Vladimir Putin is a difficult man to deal with because he has a totally zero sum mindset. I benefit by causing you pain. So he causes trouble in Syria and other places to get attention and, he hopes, respect. To clinch a deal, he has to drop the pain inflicting part, and something stops him doing that.
The US thought it had a deal with the Russians over chemical weapons in Syria: you ensure chemical weapons are taken out and we will give Russia carte-blanche on everything else to do with that country. Americans even had to haggle with the Russians to get humanitarian aid into Aleppo. Then Russia failed to keep its relatively straightforward side of the bargain. That probably was a case of the Assad regime not toeing the line, although Russia may have been complicit. But it confirms my first point. Because it wouldn't consider dropping its Syrian policy under any circumstances, Russia doesn't have much leverage over the Assad regime, which is an unreliable partner anyway.
I suggested last week that Corbyn's "tax private schools to pay for free school meals" policy would end up being a net-unpopular bit of populism - it attacks Middle England's aspirations for their kids, while enraging a previously Labour-supporting group (teachers, who generally loathe universal free school meals).
What makes you think that? I'd be all for children having two proper meals a day, never mind one. Might make the hungry little sods pay attention when I am going through the finer points of Alexander II's judicial reforms.
My main concern with that policy was that it was typical unworkable class war bullshit, like most Labour policies. The idea was to pay for it by taxing private schools effectively out of existence. But if you tax them out of existence, then where's the income for the free school meals? Moreover, how do you pay for the extra half-million or so extra places the implosion of the private sector would instantly necessitate?
Really, it was the most incoherent policy since Joseph Chamberlain famously proposed a tariff to keep out all foreign goods and then said the money raised from imports would be used to fund old age pensions (which is what the Imperial Preference scheme of 1903 boiled down to, although there were other significant flaws in it).
"that policy [...] was typical unworkable class war bullshit"
That's really all that can be said about it and shows Jeremy hasn’t moved on from the 1970s.
The most interesting thing about this policy, which barely anyone seems to have noticed, is not the policy itself, but the fact that free school meals was to be clearly paid for by a tax (in this case VAT).
This shows that McDonnell has got an iron grip on spending announcements and nothing can break his own rule of only additional capital investment spending allowed unless the extra is day-today spending is tax funded. Rather reminiscent of one Gordon Brown. Surely the hard left aren't following the rule book of the co-creator of New Labour?
You keep on saying that, but it's rubbish. The main cause of the civil war was Assad's treatment of his own population.
It is not rubbish. And I am in no way defending or supporting Assad. As far as I know he is guilty of all the things he is accused of. But that doesn't diminish in any way the involvement of Saudi in trying to topple Assad. They were at it long before the civil war started and have pumped large amounts of weaponry and support into the rebel cause. They have also been heavily involved in supporting Isis in both Syria and Iraq. Certainly that is the belief of the British Intelligence Services.
Vladimir Putin is a difficult man to deal with because he has a totally zero sum mindset. I benefit by causing you pain. So he causes trouble in Syria and other places to get attention and, he hopes, respect. To clinch a deal, he has to drop the pain inflicting part, and something stops him doing that.
The US thought it had a deal with the Russians over chemical weapons in Syria: you ensure chemical weapons are taken out and we will give Russia carte-blanche on everything else to do with that country. Americans even had to haggle with the Russians to get humanitarian aid into Aleppo. Then Russia failed to keep its relatively straightforward side of the bargain. That was a case of the Assad regime not toeing the line. But that in turn confirms my first point. Because it wouldn't consider dropping its Syrian policy under any circumstances, Russia doesn't have much leverage over the Assad regime, which is an unreliable partner anyway.
There's an argument that another factor in Putin's thinking is that it causes a humanitarian crisis on the EU's doorstep, and one that it is hard for them to react to.
Mr. Tyndall, good point. Wasn't Qatar accused of similar actions?
It's a terrible point, as it's wrong. It's just another feeble attempt to excuse Assad of his crimes, to make him the victim rather than the perpetrator.
No it isn't and that is a thoroughly dishonest accusation by someone who seems to be overly partial in his view of the conflict.
Vladimir Putin is a difficult man to deal with because he has a totally zero sum mindset. I benefit by causing you pain. So he causes trouble in Syria and other places to get attention and, he hopes, respect. To clinch a deal, he has to drop the pain inflicting part, and something stops him doing that.
The US thought it had a deal with the Russians over chemical weapons in Syria: you ensure chemical weapons are taken out and we will give Russia carte-blanche on everything else to do with that country. Americans even had to haggle with the Russians to get humanitarian aid into Aleppo. Then Russia failed to keep its relatively straightforward side of the bargain. That was a case of the Assad regime not toeing the line. But that in turn confirms my first point. Because it wouldn't consider dropping its Syrian policy under any circumstances, Russia doesn't have much leverage over the Assad regime, which is an unreliable partner anyway.
There's an argument that another factor in Putin's thinking is that it causes a humanitarian crisis on the EU's doorstep, and one that it is hard for them to react to.
Indeed. Angela Merkel's move to accommodate Syrian refugees should have been interpreted as a power play aimed at thwarting Putin's attempt to destabilise Europe.
You keep on saying that, but it's rubbish. The main cause of the civil war was Assad's treatment of his own population.
It is not rubbish. And I am in no way defending or supporting Assad. As far as I know he is guilty of all the things he is accused of. But that doesn't diminish in any way the involvement of Saudi in trying to topple Assad. They were at it long before the civil war started and have pumped large amounts of weaponry and support into the rebel cause. They have also been heavily involved in supporting Isis in both Syria and Iraq. Certainly that is the belief of the British Intelligence Services.
It is rubbish, and yes, you are defending Assad, just as you were in 2013. Your 'do-nothing' approach from back then has just furthered this disaster.
I find your concentration on Saudi to be hilarious. Iran and Russia are the main players on the ground, as you well know. And both have had influence in Syria for decades. I'm not ignoring Saudi, but they're essentially an irrelevance.
Your post is classic 'look, squirrel!' whataboutery.
I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
The invariable rule with that market is lay the favourite.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.
Yes, lay the favourite(s). More likely is a general reshuffle at some point, with musical chairs leaving someone unexpected without a seat, than a scandal hit minister resigning.
Didn't you once write a thread about political 'events' actually happening much less often than is commonly perceived?
I did.
I think it's partly a false-memory thing, in that public and media alike remember the dramatic and forget the crises-of-the-moment that pass without lasting effect; the net result being to create a false ratio of incidents to resignations, for example. And the other part is in wishful thinking - looking forward rather than back - and wanting this (whatever 'this' happens to be), to be the next big story, an outcome in which quite a few of the actors will have a vested interest.
I'd also mention that while events happen much less often that perceived, when they do happen, they tend to crowd together, as big earthquakes trigger foreshocks and aftershocks. This may also be part of the perception issue: that we disproportionately remember the times when a lot does happen (like last summer, or the last 3 years for that matter), over those when they don't.
Glad I remembered that right! It's an interesting study in psychology (which isn't my subject at all, but necessary research for betting) that we remember when things happen but not when they don't. And most of the time they don't. Minister under pressure happens every 4-6 weeks, but minister resigning happens only every 12-18 months on average.
I also like @ydoethur's suggestion of Justine Greening for next out, she's probably underpriced and will shorten over the summer when the inevitable problems occur. Great trading bet. DoE looks to have been a mess since Gove left.
Unfortunately there is simply no possible palatable solution to Syria. The closest would be to replace Assad with someone of Russia's choice - accept that Syria will remain their client state, on the agreement that they keep their domestic oppression hidden from international view. In return, meaningful cooperation on all fronts to drive out the remaining ISIS AND other rebel forces. Nothing changes domestically in Syria, same oppressive regime, and you accept that Syrian refugees will never want or be able to return home.
