[Sir Howard Davies, the chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland and a former deputy governor of the Bank of England] , who spends part of his time as a professor at the Sciences Po university in Paris, said: “There clearly is a risk of a disorderly Brexit if it becomes politically very unpleasant. I’m slightly anxious about the fact that what I hear when I go over to the other side of the Channel is all they are focusing on is the size of the [settlement] bill and that seems to me not particularly well understood in the debate here."
That's exactly the same point which I made here earlier today.
Haven't we built up substantial assets in the EU?
Maybe we have, maybe we haven't. Either way, the question of any payments we might make is a complete sideshow, of no importance whatsoever in the overall scheme of things compared with the potential impact (to both sides) of disruption of trade. This is obvious because our entire net EU contributions at the moment are only a few £bn a year; clearly whatever we agree is going to be substantially less than that, therefore small change.
The fact that our EU friends seem to be obsessing about payments, and throwing around figures which are clearly ludicrous when compared with what we currently pay for full membership, suggests that they've totally lost the plot.
Alternatively, it's some childish negotiating bluff, but it doesn't come across like that.
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
The point is to take back control of our borders and laws
Even as a bleeding-heart liberal, I don't buy this "the country will collapse without immigrants" rubbish.
If these big businesses are complaining that British workers don't have the skills to fill their jobs, then the answer could be.....for those businesses to train and skill those British workers themselves?
I don't mind immigration, but its like the bloody leaves on the line when it comes to infrastructure/housing. Basically a new Coventry, Hull or Leicester needs to be built every year - yet it never ever happens.
Why does a new one need to be built every year?
Why can't a hundred houses be built in a thousand suburbs each year rather than a new city each year?
That is what I meant, sorry for not expressing myself that clearly. My point is that simply doesn't happen.
It's not you, it is a common way for it to be expressed and is a bugbear of mine. Getting a few homes built in lots of locations should not be that difficult and is less noticeable but more successful than great honking new cities.
That still means the infrastructure of those places will be affected,if you build new towns,you get new roads,hospitals,schools and so on.
The suburbs way probably means more people will have to share in the already overburdened infrastructure.
I got an email invite not long ago to a conferece on "planning for super-density ". So that is were London is at, super-density, whatever that is. It may be fine, it may even be plannable, but when were we given the choice to consider it ? Plan a involves this and that cost and benefit, and planning B some others which include super-density ?
I always feel that London is an exception. Few other British cities have its transport infrastructure. Maybe if all cities had trams/metros and rail/bus/metro/expressway links direct to airports and ports then it would be different.
And none have publicly-run bus companies!
Nor do they have anything approaching the Oyster card system, although when I was last down in London my contactless debit card was sufficient for travelling around the underground. It worked very well.
They are trialling something like the Oyster on Manchester's Metro.
Why is a strange network of Twitter accounts, usually the source of pro-Russian messages, now pumping out tweets about a very specific British election?
This is fascinating. Lots of pro-Corbyn, anti-UKIP Russian propaganda. No idea if official, but at the very least, organised.
There's been lots of talk of Russia supporting fringe parties across Europe as part of a destabilisation drive, is Corbyn so ineffective that he has now supplanted Nuttall as being the "best" worst man for the job?
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
Hi Beverley, hope you and all the family are well?
I don't think a nasty fall out over cash will derail Brexit, if anything it could see public support for UK Brexit becoming even more entrenched. There could also now be an even bigger danger for Lab/Libdem remain politicians who are opposing Brexit. And that is that they will be perceived as not getting behind the Governement/UK plc in the negociations by both Leave and Remain voters. I suspect that the similiar position held by the SNP, and one they have tied firmly to the threat of a 2nd Indy Ref could also fast become more toxic for them up here in Scotland despite the fact the majority of Scots voted to Remain.
He has to stop it quickly and for that he has to start talking about his precise views on all subjects and stop the televangelist fudge (in his Toulon meeting lastweek he informed his fans that "I understand you and I love you all").
Sounding like Trump. "On va gagner, grandement."
He was apparently trying to channel De Gaulle famous 1958 "Je vous ai compris" speech... A step to far for many older voters.
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
Which all comes back to Lord Kerr's point that Article 50 is revocable. Since he wrote it I would expect him to know what he is on about.
There is also the "Income tax" option. Income Tax in the UK is a temporary tax voted into existence every year in the Budget. The Article 50 period is temporary (2 years) unless extended by mutual consent. If it works for Income Tax.....
If a car crash disaster beckons and a way out exists then both sides have an incentive to take it.
I got an email invite not long ago to a conferece on "planning for super-density ". So that is were London is at, super-density, whatever that is. It may be fine, it may even be plannable, but when were we given the choice to consider it ? Plan a involves this and that cost and benefit, and planning B some others which include super-density ?
