I don't know why we don't speak to Russia. They want their naval base secured at Tartus right? Why don't we support that, work with them? End the war with the guarantee of free elections?
You wonder though , after May elections debacle, when they swap Kezia for Anas Sarwar if they will be making progress or just going even further backwards and becoming even more Torylite. He makes previous Scottish Labour leaders look like Titans.
I fear the Lib Dems will eventually stage a resurgance pushing SLAB into 5th position - the self destruction of SLAB is almost painful to watch. My favourite para in the article was:
" Now on the wrong side of not just the SNP but a myriad of civil society groups who carry the torch of hope in their country, the SLP looks like a rump of angry people who demand that the UK Party must never speak to the SNP. No surrender indeed! Meanwhile they look set to lose every council they run in May - not least Glasgow – with the SNP itching to open the books up on decades of council contracts. At the moment the SLP is fighting it out with the Greens for who is fourth in the polls. Having painted themselves into a corner, they stand holding the brush – furious with everyone who looks on. "
I don't know why we don't speak to Russia. They want their naval base secured at Tartus right? Why don't we support that, work with them? End the war with the guarantee of free elections?
Free elections are incompatible with guaranteeing anything.
I am disputing that there will be economic consequences - and indirectly effects on the NHS and Education.. My point is that people will end up voting on 'the state of the economy', 'the NHS' and 'Education' - rather than 'Brexit ' per se. You simply reflect the mindset of political anoraks and the commentariat. The electorate at large will wish to focuss on other issues - partly because Brexit is seen as a highly technical subject.
The ERM was a highly technical subject until people saw an ashen-faced Norman Lamont's badger in the headlights act and then it suddenly became personal.
Brexit will be the same. We don't yet know every detail of how or when, but there will be moments that crystallise the impact in voters' minds and they will not forget when the next election comes.
ERM was trying to push people in the UK closer to the EU without their permission.
So almost the opposite of Brexit.
The ERM was a macroeconomic policy that ultimately came a cropper because we couldn't keep pace with Germany. Brexit is a macropolitical policy that will fail for the same reason.
Global Britain will increasingly become a joke as the EU forges ahead in the world and we can only bob along in their wake saying, "Can we have that trade deal too after we leave?"
And wasn't that what you were also saying twenty years ago about the UK joining the Euro ?
EverCloserUnion seems to be a macropolitical policy you support.
The ERM was a macroeconomic policy that ultimately came a cropper because we couldn't keep pace with Germany. Brexit is a macropolitical policy that will fail for the same reason.
Global Britain will increasingly become a joke as the EU forges ahead in the world and we can only bob along in their wake saying, "Can we have that trade deal too after we leave?"
Of course the EU will keep negotiating things while we are in the process of leaving. Why would they stop? Once we have left the customs union we will also be able to negotiate trade agreements.
I don't know why we don't speak to Russia. They want their naval base secured at Tartus right? Why don't we support that, work with them? End the war with the guarantee of free elections?
Free elections are incompatible with guaranteeing anything.
Well the party line in the 'West' is always to support free elections, right?
I don't know why we don't speak to Russia. They want their naval base secured at Tartus right? Why don't we support that, work with them? End the war with the guarantee of free elections?
I'm not sure that Russia is sufficiently at peace with the concept of free elections to make this plausible.
Macron's excellent book, Revolution, is written in the tediously upbeat French that candidates adopt, but apart from that it is a good read and he seeks to clarify the non-confrontatioal approach he intends to adopt. I. Wish him well in this and he has some advantages including his provincial background and the fact that he went to the ENA. But it will be tough.
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
2015 France GDP per capita by PPP: $37,489.78 2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59 2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
" If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?"
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
No I'm suggesting there are businesses that are employing people they need who with different policies might not be able to employ them. Businesses that could otherwise be out of business leading to all those people being unemployed. That's not an improvement.
The plan to turn Nine Elms in Battersea - once one of London's most deprived areas (and with a very interesting political history) - into a "mini-Manhattan" or "Dubai on Thames" takes the breath away!
That Deborah Orr piece seems to consist entirely of histrionics. 10 minutes I will never get back.
Had a tricky time picking what to back. In the end, decided Hulkenberg to be top 6 and several cars not to be classified (one stake sliced up) made the most sense.
Seems the forecast is for heavy rain at the start. The last thing we need is 20 laps of trundling around then pitting immediately for intermediates. Hope the race director lets them actually race.
That's a comprehensive look at the betting markets for the race!
Not a fan of odds-on bets, but Hamilton to lead lap 1 at 1.4 is a dead cert if it's wet and better than evens if it's dry. It's also longer than Safety Car which might be a proxy. On for half a stake.
I also put half a stake to Lay Versappen Podium at 4.5 you tipped earlier, I think the weather will improve over the course of the race.
Am thinking to lay both Hamilton (2) and Vettel (3) for the win, or might back for a total of one stake the rest of the top 10 plus Alo and Ver (all bar Ham and Vet are 20 or lower, in a 20 car field!)
All in all, predicting this race is like trying to predict the Grand National!
I don't know why we don't speak to Russia. They want their naval base secured at Tartus right? Why don't we support that, work with them? End the war with the guarantee of free elections?