The west can afford to capitulate more in terms of negotiations over Syria, because it is less high stakes for us. No western politician is going to lose elections because of reducing our involvement in Syria. Putin has staked so much on Syria that he does not have much room to budge. The best semi-realistic option is therefore to effectively cede the country to Russia, let them replace Assad with a puppet of their choice, keep any oppression low level (no chemical weapons etc) and the diaspora have to make new lives elsewhere. Hardly a good solution, but I don't see any possible better option.
A good post. However Russia isn't interested in all of Syria: it is interested in only certain bits. They won't want to risk large numbers of men and amounts of machinery in securing all of the country. Yet Assad cannot do it alone.
Iran's interest is much more immediate and widespread. Iran's the country with the real power.
(If Russia was to pull out, and even stop backing Assad in the UN, then Assad would not immediately fall. If Iran pulled out he would).
I agree with that. It hits the United States blind diplomatic blind spot. Iran is the middle eastern country the US should be dealing with, Nixon in China style. It's a regional power that isn't Wahabi Islamist and isn't Russia. I guess their strong ties with Israel, which is vehemently opposed to any links with Iran, and their own history with the hostages prevents them. It's not a nice country politically, but it is open to persuasion, I think.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
Oh my goodness. Surely not? If United have smeared him as a convicted criminal all over the net and it turns out it was someone else, then Chapter 11 won't save them this time.
Unfortunately there is simply no possible palatable solution to Syria. The closest would be to replace Assad with someone of Russia's choice - accept that Syria will remain their client state, on the agreement that they keep their domestic oppression hidden from international view. In return, meaningful cooperation on all fronts to drive out the remaining ISIS AND other rebel forces. Nothing changes domestically in Syria, same oppressive regime, and you accept that Syrian refugees will never want or be able to return home.
The west can afford to capitulate more in terms of negotiations over Syria, because it is less high stakes for us. No western politician is going to lose elections because of reducing our involvement in Syria. Putin has staked so much on Syria that he does not have much room to budge. The best semi-realistic option is therefore to effectively cede the country to Russia, let them replace Assad with a puppet of their choice, keep any oppression low level (no chemical weapons etc) and the diaspora have to make new lives elsewhere. Hardly a good solution, but I don't see any possible better option.
A good post. However Russia isn't interested in all of Syria: it is interested in only certain bits. They won't want to risk large numbers of men and amounts of machinery in securing all of the country. Yet Assad cannot do it alone.
Iran's interest is much more immediate and widespread. Iran's the country with the real power.
(If Russia was to pull out, and even stop backing Assad in the UN, then Assad would not immediately fall. If Iran pulled out he would).
I agree with that. It hits the United States blind diplomatic blind spot. Iran is the middle eastern country the US should be dealing with, Nixon in China style. It's a regional power that isn't Wahabi Islamist and isn't Russia. I guess their strong ties with Israel, which is vehemently opposed to any links with Iran, and their own history with the hostages prevents them. It's not a nice country politically, but it is open to persuasion, I think.
Especially now I'm-a-dinner-jacket's no longer in charge. Although some reports say he might be making another run for president ...
"70" in the 2050's may not be exactly the same as "70" now in the sense that medicine might preserve relative youth longer. Look back at the 50 year olds in photos in the 1900's many would pass for 70 now. Such advancement cannot go on forever one supposes but I'm sure there's some mileage yet.
And there needs to be. We seems to have devised, by accident, a set up whereby the average age of starting work is around 19/20 (increased school leaving plus loads of graduates), many have graduate loans, rents are high, house prices higher, interest rates (and so pay out rates on pensions) in the cellar, and yet Mr and Ms Average are supposed to create pension assets or entitlements by 65ish to see them through to an anticipated demise at around 90 (I'm going on what company DB schemes are living with right now). So about 25 years of retirement for 45 or so years of saving at absolute best . A ratio of 1.8:1 Contrast to my grandfather's generation leaving school at 14/15 and working to 65 and pegging out on average at about 68 or so. A ratio of 16.7:1 or so.
It cannot possibly add up for the vast majority of people. Something has to give and the simplest workable thing is to retire for less time so the general age of retirement is heading into the 70's it's just a matter of when. A demographic tsunami I'm afraid.
Btw I'm not sure if it was an accurate statistic but the Syrian regime's bodycount was MILES ahead of ISIS. Like 170k to 10k or some such.
Is that true or ? The "impression" one could have before is that they were 'roughly equal' or some such.
Some figures make out more people have 'died' in his prison camps than ISIS have killed.
The truth is we cannot know: it's all such a mess. But I personally have no doubt that his regime have killed large numbers of his own population, often for political rather than military 'crimes'.
Also note the allegations of Russia hitting non-extremist rebels more than ISIS / AlN
The Syrian uprising was sparked by Assad's regime arresting and torturing children.
I also like @ydoethur's suggestion of Justine Greening for next out, she's probably underpriced and will shorten over the summer when the inevitable problems occur. Great trading bet. DoE looks to have been a mess since Gove left.
It was a mess *when* Gove left. All these problems - funding shortages due to a mismanaged funding formula, messes involving exams and rushed/botched changes, and the implosion of OFSTED - stem from decisions he made in office. Nicky Morgan made things worse, but now both have been sacked the key thing is that Greening looks to be completely lost.
Admittedly she hasn't mendaciously screwed up the way those two did, but neither has she shown any sign of getting things sorted, much like what happened at Transport. That's where I think she'll be vulnerable.
Mr. Tyndall, good point. Wasn't Qatar accused of similar actions?
It's a terrible point, as it's wrong. It's just another feeble attempt to excuse Assad of his crimes, to make him the victim rather than the perpetrator.
No it isn't and that is a thoroughly dishonest accusation by someone who seems to be overly partial in his view of the conflict.
Btw I'm not sure if it was an accurate statistic but the Syrian regime's bodycount was MILES ahead of ISIS. Like 170k to 10k or some such.
Is that true or ? The "impression" one could have before is that they were 'roughly equal' or some such.
Some figures make out more people have 'died' in his prison camps than ISIS have killed.
The truth is we cannot know: it's all such a mess. But I personally have no doubt that his regime have killed large numbers of his own population, often for political rather than military 'crimes'.
Also note the allegations of Russia hitting non-extremist rebels more than ISIS / AlN
The Syrian uprising was sparked by Assad's regime arresting and torturing children.
Didn't you know the Saudi's forced him to do that? (/sarcasm)
O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
There's a very interesting comment on that story which suggests that in the case of Dr Dao the airline acted illegally because their staff are not considered ticketed passengers for the purposes of overbooking under Department of Trade rules Therefore they did not have the right to remove anyone involuntarily, let alone by force.
I am no lawyer. Does anyone more knowledgeable about these things know if that might be correct? If so that would be a highly awkward development for United. Or is it just a NWNF shark touting for business?
I suspect it's correct. The relevant regulation is here
250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Arguably this wasn't an oversold situation as the four staff members didn't have reserved space. United didn't aim to minimise the number denied boarding. The fact Dr Dao and the three others were already boarded could mean this procedure doesn't apply to them.
Bottom line: the airline can only bump passengers voluntarily in this situation. It's a commercial decision for the airline. They need to decide how much they are willing to pay to get those staff to the destination. They either get the volunteers at the level of compensation they are prepared to pay or they don't send the staff.
"70" in the 2050's may not be exactly the same as "70" now in the sense that medicine might preserve relative youth longer. Look back at the 50 year olds in photos in the 1900's many would pass for 70 now. Such advancement cannot go on forever one supposes but I'm sure there's some mileage yet.
