"Japan’s second-biggest lender by market value is establishing the units to offer services “with no disruption” once Britain leaves the union, it said in a statement on Monday. Sumitomo Mitsui’s banking unit will also take steps to set up a branch in London. The plans are subject to regulatory approval"
Yes, it says their EU base will be in Frankfurt. To service the EU. A huge market.
They will also look at a UK office, if there is any UK business worth having.
Yes we are leaving the EU, so I guess non EU banks will have to set up offices there. You don't seem to get that millions of people voted to leave because they see city jobs paying six figures plus protected, while their low wages & job security are undercut. The reverse of how it should be in a capitalist society that also looks after the less well off. Its also why Corbyn did so well. The "anywheres" can move to Frankfurt and keep their jobs, they said this was a good thing, they should be pleased.
Seems like the rebalancing of the economy is happening and the privileged don't like it.
The priveleged will be largely untouched by it.
OK maybe I phrased that incorrectly, I mean the six figure salary boys that have had it really good for the last few years, whilst the ordinary man or woman has struggled
It's not my fault they struggled.
If they worked harder they might enjoy some benefits.
When I was in my early 20s I regularly worked 80 plus hour weeks, that set me up for life.
Such arrogance becomes you.
I doubt that very few of them had the opportunity to work 80 hours a week, we're not talking junior doctors or lawyers here.
Just ordinary working people that have seen their jobs move abroad, their wages kept down, and little opportunity to do anything about it.
Just channelling my inner Tebbit, he was right about the get on your bike approach.
I know white van drivers that work 80 hours a week, do you think they make six figures a year?
If they work for DPD then that is unlikely, but have they white van drivers ever earned six figure salaries?
You have to realise that 50% of the population will always be on the left side of the Bell curve, that will be reflected in their situation and salaries.
There should not be a second comma. The first and only comma needs moving one word to the right, unless the DCMS also covers non-digital culture, in which case they need to start again from scratch.
What is ‘Digital Culture’? Is it like that of Dubai?
So digital is a noun, and the Secretary of State was at school under a Tory government.
Ironic edit: added a comma to the last sentence.
Digital remains an adjective - this is merely an example of ellipsis, 'digital stuff' sounding even more ugly.
I'm surprised they didn't use 'Information super highway' instead of 'digital'
Actually, the word elided seems to be 'sectors': "The department has taken on significant new responsibilities in recent years, so that half of its policy and delivery work now covers the digital sectors - telecommunications, data protection, internet safety, cyber skills and parts of media and the creative industries...."
The missing comma is, however, grammatically inexplicable.
I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to Jeremy Hunt and The Times if that missing comma isn't added by 6pm.
There should not be a second comma. The first and only comma needs moving one word to the right, unless the DCMS also covers non-digital culture, in which case they need to start again from scratch.
What is ‘Digital Culture’? Is it like that of Dubai?
So digital is a noun, and the Secretary of State was at school under a Tory government.
Ironic edit: added a comma to the last sentence.
Digital remains an adjective - this is merely an example of ellipsis, 'digital stuff' sounding even more ugly.
Digital might currently be an adjective but it is being used in conversation as a noun and therefore it will become accepted and then fomalised as one sooner or later.
I'm perfectly happy with that. Only the French Academy have ever believed they can fully formalise a language.
There should not be a second comma. The first and only comma needs moving one word to the right, unless the DCMS also covers non-digital culture, in which case they need to start again from scratch.
What is ‘Digital Culture’? Is it like that of Dubai?
There should not be a second comma. The first and only comma needs moving one word to the right, unless the DCMS also covers non-digital culture, in which case they need to start again from scratch.
What is ‘Digital Culture’? Is it like that of Dubai?
So digital is a noun, and the Secretary of State was at school under a Tory government.
Ironic edit: added a comma to the last sentence.
Digital remains an adjective - this is merely an example of ellipsis, 'digital stuff' sounding even more ugly.
I'm surprised they didn't use 'Information super highway' instead of 'digital'
Actually, the word elided seems to be 'sectors': "The department has taken on significant new responsibilities in recent years, so that half of its policy and delivery work now covers the digital sectors - telecommunications, data protection, internet safety, cyber skills and parts of media and the creative industries...."
The missing comma is, however, grammatically inexplicable.
I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to Jeremy Hunt and The Times if that missing comma isn't added by 6pm.
It seems an issue worthy of Gove's particular talents...
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, next time
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
The talent problem, though.
I think the only thing that will now stop Labour heading into power is replacing Corbyn with Abbott....
Whether you like it or not Brexit is driving the country in one direction....into the path of left wing populists....
Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies that voted Tory in 2015 and 2017 are suddenly going to embrace the kind of populist socialism advocated by those who now control the Labour party. This country has never swung behind the left in that way before. The utter uselessness of Boris & co might persuade it to, but I am far from convinced.
Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.
