Well quite. Cameron played the doormat and got virtually nothing. Theresa May can hardly get less than nothing if the EU goes all stampy feet. Also, it's another nail in the coffin of the 'Theresa Maybe' canard. The Government wasn't just making up lost time for all the preparations that Cameron forbade, it was also talking to EU27 delegations and gathering information about their positions. Very sensible.
Witb our budget deficit worse than any EU country bar Spain, a game of beggar thy neighbour over corporate and higher rate taxation is likely to be won by the Germans.
Worth noting that Singapore is also a country open to immigrants.
Really ???
Some aspects of Singapore's immigration policy:
' stringent policies and regulations have been set on employing foreign workers. In 1981, the government even announced its intention to phase out all unskilled foreign workers by the end of 1991, except domestic maids and those employed in construction and shipyards '
' In April 1987, the Singapore government announced its immigration policy, which intended to control the foreign worker inflow. The two key elements in the policy were a monthly levy payable by the employer for each foreign worker employed, and a "dependency ceiling" that limits the proportion of foreign workers in the total workforce of any one employer '
' Non-residents working in Singapore will require a work visa. There are various types of Singapore work visas starting from work permits for the lower-skilled labourers, to P1 and P2 category Employment Passes to attract niche professionals with good credentials in both education and work experience. '
' From 1 September 2012 only foreign workers with earnings of at least SGD4,000 (USD3,150) per month can sponsor their spouses and children for their stay in Singapore and some of them are also not allowed to bring their parents and in-laws on long-term visit passes. The new regulation also impacts those who switch companies on/after the date, but foreign workers whose families are already in Singapore won't be affected. The increase from SGD2,800 to SGD4,000 was to ease public disquiet over the influx of workers from overseas. '
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
You're right of course. The point is, a consensus has to build around a particular approach at some point . Theresa May seems to have decided the UKIP line is the easiest one for her. At that level the speech was a success, although it may be unraveling a bit. The problem is the approach I'd based on some significant false assumptions. As a negotiating statement the speech was dire. Were in delivery mode now, not campaigning mode, and Theresa May risks the UK getting a settlement that is somewhat less crap.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
Why don't the Tories and UKIP amalgamate? There isn't a fag paper between them since TM took over.
And think of the spin offs... UKIP to be led by a woman and The Tories to have a deputy from Bootle.
Strange that people said the same about the Tories and the LDs between 2010-2015 with Cameron/Clegg both being basically orange book LDs.
But you're hyperventilating is noted. There is masses of difference between the two, Tezzie is a rather unexciting solid middle of the road Tory. Just because you dont approve of her giving the voters the only option realistically on the table that matches a Leave vote, it doesnt make her a kipper.
Her time at the Home office makes her a kipper. An Italian friend of mine who bought a small cafe with a staff of five had a visit from her storm troopers two months after opening. Eight officers came in one night and in front of customers asked them all to show their passports. One who washed up for a couple of hours on Saturday nights was Algerian. He was taken away and my Italian chum was fined £15,000.
He's now out of business.
To be clear, your friend was breaking the law. But only a little bit, so that's acceptable.
Which is why I only hire white Caucasian males who are fluent in English -not racism but self-survival for both me, mine and the staff who work for me.
No, not racist or sexist at all. That would be completely different.
The HSBC exodus will, according to estimates, take 20% of their revenues offshore.
That is billions of dollars (of revenues) and no doubt a billion here or there of taxes.
Doesn't that depend where they book their profits?
It depends much more on where the market and the customners are and what they are paying for. Moving roles to Frankfurt doesn't mean all the UK staff will up-sticks and go. Many will stay, quit, get rehired by competitors and bring their skills and potentially their clients to the new employer. What services will a bank only be able to offer from Frankfurt that will not be legally possible or competitve from London? I can't think of any right now - but am happy to be educated.
While some PBers work themselves up over a few banking fatcats who may or may not leave one overcrowded city and move to another, hundreds more normal people on normal wages in the banking sector face redundancy, and lots more people will lose access to their local branch:
Clearly this doesn't matter as it only impacts little people.
The same type of little people who see a six time bankrupt billionaire as their champion? I'm not sure what the values of these 'little people' are anymore. Aren't they most likely to be shedding tears for the banking fatcats?
While some PBers work themselves up over a few banking fatcats who may or may not leave one overcrowded city and move to another, hundreds more normal people on normal wages in the banking sector face redundancy, and lots more people will lose access to their local branch:
Clearly this doesn't matter as it only impacts little people.
The same type of little people who see a six time bankrupt billionaire as their champion? I'm not sure what the values of these 'little people' are anymore. Aren't they most likely to be shedding tears for the banking fatcats?
Arguably, Americans have a very different attitude to rich people. Or at least (pretend) self-made ones.
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
You're right of course. The point is, a consensus has to build around a particular approach at some point . Theresa May seems to have decided the UKIP line is the easiest one for her. At that level the speech was a success, although it may be unraveling a bit. The problem is the approach I'd based on some significant false assumptions. As a negotiating statement the speech was dire. Were in delivery mode now, not campaigning mode, and Theresa May risks the UK getting a settlement that is somewhat less crap.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
No I expect the EU to be quite dogmatic. They hold most of the cards. The question is how Theresa May plays the cards available to her. She can get a crap deal or a very crap deal. On current showing it will be the latter. Saying she would take no deal at all is rhetoric.
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
Have you ever managed a critical word?
Of course, but all the claptrap spoken on here about her being a terrible PM and only in it for herself has to be challenged. It was different with my criticism of Brown, because he truly was a terrible PM who had no idea what to do once her had killed off all opposition to him getting the job. He was a joke PM. (Jonathan disagrees) (to save him posting same)
The EU seems to give people a very odd view of how immigration works in almost all the countries outside its boundaries. Almost all of which need you to have a job, as in a signed contract, not an offer because they will consider your application. In most of those countries there needs to be evidence that the jobs has been offered to residents for a period of time and not filled, or that the skill set is not available locally. In quite a lot of countries whole ranges of professions are "protected" and only available to locals.
Almost all countries outside the EU will give you a 30 day pass if you wave your EU/UK passport, but we are lucky in that regard, if you are a Filipino, only 40 countries will give you a visitors visa at entry without long and expensive applications frequently denied.
The sort of changes to immigration which many here seem to find so horrifying and a clear sign of rampant rightwingery are actually completely normal practise in most countries of the world, including many with quite left wing governments.
I totally get the way the voters are responding now.[big % happy with no EU deal according to poll] What I'm not seeing is the government's strategy. I can't believe they're going to merrily just crash out of the EU without a deal however attractive that might sound to the voters now, but if they don't intend to do that they're going to need to prepare the voters for the deal they're going to end up taking.
Good point, Edmund. In fact walking away is literally impossible. For example someone has to certify our aeroplanes are safe to fly. If we don't have an agreement, we won't be able to fly out of the UK. I can't envisage any scenario where that wouldn't be agreed. More importantly the EU will have to agree the UK's WTO schedules, which is a much more complex negotiation - in my view even more so than the Brexit one.
The point is, a white Rhodesia style UDI isn't an option, even if the polled public say they approve of it. There will be an agreement and the Government will have to sell it to the voters. ,
Yes, and I don't buy some of the alarmist stuff in the Guardian - pensioners will have to leave Spain, etc. There will be a period of serious concern as negotiations appear to be deadlocked, and in the end there will be a deal, which will include continued residence for existing migrants (even Kippers don't in general want mass expulsions). The Government will say it fought ferociously and this is the best available outcome. Voters will say Hmph but on the whole will move on. We've seen all this before, no least with Cameron's last negotiation (and the Continent is significanly more hostile than it was to Cameron: Boris is an especially poor representative in that sense as they don't even respect him as a serious enemy).
May can largely shrug that off. But what voters do care about is the economy, and one of us really know what's coming on that.
' The threat of a potential vote to leave the EU in June could be partly to blame for the first rise in unemployment in seven months, the work and pensions secretary has warned.
Stephen Crabb said the latest labour report, which showed the unemployment total rose by 21,000 in the three months to February to 1.7 million, was a signal that the looming EU referendum vote was hitting the jobs market.
In a further blow to the government’s efforts to keep the economy growing strongly, wage growth including bonuses fell from 2.1% in January to 1.8% '
No I expect the EU to be quite dogmatic. They hold most of the cards. The question is how Theresa May plays the cards available to her. She can get a crap deal or a very crap deal. On current showing it will be the latter. Saying she would take no deal at all is rhetoric.
Very grateful you are not on our negotiating team.