And there needs to be. We seems to have devised, by accident, a set up whereby the average age of starting work is around 19/20 (increased school leaving plus loads of graduates), many have graduate loans, rents are high, house prices higher, interest rates (and so pay out rates on pensions) in the cellar, and yet Mr and Ms Average are supposed to create pension assets or entitlements by 65ish to see them through to an anticipated demise at around 90 (I'm going on what company DB schemes are living with right now). So about 25 years of retirement for 45 or so years of saving at absolute best . A ratio of 1.8:1 Contrast to my grandfather's generation leaving school at 14/15 and working to 65 and pegging out on average at about 68 or so. A ratio of 16.7:1 or so.
It cannot possibly add up for the vast majority of people. Something has to give and the simplest workable thing is to retire for less time so the general age of retirement is heading into the 70's it's just a matter of when. A demographic tsunami I'm afraid.
Which would of course reduce life expectancy in and of itself. I seem to remember some research a few years ago that said a headteacher retiring at 55 would have 30 years to live, one retiring at 60 15 years to live, and one at 65 on average less than 5. Can't be sure of the numbers but the broad thrust sounds correct. In that article I link to above the head speculates the pressure on him is such he won't survive to 50, never mind to take his pension (I'm guessing he's about 40). He may have been being flippant but I'm not sure he's wrong.
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.
And in 2016 the Dems won another popular vote by over 2% but got 77 fewer delegates.
That's a regular pattern.
That was down to the Democrats piling up votes on the West Coast, while losing the swing States. Good targeting is essential under First Past the Post.
It was indeed down to the Democrats piling up votes on the West Coast, while losing the swing states. And good targeting is indeed essential under First Past the Post. But even if you consider that had the Democrats might just have turned things around had they applied an absolutely optimal targeting strategy, none of that somehow gives such a clear loser in terms of the popular vote legitimacy as opposed to power. Instead, the claim to such legitimacy rests on the argument that in the absence of an electoral college voters in safe states would have turned out in such numbers to give the Republicans a net 3 million extra votes over the Democrats, which is frankly a risible attempt to provide a fig leaf and I'm not going to waste time on it here. What matters is after the evidence of two recent presidential elections both being lost by the popular vote, Republican states are resisting tooth and nail moves to fix a broken system through legislation that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote.
O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
There's a very interesting comment on that story which suggests that in the case of Dr Dao the airline acted illegally because their staff are not considered ticketed passengers for the purposes of overbooking under Department of Trade rules Therefore they did not have the right to remove anyone involuntarily, let alone by force.
I am no lawyer. Does anyone more knowledgeable about these things know if that might be correct? If so that would be a highly awkward development for United. Or is it just a NWNF shark touting for business?
I suspect it's correct. The relevant regulation is here
250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Arguably this wasn't an oversold situation as the four staff members didn't have reserved space. United didn't aim to minimise the number denied boarding. The fact Dr Dao and the three others were already boarded could mean this procedure doesn't apply to them.
Bottom line: the airline can only bump passengers voluntarily in this situation. It's a commercial decision for the airline. They need to decide how much they are willing to pay to get those staff to the destination. They either get the volunteers at the level of compensation they are prepared to pay or they don't send the staff.
Thank you.
Dr Dao has allegedly hired two sets of lawyers. United's lawyers must be rubbing their hands. Their insurers must be soiling themselves. The creditors are doubtless nervous about possible repercussions.
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the politicians jealously guard their power to determine them. From that it is obvious that gerrymandering is rife at Congressional level.
You keep on saying that, but it's rubbish. The main cause of the civil war was Assad's treatment of his own population.
It is not rubbish. And I am in no way defending or supporting Assad. As far as I know he is guilty of all the things he is accused of. But that doesn't diminish in any way the involvement of Saudi in trying to topple Assad. They were at it long before the civil war started and have pumped large amounts of weaponry and support into the rebel cause. They have also been heavily involved in supporting Isis in both Syria and Iraq. Certainly that is the belief of the British Intelligence Services.
It is rubbish, and yes, you are defending Assad, just as you were in 2013. Your 'do-nothing' approach from back then has just furthered this disaster.
I find your concentration on Saudi to be hilarious. Iran and Russia are the main players on the ground, as you well know. And both have had influence in Syria for decades. I'm not ignoring Saudi, but they're essentially an irrelevance.
Your post is classic 'look, squirrel!' whataboutery.
Rubbish. I have no idea why, but you have always refused to accept that anyone other than Assad and his supporters have been in any way guilty of anything in this war. I am frankly amazed you are not excusing Isis since they are against Assad as you are so extreme in your views over this issue.
I opposed the air strike plan in 2013 for exactly the same reason I oppose it now. It won't work. The only solution that will work in Syria is political not military - unless of course you want us to invade the country costing tens of thousands of lives on all sides and prompting direct war with Russia. Dropping bombs from 20,000 feet does not win wars and more importantly it certainly doesn't secure the peace.
Assad needs to go but at the same time we need to end support for Saudi Arabia and stop them promoting wars all across the region. It is something we used to accuse Iran of doing but Saudi are far worse and causing far more grief. If the former head of MI6 recognises this then I am more willing to take his measured word for it than yours with your clear bias.
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the politicians jealously guard their power to determine them. From that it is obvious that gerrymandering is rife at Congressional level.
Mind you, after recent Boundary Commissions we can hardly talk. My personal favourite was the suggestion that Gloucester include all of Gloucester - except the actual city centre, which would go to the Forest of Dean.
Which would mysteriously also make two very safe Conservative seats instead of one safe and one semi-marginal. But I am sure that was a pure coincidence.
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the politicians jealously guard their power to determine them. From that it is obvious that gerrymandering is rife at Congressional level.
I'm not saying there isn't gerrymandering. I'm saying that it's rather harder to show that the gerrymandering is directed to improve the chances of parties, as opposed to individuals.
I also like @ydoethur's suggestion of Justine Greening for next out, she's probably underpriced and will shorten over the summer when the inevitable problems occur. Great trading bet. DoE looks to have been a mess since Gove left.
It was a mess *when* Gove left. All these problems - funding shortages due to a mismanaged funding formula, messes involving exams and rushed/botched changes, and the implosion of OFSTED - stem from decisions he made in office. Nicky Morgan made things worse, but now both have been sacked the key thing is that Greening looks to be completely lost. Admittedly she hasn't mendaciously screwed up the way those two did, but neither has she shown any sign of getting things sorted, much like what happened at Transport. That's where I think she'll be vulnerable.
And then what will happen to Mrs May`s march towards inevitable triumph?
Very strange that Gove sowed the seeds of her downfall long before she became prime minister.
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the politicians jealously guard their power to determine them. From that it is obvious that gerrymandering is rife at Congressional level.
Mind you, after recent Boundary Commissions we can hardly talk. My personal favourite was the suggestion that Gloucester include all of Gloucester - except the actual city centre, which would go to the Forest of Dean.
Which would mysteriously also make two very safe Conservative seats instead of one safe and one semi-marginal. But I am sure that was a pure coincidence.
Isn't that what the present arrangement is like too?
I also like @ydoethur's suggestion of Justine Greening for next out, she's probably underpriced and will shorten over the summer when the inevitable problems occur. Great trading bet. DoE looks to have been a mess since Gove left.
It was a mess *when* Gove left. All these problems - funding shortages due to a mismanaged funding formula, messes involving exams and rushed/botched changes, and the implosion of OFSTED - stem from decisions he made in office. Nicky Morgan made things worse, but now both have been sacked the key thing is that Greening looks to be completely lost. Admittedly she hasn't mendaciously screwed up the way those two did, but neither has she shown any sign of getting things sorted, much like what happened at Transport. That's where I think she'll be vulnerable.
And then what will happen to Mrs May`s march towards inevitable triumph?
Very strange that Gove sowed the seeds of her downfall long before she became prime minister.