I always feel that London is an exception. Few other British cities have its transport infrastructure. Maybe if all cities had trams/metros and rail/bus/metro/expressway links direct to airports and ports then it would be different.
And none have publicly-run bus companies!
Nor do they have anything approaching the Oyster card system, although when I was last down in London my contactless debit card was sufficient for travelling around the underground. It worked very well.
They are trialling something like the Oyster on Manchester's Metro.
I got an email invite not long ago to a conferece on "planning for super-density ". So that is were London is at, super-density, whatever that is. It may be fine, it may even be plannable, but when were we given the choice to consider it ? Plan a involves this and that cost and benefit, and planning B some others which include super-density ?
I always feel that London is an exception. Few other British cities have its transport infrastructure. Maybe if all cities had trams/metros and rail/bus/metro/expressway links direct to airports and ports then it would be different.
And none have publicly-run bus companies!
Nor do they have anything approaching the Oyster card system, although when I was last down in London my contactless debit card was sufficient for travelling around the underground. It worked very well.
They are trialling something like the Oyster on Manchester's Metro.
Yesterday, did Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley and Castleford northbound, and via Barnsley avoiding Castleford southbound. Today, did Leeds to Ilkley, Ilkley to Bradford Forster Square and from there to Saltaire. Spent a while in Saltaire (avoiding the rain!), a UNESCO world heritage site. Then late in the afternoon, did Leeds to Selby non-stop (already did Doncaster to Selby to Hull a few days into the New Year).
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
Which all comes back to Lord Kerr's point that Article 50 is revocable. Since he wrote it I would expect him to know what he is on about.
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
Hi Beverley, hope you and all the family are well?
Yes thanks. One daughter is now employed and the other is in her final year of her Chemistry degree. How are the boys faring? If I recall correctly there was one of them wanting to join the military?
... if anything it could see public support for UK Brexit becoming even more entrenched. There could also now be an even bigger danger for Lab/Libdem remain politicians who are opposing Brexit. And that is that they will be perceived as not getting behind the Governement/UK plc in the negociations by both Leave and Remain voters. I suspect that the similiar position held by the SNP, and one they have tied firmly to the threat of a 2nd Indy Ref could also fast become more toxic for them up here in Scotland despite the fact the majority of Scots voted to Remain.
I have no idea how it will pan out for Brexit, but I do think IndyRef2 is dead in the water and for all their sabre rattling the SNP dare not call for a referendum they have no hope of winning.
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
Err....
That is either very profound or deliberately obfuscating.
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
Which all comes back to Lord Kerr's point that Article 50 is revocable. Since he wrote it I would expect him to know what he is on about.
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
In legal matters, it does not seem so rare for a clause to mean (in the opinion of the judges who matter) something rather distinct to what those who wrote it or voted for it had intended.
[Sir Howard Davies, the chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland and a former deputy governor of the Bank of England] , who spends part of his time as a professor at the Sciences Po university in Paris, said: “There clearly is a risk of a disorderly Brexit if it becomes politically very unpleasant. I’m slightly anxious about the fact that what I hear when I go over to the other side of the Channel is all they are focusing on is the size of the [settlement] bill and that seems to me not particularly well understood in the debate here."
That's exactly the same point which I made here earlier today.
Haven't we built up substantial assets in the EU?
Maybe we have, maybe we haven't. Either way, the question of any payments we might make is a complete sideshow, of no importance whatsoever in the overall scheme of things compared with the potential impact (to both sides) of disruption of trade. This is obvious because our entire net EU contributions at the moment are only a few £bn a year; clearly whatever we agree is going to be substantially less than that, therefore small change.
The fact that our EU friends seem to be obsessing about payments, and throwing around figures which are clearly ludicrous when compared with what we currently pay for full membership, suggests that they've totally lost the plot.
Alternatively, it's some childish negotiating bluff, but it doesn't come across like that.
Between 2010 and 2015 our net contribution totalled just over £52 billion. Hardly only a few billion.
Yesterday, did Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley and Castleford northbound, and via Barnsley avoiding Castleford southbound. Today, did Leeds to Ilkley, Ilkley to Bradford Forster Square and from there to Saltaire. Spent a while in Saltaire (avoiding the rain!), a UNESCO world heritage site. Then late in the afternoon, did Leeds to Selby non-stop (already did Doncaster to Selby to Hull a few days into the New Year).
How much longer will it take to complete the rest of the UK?
[Sir Howard Davies, the chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland and a former deputy governor of the Bank of England] , who spends part of his time as a professor at the Sciences Po university in Paris, said: “There clearly is a risk of a disorderly Brexit if it becomes politically very unpleasant. I’m slightly anxious about the fact that what I hear when I go over to the other side of the Channel is all they are focusing on is the size of the [settlement] bill and that seems to me not particularly well understood in the debate here."
