pick me up from the pub at the end of the evening.
That swamp is getting darker and deeper.
The question is now how far can that be taken, could the lib dems get back to the high teens and labour fall to the low 20s I wonder?
BBC1, BBC2, IBA1, IBA2, an asterisk and a blank.
But, for the best picture, ITV had to be on the 'BBC2' button, BBC1 on the blank, BBC2 on 'IBA1' etc.
You got used to it.
Would Goldsmith have got more or less votes as the Tory candidate?
Goldsmith's votes were countable.
It's going to be a fascinating experiment in getting some heavy-hitting businessmen in to run key departments. It could go one way or the other, but many people have said that these depts are unfit for purpose right now, and at least the president-elect is willing to take a chance.
"You sent a number of seemingly reasonable requests with the apparent sole purpose of communicating rude subliminal messages in their subjects."
Applications Rejected Seeking Excessive House Of Lords Expenses
Tabulated Oxfordshire Social Services Early Retirement Statistics
Thames Water Added Trace Substances
Bus Operators' Luggage Limits On Corby-Kettering Services
etc.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/delilah_cormorant_5
via @youngvulgarian
Less/fewer?
It was a general comment on votes as a 'lump', and the exact count was not important. So 'less' probably works better in this case.
It's like "will you earn less money after this rail strike"?
Do you think a Tory could have won, or would a split vote seen the LD come through even more emphatically?
"Even if Trump wins he'll struggle to form a Cabinet. None of the best Republicans will want to be associated with the disaster of his administration and he'll have to fill important jobs with second-rate people."
Worrying for Lib Dems unless they want to be turned from freedom fighters into Labour Lite interventionists.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/33062/
Personally, I now think there is a good chance there won't be a Europe Union to leave by the time we get it sorted. The Italians and French are about to blow the whole thing up.
Needless to say I think this prediction is as wrong as your one about Trump.
Best result for me would be Sainz, though the stakes are super low (but the bets long odds). Bottas should be eminently hedgeable, and Wehrlein means a small instant profit.
Reasonably pleased with how things stand.
I'd prefer (if I were making the decision) Bottas to Wehrlein.
Incidentally, some South American journalists have reported Maldonado's in the frame. [I do not give such reports huge credence...].
His lack of political nous was astonishing.
https://twitter.com/Minicooper45/status/588870120681930752
I've just spent 2 hours talking about lice.
(There are some very interesting vaccines against them in development at the moment)
My council tax went towards answering these:
"We were asked how many drawing pins the council owns, and how many of those are presently installed in pinboards. Others have asked how much we have spent on biscuits for council meetings or on bottled water in a year."
"Ken Thornber, leader of Hampshire County Council, said: "We spent £365,000 in 2010 answering freedom of information requests. What else could I do with that money? More social workers, more school inspectors, more spent on road maintenance."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9149322/What-price-freedom-of-information.html
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/this-weeks-poll-electricity-storage-in-the-uk/?cmpid=tenews_2900298
1. Bad. Bad. Bad. Brexit is a bad idea and we should do everything we can to stop it. The Tim Farrons.
2. We are we are. The country has voted for Brexit so we need to make it happen with the least damage possible. Phil Hammond.
3. Brexit will be great Nothing to worry about. We have a great future in front of us. No need to compromise or to do deals. We will get everything we want. David Davis.
4. We're being robbed The EU, Remoaners, the liberal elite will do everything to ensure Brexit will be a failure. Nigel Farage.
There is no consensus to proceed on. Personally I go for (2) - making the best of it. That however requires people to accept Brexit is entirely about damage limitation AND despite that it will go ahead anyway. Not an attractive line to sign up to for either Remainers or Leavers.