Old American saying - 'Karma's only a bitch if you are'.
But don't forget, there are people on these threads who blame Brown's downfall solely on Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall.
May isn't helping herself, it's true, with her obsession over grammar schools. But the key thing is when something goes wrong we expect those in power to do something about it. I see no sign of that happening in education where a perfect storm appears to be forming.
Rubbish. I have no idea why, but you have always refused to accept that anyone other than Assad and his supporters have been in any way guilty of anything in this war. I am frankly amazed you are not excusing Isis since they are against Assad as you are so extreme in your views over this issue.
I opposed the air strike plan in 2013 for exactly the same reason I oppose it now. It won't work. The only solution that will work in Syria is political not military - unless of course you want us to invade the country costing tens of thousands of lives on all sides and prompting direct war with Russia. Dropping bombs from 20,000 feet does not win wars and more importantly it certainly doesn't secure the peace.
Assad needs to go but at the same time we need to end support for Saudi Arabia and stop them promoting wars all across the region. It is something we used to accuse Iran of doing but Saudi are far worse and causing far more grief. If the former head of MI6 recognises this then I am more willing to take his measured word for it than yours with your clear bias.
"Rubbish. I have no idea why, but you have always refused to accept that anyone other than Assad and his supporters have been in any way guilty of anything in this war. "
Splutters. Wow. That's an incredible accusation to make from what I've written on here in the past.
Take the Kurds. I've repeatedly said the best thing is for them to get autonomy of some description in Syria. Yet I've also criticised the PKK *and* Turkey for their conflict, and bemoaned the death of the peace process. It's not as if I've ever commended ISIS or AlN for anything either.
Your obsession with Saudi seems to be over other things, and you're just using Syria as a convenient whipping-boy. Saudi are essentially irrelevant in the conflict as-is. It's the Iranian and Russians who hold the power, and perhaps even Assad's strings.
So what 'clear bias' is this? As I asked below, spit it out.
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the politicians jealously guard their power to determine them. From that it is obvious that gerrymandering is rife at Congressional level.
Mind you, after recent Boundary Commissions we can hardly talk. My personal favourite was the suggestion that Gloucester include all of Gloucester - except the actual city centre, which would go to the Forest of Dean.
Which would mysteriously also make two very safe Conservative seats instead of one safe and one semi-marginal. But I am sure that was a pure coincidence.
Isn't that what the present arrangement is like too?
No, they've left Gloucester city centre in the city constituency. I believe instead they've transferred some of the southern suburbs to Stroud and moved the Liberal Democrats in Shurdington to Tewkesbury despite it being slightly south of Cheltenham (I think it goes that far).
Yes I'm sure there's elements of this for sure. Retirement maths is utterly brutal though. An index linked 50% spouse benefit on death (if spouse same age) of 15k at age 65 (so 60% or so of average earnings -see William Burrows annuities website and others) needs a fund of over £550K.
Or another way of looking at it is a million quid gets you about £27 grand (!). Decent pension for sure but how many will ever have any hope of getting to £1M in today's money assuming they need a roof over their head, have a couple of kids and a "life" of some sort. £1M is of course the Govt's tax wrapper limit for those of us in the private sector (so anyone in the public sector due a pension of more than £27k is getting a better deal right now than the normal max in that tax respect). A higher interest rate environment eases this maths somewhat of course but the authorities are deaf to this seemingly. Higher interest rates also make public sector pensions less relatively (ie relative to private sector) valuable as any given fund size would buy more pension.
Generally though in future, we save more, retire on less, retire for less, or some combination of the three.
Isn't that what the present arrangement is like too?
No, they've left Gloucester city centre in the city constituency. I believe instead they've transferred some of the southern suburbs to Stroud and moved the Liberal Democrats in Shurdington to Tewkesbury despite it being slightly south of Cheltenham (I think it goes that far).
Red current, blue proposed. The top bit has been added to Gloucester from the Tewkesbury constituency, while the bottom bot has been removed from Gloucester and added to Stroud. I believe these are the boundaries drawn up by the commission, prior to any requests for them to be changed.
"Rubbish. I have no idea why, but you have always refused to accept that anyone other than Assad and his supporters have been in any way guilty of anything in this war. "
Splutters. Wow. That's an incredible accusation to make from what I've written on here in the past.
Take the Kurds. I've repeatedly said the best thing is for them to get autonomy of some description in Syria. Yet I've also criticised the PKK *and* Turkey for their conflict, and bemoaned the death of the peace process. It's not as if I've ever commended ISIS or AlN for anything either.
Your obsession with Saudi seems to be over other things, and you're just using Syria as a convenient whipping-boy. Saudi are essentially irrelevant in the conflict as-is. It's the Iranian and Russians who hold the power, and perhaps even Assad's strings.
So what 'clear bias' is this? As I asked below, spit it out.
I have no idea how your mind works. All I know is you have a record on here of playing down anything at all which you incorrectly perceive might be viewed as support for Assad. Your knee jerk ill informed calls for bombing Syria show just how divorced from reality you are.
Why are you like this? I have no idea. But you don't always have to know someone's reasons to know they are displaying seriously warped behaviour over an issue.
The basic facts are:
We want Assad gone. We will not achieve that through military means only through political means. Dropping bombs does not win wars. That has been shown over and over again. Russia and Iran are part of the problem. They are also part of the solution whether we like it or not. Saudi Arabia is part of the problem. They will not be part of the solution as long as they persist in religious wars against the Shia in the Middle East.
Unless of course you believe that or own intelligence services are wrong.
This man will be remoaner non grata in Downing Street.
twitter.com/ruskin147/status/852101300196184065
Telegraph:
Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics:
“Brexit is going to be like arthritis. It will be very painful, but it is not going to kill you. We think you could lose a third of the City. "
Nice prediction for a headline but of course there's no direct consequence when he's wrong to Mr Posen from the Institute of Two Filing Cabinets In His Attic.
We should make a note of these predictions. If a third of the City hasn't disappeared within (say) 10 years then we get to amputate his legs and hang them from Canary Wharf.
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the politicians jealously guard their power to determine them. From that it is obvious that gerrymandering is rife at Congressional level.
John Oliver recently did an interesting segment on this. Actually many of those weird shaped districts are due to maintaining 'community cohesion' - i.e. grouping latinos in one seat and african americans in another. The idea being that a community can elect a representative of their community. Whether you support that policy or not, it is not party political gerrymandering (but of course, some of the seats are indeed gerrymandered)
My further entirely serious point was that whoever is doing them these tactics are totally unacceptable and bad for democracy. That Tory candidate in Benbecula should have the book thrown at him so hard he doesn't bounce until he reaches Fort Augustus. But the same is true of Mhairi Black.
Mr. Pulpstar, to be honest, they had zero chance of winning either anyway. The Honda engine is atrociously under-powered (deficit of 160bhp plus), lacks reliability, and causes vibrations sufficient to damage other parts of the car.
However, that story is interesting for the Alonso specials.
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the politicians jealously guard their power to determine them. From that it is obvious that gerrymandering is rife at Congressional level.
John Oliver recently did an interesting segment on this. Actually many of those weird shaped districts are due to maintaining 'community cohesion' - i.e. grouping latinos in one seat and african americans in another. The idea being that a community can elect a representative of their community. Whether you support that policy or not, it is not party political gerrymandering (but of course, some of the seats are indeed gerrymandered)
Yes, they call those 'minority majority' seats, I'm not sure where they came from though. There's clear gerrymandering from both parties all over the US when it comes to congressional districts, only in a handful of states do they have anything like what we understand to be an impartial electoral commission.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
That's huge news, that McLaren agreed to release him. I wonder if Alonso or anyone else will try the same for Le Mans, which clashes with the race no-one wants in Azerbaijan.