When the economic pain materialises post Brexit (and the signs are now there with the announcements from HSBC & UBS), will the Tories be so popular? Corbyn talked far more sense at PMQ's yesterday.
Why would voters be worried about some bankers moving from London ? HSBC has been closing branches and ditching 1000s of jobs for the last 10 years and nobody cared.
JLR meanwhile is waiting for permission to build a new factory in Coventry which will create over 750 direct jobs and more in the supply chain. #realjobs
This is true. The services that will be hit the hardest are the ones that contribute the most in corporate and income tax. They will at least partially move to Europe to stay in the single market, as will many other types of business. Jobs that would have been created in the UK will not be created, investments that would have been made will not be made and taxes that would have been paid to the UK exchequer will instead be paid elsewhere.
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
Will those taxes paid elewhere amount to more or less than the magic £350 whatever it was?
and outside of political activists and their cronies and sad acts like us, will anyone actually care by 2020. Will they instead mark it down as one political lie amongst many in this campaign and others, and instead concentrate on their life and their community as it is at that time. (If the tit in a beard is still LotO they might not even consider that deeply)
Well yes. Did you watch the documentary on BBC2 last night? The NHS is under a lot of pressure, generally, not just in hospitals, and needs either a massive rethink or an injection of cash. And if either of those things mean a reduction in services or increased costs for Johnny Voter, then it will come back to haunt those, including the mop-haired rabble rouser currently making things worse for Brits arounbd the world, who ‘promised’ the opposite.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
The Spectator on the Government's carrot-and-stick approach to the EU:
"Perhaps the most useful thing that the May government has learned in the last six month is what other EU countries fear. Since the referendum, parliaments all over Europe have been setting up committees to cover the negotiations. On their visits to London, the assurance they have most frequently sought from British ministers and officials has been that this country won’t turn itself into Singapore West, slashing taxes and regulation to attract business. This is why both Philip Hammond and May herself have made clear that this is indeed how the UK will respond if there is no reasonable offer from the EU."
Well quite. Cameron played the doormat and got virtually nothing. Theresa May can hardly get less than nothing if the EU goes all stampy feet. Also, it's another nail in the coffin of the 'Theresa Maybe' canard. The Government wasn't just making up lost time for all the preparations that Cameron forbade, it was also talking to EU27 delegations and gathering information about their positions. Very sensible.
Witb our budget deficit worse than any EU country bar Spain, a game of beggar thy neighbour over corporate and higher rate taxation is likely to be won by the Germans.
Worth noting that Singapore is also a country open to immigrants.
If we are going to copy Singapore, can we start by banning chewing gum?
No I expect the EU to be quite dogmatic. They hold most of the cards. The question is how Theresa May plays the cards available to her. She can get a crap deal or a very crap deal. On current showing it will be the latter. Saying she would take no deal at all is rhetoric.
Very grateful you are not on our negotiating team.
Yes he might have immediatelay surrendered in toto the very thing that has helped us immeasurably over the past few decades.
While I'm no friend of Theresa May or the Conservatives, the speech on Tuesday was about the only one she could have made. The outward façade has to be one of confidence, optimism and the encouragement of trust - that's how all Governments function most of the time.
Being relentlessly negative and pessimistic may have the benefit of honesty at times but it's dreadful if you want public support and trust. "Global Britain" is nebulous enough to sound hopeful and positive as long as you don't think about it too much.
May has the same problem as every other Conservative leader since Thatcher which is trying to damp down the fire of the ongoing Conservative civil war over European policy which began with Thatcher's Bruges speech and led ultimately to the events of June 23rd last year and beyond. Keeping the Party united and coherent on Europe bedevilled Major, Hague, IDS, Howard and Cameron and was a strong factor in the fall of the first and the last.
However, for now, May has a breathing space - the negotiations will provide cover until the final outcome becomes clear. Will she get what she wants ? I'm sure the pro-May press will trumpet the outcome in ludicrous Shakespearean terms (she'll be Henry V at Agincourt for example) - the devil will be in the detail.
It all comes back to the kind of society and country we want to be - identity if you will. To be the low tax, pro-business kind of place some clearly want Britain to be in the 2020s (and I understand that), it's necessary to see the other side. What's it like to be old, disabled, poorly educated in Singapore or somewhere like that ? What prospects can such a society offer those who aren't high flying entrepreneurs - what part can they play in that society and how can they feel part of it ?
Can we afford the raft of pensioner benefits if we want to be the business centre of the western world ? What kind of public services will we be able to afford or will everything have to be paid for by the individual which will inevitably mean plenty for some and nothing for others ?
That's not a society or a Britain which I would recognise and in which I would feel comfortable living.
I've been thinking about the NHS recently. A lot of people here are against pouring money into the NHS, seeing it as a bottomless pit; but is it really?
The NHS is not for profit, it doesn't really generate revenue. If it has more money, it provides better services surely? Maybe not more efficient services but still better services. There's no downside about having an MRI machine, for example, in every town with more than 10,000 people apart from cost.
It also provides jobs and income, for people to spend in shops, boosting the economy.
Surely the NHS is the best economic stimulus the government can give this country? Much better than pouring money into banks?
While some PBers work themselves up over a few banking fatcats who may or may not leave one overcrowded city and move to another, hundreds more normal people on normal wages in the banking sector face redundancy, and lots more people will lose access to their local branch:
Clearly this doesn't matter as it only impacts little people.
The same type of little people who see a six time bankrupt billionaire as their champion? I'm not sure what the values of these 'little people' are anymore. Aren't they most likely to be shedding tears for the banking fatcats?
Let me paint a picture. Imagine you were earning a decent wage as a miner in Kellingley colliery. Just over a year ago you were made redundant. However, you've still got a wage coming in to the house, as your wife works in the local branch of Yorkshire Bank in Knottingley. And now that branch is going to close.
These are the little people. These are the people who Labour should be listening to.
The Spectator on the Government's carrot-and-stick approach to the EU:
"Perhaps the most useful thing that the May government has learned in the last six month is what other EU countries fear. Since the referendum, parliaments all over Europe have been setting up committees to cover the negotiations. On their visits to London, the assurance they have most frequently sought from British ministers and officials has been that this country won’t turn itself into Singapore West, slashing taxes and regulation to attract business. This is why both Philip Hammond and May herself have made clear that this is indeed how the UK will respond if there is no reasonable offer from the EU."
Well quite. Cameron played the doormat and got virtually nothing. Theresa May can hardly get less than nothing if the EU goes all stampy feet. Also, it's another nail in the coffin of the 'Theresa Maybe' canard. The Government wasn't just making up lost time for all the preparations that Cameron forbade, it was also talking to EU27 delegations and gathering information about their positions. Very sensible.
Witb our budget deficit worse than any EU country bar Spain, a game of beggar thy neighbour over corporate and higher rate taxation is likely to be won by the Germans.
Worth noting that Singapore is also a country open to immigrants.
If we are going to copy Singapore, can we start by banning chewing gum?
Don't they also have massive car import duties?
Yes, but that isnt the real problem. There is a legal limit on the number of cars on the island. If you want to import a new car, you need to scrap an old car. As you might expect the market value of old cars can get quite high! I vaguely recall there is also a legal limit on the age of cars allowed on the road, can't remember if it's five years or ten. Even then you need a permit to drive through the city which is expensive, and even more so if you want to drive through in business hours.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
The trade balance will naturally deteriorate immediately after devaluation. Firms can't alter their supply chains instantly, and hedging FX exposures means that they won't feel the financial effects in the short term.
I've been thinking about the NHS recently. A lot of people here are against pouring money into the NHS, seeing it as a bottomless pit; but is it really?
The NHS is not for profit, it doesn't really generate revenue. If it has more money, it provides better services surely? Maybe not more efficient services but still better services. There's no downside about having an MRI machine, for example, in every town with more than 10,000 people apart from cost.
It also provides jobs and income, for people to spend in shops, boosting the economy.
Surely the NHS is the best economic stimulus the government can give this country? Much better than pouring money into banks?
Some of the time. Unless the money is spent, to pull a random example out of thin air, on paying doctors a whole lot more money, to do a whole lot less (out of hours) work. For some reason the idea of linking pay rises to productivity increase seems to cause a lot of bad will all around in the public sector, despite being pretty much par for the course in the private sector.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
So much borrowed money has been pumped into the economy that it will be years until its effect reduces.
Which means that people will continue to spend on imported tat and foreign holidays irrespective of whether their price rises.
Political economists of the future will have discussions on whose 'borrow and bribe' policies were the more disastrous - Brown's of 2001-2008 or Osborne's 2010-16.
