* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Indeed. The rest of the EU will take a similar view either because their military is a joke, or because they don't want Russia to turn off the gas, or both. NATO and the EU will simultaneously implode as all countries suddenly realise that when push comes to shove they are on their own.
I meant Britain would do nothing. Poland would fight for the Baltics because they'd be next if they didn't. The Russian capacity for nurturing a grudge is such that the 1610 sack of Moscow by the Poles is still an issue of some currency in the Rodina. Germany would fight for Poland and France would fight for Germany if it came to it.
Yep, a strong NATO is a much better option. War in Europe would, at a minimum, shatter the UK economy.
The Russians wouldn't come for us, the UK has never been part of the greater Russian hinterland I do not believe Putin's fantasies extend to global domination, just as far as Warsaw and Kiev probably
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Good morning all Herdson's last paragraph is laughable in many ways:
1. For that reason, I expect Trump to lose in 2020: Herdson never expected him to win in the first place. 2. He only just won this year against a very weak Democrat opponent: Yeh, the opponent everybody, including Herdson, said could never lose.
It may be a bumpy ride, but no one can tell the future: 2016 was the year when the American and World progressive elite knew that the world was theirs for the foreseeable future. They were wrong, and now all around the world, many things are up for grabs.
Yep I think Trump will win (If he is able and chooses to run) against any Democrat in 2020. The US tends to give the incumbent president the benefit of the doubt.
"The new U.S. administration of President Donald Trump said on Friday its trade strategy to protect American jobs would start with withdrawal from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact.
A White House statement issued soon after Trump's inauguration said the United States would also "crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process."
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Indeed. The rest of the EU will take a similar view either because their military is a joke, or because they don't want Russia to turn off the gas, or both. NATO and the EU will simultaneously implode as all countries suddenly realise that when push comes to shove they are on their own.
I meant Britain would do nothing. Poland would fight for the Baltics because they'd be next if they didn't. The Russian capacity for nurturing a grudge is such that the 1610 sack of Moscow by the Poles is still an issue of some currency in the Rodina. Germany would fight for Poland and France would fight for Germany if it came to it.
Yep, a strong NATO is a much better option. War in Europe would, at a minimum, shatter the UK economy.
The Russians wouldn't come for us, the UK has never been part of the greater Russian hinterland I do not believe Putin's fantasies extend to global domination, just as far as Warsaw and Kiev probably
Whether they come for us or not is irrelevant, any war in Europe involving Russia and EU member states would crash markets across the continent and further afield.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Indeed. The rest of the EU will take a similar view either because their military is a joke, or because they don't want Russia to turn off the gas, or both. NATO and the EU will simultaneously implode as all countries suddenly realise that when push comes to shove they are on their own.
I want to point out that Europe's reliance on Russian gas is reducing e.g. Lithuania has leased a floating LNG-terminal, and there are LNG terminals all along the North European coast - the world is not short of natural gas. The sole exception appears to be Germany, which may, in part, explain their enthusiasm for Russian sanctions to be lifted or at least eased.
True, but LNG terminals are very soft targets for unfortunate accidents.
Early days in the Trump Presidency, but the sun has come up again today - in contrast to the perpetual darkness so many feared.....
Indeed. And VERY astute to sign an Ex Order to stop agencies fining those without insurance. Surely the most objectionable tenet of Obamacare? At least the main objection I've heard in voxpops.
When are you starting your Oxford for Trump, hard right grouping? Perhaps you can invite Plato, MikeK and the other ideological right wing pbErs along.
Judging by the attendance of the inauguration yesterday, white supremacy is alive and well in the USA. The KKK must have a great party....
Good morning all Herdson's last paragraph is laughable in many ways:
Herdson never expected him to win in the first place.
He only just won this year against a very weak Democrat opponent: Yeh, the opponent everybody, including Herdson, said could never lose.
You're making yourself look like an arse.
David Herdson tipped trump several times during 2016. I'm not sure he ever said Trump was favorite vs Hillary, but he did repeatedly point out trump was more likely to win than the markets implied.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
Yep, the UK's best days were the ones when taxes were higher than they are now.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
An interesting article from David H as always (and as always, many thanks).
I don't disagree with much of it so just a couple of random thoughts:
1) Is it conceivable the GOP will dump Trump as it were if the midterms go badly in 2018 ? Could we see Trump running as an independent incumbent against GOP and Dem candidates in 2020 ?
2) My perception of Trump's supporters (as with many who voted LEAVE last June, including myself) is that they are questioning, if not struggling with the question of identity and with the question of their country's future and their place in the world.
Up to 1989, there was clarity but since then America has never been certain whether it wanted a Pax Americana worldwide (which required the power and the will to enforce it) or a retreat back to its hemisphere if not its own borders. The geography of America has allowed it the luxury of isolationism that Britain doesn't enjoy from only 22 miles of water.
Yet technology and economy have driven globalisation and the nebulous nature of the cultural and societal changes that has wrought has, I think, left many confused, bewildered and angry. The old-fashioned jobs are gone because the Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis or whoever can produce it so much cheaper - the thing you made before is still there, it's still cheap but it's made somewhere else and your job is gone.
"Stop the World - I Want to Get off" might be a nice mantra for the age but unfortunately the world isn't going to stop. The only thing to bring jobs back is to invest, seriously invest, in education and re-skilling. Promote quality rather than quantity, diversify, invest in r&d and become the world leader you once were but in new technology.
The alternative is to lower your taxes, hope the foreign investors will come and hire your workers to make the tea, scrub the office floors and work for their foreign managers who will live in the nice houses you will help build and whose gardens you will look after and whose houses you will clean - a service industry par excellence.
Trump fronted a tv programme which was ostensibly about investing in people - if the new populism is to be anything other than a race to a bottom, it has to be about learning, training and research.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
and Grammar schools ironically.
Of course. I went to one and have absolutely no problem with them at all. The issue is where the 80% of kids who don't get into grammars go and how you ensure mistakes are rectified and late developers are dealt with. In the old days, there were factories, mines, shipyards, steelworks and the like for less academic kids to walk into when they left school. Not anymore.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
and Grammar schools ironically.