Incidentally, not sure if you missed it earlier but Ladbrokes has some Alonso specials. None appeal to me, though (to leave McLaren before the season ends, to race in 2018 for Ferrari or Renault).
Isn't that what the present arrangement is like too?
No, they've left Gloucester city centre in the city constituency. I believe instead they've transferred some of the southern suburbs to Stroud and moved the Liberal Democrats in Shurdington to Tewkesbury despite it being slightly south of Cheltenham (I think it goes that far).
Red current, blue proposed. The top bit has been added to Gloucester from the Tewkesbury constituency, while the bottom bot has been removed from Gloucester and added to Stroud. I believe these are the boundaries drawn up by the commission, prior to any requests for them to be changed.
Thanks. That's roughly what I remembered.
I would have said the net effect of those changes would be to make five of the six seats in Gloucestershire (not counting Dursley and Thornbury as Gloucestershire although that would be pretty safe too) rock safe for the Conservatives. Only Stroud would still be in play and then only in a good year for Labour (Gloucester might go in a 1997 style rout, but not otherwise). Ironically the result in Stroud might be superficially closer under Corbyn because there is a big Green vote in Stroud he can squeeze. But he ain't gonna actually win without the support of the middle class voters in Stonehouse and Hardwicke.
When you bear in mind that fifteen years ago Labour held Gloucester, Forest and Stroud and the Liberal Democrats held Cheltenham (and Thornbury) just two years ago, that would be a stunning turnaround.
If this goes through and is replicated nationally, any bets on a Labour win in the next ten years are free money for the bookies regardless of Brexit or Scotland. It would be like 1918-1935 all over again, where the Unionisits started every election with 300 safe seats except in a very bad year (1923 being their worst with 258, although Labour briefly displaced them from first in 1929).
I don't remember that period being a shining display of democracy and good government. Given I wrote a PHD thesis on government and politics in that period, I'm sure I would have noticed if it was.
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.
And in 2016 the Dems won another popular vote by over 2% but got 77 fewer delegates.
That's a regular pattern.
That was down to the Democrats piling up votes on the West Coast, while losing the swing States. Good targeting is essential under First Past the Post.
It was indeed down to the Democrats piling up votes on the West Coast, while losing the swing states. And good targeting is indeed essential under First Past the Post. But even if you consider that had the Democrats might just have turned things around had they applied an absolutely optimal targeting strategy, none of that somehow gives such a clear loser in terms of the popular vote legitimacy as opposed to power. Instead, the claim to such legitimacy rests on the argument that in the absence of an electoral college voters in safe states would have turned out in such numbers to give the Republicans a net 3 million extra votes over the Democrats, which is frankly a risible attempt to provide a fig leaf and I'm not going to waste time on it here. What matters is after the evidence of two recent presidential elections both being lost by the popular vote, Republican states are resisting tooth and nail moves to fix a broken system through legislation that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the politicians jealously guard their power to determine them. From that it is obvious that gerrymandering is rife at Congressional level.
John Oliver recently did an interesting segment on this. Actually many of those weird shaped districts are due to maintaining 'community cohesion' - i.e. grouping latinos in one seat and african americans in another. The idea being that a community can elect a representative of their community. Whether you support that policy or not, it is not party political gerrymandering (but of course, some of the seats are indeed gerrymandered)
Yes and no. You might indeed do it to maintain communities, but if (as is often the case) those communities tend to vote one way or the other en masse, then the irony is that your opponents would often draw exactly the same boundaries to keep all that communities' voters in one place so they just pile up votes to get a landslide in one constituency and lose everywhere else.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
They sound almost as bad as the SLC themselves, whose independent assessor told me quite seriously they are not bound by the criminal law - never mind that the real problem was that they had told me a lie about what they had actually done with my account (although what they said they had done did become a secondary issue as it would have been illegal).
I'm clearing my student loan this year anyway. It's cheaper than keeping it in savings and I've had enough of them.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
@ydoethur - you are very pessimistic about Labour's chances. Once Corbyn is gone all bets are off.
Yes. Because if 60% of Labour's 2001 seats are now safe Conservative seats, there is no way they can hope to win a majority. But let's assume Gloucestershire is atypical and it's only 30% of the 417. That's still 139 seats on the Conservative total which whacks them up to 300 without breaking a sweat.
Corbyn's a dreadful problem. But he's only part of the problem. Lack of talent, rudeness and arrogance of members, lazy and outdated ideas, a heavily skewed electoral system and major internal divisions are all just as toxic.
If the Conservatives were a great party that would govern magnificently for the whole country it would be less of an issue. But they are not an awful lot better than Labour without Corbyn. They have won a lock on power without deserving it and that's extremely unhealthy.
With that, I have work to do. Have a good afternoon everyone.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
With the rate well ahead of inflation (Where it matters), but a write off after 30 years the effective calculation is
(0.09* (Earnings over 21k) for 30 years).
Any rise in tuition fees, or RPI will be largely borne out by the government from this point onward actually.
The best strategy is to just work part time for 30 years after University, keeping below the 21k, and enjoy yourself for the non working hours while you are still young.
Then, after 30 years, start working full time and not have to pay back the tuition fees. Youngsters are going to have to work into late old age anyway as pensions will not start until at least age 68..
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
They sound almost as bad as the SLC themselves, whose independent assessor told me quite seriously they are not bound by the criminal law - never mind that the real problem was that they had told me a lie about what they had actually done with my account (although what they said they had done did become a secondary issue as it would have been illegal).
I'm clearing my student loan this year anyway. It's cheaper than keeping it in savings and I've had enough of them.
I think that is what the interest rate is supposed to achieve. More people paying back the full whack and earlier because it becomes quite an expensive debt. Commercially this makes sense but the implications for the whole economy are extremely negative. It seriously undermines our housing market essentially excluding a significant part of the population from house ownership for a long time; it is a drain on consumption which remains the driving force of our economy and it gives a generation that were sold largely useless degrees a much higher tax rate than the rest of us.
I am genuinely concerned about the long term implications of this policy. Loading debt on the younger generation whilst remaining committed to the triple lock for the elder generation is appallingly unfair.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
It was once claimed to be less expensive to UK PLC to give grants than to administer the loans because there was so much admin. & means-testing (unpaid loans are written off at age 50, too).
I don't know if that was really true. But some EU countries have moved to paying for higher education out of general taxation (as happened in the UK in the 60s & 70s).
Or higher income tax on graduates would recover the cost without this fuss and bother. If an average graduate needs to repay say £30k over 40 years, which is £750 per year, just ask HMRC to send each university an annual cheque out of its income tax receipts.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
Will the interest rate go up when they sell the pre-2012 loans?
Shouldn't do.
The balance hasn't been updated for 31st March 2017 yet though. Current interest rate a very nice 0.9%
Cheeky! My interest rate is 1.25%
Ack so is mine, it was 0.9% for FY 15/16 - so 16/17 will be 1.25%.
We are lucky buggers:
If you took out a student loan between 1998 and 2011 the system is different. The interest rate on these loans is to stay at 1.25pc. This is because for these loans the interest rate used is the lower of RPI or the Bank of England base rate plus 1pc.
O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
There's a very interesting comment on that story which suggests that in the case of Dr Dao the airline acted illegally because their staff are not considered ticketed passengers for the purposes of overbooking under Department of Trade rules Therefore they did not have the right to remove anyone involuntarily, let alone by force.
I am no lawyer. Does anyone more knowledgeable about these things know if that might be correct? If so that would be a highly awkward development for United. Or is it just a NWNF shark touting for business?
I suspect it's correct. The relevant regulation is here
250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding. In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Arguably this wasn't an oversold situation as the four staff members didn't have reserved space. United didn't aim to minimise the number denied boarding. The fact Dr Dao and the three others were already boarded could mean this procedure doesn't apply to them.