Why don't the Tories and UKIP amalgamate? There isn't a fag paper between them since TM took over.
And think of the spin offs... UKIP to be led by a woman and The Tories to have a deputy from Bootle.
Strange that people said the same about the Tories and the LDs between 2010-2015 with Cameron/Clegg both being basically orange book LDs.
But you're hyperventilating is noted. There is masses of difference between the two, Tezzie is a rather unexciting solid middle of the road Tory. Just because you dont approve of her giving the voters the only option realistically on the table that matches a Leave vote, it doesnt make her a kipper.
Her time at the Home office makes her a kipper. An Italian friend of mine who bought a small cafe with a staff of five had a visit from her storm troopers two months after opening. Eight officers came in one night and in front of customers asked them all to show their passports. One who washed up for a couple of hours on Saturday nights was Algerian. He was taken away and my Italian chum was fined £15,000.
He's now out of business.
To be clear, your friend was breaking the law. But only a little bit, so that's acceptable.
Which is why I only hire white Caucasian males who are fluent in English -not racism but self-survival for both me, mine and the staff who work for me.
No, not racist or sexist at all. That would be completely different.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
So much borrowed money has been pumped into the economy that it will be years until its effect reduces.
Which means that people will continue to spend on imported tat and foreign holidays irrespective of whether their price rises.
Political economists of the future will have discussions on whose 'borrow and bribe' policies were the more disastrous - Brown's of 2001-2008 or Osborne's 2010-16.
A 'buy British' campaign post Brexit would help, although obviously people will still need to buy some imported goods British goods should be relatively cheaper
The HSBC exodus will, according to estimates, take 20% of their revenues offshore.
That is billions of dollars (of revenues) and no doubt a billion here or there of taxes.
Doesn't that depend where they book their profits?
It depends much more on where the market and the customners are and what they are paying for. Moving roles to Frankfurt doesn't mean all the UK staff will up-sticks and go. Many will stay, quit, get rehired by competitors and bring their skills and potentially their clients to the new employer. What services will a bank only be able to offer from Frankfurt that will not be legally possible or competitve from London? I can't think of any right now - but am happy to be educated.
I sat down with the president of my (US based financial services) firm yesterday - he said that we have no intention of moving anyone out of London & thinks that others would be nuts to do so, but is very happy to take the opportunity to hire anyone who is moved...
He's also been spending a lot of time with Trump's transition team, and reckons that we will all be surprised with how prepared they are. He's predicting a flurry of executive orders on Monday next week.
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
While I'm no friend of Theresa May or the Conservatives, the speech on Tuesday was about the only one she could have made. The outward façade has to be one of confidence, optimism and the encouragement of trust - that's how all Governments function most of the time.
Being relentlessly negative and pessimistic may have the benefit of honesty at times but it's dreadful if you want public support and trust. "Global Britain" is nebulous enough to sound hopeful and positive as long as you don't think about it too much.
May has the same problem as every other Conservative leader since Thatcher which is trying to damp down the fire of the ongoing Conservative civil war over European policy which began with Thatcher's Bruges speech and led ultimately to the events of June 23rd last year and beyond. Keeping the Party united and coherent on Europe bedevilled Major, Hague, IDS, Howard and Cameron and was a strong factor in the fall of the first and the last.
However, for now, May has a breathing space - the negotiations will provide cover until the final outcome becomes clear. Will she get what she wants ? I'm sure the pro-May press will trumpet the outcome in ludicrous Shakespearean terms (she'll be Henry V at Agincourt for example) - the devil will be in the detail.
It all comes back to the kind of society and country we want to be - identity if you will. To be the low tax, pro-business kind of place some clearly want Britain to be in the 2020s (and I understand that), it's necessary to see the other side. What's it like to be old, disabled, poorly educated in Singapore or somewhere like that ? What prospects can such a society offer those who aren't high flying entrepreneurs - what part can they play in that society and how can they feel part of it ?
Can we afford the raft of pensioner benefits if we want to be the business centre of the western world ? What kind of public services will we be able to afford or will everything have to be paid for by the individual which will inevitably mean plenty for some and nothing for others ?
That's not a society or a Britain which I would recognise and in which I would feel comfortable living.
There may be a corporation tax cut but beyond that the UK will not become Singapore, May is no libertarian and even Singapore has some public services
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
So much borrowed money has been pumped into the economy that it will be years until its effect reduces.
Which means that people will continue to spend on imported tat and foreign holidays irrespective of whether their price rises.
Political economists of the future will have discussions on whose 'borrow and bribe' policies were the more disastrous - Brown's of 2001-2008 or Osborne's 2010-16.
A 'buy British' campaign post Brexit would help, although obviously people will still need to buy some imported goods British goods should be relatively cheaper
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
In this new heaven will I get 72 virgins or the usual free owl?
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
So much borrowed money has been pumped into the economy that it will be years until its effect reduces.
Which means that people will continue to spend on imported tat and foreign holidays irrespective of whether their price rises.
Political economists of the future will have discussions on whose 'borrow and bribe' policies were the more disastrous - Brown's of 2001-2008 or Osborne's 2010-16.
A 'buy British' campaign post Brexit would help, although obviously people will still need to buy some imported goods British goods should be relatively cheaper
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
So much borrowed money has been pumped into the economy that it will be years until its effect reduces.
Which means that people will continue to spend on imported tat and foreign holidays irrespective of whether their price rises.
Political economists of the future will have discussions on whose 'borrow and bribe' policies were the more disastrous - Brown's of 2001-2008 or Osborne's 2010-16.
A 'buy British' campaign post Brexit would help, although obviously people will still need to buy some imported goods British goods should be relatively cheaper
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
Friend Verhofstadt is a useful loose-tongued idiot. He's frit and giving the game away.
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
In this new heaven will I get 72 virgins or the usual free owl?
Due to an administrative error, I have received 72 owls....
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
In this new heaven will I get 72 virgins or the usual free owl?
If you don't need to work and you own your own home, why would you care that a deregulated, low tax market would hurt working people who are already struggling to get by?
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
So much borrowed money has been pumped into the economy that it will be years until its effect reduces.
Which means that people will continue to spend on imported tat and foreign holidays irrespective of whether their price rises.
Political economists of the future will have discussions on whose 'borrow and bribe' policies were the more disastrous - Brown's of 2001-2008 or Osborne's 2010-16.
A 'buy British' campaign post Brexit would help, although obviously people will still need to buy some imported goods British goods should be relatively cheaper
Bring back PYE televisions
I will be seriously upset if they sell out of mustard coloured Allegros.
Some interesting comments in Tristram's final speech in the Commons:
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
In this new heaven will I get 72 virgins or the usual free owl?
Due to an administrative error, I have received 72 owls....
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
There may be a corporation tax cut but beyond that the UK will not become Singapore, May is no libertarian and even Singapore has some public services
I realise you are a Conservative supporter and obliged to defend your Party leader but this is nonsense.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
What employment and holiday rights do workers have in Singapore by the way ?
On your second point, indeed they do and the transport system is excellent. However, what is the demographic picture - I suspect a much smaller proportion of the population are economically inactive and a much smaller proportion are elderly than in the UK ?
The demographics have done for our public services, not waste or even cuts. Conservative shire councils are not struggling because they are wasteful or inefficient but because they simply can't cope with the relentless demands on adult social care provision.
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
Friend Verhofstadt is a useful loose-tongued idiot. He's frit and giving the game away.
What he lacks in intelligence, is made up by his good looks.
I've been thinking about the NHS recently. A lot of people here are against pouring money into the NHS, seeing it as a bottomless pit; but is it really?
The NHS is not for profit, it doesn't really generate revenue. If it has more money, it provides better services surely? Maybe not more efficient services but still better services. There's no downside about having an MRI machine, for example, in every town with more than 10,000 people apart from cost.
It also provides jobs and income, for people to spend in shops, boosting the economy.
Surely the NHS is the best economic stimulus the government can give this country? Much better than pouring money into banks?
AIUI MRI machines are expensive to operate, not just to purchase; leaving aside the infrastructure costs, you need trained staff not just to operate them, but also to interpret the results.
In addition, and AIUI so might well be incorrect, there are different types of MRI machines with subtle differences that can be used for different purposes.
I daresay Sunil or Dr Fox knows more.
Some on here might think I'm a little grinch-like when it comes to the application of new technology (I'd prefer to call myself a realist). However one thing I think is coming very soon is continuous monitoring of health: IoT (Internet of Tat) devices you can apply to your body (e.g. plasters) that will monitor various vital statistics. If something goes out-of-bounds, it will advise you accordingly.