That's exactly the same point which I made here earlier today.
Haven't we built up substantial assets in the EU?
Maybe we have, maybe we haven't. Either way, the question of any payments we might make is a complete sideshow, of no importance whatsoever in the overall scheme of things compared with the potential impact (to both sides) of disruption of trade. This is obvious because our entire net EU contributions at the moment are only a few £bn a year; clearly whatever we agree is going to be substantially less than that, therefore small change.
The fact that our EU friends seem to be obsessing about payments, and throwing around figures which are clearly ludicrous when compared with what we currently pay for full membership, suggests that they've totally lost the plot.
Alternatively, it's some childish negotiating bluff, but it doesn't come across like that.
I get the feeling that the grown ups in Germany do not share this hysteria. I wonder if it is emanating mostly from those who feel their influence in the process slipping away ... the French and the Commission.
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
If a car crash disaster beckons and a way out exists then both sides have an incentive to take it.
Not sure that folks are that rational. Just because a route of action is pointless, self defeating and destructive doesn't mean that it won't happen!
The point is to take back control of our borders and laws
Even as a bleeding-heart liberal, I don't buy this "the country will collapse without immigrants" rubbish.
If these big businesses are complaining that British workers don't have the skills to fill their jobs, then the answer could be.....for those businesses to train and skill those British workers themselves?
I don't mind immigration, but its like the bloody leaves on the line when it comes to infrastructure/housing. Basically a new Coventry, Hull or Leicester needs to be built every year - yet it never ever happens.
Why does a new one need to be built every year?
Why can't a hundred houses be built in a thousand suburbs each year rather than a new city each year?
That is what I meant, sorry for not expressing myself that clearly. My point is that simply doesn't happen.
It's not you, it is a common way for it to be expressed and is a bugbear of mine. Getting a few homes built in lots of locations should not be that difficult and is less noticeable but more successful than great honking new cities.
That still means the infrastructure of those places will be affected,if you build new towns,you get new roads,hospitals,schools and so on.
The suburbs way probably means more people will have to share in the already overburdened infrastructure.
Or you get new roads, hospitals, schools etc as well as new homes built at the edge of town both addressing the needs of the new residents and addressing whatever concerns the existing residents have.
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
If a car crash disaster beckons and a way out exists then both sides have an incentive to take it.
Not sure that folks are that rational. Just because a route of action is pointless, self defeating and destructive doesn't mean that it won't happen!
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
Which all comes back to Lord Kerr's point that Article 50 is revocable. Since he wrote it I would expect him to know what he is on about.
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
In fairness, what was in the mind of someone drafting a rule might not be the same as those approving the rule. I've encountered that very problem. If the point was not explicitly covered in explanation at the time, it'll always be arguable both ways.
Yesterday, did Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley and Castleford northbound, and via Barnsley avoiding Castleford southbound. Today, did Leeds to Ilkley, Ilkley to Bradford Forster Square and from there to Saltaire. Spent a while in Saltaire (avoiding the rain!), a UNESCO world heritage site. Then late in the afternoon, did Leeds to Selby non-stop (already did Doncaster to Selby to Hull a few days into the New Year).
How much longer will it take to complete the rest of the UK?
A little while yet: I'm going back to work next week, touch wood
Why is a strange network of Twitter accounts, usually the source of pro-Russian messages, now pumping out tweets about a very specific British election?
This is fascinating. Lots of pro-Corbyn, anti-UKIP Russian propaganda. No idea if official, but at the very least, organised.
There's been lots of talk of Russia supporting fringe parties across Europe as part of a destabilisation drive, is Corbyn so ineffective that he has now supplanted Nuttall as being the "best" worst man for the job?
It isn't really a story though. The twitter accounts have ~10 followers (yes thats 10, not 10k) when I looked earlier today and had to be "discovered" by a researcher, so it is highly unlikely it is some organized Russian propaganda operation.
It costs pennies to buy 1000s of followers, so if you were serious about this you would obviously establish a network of twitter accounts each which have a decent number of followers, not ones that are totally irrelevant that nobody but a person looking for this managed to find them.
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
Which all comes back to Lord Kerr's point that Article 50 is revocable. Since he wrote it I would expect him to know what he is on about.
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
In legal matters, it does not seem so rare for a clause to mean (in the opinion of the judges who matter) something rather distinct to what those who wrote it or voted for it had intended.
And the ECJ has more than a little history of overturning what the politicians agreed...
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
Err....
That is either very profound or deliberately obfuscating.