Bottom line: the airline can only bump passengers voluntarily in this situation. It's a commercial decision for the airline. They need to decide how much they are willing to pay to get those staff to the destination. They either get the volunteers at the level of compensation they are prepared to pay or they don't send the staff.
Thank you.
Dr Dao has allegedly hired two sets of lawyers. United's lawyers must be rubbing their hands. Their insurers must be soiling themselves. The creditors are doubtless nervous about possible repercussions.
The CEO looks like toast.
I have no connection with Dr Dao, but (however inappropriately UA have behaved) he is lucky he is not in the UK. In this country, his unprofessional and disorderly behaviour (resisting removal from the plane) could have led to him being summoned before a GMC disciplinary panel and possibly being struck off the medical register.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
With the rate well ahead of inflation (Where it matters), but a write off after 30 years the effective calculation is
(0.09* (Earnings over 21k) for 30 years).
Any rise in tuition fees, or RPI will be largely borne out by the government from this point onward actually.
The new-style student loans are going to bite someone on the arse a few years down the line.
The amounts are such that lots of students, especially women, are going to fail to meet the threshold for repayment over such a long period of time. There will also be students who emigrate (hello!) and students from other EU countries who quickly become untraceable or who earn comparative peanuts while living well in their homelands. There's going to be a LOT that don't get repaid, and by the time it becomes obvious there will be another decade or two of the same loans out there, waiting to go bad.
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
Assad is winning isn't he? Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
In what way is Assad 'winning' ?
There was great jubilation on here when Palmyra was recaptured from ISIS a year ago. And rightly so. However ISIS just went and got it back, and held it for three months until a few weeks ago.
Why? Because Assad doesn't have enough troops. He's facing the same issue the Americans and we did in (say) Afghanistan: has has enough force to subdue an area, but not necessarily hold it. The moment the troops go, enemy forces can re-enter if they want.
I think you're mistaken. The war is almost over which is why I believe they have invented the chemical weapons attack. The idea that Assad would use these weapons makes no military or strategic sense whatsoever so i suggest it's unlikely to have happened. They need to send some Scandinavians in to investigate. All other nations are suspect particularly The British the American The Russians and The Turks who are at the moment the most vociferous.
Dismissing based on a gut feeling is what lunatic conspiracy theorists do. Sure they turn out to be right sometimes, by sheer luck, but it is coincidental.
@ydoethur - you are very pessimistic about Labour's chances. Once Corbyn is gone all bets are off.
Yes. Because if 60% of Labour's 2001 seats are now safe Conservative seats, there is no way they can hope to win a majority. But let's assume Gloucestershire is atypical and it's only 30% of the 417. That's still 139 seats on the Conservative total which whacks them up to 300 without breaking a sweat.
Corbyn's a dreadful problem. But he's only part of the problem. Lack of talent, rudeness and arrogance of members, lazy and outdated ideas, a heavily skewed electoral system and major internal divisions are all just as toxic.
If the Conservatives were a great party that would govern magnificently for the whole country it would be less of an issue. But they are not an awful lot better than Labour without Corbyn. They have won a lock on power without deserving it and that's extremely unhealthy.
With that, I have work to do. Have a good afternoon everyone.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
From what I can tell, the overall real cost to students rises substantially if they flog the loan book off with a frozen repayment threshold - and we then have a period of high inflation.
I see post-2012 students are now being charging 6.1% interest on their massive balances.
That's just taking the piss.
It sounds as if the loans have been sold on, like PFI projects were. The original lenders pocket a capital gain and the borrowers (i.e. students) or taxpayers are screwed.
I think the 2012- loans are currently on the governments books, but the plan is to sell them on soon like they did for previous batches. These companies then resort to the sort of payday-lender tactics that the government can't easily get away with;
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
They sound almost as bad as the SLC themselves, whose independent assessor told me quite seriously they are not bound by the criminal law - never mind that the real problem was that they had told me a lie about what they had actually done with my account (although what they said they had done did become a secondary issue as it would have been illegal).
I'm clearing my student loan this year anyway. It's cheaper than keeping it in savings and I've had enough of them.
I think that is what the interest rate is supposed to achieve. More people paying back the full whack and earlier because it becomes quite an expensive debt. Commercially this makes sense but the implications for the whole economy are extremely negative. It seriously undermines our housing market essentially excluding a significant part of the population from house ownership for a long time; it is a drain on consumption which remains the driving force of our economy and it gives a generation that were sold largely useless degrees a much higher tax rate than the rest of us.
I am genuinely concerned about the long term implications of this policy. Loading debt on the younger generation whilst remaining committed to the triple lock for the elder generation is appallingly unfair.
Problem is plenty of people will think it unfair, perhaps even a majority, but the first time someone suggests taking away the gray vote bribes, they'll suffer electoral consequences.
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.
And in 2016 the Dems won another popular vote by over 2% but got 77 fewer delegates.
That's a regular pattern.
That was down to the Democrats piling up votes on the West Coast, while losing the swing States. Good targeting is essential under First Past the Post.
It was indeed down to the Democrats piling up votes on the West Coast, while losing the swing states. And good targeting is indeed essential under First Past the Post. But even if you consider that had the Democrats might just have turned things around had they applied an absolutely optimal targeting strategy, none of that somehow gives such a clear loser in terms of the popular vote legitimacy as opposed to power. Instead, the claim to such legitimacy rests on the argument that in the absence of an electoral college voters in safe states would have turned out in such numbers to give the Republicans a net 3 million extra votes over the Democrats, which is frankly a risible attempt to provide a fig leaf and I'm not going to waste time on it here. What matters is after the evidence of two recent presidential elections both being lost by the popular vote, Republican states are resisting tooth and nail moves to fix a broken system through legislation that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote.
Why should they, in a federal system? It's the State votes that count.
In any case, the Conservative government was legitimate in 1951, and the Labour government in February 1974, despite winning fewer votes than their chief opponent. Each party won according to the rules of the contest.
Dismissing based on a gut feeling is what lunatic conspiracy theorists do. Sure they turn out to be right sometimes, by sheer luck, but it is coincidental.
Besides, I don't think the kind of logic Roger is trying to apply works with Chemical weapons. They are terror weapons designed to have an effect far beyond their basic physical action and a scope that goes far beyond just the immediate tactical geographic range. To assume Assad is using them for logical tactical or strategic reasons is not necessarily going to get you any answers.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is haragainst your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those
So if you want to deduce whether the Rcan seats (piling up Democr.
Look at maps of Congressional boundaries. They utterly defy any geographical logic in states where the poli at Congressional level.
John Oliver recently did an interesting segment on this. Actually many of those weird shaped districts are due to maintaining 'community cohesion' - i.e. grouping latinos in one seat and african americans in another. The idea being that a community can elect a representative of their community. Whether you support that policy or not, it is not party political gerrymandering (but of course, some of the seats are indeed gerrymandered)
Despite his losing his mind a bit since Trump won (he has never pretended to be non-partisan, though many of the topics he touches on are cross partisan to some degree, but since Trump he's clearly angry and bitter and not caring to hide it, which is his right on his show), I really enjoy John Oliver and his pieces, but I have to admit I was surprised that he did not see that example of a seat as a problem, that in essence its ok to join together to completely separate areas in one seat because, at the moment, they are both Latino communities. For one presumably it is only they are predominantly Latino, and maybe the minority position is different in each, and for another, John Oliver and others of the Daily Show alumni have frequently made the point that not all latinos have the same concerns, that Latino is not a uniform bloc, that Cuban heritage, Mexican etc etc, are not uniform, and should not be treated the same, and he didn't mention, IIRC, whether these two Latino communities were themselves comprised of the same type of Latino.