Yep. I am the product of a pair of working class autodidacts, me and my sisters went to a grammar school; me and my elder sister were the first to attend university (though I dropped out fairly early).
My extended family ramify across most of the British class system, from a KoTR and FTSE 100/250 CEOs to builders, plasterers and care assistants . I sit in the middle, too rich to be called poor, too poor to be called rich!
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
Yep, the UK's best days were the ones when taxes were higher than they are now.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and demanding to rewrite NAFTA such a deal is unlikely to be one that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.
How anou we wait to see what the agreement we can negotiate is and then decide whether to sign it not?
On topic, I largely agreee with David, though I'm not sure the defects of populist economics will show up in time to spoil Trump's re-election chances. One issue is going to be the position of Establishment free-trade Republicans who might hypothetically get in the way of tariffs and walls. If they try to block Trump, he and his supporters will certainly try to get them replaced. Senators not up for re-election in 2018 may feel they don't need to care too much. Others will have good reason to be scared for their prospects.
Of course. I went to one and have absolutely no problem with them at all. The issue is where the 80% of kids who don't get into grammars go and how you ensure mistakes are rectified and late developers are dealt with. In the old days, there were factories, mines, shipyards, steelworks and the like for less academic kids to walk into when they left school. Not anymore.
I was making this point yesterday on the discussion on automation, and everyone told me I was talking rubbish and there will be plenty of jobs for displaced manual workers because of education and training. I still don't believe it. Of course better education will help you learn more, reason more efficiently etc. But [1] it doesnt turn someone with 80 IQ into someone with 120 IQ. [2] It applies to everyone, the better education makes the best better as well, so the differential in educational attainment remains. [3] It applies to places like China which will still be cheaper owing to an almost endless workforce, and where people will be educated for longer and more vigorously than would be acceptable in a liberal democracy.
Early days in the Trump Presidency, but the sun has come up again today - in contrast to the perpetual darkness so many feared.....
Indeed. And VERY astute to sign an Ex Order to stop agencies fining those without insurance. Surely the most objectionable tenet of Obamacare? At least the main objection I've heard in voxpops.
When are you starting your Oxford for Trump, hard right grouping? Perhaps you can invite Plato, MikeK and the other ideological right wing pbErs along.
Judging by the attendance of the inauguration yesterday, white supremacy is alive and well in the USA. The KKK must have a great party....
Proud to be put in the same league as Plato. But white supremacist, no! There is not a racist bone in my body.
If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and demanding to rewrite NAFTA such a deal is unlikely to be one that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.
How anou we wait to see what the agreement we can negotiate is and then decide whether to sign it not?
PB has descended into 'borrowing trouble' on this subject. Personally, I don't much care about a UKUSA FTA; we already have a decent basis for trade from the old GATT accords, and if Trump offers us a bad deal, we don't have to take it.
However, we do run a trade surplus with the USA; worst case Trump might want to rectify that.
@Pagan I guess it all depends on what was happening at the time. There could have been a feedback mechanism preventing a runaway event that may not occur next time. Still, the prospect of a Venus seems far less likely than a snowball earth, which has actually happened before.
Yes, I dont necessarily disbelieve there is agw
snip ould also be winners and on balance I am not convinced it wouldnt be positive on the whole.
However sadly my suspicion is we are about to head into another ice age in any case we are certainly overdue
snip.
You have opinions about AGW. Luckily there are serious people who rely on science and measurements to continually refine what is actually happening. Luckily also there are governments that take notice of the science.
"As Mr Trump ponders pulling out of the UN climate deal, China, India, Germany, the EU and the UK have all reaffirmed their promise to curb CO2 emissions."
"As Mr Trump promises to boost jobs by scrapping President Obama's clean energy plans, China is pushing on with a $361bn (£293bn) investment in renewable energy by 2020."
Yes, and what the scientists are doing is to measure what has happened and is happening. They are then inferring causation from correlation on the basis of a sample of one, and putting their data into computer models in an attempt to predict the future - an almost but not quite entirely useless procedure. It is of course sensible of us to do a large number of things like swapping fossil for solar irrespective of whether AGW is true or not (reduce pollution, not worry about peak oil, scupper the Saudis) but nothing justifies your orgy of scientific illiteracy. Why not research the sun exposure/vitamin D debate? Because in that case there was even greater unanimity among scientists about avoiding sun exposure at any cost than there is about AGW, and people lost jobs for questioning the received wisdom. Now, guess what?
And what are you going to do if the scientists decide that race x is a genetic timebomb for the human race and its members must be euthanised immediately? You can't question the science, because you have ruled that out. You can't say that the science would never say something like that; there are plenty of cases where it has said such things; and you can't say yebbut there is a moral issue there, because there is a socking great moral issue in rededicating trillions of dollars of public money from one thing to another.
I don't mean to be rude, but the patronising tone of your post and for that matter your username is far from justifiable given your utter failure to grasp what science actually is.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
MikeK is saying no 'one can tell the future', but I swear that I've seen him recently predict that Trump will win in 2020! Just because some people got 2016 'wrong' doesn't mean they'll be wrong on everything forever!
Early days in the Trump Presidency, but the sun has come up again today - in contrast to the perpetual darkness so many feared.....
Indeed. And VERY astute to sign an Ex Order to stop agencies fining those without insurance. Surely the most objectionable tenet of Obamacare? At least the main objection I've heard in voxpops.
When are you starting your Oxford for Trump, hard right grouping? Perhaps you can invite Plato, MikeK and the other ideological right wing pbErs along.
Judging by the attendance of the inauguration yesterday, white supremacy is alive and well in the USA. The KKK must have a great party....
Proud to be put in the same league as Plato. But white supremacist, no! There is not a racist bone in my body.
I'm sure Plato would be equally proud to be linked with yourself.