*If* / *when* such devices become available at a low enough price point, it might be very cost-effective for the NHS to provide them to at-risk groups. However, false positives might be a problem.
The Spectator on the Government's carrot-and-stick approach to the EU:
"Perhaps the most useful thing that the May government has learned in the last six month is what other EU countries fear. Since the referendum, parliaments all over Europe have been setting up committees to cover the negotiations. On their visits to London, the assurance they have most frequently sought from British ministers and officials has been that this country won’t turn itself into Singapore West, slashing taxes and regulation to attract business. This is why both Philip Hammond and May herself have made clear that this is indeed how the UK will respond if there is no reasonable offer from the EU."
Well quite. Cameron played the doormat and got virtually nothing. Theresa May can hardly get less than nothing if the EU goes all stampy feet. Also, it's another nail in the coffin of the 'Theresa Maybe' canard. The Government wasn't just making up lost time for all the preparations that Cameron forbade, it was also talking to EU27 delegations and gathering information about their positions. Very sensible.
Witb our budget deficit worse than any EU country bar Spain, a game of beggar thy neighbour over corporate and higher rate taxation is likely to be won by the Germans.
Worth noting that Singapore is also a country open to immigrants.
Singapore is open to highly skilled migrants only and even then residency isn't automatic. Brexit isn't going to close the country to all migrants, just unskilled ones. The same as Singapore and loads of other countries who don't want to deal with some other country's unemployment problems.
We are going to be reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands. That will mean excluding skilled workers, as well as non-skilled ones.
The Spectator on the Government's carrot-and-stick approach to the EU:
"Perhaps the most useful thing that the May government has learned in the last six month is what other EU countries fear. Since the referendum, parliaments all over Europe have been setting up committees to cover the negotiations. On their visits to London, the assurance they have most frequently sought from British ministers and officials has been that this country won’t turn itself into Singapore West, slashing taxes and regulation to attract business. This is why both Philip Hammond and May herself have made clear that this is indeed how the UK will respond if there is no reasonable offer from the EU."
Well quite. Cameron played the doormat and got virtually nothing. Theresa May can hardly get less than nothing if the EU goes all stampy feet. Also, it's another nail in the coffin of the 'Theresa Maybe' canard. The Government wasn't just making up lost time for all the preparations that Cameron forbade, it was also talking to EU27 delegations and gathering information about their positions. Very sensible.
Witb our budget deficit worse than any EU country bar Spain, a game of beggar thy neighbour over corporate and higher rate taxation is likely to be won by the Germans.
Worth noting that Singapore is also a country open to immigrants.
If youve ever dealt with the Finanzamt you'd realise that's not such a straight call
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
Have you ever managed a critical word?
Of course, but all the claptrap spoken on here about her being a terrible PM and only in it for herself has to be challenged. It was different with my criticism of Brown, because he truly was a terrible PM who had no idea what to do once her had killed off all opposition to him getting the job. He was a joke PM. (Jonathan disagrees) (to save him posting same)
We had six years on here about Cameron being the greatest PM in history bar Churchill and Thatcher. We will see where May stands in a few years, once the rhetoric has been turned into action and achievement. Her decision to tack right and embrace the Tory Euro-loons in an effort to court positive headlines among the UKIP-inclined press will, I believe, prove to be a major mistake that will damage the UK - in fact, it may well lead to the UK ceasing to exist. We will see.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
If her successor seeks a different path, dont vote for them. If enough people still vote for them, that's democracy!
I've been thinking about the NHS recently. A lot of people here are against pouring money into the NHS, seeing it as a bottomless pit; but is it really?
The NHS is not for profit, it doesn't really generate revenue. If it has more money, it provides better services surely? Maybe not more efficient services but still better services. There's no downside about having an MRI machine, for example, in every town with more than 10,000 people apart from cost.
It also provides jobs and income, for people to spend in shops, boosting the economy.
Surely the NHS is the best economic stimulus the government can give this country? Much better than pouring money into banks?
AIUI MRI machines are expensive to operate, not just to purchase; leaving aside the infrastructure costs, you need trained staff not just to operate them, but also to interpret the results.
In addition, and AIUI so might well be incorrect, there are different types of MRI machines with subtle differences that can be used for different purposes.
I daresay Sunil or Dr Fox knows more.
Some on here might think I'm a little grinch-like when it comes to the application of new technology (I'd prefer to call myself a realist). However one thing I think is coming very soon is continuous monitoring of health: IoT (Internet of Tat) devices you can apply to your body (e.g. plasters) that will monitor various vital statistics. If something goes out-of-bounds, it will advise you accordingly.
*If* / *when* such devices become available at a low enough price point, it might be very cost-effective for the NHS to provide them to at-risk groups. However, false positives might be a problem.
Whilst I appreciate your input, it was simply an example. My point was, more hardware, more doctors, more nurses, more therapists make services better.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
We live in an age of ZIRP and monetary moral hazard. The basis of any sustainably functioning market economy is that you get a return on your investment/saving. We can't fix the economy properly until we return to having 'normal' monetary conditions. We need a bit of inflation. We need non-zero interest rates. We need bankruptcies and new company formation. We need risk to be related to return.
Guy Verhofstadt Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
In this new heaven will I get 72 virgins or the usual free owl?
If you don't need to work and you own your own home, why would you care that a deregulated, low tax market would hurt working people who are already struggling to get by?
My first car was a mustard coloured allegro with brown vinyl roof. a design classic!!
almost a twin of my mustard coloured marina, definitely not a design classic!
Mine was a turquoise Datsun 120Y - it was so rust stained it looked like it'd been salvaged from the sea. Steering wheel the size of a bin lid and no brakes/emergency stop only mode. My mum paid £80 for a respray/go faster stripe - it was double its value.
We had six years on here about Cameron being the greatest PM in history bar Churchill and Thatcher. We will see where May stands in a few years, once the rhetoric has been turned into action and achievement. Her decision to tack right and embrace the Tory Euro-loons in an effort to court positive headlines among the UKIP-inclined press will, I believe, prove to be a major mistake that will damage the UK - in fact, it may well lead to the UK ceasing to exist. We will see.
You sound like you need to take a few deep breaths and maybe make a nice cup of tea. Tezzie isnt embracing anyone more than the 52% that voted out, and the realities of the deals on offer from the EU. You continue to hyperventilate about vaporware deals which may well have already been discounted behind the scenes, and which are contrary to all the public statements of what is on offer.
I've been thinking about the NHS recently. A lot of people here are against pouring money into the NHS, seeing it as a bottomless pit; but is it really?
The NHS is not for profit, it doesn't really generate revenue. If it has more money, it provides better services surely? Maybe not more efficient services but still better services. There's no downside about having an MRI machine, for example, in every town with more than 10,000 people apart from cost.
It also provides jobs and income, for people to spend in shops, boosting the economy.
Surely the NHS is the best economic stimulus the government can give this country? Much better than pouring money into banks?
AIUI MRI machines are expensive to operate, not just to purchase; leaving aside the infrastructure costs, you need trained staff not just to operate them, but also to interpret the results.
In addition, and AIUI so might well be incorrect, there are different types of MRI machines with subtle differences that can be used for different purposes.
I daresay Sunil or Dr Fox knows more.
Some on here might think I'm a little grinch-like when it comes to the application of new technology (I'd prefer to call myself a realist). However one thing I think is coming very soon is continuous monitoring of health: IoT (Internet of Tat) devices you can apply to your body (e.g. plasters) that will monitor various vital statistics. If something goes out-of-bounds, it will advise you accordingly.
*If* / *when* such devices become available at a low enough price point, it might be very cost-effective for the NHS to provide them to at-risk groups. However, false positives might be a problem.
Whilst I appreciate your input, it was simply an example. My point was, more hardware, more doctors, more nurses, more therapists make services better.
I wonder how applicable the mythical man-month is to healthcare?
I know the concept isn't directly comparable. But I wonder if there's a level of staffing where adding more staff means no improvement in services, or even a decrease?
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
You're right of course. The point is, a consensus has to build around a particular approach at some point . Theresa May seems to have decided the UKIP line is the easiest one for her. At that level the speech was a success, although it may be unraveling a bit. The problem is the approach I'd based on some significant false assumptions. As a negotiating statement the speech was dire. Were in delivery mode now, not campaigning mode, and Theresa May risks the UK getting a settlement that is somewhat less crap.