I think it's also the excuse used when someone trolls artists or poets with deliberately crap work whose meaningfulness is praised - that the work can still be meaningful even if the creator did it as a gag. Although to be fair sometimes a creator might not spot their own influences.
Tolkien wasn't a fan of it though, iirc. I think in a foreword he talked of the story having applicability rather than directly allegorical.
For anyone else who has been feeling that the "facture « très salée » pour le Royaume-Uni" is uncannily reminiscent of something else, compare "Mexico will pay for the wall" - very much the same unseemly and childish malevolence. Juncker has seriously demeaned himself, at the same time as shooting himself in the foot - because if we can't afford the exit charge, a fortiori we can't afford to stay in.
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
Which all comes back to Lord Kerr's point that Article 50 is revocable. Since he wrote it I would expect him to know what he is on about.
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
In legal matters, it does not seem so rare for a clause to mean (in the opinion of the judges who matter) something rather distinct to what those who wrote it or voted for it had intended.
And the ECJ has more than a little history of overturning what the politicians agreed...
Is there not already an application to the ECJ to rule on Article 50's revocability?
I got that impression a couple of weeks back when the sources in the EU first started throwing the figure of 60B around.
It has been coming for a long time. I recall someone mentioning it way before Xmas. If anything will derail Brexit it will be money and the arguments over money.
It will not be a derailment of Brexit, but more likely make for a car crash Brexit as A50 expires without agreement. No UK government could survive paying so much and still having a hard Brexit.
Which all comes back to Lord Kerr's point that Article 50 is revocable. Since he wrote it I would expect him to know what he is on about.
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
In legal matters, it does not seem so rare for a clause to mean (in the opinion of the judges who matter) something rather distinct to what those who wrote it or voted for it had intended.
And the ECJ has more than a little history of overturning what the politicians agreed...
Is there not already an application to the ECJ to rule on Article 50's revocability?
I think it's also the excuse used when someone trolls artists or poets with deliberately crap work whose meaningfulness is praised - that the work can still be meaningful even if the creator did it as a gag. Although to be fair sometimes a creator might not spot their own influences.
The point is to take back control of our borders and laws
Even as a bleeding-heart liberal, I don't buy this "the country will collapse without immigrants" rubbish.
If these big businesses are complaining that British workers don't have the skills to fill their jobs, then the answer could be.....for those businesses to train and skill those British workers themselves?
I don't mind immigration, but its like the bloody leaves on the line when it comes to infrastructure/housing. Basically a new Coventry, Hull or Leicester needs to be built every year - yet it never ever happens.
Why does a new one need to be built every year?
Why can't a hundred houses be built in a thousand suburbs each year rather than a new city each year?
That is what I meant, sorry for not expressing myself that clearly. My point is that simply doesn't happen.
It's not you, it is a common way for it to be expressed and is a bugbear of mine. Getting a few homes built in lots of locations should not be that difficult and is less noticeable but more successful than great honking new cities.
That still means the infrastructure of those places will be affected,if you build new towns,you get new roads,hospitals,schools and so on.
The suburbs way probably means more people will have to share in the already overburdened infrastructure.
Or you get new roads, hospitals, schools etc as well as new homes built at the edge of town both addressing the needs of the new residents and addressing whatever concerns the existing residents have.
You're right about addressing the concerns of the existing residents - these people would fight hammer and tong against more housing around them.
I always feel that London is an exception. Few other British cities have its transport infrastructure. Maybe if all cities had trams/metros and rail/bus/metro/expressway links direct to airports and ports then it would be different.
And none have publicly-run bus companies!
Nottingham does. Swindon did until a couple of weeks ago (Thamesdown Transport sold to Go-Ahead).
From the reports I read the people complaining are shop owners in cities and commuter towns.
Harsh as it may sound wouldn't it be more economically efficient if their properties were converted into residential use rather than maintained as struggling small businesses ?
I think the most interesting story might be the LDs.
Why aren't we talking about them challenging Labour in the north? When did they resign that?
Oh, come on. The Lib Dems have never been serious challengers in poor, northern working class areas like Stoke or Whitehaven/Cleator Moor, other than the occasional special social circumstance such as David Alton's Liverpool seat.
Hi Beverley, hope you and all the family are well?
Yes thanks. One daughter is now employed and the other is in her final year of her Chemistry degree. How are the boys faring? If I recall correctly there was one of them wanting to join the military?
Oldest lad now employed, middle lad achieved a first in History and International relations last summer while our youngest lad is now in second year at Uni doing accounting and economics. It is our middle lad that is still hoping for a career in the military, but an ankle injury playing rugby has caused him to delay his application until he was fully fit again. In the meantime, he is just about to head off to the US to attempt part of the Appalachian Trail with a friend. That is going to be a few weeks where I will be firmly wearing my worried Mum bonnet.