If you are not a racist, did you not find the overwhelmingly white audience and performers at yesterday's event slightly worrying? Trump's events and language have all the hallmarks of white supremacy events...yesterday was no different.
Philip's Roth's superb "Plot Against America".......who would have thought it would be so resonant today?
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
No, most voters see in Corbyn someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and who is interested in causes that are of very little interest to them. Name him specifically and the Tories have a double digit lead on the NHS. God help the left if he is seriously the best it can manage.
That's very long, but a really good article about the state of US and specifically Democrat politics.
Yes, and the Labour Party is in similar schtuck.
The Democrats have fallen for their own propaganda. They think they can simply write off America outside big urban areas, because a Coalition of the Ascendant is propelling them to inevitable victory. Since 2010, they've lost a thousand elected offices, a far higher rate of attrition than parties holding the Presidency usually suffer. Trump's victory didn't come out of nowhere.
Early days in the Trump Presidency, but the sun has come up again today - in contrast to the perpetual darkness so many feared.....
Indeed. And VERY astute to sign an Ex Order to stop agencies fining those without insurance. Surely the most objectionable tenet of Obamacare? At least the main objection I've heard in voxpops.
When are you starting your Oxford for Trump, hard right grouping? Perhaps you can invite Plato, MikeK and the other ideological right wing pbErs along.
Judging by the attendance of the inauguration yesterday, white supremacy is alive and well in the USA. The KKK must have a great party....
White Supremacy has been alive in the USA for centuries tyson.
And re your post on the performers - they actually turned Kanye West down because they wanted 'traditionally American' performers. And then you have this:
Thanks to the welfare state, which Labour helped to frame, I got opportunities denied to my predecessors and, again like many others, I was the first in my family to go to university - something that opened up a world to me that had been completely unavailable to my grandparents. My life experience tells me that a strong, redistributionist state works; and that, even if it is not in power, a strong Labour party can play a big part in shaping the national debate.
SO I don't think any mainstream Tories want to dismantle the welfare state: they want to return it to what it was - a safety net that helps people in need rather than the way of life it has become for many. Similarly with university: you clearly were capable of and benefited from university education, but government support should be focused on those who need & will benefit from it rather than some arbitrary target like 50% should go to uni.
It's all about using limited resources to achieve the most progress towards our targets that we can. I'd rather give extra money to a scientist (more than they strictly need so they can have a bit of fun as well) than send someone who will not benefit career wise or generate a positive return on society's investment.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
I honestly was able to do all that by the time I'd done my A-levels and decided to do maths at uni because I thought it'd be a decent challenge, if I was able to choose again then I'd probably go for economics as it is far easier and employers just look at the number after the second rather than the subject. If I had a kid (Not planning to) then I'd just get them to fire off applications after private tuition through their A-levels and then do an ACA with one of the big 4 or some such. The experience at 23 or so they'll have gained will more than make up for the counterfactual of £54k of debt if they can get in. My uni debt is trifling, £5k at 1.5% or so - its a new ball game for the post 2017 graduates and I can only see it going one way.
Day 2 of Trump, and as my wife just said to me, at least he hasn't hit the big red button yet!
A good article David, as usual. It will be fascinating to see what happens in the next couple of years, the new President didn't hold back in his inauguration speech, so the question now is what can he deliver in the next couple of years before the midterms. He has his own party controlling Congress, so can throw them some red meat on things like healthcare reform, tax cuts and SC judge nominations to get things he wants through, such as infrastructure building and trade deal The sticking points will be issues like pharmaceutical monopoly reforms and military spending programmes, where the interests of the entrenched position are very well represented on Capitol Hill. If he really wants to drain the swamp he might try and get term limits in Congress, but he'll need an awful lot of political capital for that one!
I say good luck to him, right now he has the benefit of the doubt but let's see how long that lasts.
Unemployment is less than 5% - historically that's quite low.... I think the problems are more around the need to raise median wages.
Trump wants to increase military spening doesn't he? I don't think he will run into any entrenched problems there... I'm sure the beltway lobbyists will be very happy to make suggestions.
AIUI the unemployment figure in the US is pretty much meaningless, there are a lot of people looking for work who aren't counted as officially unemployed for one reason or another. Agree that the median wage is another important measure.
Trump wants to increase military capability, as opposed to military spending. He will argue that the failure to understand the difference between these concepts among those in Washington is behind a lot of the problems. He's already criticised the cost of his own replacement executive jet, and the long running saga that is the F35 program, currently $130bn (with a B ) over budget.
Learnt a new acronym. AIUI... Quite like it.
The unemployment figure is not meaningless... I think it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that the figure correctly shows Obama has massively reduced unemployment since the recession. That said... You're right that it's complicated with people anting more hours/working part time etc...
When push comes to shove... I think Trump will spend more on military. He is talking about reversing defence cuts and Congress will push him. That said... Will be very funny to see him order a new fighter plane and then just not pay for it!
The point he is making is that the % is pretty meaningless because a lot of peopke stopped looking for work.
I prefer the % of people of economically active agebin work, where the US does less well.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
Russia isn't that stupid, there will be no cause celebre.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
I honestly was able to do all that by the time I'd done my A-levels and decided to do maths at uni because I thought it'd be a decent challenge, if I was able to choose again then I'd probably go for economics as it is far easier and employers just look at the number after the second rather than the subject. If I had a kid (Not planning to) then I'd just get them to fire off applications after private tuition through their A-levels and then do an ACA with one of the big 4 or some such. The experience at 23 or so they'll have gained will more than make up for the counterfactual of £54k of debt if they can get in. My uni debt is trifling, £5k at 1.5% or so - its a new ball game for the post 2017 graduates and I can only see it going one way.
I remember just my £12k of debt at 1.5% being a problem.
I don't think I paid that off until I was 28, and the 9% effective extra "tax" above £15kpa was a real drag on my budget for years.
If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and demanding to rewrite NAFTA such a deal is unlikely to be one that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.
How anou we wait to see what the agreement we can negotiate is and then decide whether to sign it not?