Yep - May has concluded that the only threat to her is from the right and so she has decided to tack that way to head it off. Politically, that is astute - Corbyn Labour is absolutely no threat to her whatsoever and so can be completely ignored - but whether it is good for the country is another thing entirely. I just do not see how allowing senior ministers to compare national leaders to WW2 prison guards will do anything other than antagonise countries with which we now have to negotiate a deal that is profoundly important to this country's long-term economic and fiscal outlook; while taking a deliberate decision to make it more expensive and time consuming to do business in our single biggest market without having anything in place elsewhere to mitigate that just seems like folly. But we are where we are.
Some interesting comments in Tristram's final speech in the Commons:
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
You can find the whole thing on Labour List.
Does Stoke suffer/benefit (delete to taste) from immigration more than the English average, or is it one of these places that the perception of the level of immigration greatly outstrips the reality?
According to Wiki (based on the 2001 census admittedly) 96.3% of Stokers were born in the UK, and 94.8% identify as white. Seems pretty homogeneous to me.
My first car was a mustard coloured allegro with brown vinyl roof. a design classic!!
almost a twin of my mustard coloured marina, definitely not a design classic!
Mine was a turquoise Datsun 120Y - it was so rust stained it looked like it'd been salvaged from the sea. Steering wheel the size of a bin lid and no brakes/emergency stop only mode.
One of the apprentices in my first job (print industry) got one of those as his first car in snotty yellow. I dont think he noticed it had a steering wheel, he only seemed interested in the power of the stereo and the number of speakers.
My first car was a mustard coloured allegro with brown vinyl roof. a design classic!!
almost a twin of my mustard coloured marina, definitely not a design classic!
Mine was a turquoise Datsun 120Y - it was so rust stained it looked like it'd been salvaged from the sea. Steering wheel the size of a bin lid and no brakes/emergency stop only mode. My mum paid £80 for a respray/go faster stripe - it was double its value.
My first car was a FIAT 850 Sport! 903cc engine and went like the proverbial sh1t off a shovel
Unfortunately a previous owner had decided that it would be a good idea to clean it with a brillo pad so it had a very attractive matt finish
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism is invariably an reaction to the existing political environment, possibly something the liberal political consensus might like to reflect up. If you ignore the proles for long enough sooner or later they are going to bite you at the ballot box.
Ha, ha - the proles again. The demographic which voted in greatest numbers for Brexit was pensioners, who have seen their incomes rise by 13% in real terms over the last decade, while those of working age - whose vote was far more split - have seen their incomes decline. The other demographic that was most in favour of Brexit was people who own their homes outright, which is not particularly proley.
Some interesting comments in Tristram's final speech in the Commons:
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
You can find the whole thing on Labour List.
Does Stoke suffer/benefit (delete to taste) from immigration more than the English average, or is it one of these places that the perception of the level of immigration greatly outstrips the reality?
According to Wiki (based on the 2001 census admittedly) 96.3% of Stokers were born in the UK, and 94.8% identify as white. Seems pretty homogeneous to me.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
The trade balance will naturally deteriorate immediately after devaluation. Firms can't alter their supply chains instantly, and hedging FX exposures means that they won't feel the financial effects in the short term.
While that's a fair point, we're now almost seven months after devaluation. Higher prices for imported products should mean we consume less of them, and that would be the (correct) healthy response. Instead, UK consumers are whipping out their credit cards and maintaining their volume of consumption.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
If her successor seeks a different path, dont vote for them. If enough people still vote for them, that's democracy!
It's the terms in which it will be couched. I can see it now, the young telegenic Conservative leader looking earnestly at the camera and saying something like:
"As a global nation with an internationalist outlook, we have to be able to compete with the world. That means keeping our public expenditure under control and not paying ourselves what we cannot afford. It also means being open for business all the time, being flexible and having the skills we need across a range of cutting edge industries.
We can no longer afford the indulgences of the past when we allowed generous benefits to workers who were ill or needed time to care for relatives or for holidays. We are a global business nation, our competitors don't have those luxuries and we cannot afford them any longer.
Therefore, in the next Budget, we will be proposing radical changes to employment rights."
Couched in the terms of national interest and sweet reason, everyone will agree to it, won't they ?
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism is invariably an reaction to the existing political environment, possibly something the liberal political consensus might like to reflect up. If you ignore the proles for long enough sooner or later they are going to bite you at the ballot box.
Ha, ha - the proles again. The demographic which voted in greatest numbers for Brexit was pensioners, who have seen their incomes rise by 13% in real terms over the last decade, while those of working age - whose vote was far more split - have seen their incomes decline. The other demographic that was most in favour of Brexit was people who own their homes outright, which is not particularly proley.
Anyone who isn't part of the liberal consensus is a prole in this context.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
We live in an age of ZIRP and monetary moral hazard. The basis of any sustainably functioning market economy is that you get a return on your investment/saving. We can't fix the economy properly until we return to having 'normal' monetary conditions. We need a bit of inflation. We need non-zero interest rates. We need bankruptcies and new company formation. We need risk to be related to return.
To be perfectly honest this needed to happen whether we decided to leave or stay in the EU.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
The trade balance will naturally deteriorate immediately after devaluation. Firms can't alter their supply chains instantly, and hedging FX exposures means that they won't feel the financial effects in the short term.
While that's a fair point, we're now almost seven months after devaluation. Higher prices for imported products should mean we consume less of them, and that would be the (correct) healthy response. Instead, UK consumers are whipping out their credit cards and maintaining their volume of consumption.
Wow - just seen the YouGov figures. Better headline VI than even I expected. Looks like Deacon's sketch was bang on - Labour don't have a hope while Brexit continues. Turns out there is only one party the country identifies with on Europe. Fervent remainers/rejoiners will be the political extremists from now on - but will they ever admit it???
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism is invariably an reaction to the existing political environment, possibly something the liberal political consensus might like to reflect up. If you ignore the proles for long enough sooner or later they are going to bite you at the ballot box.
Ha, ha - the proles again. The demographic which voted in greatest numbers for Brexit was pensioners, who have seen their incomes rise by 13% in real terms over the last decade, while those of working age - whose vote was far more split - have seen their incomes decline. The other demographic that was most in favour of Brexit was people who own their homes outright, which is not particularly proley.
Anyone who isn't part of the liberal consensus is a prole in this context.
Got it. As I suspected, it is an entirely meaningless term.
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
She is the best choice the Tories could have made.
Nationalism is invariably an reaction to the existing political environment, possibly something the liberal political consensus might like to reflect up. If you ignore the proles for long enough sooner or later they are going to bite you at the ballot box.
Ha, ha - the proles again. The demographic which voted in greatest numbers for Brexit was pensioners, who have seen their incomes rise by 13% in real terms over the last decade, while those of working age - whose vote was far more split - have seen their incomes decline. The other demographic that was most in favour of Brexit was people who own their homes outright, which is not particularly proley.
The demographic which votes in greatest numbers for anything is pensioners isn't it?
And how does this fit with your view?
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft."
Couched in the terms of national interest and sweet reason, everyone will agree to it, won't they ?
Only if the opposition are too incompetent to point out the flaws and offer alternatives.... ah, I think I might see the cause of your pain
But essentially what you posted is a nice way of saying you don't trust the voters to know what is in their own interests, I thought it was supposed to be the Tories that did paternalism
There may be a corporation tax cut but beyond that the UK will not become Singapore, May is no libertarian and even Singapore has some public services
I realise you are a Conservative supporter and obliged to defend your Party leader but this is nonsense.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
What employment and holiday rights do workers have in Singapore by the way ?
On your second point, indeed they do and the transport system is excellent. However, what is the demographic picture - I suspect a much smaller proportion of the population are economically inactive and a much smaller proportion are elderly than in the UK ?
The demographics have done for our public services, not waste or even cuts. Conservative shire councils are not struggling because they are wasteful or inefficient but because they simply can't cope with the relentless demands on adult social care provision.
Singapore has statutory annual leave and more elderly people than the U.K.. Longer term social care may need to be paid for by an annuity or NI as people live longer but that is a different argument
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
Have you ever managed a critical word?
Of course, but all the claptrap spoken on here about her being a terrible PM and only in it for herself has to be challenged. It was different with my criticism of Brown, because he truly was a terrible PM who had no idea what to do once her had killed off all opposition to him getting the job. He was a joke PM. (Jonathan disagrees) (to save him posting same)
We had six years on here about Cameron being the greatest PM in history bar Churchill and Thatcher. We will see where May stands in a few years, once the rhetoric has been turned into action and achievement. Her decision to tack right and embrace the Tory Euro-loons in an effort to court positive headlines among the UKIP-inclined press will, I believe, prove to be a major mistake that will damage the UK - in fact, it may well lead to the UK ceasing to exist. We will see.