The point is to take back control of our borders and laws
Even as a bleeding-heart liberal, I don't buy this "the country will collapse without immigrants" rubbish.
If these big businesses are complaining that British workers don't have the skills to fill their jobs, then the answer could be.....for those businesses to train and skill those British workers themselves?
I don't mind immigration, but its like the bloody leaves on the line when it comes to infrastructure/housing. Basically a new Coventry, Hull or Leicester needs to be built every year - yet it never ever happens.
Why does a new one need to be built every year?
Why can't a hundred houses be built in a thousand suburbs each year rather than a new city each year?
That is what I meant, sorry for not expressing myself that clearly. My point is that simply doesn't happen.
It's not you, it is a common way for it to be expressed and is a bugbear of mine. Getting a few homes built in lots of locations should not be that difficult and is less noticeable but more successful than great honking new cities.
That still means the infrastructure of those places will be affected,if you build new towns,you get new roads,hospitals,schools and so on.
The suburbs way probably means more people will have to share in the already overburdened infrastructure.
Or you get new roads, hospitals, schools etc as well as new homes built at the edge of town both addressing the needs of the new residents and addressing whatever concerns the existing residents have.
You're right about addressing the concerns of the existing residents - these people would fight hammer and tong against more housing around them.
Not if it is done right. My town has quite happily had new development after new development approved year after year. The fact that the new developments are well designed, nice homes that go along with the town and come with new shops, schools, jobs etc rather than forcing new construction to go higher into already dense areas probably helps. When people have children, friends, colleagues or other relatives going for these new homes that probably helps too.
There is one development alone that has thousands of homes going onto what used to be a US Air Force base on the outskirts of town. My house was a new build.
Why is a strange network of Twitter accounts, usually the source of pro-Russian messages, now pumping out tweets about a very specific British election?
This is fascinating. Lots of pro-Corbyn, anti-UKIP Russian propaganda. No idea if official, but at the very least, organised.
There's been lots of talk of Russia supporting fringe parties across Europe as part of a destabilisation drive, is Corbyn so ineffective that he has now supplanted Nuttall as being the "best" worst man for the job?
It isn't really a story though. The twitter accounts have ~10 followers (yes thats 10, not 10k) when I looked earlier today and had to be "discovered" by a researcher, so it is highly unlikely it is some organized Russian propaganda operation.
It costs pennies to buy 1000s of followers, so if you were serious about this you would obviously establish a network of twitter accounts each which have a decent number of followers, not ones that are totally irrelevant that nobody but a person looking for this managed to find them.
This is what I don't understand actually (and why I don't take the story as it appears on the BBC at face value).
It's clearly an ineffective waste of time.
But still, to do what is currently being done (running the accounts, creating the memes and so on) still takes time, energy, and potentially cost.
The quality of the output is noticeably better than what many genuine activists produce "organically". So it looks professional, or at least semi-professional. (And fluent English, plus keeping track of the political minutiae of Britain, require substantial time and expertise in their own right.)
Yet as you say, if it was being done "properly", there'd be more followers, for example.
It's a strange thing to be doing as an amateur hobby-project. And I've seen people who are fairly clearly paid Russian shills turning up and commenting on utterly obscure blogs, forums or local/regional newspapers where I'd be surprised if their comments got more than a couple of hundred views, so it isn't as if the pros spend their time and energy effectively all the time either. But as you say, this looks far too small an operation to be really serious. Just can't get my head around what it actually is.
I always feel that London is an exception. Few other British cities have its transport infrastructure. Maybe if all cities had trams/metros and rail/bus/metro/expressway links direct to airports and ports then it would be different.
And none have publicly-run bus companies!
Nottingham does. Swindon did until a couple of weeks ago (Thamesdown Transport sold to Go-Ahead).
London's buses are actually operated by private companies, such as Arriva, Abellio, Stagecoach, etc.
As a correspondent of Tolkien asked him when he disputed the correspondent's interpretation of the symbolism in LOTR, "what makes you think you understand it, just because you wrote it?"
Err....
That is either very profound or deliberately obfuscating.
I think it's also the excuse used when someone trolls artists or poets with deliberately crap work whose meaningfulness is praised - that the work can still be meaningful even if the creator did it as a gag. Although to be fair sometimes a creator might not spot their own influences.
Tolkien wasn't a fan of it though, iirc. I think in a foreword he talked of the story having applicability rather than directly allegorical.
I haven't read them for 30-odd years, but maybe Tolkien borrowing symbols/stories from norse sagas means they already had some symbolism/interpretation independent of JRRT?
The point is to take back control of our borders and laws
Even as a bleeding-heart liberal, I don't buy this "the country will collapse without immigrants" rubbish.