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
Russia isn't that stupid, there will be no cause celebre.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
Yes Prime Minister? (although in that sketch the question was 'Button?'
Thanks to the welfare state, which Labour helped to frame, I got opportunities denied to my predecessors and, again like many others, I was the first in my family to go to university - something that opened up a world to me that had been completely unavailable to my grandparents. My life experience tells me that a strong, redistributionist state works; and that, even if it is not in power, a strong Labour party can play a big part in shaping the national debate.
SO I don't think any mainstream Tories want to dismantle the welfare state: they want to return it to what it was - a safety net that helps people in need rather than the way of life it has become for many. Similarly with university: you clearly were capable of and benefited from university education, but government support should be focused on those who need & will benefit from it rather than some arbitrary target like 50% should go to uni.
It's all about using limited resources to achieve the most progress towards our targets that we can. I'd rather give extra money to a scientist (more than they strictly need so they can have a bit of fun as well) than send someone who will not benefit career wise or generate a positive return on society's investment.
The welfare state was more than a safety net. It was far more generous than it is now.
The thing about Trump and also with Brexit....I cannot think of one cultural figure, literary, art, film, theatre, religious, business, academic, politician....who I respect that actively supports these extreme, right wing nationalist movements.
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge. But as far as Trump goes it's a big fat zilch....
Alt Right Populist Nationalists can dismiss the intelligentsia as some kind of mythical elite all they want....but the nature of these movements is that they pander to lowest common denominator, greed, ignorance, prejudice and stupidity. And as Gobbels knew...it works....the rich elites can mobilise the prejudice of dumb people to create a movement as we now see with Trump and his billionaire cronies running the country to make themselves richer....
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
Russia isn't that stupid, there will be no cause celebre.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
I think the Russians in the Baltic States are a good deal more content with their situation than the Russians in Eastern Ukraine or Crimea.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
Russia isn't that stupid, there will be no cause celebre.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
If not requested by the Latvian government and not withdrawn on request, fire engines are an attack
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
Russia isn't that stupid, there will be no cause celebre.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
Yes Prime Minister? (although in that sketch the question was 'Button?'
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
Russia isn't that stupid, there will be no cause celebre.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
I think the Russians in the Baltic States are a good deal more content with their situation than the Russians in Eastern Ukraine or Crimea.
Russian aggression against the Baltic States is a nailed on certainty with Trump and his distaste for NATO.
Thanks to the welfare state, which Labour helped to frame, I got opportunities denied to my predecessors and, again like many others, I was the first in my family to go to university - something that opened up a world to me that had been completely unavailable to my grandparents. My life experience tells me that a strong, redistributionist state works; and that, even if it is not in power, a strong Labour party can play a big part in shaping the national debate.
SO I don't think any mainstream Tories want to dismantle the welfare state: they want to return it to what it was - a safety net that helps people in need rather than the way of life it has become for many. Similarly with university: you clearly were capable of and benefited from university education, but government support should be focused on those who need & will benefit from it rather than some arbitrary target like 50% should go to uni.
It's all about using limited resources to achieve the most progress towards our targets that we can. I'd rather give extra money to a scientist (more than they strictly need so they can have a bit of fun as well) than send someone who will not benefit career wise or generate a positive return on society's investment.
The welfare state was more than a safety net. It was far more generous than it is now.
How about feeling with the substanti e poibt: it is more generous now and we can't afford it
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge. But as far as Trump goes it's a big fat zilch....
Dyson was for leave, and if fact even for leaving the single market.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
And younger people who live in places like Birmingham, Warrington, Manchester.
Although in the case of the latter it's often argued that the IRA bombed the city and caused a billion pound's worth of improvements! Doesn't mean they don't hate the f...ers that did it though.
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge. But as far as Trump goes it's a big fat zilch....
Dyson was for leave, and if fact even for leaving the single market.
I see the backpeddling to zero continues apace , 'No timetable' for eight Clyde frigates A defence minister has refused to say when the next generation of Royal Navy warships will be built. The project has already been cut from 13 to eight new ships, while a target to start cutting steel in May has been delayed indefinitely.
Tory MP Bob Stewart, a former British Army officer, said: "I don't think we need the minister to answer that - the answer is we had no money.
"That's why we had to cut down the number of Type 26 ships. We did not have the money, and we actually had to cut our means to suit our coat."
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge. But as far as Trump goes it's a big fat zilch....
Dyson was for leave, and if fact even for leaving the single market.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
Russia isn't that stupid, there will be no cause celebre.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge. But as far as Trump goes it's a big fat zilch....
Dyson was for leave, and if fact even for leaving the single market.
I know......I actually said James Dyson and Mervyn King were pro Brexit and that made me think....maybe Mervyn King was ambivalent rather than actually pro Brexit....
But apart those two, there wasn't one person that I could think of that I could respect who came out on behalf of Brexit....and that is a very large pool of talent.
Edited to thank ThomasNashe for his clarification...
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
And younger people who live in places like Birmingham, Warrington, Manchester.
Although in the case of the latter it's often argued that the IRA bombed the city and caused a billion pound's worth of improvements!
As someone from Warrington (albeit was not living there when the bombs went off) - it's noteworthy too that the victim's families set up the "peace centre" and "foundation for peace" and want reconciliation not hate. Still doesn't mean I'd ever have a nice word to say about McGuinness though.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
The IRA is absolute poison in the West Midlands.
The Birmingham pub bombings have never been properly solved. And I haven't noted much attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice for their crime.
I was born in 1960. Y'all are going to have to wait for my generation to die before we forget what the IRA & loyalist paramilitaries did in NI.
There's a lesson here for Europhiles too. You might like to console yourselves that this is merely a hiatus; give it thirty or forty years and you can take the UK back into the EU. It's important to take the long view of history .
As someone from Warrington (albeit was not living there when the bombs went off) - it's noteworthy too that the victim's families set up the "peace centre" and "foundation for peace" and want reconciliation not hate. Still doesn't mean I'd ever have a nice word to say about McGuinness though.