The Obama administration did a deal with Russia: get rid of chemical weapons and we will give you and Assad a free run. The Russians haven't kept their side of the bargain, which demonstrates the weakness of Russia's chaos for respect strategy. They depend on some highly unreliable partners. Same thing in eastern Ukraine with the airliner that was shot down.
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
2015 France GDP per capita by PPP: $37,489.78 2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59 2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
" If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?"
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
No I'm suggesting there are businesses that are employing people they need who with different policies might not be able to employ them. Businesses that could otherwise be out of business leading to all those people being unemployed. That's not an improvement.
Yes, the difference between the UK and France is that it's possible to make redundancies in the UK - in France businesses don't bother hiring, hence the 10% unemployment rate.
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
2015 France GDP per capita by PPP: $37,489.78 2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59 2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
" If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?"
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
No I'm suggesting there are businesses that are employing people they need who with different policies might not be able to employ them. Businesses that could otherwise be out of business leading to all those people being unemployed. That's not an improvement.
Yes, the difference between the UK and France is that it's possible to make redundancies in the UK - in France businesses don't bother hiring, hence the 10% unemployment rate.
Indeed. Hiring a high school dropout who has never worked before may mean that they need a lot of couching and support. They probably will not be at all efficient. But over time their confidence and experience can grow and they will become more efficient eventually.
Or we can leave them on the scrapheap of mass youth unemployment whereby they have no role or potential or future. But hey at least they're not depressing our macroeconomic efficiency figures right?
Uzbekistan shares a border with Kyrgyzstan, where the St Petersburg Metro bomber is from. It is 90% Muslim, so there's a chance that Islamic terrorism is not to blame.
The UK has a permanent get-out clause. Another devaluation ! That is what we are good at.
Of course, that is not a solution - but it is a temporary fix. A country which produces in 5 days what France or Germany produces in 4 days will have to make it's goods cheaper somehow.
That has another consequence. The average wage rates there in PPP terms is about 25% higher than in the UK.
2015 France GDP per capita by PPP: $37,489.78 2015 UK GDP per capita by PPP: $38,865.59 2015 Germany GDP per capita by PPP: $44,187.86
The UK produces more per capita by PPP than France. Less per capita by PPP than Germany but by no means 20% or 25% less.
Of course the fact that France has an unemployment rate of 10.5% while the UK has an unemployment rate of 5.4% makes a big difference. If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?
" If we cut the least efficient 5% of our workforce out of employment our unemployment rate would shoot up, our efficiency would improve but would we be any better off?"
Are you telling us that our business are employing more people than they need to ? What kind of businesses are these ?
No I'm suggesting there are businesses that are employing people they need who with different policies might not be able to employ them. Businesses that could otherwise be out of business leading to all those people being unemployed. That's not an improvement.
Yes, the difference between the UK and France is that it's possible to make redundancies in the UK - in France businesses don't bother hiring, hence the 10% unemployment rate.
Indeed. Hiring a high school dropout who has never worked before may mean that they need a lot of couching and support. They probably will not be at all efficient. But over time their confidence and experience can grow and they will become more efficient eventually.
Or we can leave them on the scrapheap of mass youth unemployment whereby they have no role or potential or future. But hey at least they're not depressing our macroeconomic efficiency figures right?
When compared to the French company, the British one is less likely to retrain existing staff, but also more likely to hire staff for specific projects, and more likely to hire people at all rather than robots.
There are advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, so the UK, having previously concentrated on getting people out of bed in the morning, now need to focus on employee training/retraining and under-employment/casual contracts.
Comments
http://news.sky.com/story/stockholm-terror-suspect-was-known-to-police-10829570
" Now on the wrong side of not just the SNP but a myriad of civil society groups who carry the torch of hope in their country, the SLP looks like a rump of angry people who demand that the UK Party must never speak to the SNP. No surrender indeed! Meanwhile they look set to lose every council they run in May - not least Glasgow – with the SNP itching to open the books up on decades of council contracts. At the moment the SLP is fighting it out with the Greens for who is fourth in the polls. Having painted themselves into a corner, they stand holding the brush – furious with everyone who looks on. "
EverCloserUnion seems to be a macropolitical policy you support.
Not a fan of odds-on bets, but Hamilton to lead lap 1 at 1.4 is a dead cert if it's wet and better than evens if it's dry. It's also longer than Safety Car which might be a proxy. On for half a stake.
I also put half a stake to Lay Versappen Podium at 4.5 you tipped earlier, I think the weather will improve over the course of the race.
Am thinking to lay both Hamilton (2) and Vettel (3) for the win, or might back for a total of one stake the rest of the top 10 plus Alo and Ver (all bar Ham and Vet are 20 or lower, in a 20 car field!)
All in all, predicting this race is like trying to predict the Grand National!
Or we can leave them on the scrapheap of mass youth unemployment whereby they have no role or potential or future. But hey at least they're not depressing our macroeconomic efficiency figures right?
There are advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, so the UK, having previously concentrated on getting people out of bed in the morning, now need to focus on employee training/retraining and under-employment/casual contracts.