If these big businesses are complaining that British workers don't have the skills to fill their jobs, then the answer could be.....for those businesses to train and skill those British workers themselves?
I don't mind immigration, but its like the bloody leaves on the line when it comes to infrastructure/housing. Basically a new Coventry, Hull or Leicester needs to be built every year - yet it never ever happens.
Why does a new one need to be built every year?
Why can't a hundred houses be built in a thousand suburbs each year rather than a new city each year?
That is what I meant, sorry for not expressing myself that clearly. My point is that simply doesn't happen.
It's not you, it is a common way for it to be expressed and is a bugbear of mine. Getting a few homes built in lots of locations should not be that difficult and is less noticeable but more successful than great honking new cities.
That still means the infrastructure of those places will be affected,if you build new towns,you get new roads,hospitals,schools and so on.
The suburbs way probably means more people will have to share in the already overburdened infrastructure.
Or you get new roads, hospitals, schools etc as well as new homes built at the edge of town both addressing the needs of the new residents and addressing whatever concerns the existing residents have.
You're right about addressing the concerns of the existing residents - these people would fight hammer and tong against more housing around them.
Sunil's mention of Saltaire made me wonder if today's Titus Salt's (yer amazons, dysons etc.) could be encouraged to get in with some blatant social engineering to sort out some of the housing pressure...
The point is to take back control of our borders and laws
Even as a bleeding-heart liberal, I don't buy this "the country will collapse without immigrants" rubbish.
If these big businesses are complaining that British workers don't have the skills to fill their jobs, then the answer could be.....for those businesses to train and skill those British workers themselves?
I don't mind immigration, but its like the bloody leaves on the line when it comes to infrastructure/housing. Basically a new Coventry, Hull or Leicester needs to be built every year - yet it never ever happens.
Why does a new one need to be built every year?
Why can't a hundred houses be built in a thousand suburbs each year rather than a new city each year?
That is what I meant, sorry for not expressing myself that clearly. My point is that simply doesn't happen.
It's not you, it is a common way for it to be expressed and is a bugbear of mine. Getting a few homes built in lots of locations should not be that difficult and is less noticeable but more successful than great honking new cities.
That still means the infrastructure of those places will be affected,if you build new towns,you get new roads,hospitals,schools and so on.
The suburbs way probably means more people will have to share in the already overburdened infrastructure.
Or you get new roads, hospitals, schools etc as well as new homes built at the edge of town both addressing the needs of the new residents and addressing whatever concerns the existing residents have.
You're right about addressing the concerns of the existing residents - these people would fight hammer and tong against more housing around them.
Sunil's mention of Saltaire made me wonder if today's Titus Salt's (yer amazons, dysons etc.) could be encouraged to get in with some blatant social engineering to sort out some of the housing pressure...
Poundbury. Yes, I know it's fashionable to laugh at Charlie's folly, but I've seen it and it's lovely.If it wasn't for the fact it's miles from anywhere I'd live there like a shot.
Plus you can make-believe you're on the set of "The Prisoner"...
Poundbury. Yes, I know it's fashionable to laugh at Charlie's folly, but I've seen it and it's lovely.If it wasn't for the fact it's miles from anywhere I'd live there like a shot.
Plus you can make-believe you're on the set of "The Prisoner"...
is Portmeirion not still there, for the original Prisoner experience?
I guess what Poundbury is lacking is industry/jobs? is it about farming, mainly? But aye, why not poundbury. get the tax breaks out and let's have some more.
Poundbury. Yes, I know it's fashionable to laugh at Charlie's folly, but I've seen it and it's lovely.If it wasn't for the fact it's miles from anywhere I'd live there like a shot.
Plus you can make-believe you're on the set of "The Prisoner"...
is Portmeirion not still there, for the original Prisoner experience?
I guess what Poundbury is lacking is industry/jobs? is it about farming, mainly? But aye, why not poundbury. get the tax breaks out and let's have some more.
Partly. It's (Poundbury) is a suburb of Dorchester, which is quite nice in itself. It has two rail stations and good communication links to Weymouth and Bournemouth. But that's not a lot: Dorset is sparsely populated and doesn't have much in the way of heavy industry. So yes, it is lacking in, well, if not jobs, energy: it's a quiet town, good if you have kids and live locally, but not if you're young and ambitious
Martin Samuel writes a lot of decent stuff. Glad I am out of the pro gambling life these days with the way the industry has gone the past few years.
He's exaggerating though when he says it's impossible to make big bets any more - it's only true for certain markets. I've made some chunky bets in the last six months or so.
From the reports I read the people complaining are shop owners in cities and commuter towns.
Harsh as it may sound wouldn't it be more economically efficient if their properties were converted into residential use rather than maintained as struggling small businesses ?