I have to say that most Mancunians were rather pleased with the IRA destruction of the hideous Arndale Centre in 96....
I forget the name of father who set up the Warrington peace movement....he was a fine man, someone I met on various occasions, and someone who gave me great faith in the overwhelming goodness of humanity
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
No, most voters see in Corbyn someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and who is interested in causes that are of very little interest to them. Name him specifically and the Tories have a double digit lead on the NHS. God help the left if he is seriously the best it can manage.
You're both wrong if you think Corbyn is anything other than a tiny part of the problem facing Labour. It doesn't have a coherent platform, it is on the fence on most of the big issues of the day in a way that used to be the Liberals' preserve, and is trying to rely on an alliance between constituencies with directly conflicting interests. Corbyn won in the first place because he was the only air in a vacuum, stale air being better than none. As a thought exercise consider what would be the Labour Party platform under Owen Smith (or Burnham, Cooper, etc.)?
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
Which might help partly explain Corbyn's spectacularly atrocious ratings among the 65+
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
The IRA is absolute poison in the West Midlands.
The Birmingham pub bombings have never been properly solved. And I haven't noted much attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice for their crime.
Too busy pursuing 70 year old soldiers for what they may or may not have done over 40 years ago.....meanwhile the IRA get an amnesty......
I have to say that most Mancunians were rather pleased with the IRA destruction of the hideous Arndale Centre in 96....
I forget the name of father who set up the Warrington peace movement....he was a fine man, someone I met on various occasions, and someone who gave me great faith in the overwhelming goodness of humanity
Most Mancunians were happy to have been bombed and you can't remember the name of someone who had a profound affect on you?!
Early days in the Trump Presidency, but the sun has come up again today - in contrast to the perpetual darkness so many feared.....
Indeed. And VERY astute to sign an Ex Order to stop agencies fining those without insurance. Surely the most objectionable tenet of Obamacare? At least the main objection I've heard in voxpops.
When are you starting your Oxford for Trump, hard right grouping? Perhaps you can invite Plato, MikeK and the other ideological right wing pbErs along.
Judging by the attendance of the inauguration yesterday, white supremacy is alive and well in the USA. The KKK must have a great party....
Oh get over yourself tys - you don't have to hate or love every single politician and each and every policy. There are shades of nuance in politics, you know.
Trump is a shake up of the past - but just as I can see the angle of Farron arguing against leaving Single Market, I can see the angle of this exec. order. It'll be popular.
I have to say that most Mancunians were rather pleased with the IRA destruction of the hideous Arndale Centre in 96....
I forget the name of father who set up the Warrington peace movement....he was a fine man, someone I met on various occasions, and someone who gave me great faith in the overwhelming goodness of humanity
Most Mancunians were happy to have been bombed and you can't remember the name of someone who had a profound affect on you?!
It was Tim Parry's father, Colin. I lived in Latchford at the time and I was on Bridge Street when the second bomb went off. Closest I got to the Troubles, bar a near miss during the Birmingham pub bombings.
I'm with Tyson in that the Arndale was fugly as hell, and Manchester is the better for it's removal. That doesn't give the IRA a free pass in anyway, shape or form.
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge. But as far as Trump goes it's a big fat zilch....
Dyson was for leave, and if fact even for leaving the single market.
I know......I actually said James Dyson and Mervyn King were pro Brexit and that made me think....maybe Mervyn King was ambivalent rather than actually pro Brexit....
But apart those two, there wasn't one person that I could think of that I could respect who came out on behalf of Brexit....and that is a very large pool of talent.
Edited to thank ThomasNashe for his clarification...
Dyson moved his manufacturing base from Wiltshire to Malaysia over ten years ago which gives him a different perspective
Good morning all Herdson's last paragraph is laughable in many ways:
1. For that reason, I expect Trump to lose in 2020: Herdson never expected him to win in the first place. 2. He only just won this year against a very weak Democrat opponent: Yeh, the opponent everybody, including Herdson, said could never lose.
It may be a bumpy ride, but no one can tell the future: 2016 was the year when the American and World progressive elite knew that the world was theirs for the foreseeable future. They were wrong, and now all around the world, many things are up for grabs.
That's wrong. I was still tipping Trump at 6/4. It's true that on balance I thought that Hillary had the better chance of winning (and the fact that she won the popular vote by as much as she did is evidence that she did - she just ballsed up her Firewall states), but the idea that I said she "could never lose" is bullshit.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before. * The Baltic state is a NATO member. * It asks us for help. * Trump refuses.
What do we do?
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.
Completely wrong thinking. You go to their support and unite the rest of Europe behind you. We have an agreement with that country to protect it and that we must. This isn't a war against Russia it is supporting efforts to put down an insurgency. Russia will do nothing once it sees Europe is united against it.
Russia isn't that stupid, there will be no cause celebre.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
I think the Russians in the Baltic States are a good deal more content with their situation than the Russians in Eastern Ukraine or Crimea.
Not least because their rights as a minority are protected by the EU, and also they are substantially richer than Russian Russians, while Ukranian Russians were substantially poorer.
Corbyn's IRA problem is not being photographed with Martin McGuinness. It's that he wanted them to win. He also had no problem with Stop the War, which he was president or chair of, advocating the killing of British soldiers. These things may not bother Nick, but they do bother millions of voters who might otherwise give Labour a hearing.
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Corbyn's IRA problem is not being photographed with Martin McGuinness. It's that he wanted them to win. He also had no problem with Stop the War, which he was president or chair of, advocating the killing of British soldiers. These things may not bother Nick, but they do bother millions of voters who might otherwise give Labour a hearing.
To get a hearing you have to have something to say.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Yes lucky guy - Russia is our benevolent big brother.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
Corbyn's IRA problem is not being photographed with Martin McGuinness. It's that he wanted them to win. He also had no problem with Stop the War, which he was president or chair of, advocating the killing of British soldiers. These things may not bother Nick, but they do bother millions of voters who might otherwise give Labour a hearing.