Wales voted Leave and two polls this week have Scots putting control of free movement ahead of full single market membership
Some interesting comments in Tristram's final speech in the Commons:
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
You can find the whole thing on Labour List.
Does Stoke suffer/benefit (delete to taste) from immigration more than the English average, or is it one of these places that the perception of the level of immigration greatly outstrips the reality?
According to Wiki (based on the 2001 census admittedly) 96.3% of Stokers were born in the UK, and 94.8% identify as white. Seems pretty homogeneous to me.
2011 should be online?
Don't know if my hunger for statistical truth extends to guddling around on the ONS site.
The Stoke council site doesn't mention ethnic demographics but does say the population grew by 3.6% in the last census interval.
There may be a corporation tax cut but beyond that the UK will not become Singapore, May is no libertarian and even Singapore has some public services
I realise you are a Conservative supporter and obliged to defend your Party leader but this is nonsense.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
What employment and holiday rights do workers have in Singapore by the way ?
On your second point, indeed they do and the transport system is excellent. However, what is the demographic picture - I suspect a much smaller proportion of the population are economically inactive and a much smaller proportion are elderly than in the UK ?
The demographics have done for our public services, not waste or even cuts. Conservative shire councils are not struggling because they are wasteful or inefficient but because they simply can't cope with the relentless demands on adult social care provision.
Singapore has statutory annual leave and more elderly people than the U.K.. Longer term social care may need to be paid for by an annuity or NI as people live longer but that is a different argument
There may be a corporation tax cut but beyond that the UK will not become Singapore, May is no libertarian and even Singapore has some public services
I realise you are a Conservative supporter and obliged to defend your Party leader but this is nonsense.
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
What employment and holiday rights do workers have in Singapore by the way ?
On your second point, indeed they do and the transport system is excellent. However, what is the demographic picture - I suspect a much smaller proportion of the population are economically inactive and a much smaller proportion are elderly than in the UK ?
The demographics have done for our public services, not waste or even cuts. Conservative shire councils are not struggling because they are wasteful or inefficient but because they simply can't cope with the relentless demands on adult social care provision.
Singapore has statutory annual leave and more elderly people than the U.K.. Longer term social care may need to be paid for by an annuity or NI as people live longer but that is a different argument
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
Morrning Southam.. have you ever had a good word for Mrs May since she became PM?.
Have you ever managed a critical word?
Of course, but all the claptrap spoken on here about her being a terrible PM and only in it for herself has to be challenged. It was different with my criticism of Brown, because he truly was a terrible PM who had no idea what to do once her had killed off all opposition to him getting the job. He was a joke PM. (Jonathan disagrees) (to save him posting same)
We had six years on here about Cameron being the greatest PM in history bar Churchill and Thatcher. We will see where May stands in a few years, once the rhetoric has been turned into action and achievement. Her decision to tack right and embrace the Tory Euro-loons in an effort to court positive headlines among the UKIP-inclined press will, I believe, prove to be a major mistake that will damage the UK - in fact, it may well lead to the UK ceasing to exist. We will see.
Wales voted Leave and two polls this week have Scots putting control of free movement ahead of full single market membership
We had six years on here about Cameron being the greatest PM in history bar Churchill and Thatcher. We will see where May stands in a few years, once the rhetoric has been turned into action and achievement. Her decision to tack right and embrace the Tory Euro-loons in an effort to court positive headlines among the UKIP-inclined press will, I believe, prove to be a major mistake that will damage the UK - in fact, it may well lead to the UK ceasing to exist. We will see.
You sound like you need to take a few deep breaths and maybe make a nice cup of tea. Tezzie isnt embracing anyone more than the 52% that voted out, and the realities of the deals on offer from the EU. You continue to hyperventilate about vaporware deals which may well have already been discounted behind the scenes, and which are contrary to all the public statements of what is on offer.
Yep, May is completely discounting the 48% who voted to Remain and is also assuming that everyone who voted Leave did so for exactly the same reasons. I have taken many deep breaths since way before 23rd June as I was certain that we would be leaving for a long time before the referendum took place. I also believe that we should now leave as quickly as we can. It does nobody any good to stick around where we are not wanted and do not want to be. However, I believe that the way in which May is handling this will end up causing a lot of harm to people who are already struggling to get by. For me, that is a matter of huge regret.
I've been thinking about the NHS recently. A lot of people here are against pouring money into the NHS, seeing it as a bottomless pit; but is it really?
The NHS is not for profit, it doesn't really generate revenue. If it has more money, it provides better services surely? Maybe not more efficient services but still better services. There's no downside about having an MRI machine, for example, in every town with more than 10,000 people apart from cost.
It also provides jobs and income, for people to spend in shops, boosting the economy.
Surely the NHS is the best economic stimulus the government can give this country? Much better than pouring money into banks?
AIUI MRI machines are expensive to operate, not just to purchase; leaving aside the infrastructure costs, you need trained staff not just to operate them, but also to interpret the results.
In addition, and AIUI so might well be incorrect, there are different types of MRI machines with subtle differences that can be used for different purposes.
I daresay Sunil or Dr Fox knows more.
Some on here might think I'm a little grinch-like when it comes to the application of new technology (I'd prefer to call myself a realist). However one thing I think is coming very soon is continuous monitoring of health: IoT (Internet of Tat) devices you can apply to your body (e.g. plasters) that will monitor various vital statistics. If something goes out-of-bounds, it will advise you accordingly.
*If* / *when* such devices become available at a low enough price point, it might be very cost-effective for the NHS to provide them to at-risk groups. However, false positives might be a problem.
Buying an MRI machine and the money goes overseas.
Utilisation of said machines is the most important aspect - Alliance Medical does a very good job here. Until recently it was British but has just been sold to a South African firm. At least the proceeds will make investors (it was owned by M&G) better off.
Got it. As I suspected, it is an entirely meaningless term.
Not at all.
There has been a generally liberal leaning consensus in the politics and media of most western nations for years. The Blairs, Camerons, Obamas, Hollandes, Merkels and the Renzi's are basically centrist statist liberals. They have followed a path of globalisation, of pro-business, pro-immigration corporatism. They did this even when the voters said they didn't like it. They carried on doing it when a fair chunk of the voters were bloody furious about it, claiming deprecatingly that they had nowhere else to go.... until they did. They bought the current wave on populists across the world on themselves by ignoring the great unwashed because they didn't like their values, until they found they did need their votes.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
We live in an age of ZIRP and monetary moral hazard. The basis of any sustainably functioning market economy is that you get a return on your investment/saving. We can't fix the economy properly until we return to having 'normal' monetary conditions. We need a bit of inflation. We need non-zero interest rates. We need bankruptcies and new company formation. We need risk to be related to return.
Yep. But by leaving the single market we are creating an extraordinary event. That is the problem. Making mortgages more expensive at a time when prices are rising and when there is considerable business uncertainty is not necessarily a good idea.
I've been thinking about the NHS recently. A lot of people here are against pouring money into the NHS, seeing it as a bottomless pit; but is it really?
The NHS is not for profit, it doesn't really generate revenue. If it has more money, it provides better services surely? Maybe not more efficient services but still better services. There's no downside about having an MRI machine, for example, in every town with more than 10,000 people apart from cost.
It also provides jobs and income, for people to spend in shops, boosting the economy.
Surely the NHS is the best economic stimulus the government can give this country? Much better than pouring money into banks?
AIUI MRI machines are expensive to operate, leaving aside the infrastructure costs, you need trained staff not just to operate them, but also to interpret the results.
In addition, and AIUI so might well be incorrect, there are different types of MRI machines with subtle differences that can be used for different purposes.
I daresay Sunil or Dr Fox knows more.
Some on here might think I'm a little grinch-like when it comes to the application of new technology (I'd prefer to call myself a realist). However one thing I think is coming very soon is continuous monitoring of health: IoT (Internet of Tat) devices you can apply to your body (e.g. plasters) that will monitor various vital statistics. If something goes out-of-bounds, it will advise you accordingly.
*If* / *when* such devices become available at a low enough price point, it might be very cost-effective for the NHS to provide them to at-risk groups. However, false positives might be a problem.
Whilst I appreciate your input, it was simply an example. My point was, more hardware, more doctors, more nurses, more therapists make services better.
I wonder how applicable the mythical man-month is to healthcare?
I know the concept isn't directly comparable. But I wonder if there's a level of staffing where adding more staff means no improvement in services, or even a decrease?