It staggers me that after of years of complaints of unfair competition - justified complaints, it has to be said - the internet giants are getting even more tax breaks at the expense of local businesses. It almost seems like the politicians don't give a monkey's.
When David Cameron stood down as the MP Witney to pursue a career outside politics last year, he still managed to find the time to turn out on the campaign trail in support of his Tory successor. Has either Jamie Reed or Tristram Hunt been seen out and about supporting the Labour candidates while saying goodbye to their constituents?
Apologies if this article from the Indy yesterday has already been posted and discussed. While Labour are focusing heavily on the threat to local health services in the Copeland by-election, a much favoured campaigning issue in elections because it really resonates with voters everywhere. But is there a danger we might be underestimating the importance of the Nuclear industry to local jobs, especially in light of Corbyn's very poor personal polling and decades long anti nuclear stance? The Conservative Government had already made it clear that it was committed to a Nuclear energy policy in the long term well before this by-election was called, the Labour party not so much under the current Leadership.
"In 2015, Copeland returned Jamie Reed, one of the most promising young MPs in the party, but by a comparatively narrow margin of 2,500. Reed was born in Whitehaven, the town that dominates Copeland, a one time press officer at – you’ve guessed it – Sellafield. He was barely 18 months into the job when he decided his future lay elsewhere (back at Sellafield, naturally). This is a man who didn’t merely vote Labour, but stood for election for Labour. It will only require 1000 or so people with rather less commitment to the party to take the same view as Mr Reed for the Conservatives to steal it from Labour, and the virtually unheard of to happen. A by-election taken as an opportunity to give not the Government but the opposition a kicking. In normal times, that’s the sort of thing that might set off a reaction."
Martin Samuel writes a lot of decent stuff. Glad I am out of the pro gambling life these days with the way the industry has gone the past few years.
He's exaggerating though when he says it's impossible to make big bets any more - it's only true for certain markets. I've made some chunky bets in the last six months or so.
Anyone who has an edge gets limited PDQ these days. I can't blame the bookies - they are businesses and have been forced to take a chainsaw to their overrounds in recent years.
The industry - for all its faults - is also fairly clean. Perhaps I'm blind or naive, but I think that article is the exception which proves the rule. Personally I punt on the basis that the police/HMRC/GC are all over mine and everyone elses betting accounts and I think that's basically a good thing.
can they do it on a cold thursday in stoke? sounds like it might depress the airy fairy continential style liberals, in favour of the stout yeomen of the ukips?
can they do it on a cold thursday in stoke? sounds like it might depress the airy fairy continential style liberals, in favour of the stout yeomen of the ukips?
I doubt Stoke is over endowed with airy fairy continental styles of any persuasion since Tristram slung his hook or that it's stout yeomen are particularly UKIPy
can they do it on a cold thursday in stoke? sounds like it might depress the airy fairy continential style liberals, in favour of the stout yeomen of the ukips?
I doubt Stoke is over endowed with airy fairy continental styles of any persuasion since Tristram slung his hook or that it's stout yeomen are particularly UKIPy
Haven't you been to Trentham Gardens? And besides, Tony Pulis is long gone. Stoke-a-lona on trent, don't you know. (but yes, just messing around. I have absolutely no idea how a bit of breeze might affect voters. It was once said that conditions were too windy for Wilson Palacios, but that might be true in any by-election)
Comments
The fact that our EU friends seem to be obsessing about payments, and throwing around figures which are clearly ludicrous when compared with what we currently pay for full membership, suggests that they've totally lost the plot.
Alternatively, it's some childish negotiating bluff, but it doesn't come across like that.
The suburbs way probably means more people will have to share in the already overburdened infrastructure.
Swift Card in the West Midlands
https://www.myswiftcard.com/more-information/pay-as-you-go.aspx
Robin Hood PAYG in Nottingham
https://www.nctx.co.uk/fares-tickets/robin-hood-pay-as-you-go-travel/
MCard in Leeds/West Yorkshire
https://www.m-card.co.uk/the-cards/travelcash/
BTW, slumming it in Leeds this week
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39041596
This is fascinating. Lots of pro-Corbyn, anti-UKIP Russian propaganda. No idea if official, but at the very least, organised.
There's been lots of talk of Russia supporting fringe parties across Europe as part of a destabilisation drive, is Corbyn so ineffective that he has now supplanted Nuttall as being the "best" worst man for the job?
I don't think a nasty fall out over cash will derail Brexit, if anything it could see public support for UK Brexit becoming even more entrenched. There could also now be an even bigger danger for Lab/Libdem remain politicians who are opposing Brexit. And that is that they will be perceived as not getting behind the Governement/UK plc in the negociations by both Leave and Remain voters. I suspect that the similiar position held by the SNP, and one they have tied firmly to the threat of a 2nd Indy Ref could also fast become more toxic for them up here in Scotland despite the fact the majority of Scots voted to Remain.