That's the least of his problems. He doesn't know or isn't able to articulate where he stands on anything that anyone is interested in.
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Yes lucky guy - Russia is our benevolent big brother.
No, they're the Russians. They're a totally known quantity, and they've done nothing shocking or unexpected.
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Yes lucky guy - Russia is our benevolent big brother.
Can you name the last time Russia did anything bad to us. USA rips us off on an ongoing basis, we have only just paid them for all the outdated junk they sold us at exorbitant prices in WWII, they kicked UK out of America , duffed up their navy etc etc. Some halfwits on here wearing blinkers.
You're both wrong if you think Corbyn is anything other than a tiny part of the problem facing Labour. It doesn't have a coherent platform, it is on the fence on most of the big issues of the day in a way that used to be the Liberals' preserve, and is trying to rely on an alliance between constituencies with directly conflicting interests.
Its the "what is Labour for when there is no real prospect of raising taxes and spending other people's money" problem that has been raised here many times. No one seems to know, or at least those that do seem to feel there is precious little chance of getting elected on that sort of platform.
Corbyn's IRA problem is not being photographed with Martin McGuinness. It's that he wanted them to win. He also had no problem with Stop the War, which he was president or chair of, advocating the killing of British soldiers. These things may not bother Nick, but they do bother millions of voters who might otherwise give Labour a hearing.
That's the least of his problems. He doesn't know or isn't able to articulate where he stands on anything that anyone is interested in.
It's more that really interests him is stuff that doesn't interest voters. On a personal level, Corbyn has never needed a Labour governmentor had cause to worry about a Tory one - and it shows.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
I think the issue is now much more a competence one than people fretting about Hamas (who?) or the IRA (oh that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen) or whether we should literally go to war with Russia without America if Estonia were threatened (which even non-Labour people might think is a bit oo-er). These are things which mainly politically active people have views on, and even we mostly don't think they are urgent current matters. But most people have the impression that May is solidly competent and has her party behind her and that Corbyn is shaky and Labour is disorganised and squabbling.
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
When you say "that nice Martin McGuinness who gets on with the Queen", are you implying that's what a meaningful amount of people think?
Very few people aged over 45 would think that, and they go out and vote.
The IRA is absolute poison in the West Midlands.
My old boss was of Irish heritage and he supported the "boys".
We were on a management retreat for a couple of days and one night he was waxing lyrical about how they used to collect money in certain pubs in North London for the cause.
I was drunk at the time but sensible enough to walk away before I did something stupid.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
Oh wow. Snap re: medieval history. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone on PB who didn't study medieval/ancient history.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsers
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
I think that was true 10 years ago, but today almost all university degrees as just a bit of paper. We took on graduates late last year, all of them from globally top universities, all of them were absolutely clueless. Graduates today know what's in the book and that's it, they have no deeper understanding of their subjects, no ability to apply their theories to the real world, just regurgitate on demand what the textbook says because that's how they were able to get a 2.1 without trying too hard.
University degrees held a lot more value when you graduated and even when I did 8 years ago. Today, I think they only help open the door to certain careers and vocational type careers like law or medicince.
Corbyn's IRA problem is not being photographed with Martin McGuinness. It's that he wanted them to win. He also had no problem with Stop the War, which he was president or chair of, advocating the killing of British soldiers. These things may not bother Nick, but they do bother millions of voters who might otherwise give Labour a hearing.
That's the least of his problems. He doesn't know or isn't able to articulate where he stands on anything that anyone is interested in.
Yup. The irony is that whilst Corbyn was, I agree, the only air in the vacuum of the Labour leadership contest, he is vacuous when compared to to the Govt's - who have a position on everything. And, since May took over, this is much more in line with the common ground of Britain - and especially England.
Sorry chaps, but there's a great deal of silliness in this thread. Firstly wrt to 'America 1st' - this has always been the case. Remember BP, or 'British Petroleum' as Obama took delight in calling it. The US has always plundered whatever it wanted from the UK (other places it has been more generous with, but only because they were strategic buffers). It has always organised the world entirely in its own interests, and the latest trade deals are an attempt to entrench its current advantage. All this doing is correctly labelling the tin.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
There's nothing at all they can do legally, and precious little pressure to be exerted morally either, if Trump is as good as his word.
"The plan starts with pro-growth tax reform to help American workers and businesses keep more of their hard-earned dollars. The President’s plan will lower rates for Americans in every tax bracket, simplify the tax code, and reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world. Fixing a tax code that is outdated, overly complex, and too onerous will unleash America’s economy, creating millions of new jobs and boosting economic growth."
If American corporate tax rates are substantially reduced, then the G20 commitment to avoid tax competition - which is the central plank of Schauble's argument - is dead. HM Government can then claim to have been forced to respond by the US decision, if it wishes to follow suit.
I was born in 1960. Y'all are going to have to wait for my generation to die before we forget what the IRA & loyalist paramilitaries did in NI.
There's a lesson here for Europhiles too. You might like to console yourselves that this is merely a hiatus; give it thirty or forty years and you can take the UK back into the EU. It's important to take the long view of history .
Except that today's young Europhiles are not likely to be so when they get older. The ageing process has at no stage made people more Europhile.
Good morning all Herdson's last paragraph is laughable in many ways:
1. For that reason, I expect Trump to lose in 2020: Herdson never expected him to win in the first place. 2. He only just won this year against a very weak Democrat opponent: Yeh, the opponent everybody, including Herdson, said could never lose.
It may be a bumpy ride, but no one can tell the future: 2016 was the year when the American and World progressive elite knew that the world was theirs for the foreseeable future. They were wrong, and now all around the world, many things are up for grabs.
That's wrong. I was still tipping Trump at 6/4. It's true that on balance I thought that Hillary had the better chance of winning (and the fact that she won the popular vote by as much as she did is evidence that she did - she just ballsed up her Firewall states), but the idea that I said she "could never lose" is bullshit.
People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
...
Yep, there are many like me and your Mum. The advances made by ordinary people in the second half of the 20th century were wonderful. God bless the welfare state.