Scanners are an interesting case. More scans -> more diagnoses but also more true negatives and false positives. At present doctors have to ration referrals to CT and MRI scans, and inevitably in some cases where they recommend against it turns out that the patient had a problem which would have been detected by the scan and been curable. So referrals would presumably increase in number in step with the availability of new scanners. Which would mean more diagnoses and therefore more treatments and more hospital beds and staff and so on. That is obviously a good thing, but the point is that the increased costs propagate from more diagnoses all the way down the line to cure or death of the patient.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
You're right of course. The point is, a consensus has to build around a particular approach at some point . Theresa May seems to have decided the UKIP line is the easiest one for her. At that level the speech was a success, although it may be unraveling a bit. The problem is the approach I'd based on some significant false assumptions. As a negotiating statement the speech was dire. Were in delivery mode now, not campaigning mode, and Theresa May risks the UK getting a settlement that is somewhat less crap.
Yep - May has concluded that the only threat to her is from the right and so she has decided to tack that way to head it off. Politically, that is astute - Corbyn Labour is absolutely no threat to her whatsoever and so can be completely ignored - but whether it is good for the country is another thing entirely. I just do not see how allowing senior ministers to compare national leaders to WW2 prison guards will do anything other than antagonise countries with which we now have to negotiate a deal that is profoundly important to this country's long-term economic and fiscal outlook; while taking a deliberate decision to make it more expensive and time consuming to do business in our single biggest market without having anything in place elsewhere to mitigate that just seems like folly. But we are where we are.
Yes, agree with all of that. This embodies the old cliche 'a government is only as good as the opposition'. Brexit is now about little more than one-upmanship within the Tory party. If an effective opposition was snapping at May's heels, the government wouldn't be behaving with such blithe arrogance. But it isn't, so it's not.
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
It would be interesting to see breakdown by economic bracket of the pensioners who voted Leave... I don't think they are all the retired businessman dividing their time between the golf club and the holiday home that Southam is trying to portray
Some interesting comments in Tristram's final speech in the Commons:
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
You can find the whole thing on Labour List.
Does Stoke suffer/benefit (delete to taste) from immigration more than the English average, or is it one of these places that the perception of the level of immigration greatly outstrips the reality?
According to Wiki (based on the 2001 census admittedly) 96.3% of Stokers were born in the UK, and 94.8% identify as white. Seems pretty homogeneous to me.
2011 should be online?
Don't know if my hunger for statistical truth extends to guddling around on the ONS site.
The Stoke council site doesn't mention ethnic demographics but does say the population grew by 3.6% in the last census interval.
The ONS has Stoke Central down as about 88% UK born.
My first car was a mustard coloured allegro with brown vinyl roof. a design classic!!
almost a twin of my mustard coloured marina, definitely not a design classic!
Mine was a turquoise Datsun 120Y - it was so rust stained it looked like it'd been salvaged from the sea. Steering wheel the size of a bin lid and no brakes/emergency stop only mode. My mum paid £80 for a respray/go faster stripe - it was double its value.
My first car was a FIAT 850 Sport! 903cc engine and went like the proverbial sh1t off a shovel
Unfortunately a previous owner had decided that it would be a good idea to clean it with a brillo pad so it had a very attractive matt finish
Mine was a Datsun sunny rust bucket - on my first day at a new school in 1981 the caretaker came into the staffroom to ask if anyone knew about what looked like an abandoned car in the staff car park - it lasted me a good few years till i could trade up
Theresa May and the Conservatives have made the choice to go for a hard Brexit and are standing by as their cheerleaders in the right wing press wave the Union Jack and portray our departure from the EU as a rematch of World War 2. The message that is being sent to the rest of the world is one that will only damage our reputation as a country that is welcoming and open for business. But that is what nationalism does, I guess.
I am interested to hear what you feel her options were given a Leave vote, (short of deciding to ignore it I suppose). Everyone here has been saying Hard BrExit was the only realistic option for months, and yet you want us to believe its that Tezzie "chose".
She had plenty of choices and still does. One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration. She also has a choice on how she reacts to her ministers likening European leaders to WW2 prison guards. She could have thought how such comments would be perceived not only among the countries with which we now have to negotiate Brexit, but also in the wider world, or she could have decided to pander tot he xenophobic right wing English press. She chose the latter option.
While I agree with you re Boris's stupidity in saying what he did, this - "One would have been to say that we voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market and that our goal is to stay in it, subject to being able to agree limits on immigration." - is simply being unrealistic given that the other EU countries have repeatedly made clear that they would not agree to any limits on immigration. I think they have been wrong to do so but given their stance I don't see what realistic option May had.
She could, I suppose, have said that we would continue to stay in the Single Market and accept FoM while not being formally in the EU and not being subject to its political ambitions. A very hard sell I'd have thought, given current political realities, don't you?
If she were going to go down that route - and the reason why it was necessary - that should have been sold by all members of the government ever since May became PM.
The other possibility is that the EU would have accepted some limits on immigration but nothing in their stance since the referendum or before it when Cameron was trying to negotiate his deal suggests this as a possibility. The EU's stance has been and is (crudely): "If you want to sell your goods/services to us, you have to accept our unemployed youth."
Or she has already been told by credible sources that there is no room for maneuver of freedom of movement, and the EU would rather have no deal than any deal which compromises it.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
I think Mrs May has been tactically very astute. She has plenty of room to co-operate more deeply (ESA, Erasmus, etc.) and contribute on a case by case basis. She's offered something that the EU clearly wants (tariff free goods and services).
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
Hammond should push to have interest rates raised. He can't directly control the BoE. But he does directly control NS&I. He shoukld force them to offer notably less shitty rates on their savings products.
Higher prices plus higher mortgage payments. Interesting.
You forgot higher rates for the savers - the majority who provide the funds for mortgages. Many people have benefited from low rates for many years now.
It would be interesting to see breakdown by economic bracket of the pensioners who voted Leave... I don't think they are all the retired businessman dividing their time between the golf club and the holiday home that Southam is trying to portray
I was a remain voter but democracy means it's time to move on and make the best of where we are. Of the current crop of parties and leaders May is really the only game in town.
Comments
Some aspects of Singapore's immigration policy:
' stringent policies and regulations have been set on employing foreign workers. In 1981, the government even announced its intention to phase out all unskilled foreign workers by the end of 1991, except domestic maids and those employed in construction and shipyards '
' In April 1987, the Singapore government announced its immigration policy, which intended to control the foreign worker inflow. The two key elements in the policy were a monthly levy payable by the employer for each foreign worker employed, and a "dependency ceiling" that limits the proportion of foreign workers in the total workforce of any one employer '
' Non-residents working in Singapore will require a work visa. There are various types of Singapore work visas starting from work permits for the lower-skilled labourers, to P1 and P2 category Employment Passes to attract niche professionals with good credentials in both education and work experience. '
' From 1 September 2012 only foreign workers with earnings of at least SGD4,000 (USD3,150) per month can sponsor their spouses and children for their stay in Singapore and some of them are also not allowed to bring their parents and in-laws on long-term visit passes. The new regulation also impacts those who switch companies on/after the date, but foreign workers whose families are already in Singapore won't be affected. The increase from SGD2,800 to SGD4,000 was to ease public disquiet over the influx of workers from overseas. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Singapore
Somewhat of a contrast to Britain's unlimited and unprepared for immigration from Eastern Europe.
There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking from Remainers that the EU is not going to be obstinate and dogmatic in the teeth of forty years of experience. I would bet they have basically told us to piss off behind closed doors, and Eurocrat posturing and Tezzies speechifying are the public face of that reality.
It was different with my criticism of Brown, because he truly was a terrible PM who had no idea what to do once her had killed off all opposition to him getting the job. He was a joke PM. (Jonathan disagrees) (to save him posting same)
Almost all countries outside the EU will give you a 30 day pass if you wave your EU/UK passport, but we are lucky in that regard, if you are a Filipino, only 40 countries will give you a visitors visa at entry without long and expensive applications frequently denied.
The sort of changes to immigration which many here seem to find so horrifying and a clear sign of rampant rightwingery are actually completely normal practise in most countries of the world, including many with quite left wing governments.
May can largely shrug that off. But what voters do care about is the economy, and one of us really know what's coming on that.
' The threat of a potential vote to leave the EU in June could be partly to blame for the first rise in unemployment in seven months, the work and pensions secretary has warned.
Stephen Crabb said the latest labour report, which showed the unemployment total rose by 21,000 in the three months to February to 1.7 million, was a signal that the looming EU referendum vote was hitting the jobs market.