Yes - I agree on both points. But there is always an element of a beauty contest - relative charisma often plays a part. I can't think of any election since the 1970s, except possibly 1992, where I would say the more charismatic leader of the two main parties hasn't come out on top. Admittedly sometimes (Wilson Heath) there was next to no charisma on either side.
The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May... ...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!
Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.
Yes - I agree on both points. But there is always an element of a beauty contest - relative charisma often plays a part. I can't think of any election since the 1970s, except possibly 1992, where I would say the more charismatic leader of the two main parties hasn't come out on top. Admittedly sometimes (Wilson Heath) there was next to no charisma on either side.
The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May... ...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!
Harold Wilson had a lot of charisma.
I bow to your judgement - I was too young to spot it.
Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies tha
The
I
Nope - look at the turncoats. Politics is about winning, as Jezza has found out recently (who knew?) and his lackey "hard right" MPs will fall in behind him if they get a whiff of power. They were only upset because they thought this was impossible. It is now very much in sight.
The point is that Corbyn does not want them to fall in behind him. He does not trust them and does not share their beliefs.
We
Labour
But at the moment *not* thinking radically (ie deposing their leader) = thinking radically (ie sleepwalking into Labour becoming a socialist party).
The leader is unassailable.
I don't think there's anything anyone can say or do that'll put people off Corbyn. Their minds are made up and they will filter the evidence to suit. So, unless he retires or stands down, I think his ascent to the premiership is a question of when, not if.
But, he will be found out pretty quickly in office. He probably think there's been a damascene conversion to his sort of socialism in the country. But, he's in for a shock. Over the weekend, I spoke to two (independently) enthusiastic middle-class Corbynites who both own homes, rental properties and hold stock and shares investments, both domestic and international. In fact, they have far more asset wealth than I do.
I suspect they won't be best pleased with him after 18 months.
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
Fair point, but we would do better to spend the £20bn on developing ways to store and re-use energy e.g. through Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc.
I did look into this some years ago and came to the conclusion that we would be better off with tidal generation than pumped storage. Someone did the calculations and we lack enough "storage space" in our hills. Direct tidal generation, river barriers and tidal pools offered more possibilities and are predictable and reliable.
Gas plus wind plus imported energy is the here and now answer. Because gas plants are cheap to install and economically viable when used intermittently you can still reduce overall greenhouse emissions. Nuclear power is inflexible, expensive and risky. You can make a case with one of those disadvantages, but not two, let alone three.
In the early days of May (person not month) I did experience a shiver of anticipation that she might actually do something bold and cancel Hinkley. Since then every decision she has taken has been a disappointment.
Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies tha
The
I
Nope - look at the turncoats. Politics is about winning, as Jezza has found out recently (who knew?) and his lackey "hard right" MPs will fall in behind him if they get a whiff of power. They were only upset because they thought this was impossible. It is now very much in sight.
The point is that Corbyn does not want them to fall in behind him. He does not trust them and does not share their beliefs.
We
Labour
But at the moment *not* thinking radically (ie deposing their leader) = thinking radically (ie sleepwalking into Labour becoming a socialist party).
The leader is unassailable.
I don't think there's anything anyone can say or do that'll put people off Corbyn. Their minds are made up and they will filter the evidence to suit. So, unless he retires or stands down, I think his ascent to the premiership is a question of when, not if.
But, he will be found out pretty quickly in office. He probably think there's been a damascene conversion to his sort of socialism in the country. But, he's in for a shock. Over the weekend, I spoke to two (independently) enthusiastic middle-class Corbynites who both own homes, rental properties and hold stock and shares investments, both domestic and international. In fact, they have far more asset wealth than I do.
I suspect they won't be best pleased with him after 18 months.
Thats usually the path of the left. (see Hollande in France for example). The policies on the face of them, sound great 'more houses, more hospitals, more schools, tax the rich!!!'.
Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies tha
The
I
Nope - look at the turncoats. Politics is about winning, as Jezza has found out recently (who knew?) and his lackey "hard right" MPs will fall in behind him if they get a whiff of power. They were only upset because they thought this was impossible. It is now very much in sight.
The point is that Corbyn does not want them to fall in behind him. He does not trust them and does not share their beliefs.
We
Labour
But at the moment *not* thinking radically (ie deposing their leader) = thinking radically (ie sleepwalking into Labour becoming a socialist party).
The leader is unassailable.
I don't think there's anything anyone can say or do that'll put people off Corbyn. Their minds are made up and they will filter the evidence to suit. So, unless he retires or stands down, I think his ascent to the premiership is a question of when, not if.
But, he will be found out pretty quickly in office. He probably think there's been a damascene conversion to his sort of socialism in the country. But, he's in for a shock. Over the weekend, I spoke to two (independently) enthusiastic middle-class Corbynites who both own homes, rental properties and hold stock and shares investments, both domestic and international. In fact, they have far more asset wealth than I do.
I suspect they won't be best pleased with him after 18 months.