Southam with respect when you went to uni it was completely free, nowadays pretty much every 20 something year old has been there - and its not really a competitive advantage... more just up to a 9% pay cut for the rest of your working life.
It's still a small advantage in certain industries. I don't think it would be easy to go into banking without a degree. I personally have never needed my degree for anything since I graduated. It's just in a frame in my old bedroom. However, opening the door without one is close to impossible these days. It shouldn't be that way because there is an awfully large amount of talent being ignored, but the recruitment industry is just rubbish.
It's not just a qualification, it's an education. I studied medieval history and the subject has been totally irrelevant to all that I have done since. But the disciplines I learned in terms of analysing sources and framing arguments have been invaluable. I did not have those skills when I left school.
I think that was true 10 years ago, but today almost all university degrees as just a bit of paper. We took on graduates late last year, all of them from globally top universities, all of them were absolutely clueless. Graduates today know what's in the book and that's it, they have no deeper understanding of their subjects, no ability to apply their theories to the real world, just regurgitate on demand what the textbook says because that's how they were able to get a 2.1 without trying too hard.
University degrees held a lot more value when you graduated and even when I did 8 years ago. Today, I think they only help open the door to certain careers and vocational type careers like law or medicince.
The one and only time I sifted through 320 grad applications (4 years ago now) shocked me to the bone. I had not heard of most of the Universities.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....
Comments
I do not believe Putin's fantasies extend to global domination, just as far as Warsaw and Kiev probably
A White House statement issued soon after Trump's inauguration said the United States would also "crack down on those nations that violate trade agreements and harm American workers in the process."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1542NR
When are you starting your Oxford for Trump, hard right grouping? Perhaps you can invite Plato, MikeK and the other ideological right wing pbErs along.
Judging by the attendance of the inauguration yesterday, white supremacy is alive and well in the USA. The KKK must have a great party....
David Herdson tipped trump several times during 2016. I'm not sure he ever said Trump was favorite vs Hillary, but he did repeatedly point out trump was more likely to win than the markets implied.
An interesting article from David H as always (and as always, many thanks).
I don't disagree with much of it so just a couple of random thoughts:
1) Is it conceivable the GOP will dump Trump as it were if the midterms go badly in 2018 ? Could we see Trump running as an independent incumbent against GOP and Dem candidates in 2020 ?
2) My perception of Trump's supporters (as with many who voted LEAVE last June, including myself) is that they are questioning, if not struggling with the question of identity and with the question of their country's future and their place in the world.
Up to 1989, there was clarity but since then America has never been certain whether it wanted a Pax Americana worldwide (which required the power and the will to enforce it) or a retreat back to its hemisphere if not its own borders. The geography of America has allowed it the luxury of isolationism that Britain doesn't enjoy from only 22 miles of water.
Yet technology and economy have driven globalisation and the nebulous nature of the cultural and societal changes that has wrought has, I think, left many confused, bewildered and angry. The old-fashioned jobs are gone because the Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis or whoever can produce it so much cheaper - the thing you made before is still there, it's still cheap but it's made somewhere else and your job is gone.
"Stop the World - I Want to Get off" might be a nice mantra for the age but unfortunately the world isn't going to stop. The only thing to bring jobs back is to invest, seriously invest, in education and re-skilling. Promote quality rather than quantity, diversify, invest in r&d and become the world leader you once were but in new technology.
The alternative is to lower your taxes, hope the foreign investors will come and hire your workers to make the tea, scrub the office floors and work for their foreign managers who will live in the nice houses you will help build and whose gardens you will look after and whose houses you will clean - a service industry par excellence.
Trump fronted a tv programme which was ostensibly about investing in people - if the new populism is to be anything other than a race to a bottom, it has to be about learning, training and research.
My extended family ramify across most of the British class system, from a KoTR and FTSE 100/250 CEOs to builders, plasterers and care assistants
The perception of May will probably weaken over time, as nearly all leaders slide as reality swamps them. Labour is now less obviously squabble-prone and Corbyn has fixed some of the problems, but changing perceptions is extremely difficult. But so is finding a credible alternative who members and indeed voters will think is worth turning out for and a credible PM. Would we now be ahead in the polls if we were led by, say, Andy Burnham, nice though he is?
Peresonally I agree with most of Corbyn's views, I really like his style and I see him as something of a personal friend, so I'm loyal and that won't be affected by polls or by-election results. The wider party is naturally uneasy but doesn't see a good alternative before 2020.
University is charged
Care is charged
Britain 2017.
However, we do run a trade surplus with the USA; worst case Trump might want to rectify that.
And what are you going to do if the scientists decide that race x is a genetic timebomb for the human race and its members must be euthanised immediately? You can't question the science, because you have ruled that out. You can't say that the science would never say something like that; there are plenty of cases where it has said such things; and you can't say yebbut there is a moral issue there, because there is a socking great moral issue in rededicating trillions of dollars of public money from one thing to another.
I don't mean to be rude, but the patronising tone of your post and for that matter your username is far from justifiable given your utter failure to grasp what science actually is.
If you are not a racist, did you not find the overwhelmingly white audience and performers at yesterday's event slightly worrying? Trump's events and language have all the hallmarks of white supremacy events...yesterday was no different.
Philip's Roth's superb "Plot Against America".......who would have thought it would be so resonant today?
And re your post on the performers - they actually turned Kanye West down because they wanted 'traditionally American' performers. And then you have this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkJ1MnUf6ZM
Thanks Blair.
SO I don't think any mainstream Tories want to dismantle the welfare state: they want to return it to what it was - a safety net that helps people in need rather than the way of life it has become for many. Similarly with university: you clearly were capable of and benefited from university education, but government support should be focused on those who need & will benefit from it rather than some arbitrary target like 50% should go to uni.
It's all about using limited resources to achieve the most progress towards our targets that we can. I'd rather give extra money to a scientist (more than they strictly need so they can have a bit of fun as well) than send someone who will not benefit career wise or generate a positive return on society's investment.