In a further blow to the government’s efforts to keep the economy growing strongly, wage growth including bonuses fell from 2.1% in January to 1.8% '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/20/uk-unemployment-rises-and-pay-growth-falls
' UK unemployment fell by 52,000 to 1.6 million in the three months to November - the lowest level for more than a decade - official figures showed.
Growth in pay including bonuses rose 0.2 percentage points to 2.8% for the year to November. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38661443
Very grateful you are not on our negotiating team.
She has plenty of room to offer more to the EU, but by making it clear she doesn't *need* more than [x], her bargaining power is increased.
The danger to her - and Brexit - is that the UK economy is dangerously unbalanced. It's genuinely scary that our trade balance has markedly worsened despite a significant devaluation in the pound. The rise in the price of oil and commodities means this is likely to continue this year. Our savings rate is at a 50 year low (excepting the 18 months before the Global Financial Crisis). Unsecured borrowing is growing at an 11% annual rate (that's more than 3x faster than incomes, and is the fastest it's ever grown in real terms). Every measure on the UK economy is flashing red, but to raise rates would risk tipping the economy into recession. So we choose instead to let the economy become more and more unbalanced.
While I'm no friend of Theresa May or the Conservatives, the speech on Tuesday was about the only one she could have made. The outward façade has to be one of confidence, optimism and the encouragement of trust - that's how all Governments function most of the time.
Being relentlessly negative and pessimistic may have the benefit of honesty at times but it's dreadful if you want public support and trust. "Global Britain" is nebulous enough to sound hopeful and positive as long as you don't think about it too much.
May has the same problem as every other Conservative leader since Thatcher which is trying to damp down the fire of the ongoing Conservative civil war over European policy which began with Thatcher's Bruges speech and led ultimately to the events of June 23rd last year and beyond. Keeping the Party united and coherent on Europe bedevilled Major, Hague, IDS, Howard and Cameron and was a strong factor in the fall of the first and the last.
However, for now, May has a breathing space - the negotiations will provide cover until the final outcome becomes clear. Will she get what she wants ? I'm sure the pro-May press will trumpet the outcome in ludicrous Shakespearean terms (she'll be Henry V at Agincourt for example) - the devil will be in the detail.
It all comes back to the kind of society and country we want to be - identity if you will. To be the low tax, pro-business kind of place some clearly want Britain to be in the 2020s (and I understand that), it's necessary to see the other side. What's it like to be old, disabled, poorly educated in Singapore or somewhere like that ? What prospects can such a society offer those who aren't high flying entrepreneurs - what part can they play in that society and how can they feel part of it ?
Can we afford the raft of pensioner benefits if we want to be the business centre of the western world ? What kind of public services will we be able to afford or will everything have to be paid for by the individual which will inevitably mean plenty for some and nothing for others ?
That's not a society or a Britain which I would recognise and in which I would feel comfortable living.
The NHS is not for profit, it doesn't really generate revenue. If it has more money, it provides better services surely? Maybe not more efficient services but still better services. There's no downside about having an MRI machine, for example, in every town with more than 10,000 people apart from cost.
It also provides jobs and income, for people to spend in shops, boosting the economy.
Surely the NHS is the best economic stimulus the government can give this country? Much better than pouring money into banks?
These are the little people. These are the people who Labour should be listening to.
Which means that people will continue to spend on imported tat and foreign holidays irrespective of whether their price rises.
Political economists of the future will have discussions on whose 'borrow and bribe' policies were the more disastrous - Brown's of 2001-2008 or Osborne's 2010-16.
He's also been spending a lot of time with Trump's transition team, and reckons that we will all be surprised with how prepared they are. He's predicting a flurry of executive orders on Monday next week.
Guy Verhofstadt
Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people—it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
"the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics."
...
"In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80 per cent of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city."
You can find the whole thing on Labour List.
My first car was a mustard coloured allegro with brown vinyl roof. a design classic!!
May herself said "under her leadership" workers' rights would be protected but that doesn't mean her successor might not seek a different path. One way to sound pro-business to the wider world might be to sound anti-worker. Will you support a future leader if he or she seeks to remove or reduce workers' rights in the name of competitiveness in the global business environment ?
What employment and holiday rights do workers have in Singapore by the way ?
On your second point, indeed they do and the transport system is excellent. However, what is the demographic picture - I suspect a much smaller proportion of the population are economically inactive and a much smaller proportion are elderly than in the UK ?
The demographics have done for our public services, not waste or even cuts. Conservative shire councils are not struggling because they are wasteful or inefficient but because they simply can't cope with the relentless demands on adult social care provision.
In addition, and AIUI so might well be incorrect, there are different types of MRI machines with subtle differences that can be used for different purposes.
I daresay Sunil or Dr Fox knows more.
Some on here might think I'm a little grinch-like when it comes to the application of new technology (I'd prefer to call myself a realist). However one thing I think is coming very soon is continuous monitoring of health: IoT (Internet of Tat) devices you can apply to your body (e.g. plasters) that will monitor various vital statistics. If something goes out-of-bounds, it will advise you accordingly.
*If* / *when* such devices become available at a low enough price point, it might be very cost-effective for the NHS to provide them to at-risk groups. However, false positives might be a problem.
The irony https://t.co/tjxQ01lxIN
Got a phone call yesterday 'I've just been out with your mates son!'
Five minutes of guessing later I had too give up...
And it was you haha
My point was, more hardware, more doctors, more nurses, more therapists make services better.
I know the concept isn't directly comparable. But I wonder if there's a level of staffing where adding more staff means no improvement in services, or even a decrease?
According to Wiki (based on the 2001 census admittedly) 96.3% of Stokers were born in the UK, and 94.8% identify as white. Seems pretty homogeneous to me.
"We are going to be a confident country that is in control of its own destiny once again." @theresa_may in #Davos https://t.co/ZN1xmtlFiY
Unfortunately a previous owner had decided that it would be a good idea to clean it with a brillo pad so it had a very attractive matt finish
"As a global nation with an internationalist outlook, we have to be able to compete with the world. That means keeping our public expenditure under control and not paying ourselves what we cannot afford. It also means being open for business all the time, being flexible and having the skills we need across a range of cutting edge industries.
We can no longer afford the indulgences of the past when we allowed generous benefits to workers who were ill or needed time to care for relatives or for holidays. We are a global business nation, our competitors don't have those luxuries and we cannot afford them any longer.
Therefore, in the next Budget, we will be proposing radical changes to employment rights."
Couched in the terms of national interest and sweet reason, everyone will agree to it, won't they ?
Con gain Bootle?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start
And how does this fit with your view?
"The rich and middle-classes were more pro-EU.
The AB group backed Remain by 57% to 43%, while the poorer C2DE category was almost two-thirds in favour of quitting, voting Out by 64% to 36%, according to Lord Ashcroft."
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/who-voted-brexit-how-eu-8277077
But essentially what you posted is a nice way of saying you don't trust the voters to know what is in their own interests, I thought it was supposed to be the Tories that did paternalism
https://www.guidemesingapore.com/doing-business/hr/singapore-employment-act-guide
After May departs we may even be heading for a Labour PM but it is for them to convince the electorate
The Stoke council site doesn't mention ethnic demographics but does say the population grew by 3.6% in the last census interval.
Amazing how many of May's opponents don't seem to think that British people have a right to have a say on British laws.
You live and learn ;-)
Utilisation of said machines is the most important aspect - Alliance Medical does a very good job here. Until recently it was British but has just been sold to a South African firm. At least the proceeds will make investors (it was owned by M&G) better off.
There has been a generally liberal leaning consensus in the politics and media of most western nations for years. The Blairs, Camerons, Obamas, Hollandes, Merkels and the Renzi's are basically centrist statist liberals. They have followed a path of globalisation, of pro-business, pro-immigration corporatism. They did this even when the voters said they didn't like it. They carried on doing it when a fair chunk of the voters were bloody furious about it, claiming deprecatingly that they had nowhere else to go.... until they did. They bought the current wave on populists across the world on themselves by ignoring the great unwashed because they didn't like their values, until they found they did need their votes.
The ONS has Stoke Central down as about 88% UK born.
She could, I suppose, have said that we would continue to stay in the Single Market and accept FoM while not being formally in the EU and not being subject to its political ambitions. A very hard sell I'd have thought, given current political realities, don't you?
If she were going to go down that route - and the reason why it was necessary - that should have been sold by all members of the government ever since May became PM.
The other possibility is that the EU would have accepted some limits on immigration but nothing in their stance since the referendum or before it when Cameron was trying to negotiate his deal suggests this as a possibility. The EU's stance has been and is (crudely): "If you want to sell your goods/services to us, you have to accept our unemployed youth."