It seemed a clear case of party political Gerrymandering to me since the parties believe, not without some justification (if not as much as they believed) that certain communities vote more heavily for one party over another, so you round up specific communities to shore up your vote, rather than the governance being inherently better. Sure they say its about community cohesion, but they are in different areas, they aren't one community, they just say they are because they're blocs of voters are there. Cui bono?
In an interesting piece which touched on people claiming boundaries were for one reason but actually for another, I was not convinced by his argument that those ones were ok for that reason.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
Student loans repayment is basically a tax, so it wouldn't have been a new tax. They could have left the basic rate untouched, and just added an extra 1% (e.g.) onto the higher rate for graduates.
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
Student loans repayment is basically a tax, so it wouldn't have been a new tax. They could have left the basic rate untouched, and just added an extra 1% (e.g.) onto the higher rate for graduates.
Or give graduates a lower threshold a bit like company car drivers.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
They are already being taxed by having student loans. It wouldn't really be much different, except it would get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy of the current repayment system.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
Student loans repayment is basically a tax, so it wouldn't have been a new tax. They could have left the basic rate untouched, and just added an extra 1% (e.g.) onto the higher rate for graduates.
Or give graduates a lower threshold a bit like company car drivers.
Heh Nice in theory but that'd hit graduates earning 11 -> 21k
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
I believe a graduate tax was the plan until it was rejected by George Osborne (no new taxes) and David Willetts was the spin doctors' fall guy. Of course, if innumerate New Labour had been right that all graduates earn above average salaries, then a normally progressive income tax would have covered it.
Student loans repayment is basically a tax, so it wouldn't have been a new tax. They could have left the basic rate untouched, and just added an extra 1% (e.g.) onto the higher rate for graduates.
Yes but it is not called a tax and that's what mattered.
@RobD Fundamentally I think the terms, tuition fees and so forth that we had were a fair and equitable arrangement between ourselves, the taxpayer and the university. I do not believe the current arrangements are.
I think a graduate tax would be far more equitable. Maybe just an extra penny/half penny on income tax.
Surely a rise in the basic or higher rate would be better. Many graduates would be paying this, and lower paid graduates would benefit, but many of these are in professions like nursing, teaching, the clergy, social workers etc that contribute to society in other ways.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
They are already being taxed by having student loans. It wouldn't really be much different, except it would get rid of the unnecessary bureaucracy of the current repayment system.
The current system is capped in that when the loan is paid off the repayments stop. A graduate tax would not.
Personally, I would privatise the whole University sector. What business of government is it?
Ooh, Alonso's Indy race is to be in a Honda-powered Andretti-built car, branded McLaren for the race. So McLaren themselves are snubbing the Monaco GP and sending their star driver to go help sell more road cars in the US, absolutely astonishing.
Comments
The US thought it had a deal with the Russians over chemical weapons in Syria: you ensure chemical weapons are taken out and we will give Russia carte-blanche on everything else to do with that country. Americans even had to haggle with the Russians to get humanitarian aid into Aleppo. Then Russia failed to keep its relatively straightforward side of the bargain. That probably was a case of the Assad regime not toeing the line, although Russia may have been complicit. But it confirms my first point. Because it wouldn't consider dropping its Syrian policy under any circumstances, Russia doesn't have much leverage over the Assad regime, which is an unreliable partner anyway.
This shows that McDonnell has got an iron grip on spending announcements and nothing can break his own rule of only additional capital investment spending allowed unless the extra is day-today spending is tax funded. Rather reminiscent of one Gordon Brown. Surely the hard left aren't following the rule book of the co-creator of New Labour?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
I find your concentration on Saudi to be hilarious. Iran and Russia are the main players on the ground, as you well know. And both have had influence in Syria for decades. I'm not ignoring Saudi, but they're essentially an irrelevance.
Your post is classic 'look, squirrel!' whataboutery.
I also like @ydoethur's suggestion of Justine Greening for next out, she's probably underpriced and will shorten over the summer when the inevitable problems occur. Great trading bet. DoE looks to have been a mess since Gove left.
"70" in the 2050's may not be exactly the same as "70" now in the sense that medicine might preserve relative youth longer. Look back at the 50 year olds in photos in the 1900's many would pass for 70 now. Such advancement cannot go on forever one supposes but I'm sure there's some mileage yet.
And there needs to be. We seems to have devised, by accident, a set up whereby the average age of starting work is around 19/20 (increased school leaving plus loads of graduates), many have graduate loans, rents are high, house prices higher, interest rates (and so pay out rates on pensions) in the cellar, and yet Mr and Ms Average are supposed to create pension assets or entitlements by 65ish to see them through to an anticipated demise at around 90 (I'm going on what company DB schemes are living with right now). So about 25 years of retirement for 45 or so years of saving at absolute best . A ratio of 1.8:1 Contrast to my grandfather's generation leaving school at 14/15 and working to 65 and pegging out on average at about 68 or so. A ratio of 16.7:1 or so.
It cannot possibly add up for the vast majority of people. Something has to give and the simplest workable thing is to retire for less time so the general age of retirement is heading into the 70's it's just a matter of when. A demographic tsunami I'm afraid.
Admittedly she hasn't mendaciously screwed up the way those two did, but neither has she shown any sign of getting things sorted, much like what happened at Transport. That's where I think she'll be vulnerable.
250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding.
In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.
Arguably this wasn't an oversold situation as the four staff members didn't have reserved space. United didn't aim to minimise the number denied boarding. The fact Dr Dao and the three others were already boarded could mean this procedure doesn't apply to them.
Bottom line: the airline can only bump passengers voluntarily in this situation. It's a commercial decision for the airline. They need to decide how much they are willing to pay to get those staff to the destination. They either get the volunteers at the level of compensation they are prepared to pay or they don't send the staff.
Dr Dao has allegedly hired two sets of lawyers. United's lawyers must be rubbing their hands. Their insurers must be soiling themselves. The creditors are doubtless nervous about possible repercussions.
The CEO looks like toast.
Le Pen 24 NC
Macron 23 NC
Fillon 20 Up 1
Melenchon 18 NC
http://presicote.factoviz.com/index/more/id/qoo_lew_1
I opposed the air strike plan in 2013 for exactly the same reason I oppose it now. It won't work. The only solution that will work in Syria is political not military - unless of course you want us to invade the country costing tens of thousands of lives on all sides and prompting direct war with Russia. Dropping bombs from 20,000 feet does not win wars and more importantly it certainly doesn't secure the peace.
Assad needs to go but at the same time we need to end support for Saudi Arabia and stop them promoting wars all across the region. It is something we used to accuse Iran of doing but Saudi are far worse and causing far more grief. If the former head of MI6 recognises this then I am more willing to take his measured word for it than yours with your clear bias.
Which would mysteriously also make two very safe Conservative seats instead of one safe and one semi-marginal. But I am sure that was a pure coincidence.
Is the first round on the 20th?
Very strange that Gove sowed the seeds of her downfall long before she became prime minister.
https://twitter.com/ruskin147/status/852101300196184065
Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics:
“Brexit is going to be like arthritis. It will be very painful, but it is not going to kill you. We think you could lose a third of the City. "
But don't forget, there are people on these threads who blame Brown's downfall solely on Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall.
May isn't helping herself, it's true, with her obsession over grammar schools. But the key thing is when something goes wrong we expect those in power to do something about it. I see no sign of that happening in education where a perfect storm appears to be forming.
Splutters. Wow. That's an incredible accusation to make from what I've written on here in the past.
Take the Kurds. I've repeatedly said the best thing is for them to get autonomy of some description in Syria. Yet I've also criticised the PKK *and* Turkey for their conflict, and bemoaned the death of the peace process. It's not as if I've ever commended ISIS or AlN for anything either.