If I had a kid (Not planning to) then I'd just get them to fire off applications after private tuition through their A-levels and then do an ACA with one of the big 4 or some such.
The experience at 23 or so they'll have gained will more than make up for the counterfactual of £54k of debt if they can get in.
My uni debt is trifling, £5k at 1.5% or so - its a new ball game for the post 2017 graduates and I can only see it going one way.
George H Bush followed Reagan ensuring that the GOP held the Presidency for 12 years.
I prefer the % of people of economically active agebin work, where the US does less well.
The are riots in Riga, buildings are in flames, the Russias send some fire engines to help, is that time to attack ?
The riots don't calm down so they send some police to help manage the rioting, is that time to attack ?
The police feel endangered, so the Russians send a few troops just for riot control you understand.. time to attack ?
After the riots the troops don't go, they are going to stay on and support the civilian administration... attack ?
A division of mechanised infantry "accidentally" crosses the border into Latvia and doesn't seem in a hurry to leave .. must be time to attack soon ?
The civilian administration closes borders with Poland, and Riga International Airport to all but flights from Russia ... oops, too late!
I don't think I paid that off until I was 28, and the 9% effective extra "tax" above £15kpa was a real drag on my budget for years.
It's all about using limited resources to achieve the most progress towards our targets that we can. I'd rather give extra money to a scientist (more than they strictly need so they can have a bit of fun as well) than send someone who will not benefit career wise or generate a positive return on society's investment.
The welfare state was more than a safety net. It was far more generous than it is now.
Possibly James Dyson and Mervyn King for Brexit made me think... Even traditional, outspoken Tories like Loyd Webber and I think Michael Caine came behind Remain from my knowledge. But as far as Trump goes it's a big fat zilch....
Alt Right Populist Nationalists can dismiss the intelligentsia as some kind of mythical elite all they want....but the nature of these movements is that they pander to lowest common denominator, greed, ignorance, prejudice and stupidity. And as Gobbels knew...it works....the rich elites can mobilise the prejudice of dumb people to create a movement as we now see with Trump and his billionaire cronies running the country to make themselves richer....
How about feeling with the substanti e poibt: it is more generous now and we can't afford it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37357391
Although in the case of the latter it's often argued that the IRA bombed the city and caused a billion pound's worth of improvements! Doesn't mean they don't hate the f...ers that did it though.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4142292/PETER-OBOURNE-death-Labour.html
'No timetable' for eight Clyde frigates
A defence minister has refused to say when the next generation of Royal Navy warships will be built.
The project has already been cut from 13 to eight new ships, while a target to start cutting steel in May has been delayed indefinitely.
Tory MP Bob Stewart, a former British Army officer, said: "I don't think we need the minister to answer that - the answer is we had no money.
"That's why we had to cut down the number of Type 26 ships. We did not have the money, and we actually had to cut our means to suit our coat."
I know......I actually said James Dyson and Mervyn King were pro Brexit and that made me think....maybe Mervyn King was ambivalent rather than actually pro Brexit....
But apart those two, there wasn't one person that I could think of that I could respect who came out on behalf of Brexit....and that is a very large pool of talent.
Edited to thank ThomasNashe for his clarification...
There's a lesson here for Europhiles too. You might like to console yourselves that this is merely a hiatus; give it thirty or forty years and you can take the UK back into the EU. It's important to take the long view of history
Cutting Corporation tax has been trailed extensively before.....and despite reported German fury, there's not a lot they can do about it.....
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/schauble-attacks-british-tax-cuts-648309
As someone from Warrington (albeit was not living there when the bombs went off) - it's noteworthy too that the victim's families set up the "peace centre" and "foundation for peace" and want reconciliation not hate. Still doesn't mean I'd ever have a nice word to say about McGuinness though.
@above
I have to say that most Mancunians were rather pleased with the IRA destruction of the hideous Arndale Centre in 96....
I forget the name of father who set up the Warrington peace movement....he was a fine man, someone I met on various occasions, and someone who gave me great faith in the overwhelming goodness of humanity
Feels like it would definitely fit under America First. Hard to see much sympathy in the rust belt for UN diplomats.
Trump is a shake up of the past - but just as I can see the angle of Farron arguing against leaving Single Market, I can see the angle of this exec. order. It'll be popular.
I'm with Tyson in that the Arndale was fugly as hell, and Manchester is the better for it's removal. That doesn't give the IRA a free pass in anyway, shape or form.
https://twitter.com/woodlandsandrew/status/822749080199843841
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/17/trump-grinding-his-way-to-victory/
There's a difference between the statements of some scientists to the entire scientific community being all in agreement on something.
Secondly wrt Russia - Russia's actions are reciprocal to 'The Wests'. We hear when Russia moves a missile closer the border, but we don't hear about the NATO manoeuvres that this is a response to. If we calm down, they will calm down. A lot of PBers have been taken in by what is essentially propaganda, and it's been an embarrassing spectacle.
Some halfwits on here wearing blinkers.
We were on a management retreat for a couple of days and one night he was waxing lyrical about how they used to collect money in certain pubs in North London for the cause.
I was drunk at the time but sensible enough to walk away before I did something stupid.
University degrees held a lot more value when you graduated and even when I did 8 years ago. Today, I think they only help open the door to certain careers and vocational type careers like law or medicince.
"The plan starts with pro-growth tax reform to help American workers and businesses keep more of their hard-earned dollars. The President’s plan will lower rates for Americans in every tax bracket, simplify the tax code, and reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world. Fixing a tax code that is outdated, overly complex, and too onerous will unleash America’s economy, creating millions of new jobs and boosting economic growth."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/bringing-back-jobs-and-growth
If American corporate tax rates are substantially reduced, then the G20 commitment to avoid tax competition - which is the central plank of Schauble's argument - is dead. HM Government can then claim to have been forced to respond by the US decision, if it wishes to follow suit.
I mean, I expected to not know some of the less popular colleges and PPHs at The Other Place....