You're thinking of the bogeyman Corbyn caricature created by the Mail, Sun etc. rather than the reality, which would be much more practical and sensible. Yes, the wealthier would be squeezed a bit and (some, not all) would squeal a bit, but they will manage.
By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.
There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?
Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.
Public sector pay could at least rise in line with average pay even if not in line with inflation after years of public sector pay caps
Pay rises can only be justified by increased performance. This might be better quality of work, wider skills or improved productivity but not just because of inflation or somebody else's pay increase umless necessary because of market forces.
We need teachers, doctors, police, nurses etc and if we don't pay them even in line with average wages we won't get them end of.
We do indeed need those people. We also need other people to earn the money to help fund those public sector wages unless we just start the printing presses and reduce Sterling to Monopoly money.
Yes no money tree available, the private sector have to be robbed to fund all the largesse. The government has NO money of its own.
You are basically a Thatcherite Scottish Nationalist!
Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies that voted Tory in 2015 and 2017 are suddenly going to embrace the kind of populist socialism advocated by those who now control the Labour party. This country has never swung behind the left in that way before. The utter uselessness of Boris & co might persuade it to, but I am far from convinced.
It has - 1945
Yes, of course. At the end of a world war, devastation of vast swathes of the country, and the legacy of the most useless Conservative government (until now) in the 1930s. And that euphoria lasted how long? Certainly it had gone by the 1950 election, and almost certainly long before that.
Mr. HYUFD, I'd have more sympathy with that line on pay if the public sector had pay cuts when the private sector does, or had comparable pensions and job security.
I'm not saying a pay rise above 1% (on average, across the board) is necessarily the wrong move, just responding to the suggestion public sector pay should rise with private sector pay.
Public sector pay has risen below private sector pay for years now and job cuts in the public sector due to austerity have ended the idea of a guaranteed job for life and even in the public sector final salary pensions are in decline
Lots of private sector have not had pay rises for many years never mind 1% and have significantly worse pensions and conditions
Quite right, yes.
Utter nonsense, give me one single example of a private sector company that hasn't given out any pay rises since 2010 when austerity began. Remember the Living Wage has been introduced since then.
I certainly know people in a Global company who have not had a pay rise since 2010. Not all companies pay everybody a pay rise , it is done individually. Large swathes have not had rises since the crash. PS , not everybody paid below the living wage and many many still do not actually pay it today. Perhaps you meant the minimum wage.
Not a penny increase, not even cost of living/ inflation rises? I find that hard to believe. Surely anyone seeing a real terms cut in their salary for 7 years straight would have moved on.
Any company not paying the living wage (assuming the employee is over 25) is breaking the law.
Not a penny piece. Second point , not everybody can just move on, not a lot of good jobs out there. Re living wage , what law was that then , and why do we still have a minimum wage if you get jailed for not paying the Living wage which is much higher.
Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies tha
The
I
Nope - look at the turncoats. Politics is about winning, as Jezza has found out recently (who knew?) and his lackey "hard right" MPs will fall in behind him if they get a whiff of power. They were only upset because they thought this was impossible. It is now very much in sight.
The point is that Corbyn does not want them to fall in behind him. He does not trust them and does not share their beliefs.
We
Labour
But at the moment *not* thinking radically (ie deposing their leader) = thinking radically (ie sleepwalking into Labour becoming a socialist party).
The leader is unassailable.
I don't think there's anything anyone can say or do that'll put people off Corbyn. Their minds are made up and they will filter the evidence to suit. So, unless he retires or stands down, I think his ascent to the premiership is a question of when, not if.
But, he will be found out pretty quickly in office. He probably think there's been a damascene conversion to his sort of socialism in the country. But, he's in for a shock. Over the weekend, I spoke to two (independently) enthusiastic middle-class Corbynites who both own homes, rental properties and hold stock and shares investments, both domestic and international. In fact, they have far more asset wealth than I do.
I suspect they won't be best pleased with him after 18 months.
You're thinking of the bogeyman Corbyn caricature created by the Mail, Sun etc. rather than the reality, which would be much more practical and sensible. Yes, the wealthier would be squeezed a bit and (some, not all) would squeal a bit, but they will manage.
Thanks. You exemplify the point I'm making perfectly.
Comments
You have to realise that 50% of the population will always be on the left side of the Bell curve, that will be reflected in their situation and salaries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyjXkX1MC3U
Talk about getting the excuses in early
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/06/12/2D1CFA3C00000578-3261761-image-m-71_1444129374770.jpg
But, he will be found out pretty quickly in office. He probably think there's been a damascene conversion to his sort of socialism in the country. But, he's in for a shock. Over the weekend, I spoke to two (independently) enthusiastic middle-class Corbynites who both own homes, rental properties and hold stock and shares investments, both domestic and international. In fact, they have far more asset wealth than I do.
I suspect they won't be best pleased with him after 18 months.
And, then it all falls apart....
NEW THREAD
The let them eat cake mob on here doing a great job for the remain side.