Your obsession with Saudi seems to be over other things, and you're just using Syria as a convenient whipping-boy. Saudi are essentially irrelevant in the conflict as-is. It's the Iranian and Russians who hold the power, and perhaps even Assad's strings.
So what 'clear bias' is this? As I asked below, spit it out.
Again, of course, pure accident.
https://twitter.com/ScottishSun/status/852056950422503424
Yes I'm sure there's elements of this for sure. Retirement maths is utterly brutal though. An index linked 50% spouse benefit on death (if spouse same age) of 15k at age 65 (so 60% or so of average earnings -see William Burrows annuities website and others) needs a fund of over £550K.
Or another way of looking at it is a million quid gets you about £27 grand (!). Decent pension for sure but how many will ever have any hope of getting to £1M in today's money assuming they need a roof over their head, have a couple of kids and a "life" of some sort. £1M is of course the Govt's tax wrapper limit for those of us in the private sector (so anyone in the public sector due a pension of more than £27k is getting a better deal right now than the normal max in that tax respect). A higher interest rate environment eases this maths somewhat of course but the authorities are deaf to this seemingly. Higher interest rates also make public sector pensions less relatively (ie relative to private sector) valuable as any given fund size would buy more pension.
Generally though in future, we save more, retire on less, retire for less, or some combination of the three.
Red current, blue proposed. The top bit has been added to Gloucester from the Tewkesbury constituency, while the bottom bot has been removed from Gloucester and added to Stroud. I believe these are the boundaries drawn up by the commission, prior to any requests for them to be changed.
Mind you those are only estimates. There's always a chance I might be wrong.
Why are you like this? I have no idea. But you don't always have to know someone's reasons to know they are displaying seriously warped behaviour over an issue.
The basic facts are:
We want Assad gone.
We will not achieve that through military means only through political means.
Dropping bombs does not win wars. That has been shown over and over again.
Russia and Iran are part of the problem. They are also part of the solution whether we like it or not.
Saudi Arabia is part of the problem. They will not be part of the solution as long as they persist in religious wars against the Shia in the Middle East.
Unless of course you believe that or own intelligence services are wrong.
James ForsythVerified account @JGForsyth 13m13 minutes ago
Striking statement from the Scottish Secretary saying that ‘The Scottish Government now need to act urgently to secure the Scottish economy’
James ForsythVerified account
@JGForsyth
Mundell’s statement marks an escalation in the UK govt’s anti-SNP rhetoric. He is now directly attacking the record of the Scottish govt
We should make a note of these predictions. If a third of the City hasn't disappeared within (say) 10 years then we get to amputate his legs and hang them from Canary Wharf.
My further entirely serious point was that whoever is doing them these tactics are totally unacceptable and bad for democracy. That Tory candidate in Benbecula should have the book thrown at him so hard he doesn't bounce until he reaches Fort Augustus. But the same is true of Mhairi Black.
However, that story is interesting for the Alonso specials.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/apr/08/student-loans-firm-erudio-leaves-graduates-fuming-over-latest-error
Anyway, a 6.1% interest rate is basically theft when the base rate is where it is, mortgages are available at under 2% and wage growth is minimal.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jailed-for-life-immigrant-who-raped-and-murdered-a-hotel-housekeeper-a3513406.html
Incidentally, not sure if you missed it earlier but Ladbrokes has some Alonso specials. None appeal to me, though (to leave McLaren before the season ends, to race in 2018 for Ferrari or Renault).
I would have said the net effect of those changes would be to make five of the six seats in Gloucestershire (not counting Dursley and Thornbury as Gloucestershire although that would be pretty safe too) rock safe for the Conservatives. Only Stroud would still be in play and then only in a good year for Labour (Gloucester might go in a 1997 style rout, but not otherwise). Ironically the result in Stroud might be superficially closer under Corbyn because there is a big Green vote in Stroud he can squeeze. But he ain't gonna actually win without the support of the middle class voters in Stonehouse and Hardwicke.
When you bear in mind that fifteen years ago Labour held Gloucester, Forest and Stroud and the Liberal Democrats held Cheltenham (and Thornbury) just two years ago, that would be a stunning turnaround.
If this goes through and is replicated nationally, any bets on a Labour win in the next ten years are free money for the bookies regardless of Brexit or Scotland. It would be like 1918-1935 all over again, where the Unionisits started every election with 300 safe seats except in a very bad year (1923 being their worst with 258, although Labour briefly displaced them from first in 1929).
I don't remember that period being a shining display of democracy and good government. Given I wrote a PHD thesis on government and politics in that period, I'm sure I would have noticed if it was.
The omens are not good.
(0.09* (Earnings over 21k) for 30 years).
Any rise in tuition fees, or RPI will be largely borne out by the government from this point onward actually.
I'm clearing my student loan this year anyway. It's cheaper than keeping it in savings and I've had enough of them.
Corbyn's a dreadful problem. But he's only part of the problem. Lack of talent, rudeness and arrogance of members, lazy and outdated ideas, a heavily skewed electoral system and major internal divisions are all just as toxic.
If the Conservatives were a great party that would govern magnificently for the whole country it would be less of an issue. But they are not an awful lot better than Labour without Corbyn. They have won a lock on power without deserving it and that's extremely unhealthy.
With that, I have work to do. Have a good afternoon everyone.
Then, after 30 years, start working full time and not have to pay back the tuition fees. Youngsters are going to have to work into late old age anyway as pensions will not start until at least age 68..
I am genuinely concerned about the long term implications of this policy. Loading debt on the younger generation whilst remaining committed to the triple lock for the elder generation is appallingly unfair.
I don't know if that was really true. But some EU countries have moved to paying for higher education out of general taxation (as happened in the UK in the 60s & 70s).
Or higher income tax on graduates would recover the cost without this fuss and bother. If an average graduate needs to repay say £30k over 40 years, which is £750 per year, just ask HMRC to send each university an annual cheque out of its income tax receipts.
The balance hasn't been updated for 31st March 2017 yet though. Current interest rate a very nice 0.9%
If you took out a student loan between 1998 and 2011 the system is different. The interest rate on these loans is to stay at 1.25pc. This is because for these loans the interest rate used is the lower of RPI or the Bank of England base rate plus 1pc.
I do not believe the current arrangements are.
The amounts are such that lots of students, especially women, are going to fail to meet the threshold for repayment over such a long period of time. There will also be students who emigrate (hello!) and students from other EU countries who quickly become untraceable or who earn comparative peanuts while living well in their homelands. There's going to be a LOT that don't get repaid, and by the time it becomes obvious there will be another decade or two of the same loans out there, waiting to go bad.
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/12/14/ive-hired-lawyers-to-investigate-judicial-reviewing-govts-retrospective-student-loan-hike/?_ga=1.107692165.644917120.1491510074
From what I can tell, the overall real cost to students rises substantially if they flog the loan book off with a frozen repayment threshold - and we then have a period of high inflation.
Close!
In any case, the Conservative government was legitimate in 1951, and the Labour government in February 1974, despite winning fewer votes than their chief opponent. Each party won according to the rules of the contest.
It seemed a clear case of party political Gerrymandering to me since the parties believe, not without some justification (if not as much as they believed) that certain communities vote more heavily for one party over another, so you round up specific communities to shore up your vote, rather than the governance being inherently better. Sure they say its about community cohesion, but they are in different areas, they aren't one community, they just say they are because they're blocs of voters are there. Cui bono?
In an interesting piece which touched on people claiming boundaries were for one reason but actually for another, I was not convinced by his argument that those ones were ok for that reason.
Last night we were discussing altering behaviour by financial means, taxing learning seems a poor way to get the educated workforce needed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2017/04/12/fernando-alonso-missmonaco-grand-prix-compete-indy-500-event/
Personally, I would privatise the whole University sector. What business of government is it?