From their Copeland leaflet.
There is also the "Income tax" option. Income Tax in the UK is a temporary tax voted into existence every year in the Budget. The Article 50 period is temporary (2 years) unless extended by mutual consent. If it works for Income Tax.....
If a car crash disaster beckons and a way out exists then both sides have an incentive to take it.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2668829/copeland-by-election-labour-ukip-paul-nuttall/
Everyone falls out over money. It seems to be human nature
I have no idea how it will pan out for Brexit, but I do think IndyRef2 is dead in the water and for all their sabre rattling the SNP dare not call for a referendum they have no hope of winning.
http://www.nexus.org.uk/pop/payg
That is either very profound or deliberately obfuscating.
It costs pennies to buy 1000s of followers, so if you were serious about this you would obviously establish a network of twitter accounts each which have a decent number of followers, not ones that are totally irrelevant that nobody but a person looking for this managed to find them.
Tolkien wasn't a fan of it though, iirc. I think in a foreword he talked of the story having applicability rather than directly allegorical.
At least LoTR was streets ahead of Lewis's psalm-singing, leaden-footed, moralising Narnia.
'Night all
From the reports I read the people complaining are shop owners in cities and commuter towns.
Harsh as it may sound wouldn't it be more economically efficient if their properties were converted into residential use rather than maintained as struggling small businesses ?
Goodnight!!!!
There is one development alone that has thousands of homes going onto what used to be a US Air Force base on the outskirts of town. My house was a new build.
It's clearly an ineffective waste of time.
But still, to do what is currently being done (running the accounts, creating the memes and so on) still takes time, energy, and potentially cost.
The quality of the output is noticeably better than what many genuine activists produce "organically". So it looks professional, or at least semi-professional. (And fluent English, plus keeping track of the political minutiae of Britain, require substantial time and expertise in their own right.)
Yet as you say, if it was being done "properly", there'd be more followers, for example.
It's a strange thing to be doing as an amateur hobby-project. And I've seen people who are fairly clearly paid Russian shills turning up and commenting on utterly obscure blogs, forums or local/regional newspapers where I'd be surprised if their comments got more than a couple of hundred views, so it isn't as if the pros spend their time and energy effectively all the time either. But as you say, this looks far too small an operation to be really serious. Just can't get my head around what it actually is.
Apparently 1in 3 black men are likely to go to prison in their lifetime!!!!!! Compared to 1in 17 white men.
The legacy of the original sin is alive and kicking.
Plus you can make-believe you're on the set of "The Prisoner"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury
I guess what Poundbury is lacking is industry/jobs? is it about farming, mainly? But aye, why not poundbury. get the tax breaks out and let's have some more.
The people who knew what they were doing were making hundreds of thousands a year.
that is in terms of a pro (i.e. that is where I made the vast majority of my living), What I made is between me and my bank manager.
I missed the good times
Not that I'm remotely Pro.
Portmeirion still exists in North West Wales
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2636841?day=2
Apologies if this article from the Indy yesterday has already been posted and discussed. While Labour are focusing heavily on the threat to local health services in the Copeland by-election, a much favoured campaigning issue in elections because it really resonates with voters everywhere. But is there a danger we might be underestimating the importance of the Nuclear industry to local jobs, especially in light of Corbyn's very poor personal polling and decades long anti nuclear stance? The Conservative Government had already made it clear that it was committed to a Nuclear energy policy in the long term well before this by-election was called, the Labour party not so much under the current Leadership.
Tom Peck in the Independent - In nuclear Copeland, it's Jeremy Corbyn that's radioactive
"In 2015, Copeland returned Jamie Reed, one of the most promising young MPs in the party, but by a comparatively narrow margin of 2,500. Reed was born in Whitehaven, the town that dominates Copeland, a one time press officer at – you’ve guessed it – Sellafield. He was barely 18 months into the job when he decided his future lay elsewhere (back at Sellafield, naturally). This is a man who didn’t merely vote Labour, but stood for election for Labour. It will only require 1000 or so people with rather less commitment to the party to take the same view as Mr Reed for the Conservatives to steal it from Labour, and the virtually unheard of to happen. A by-election taken as an opportunity to give not the Government but the opposition a kicking. In normal times, that’s the sort of thing that might set off a reaction."
The industry - for all its faults - is also fairly clean. Perhaps I'm blind or naive, but I think that article is the exception which proves the rule. Personally I punt on the basis that the police/HMRC/GC are all over mine and everyone elses betting accounts and I think that's basically a good thing.