JRM is an Old Etonian from a family with long connections in the City. He has clearly been able to use all the very big advantages he was born with to his benefit. Good luck to him. He would have been a fool not to do so. And I am certainly not suggesting that he is a fool. Whether he would have been able to do it all from scratch is a moot point - we will never know.
As for moving the Tories back from the 21st century, he gives every indication of wishing that society had stopped developing in around 1955. His position on a number of issues strongly indicates that. A lot of people think he is funny and entertaining because of that. I imagine that is because right now he is powerless and, therefore, powerless.
Leadership? Like Corbyn he has been a serial rebel from the backbenches and has no ministerial experience whatsoever. My guess is that with fellow MPs neither of those things would be to his advantage - eg, see the recent Treasury committee chairmanship vote. However, should he manage to get his name in front of Tory members, like Corbyn with Labour members he probably reflects majority views. Whether those are majority views in the country is another matter entirely.
There's a fanatic lurking behind JRM's personable young fogey demeanour. Corbyn us certainly left wing, associates with disreputable groups, is disloyal and probably not fit to be leader. But he doesn't impose his views on others in the same way.
Given a free rein, what do you imagine JRM would do?
I'm not sure. I guess his would be a very ideological, conservative, backward and inward looking government. A De Valera of our times?
The guy has made zillions investing in the most far-flung places on the planet; he is the opposite of inward looking. He has more experience of different cultures than those who only know N19 that's for sure. How, for example, is Jeremy Corbyn not inward looking?
If you remember when "Emerging Markets" were known as "Colonies" it is easy to understand Mogg's interest in them...
Stoneman and Borthwick did well on the dreadful Durham wickets, bring them both in and leave Dawson out
Haseeb Hameed should open
Definitely the future but he has hardly got a run this season
I don't really think his county form matters. He has tried to open up his game vs crap bowlers and got out. Ballance averaged 100 in CC but struggles in tests. HH proved he is made of the right stuff in India, if he hadnt got injured it wouldn't even be a question
Jacob Rees-Mogg was last matched for next Conservative leader at 7 on Betfair. Either the price is crazy or the Conservative party is crazy. Or both.
If J R-M is the answer then the Conservative Party and the country are in deep deep sh1t
I can't see it myself. The evidence that he has any substantial Parliamentary support is entirely lacking. Liam Fox and Andrea Leadsom already have the support of the bulk of the nutters and both seem to have the inclination to run again. If he can't get into the last two among MPs, he's not going to get to kiss the Queen's hand.
JRM is an Old Etonian from a family with long connections in the City. He has clearly been able to use all the very big advantages he was born with to his benefit. Good luck to him. He would have been a fool not to do so. And I am certainly not suggesting that he is a fool. Whether he would have been able to do it all from scratch is a moot point - we will never know.
As for moving the Tories back from the 21st century, he gives every indication of wishing that society had stopped developing in around 1955. His position on a number of issues strongly indicates that. A lot of people think he is funny and entertaining because of that. I imagine that is because right now he is powerless and, therefore, powerless.
Leadership? Like Corbyn he has been a serial rebel from the backbenches and has no ministerial experience whatsoever. My guess is that with fellow MPs neither of those things would be to his advantage - eg, see the recent Treasury committee chairmanship vote. However, should he manage to get his name in front of Tory members, like Corbyn with Labour members he probably reflects majority views. Whether those are majority views in the country is another matter entirely.
There's a fanatic lurking behind JRM's personable young fogey demeanour. Corbyn us certainly left wing, associates with disreputable groups, is disloyal and probably not fit to be leader. But he doesn't impose his views on others in the same way.
Given a free rein, what do you imagine JRM would do?
I'm not sure. I guess his would be a very ideological, conservative, backward and inward looking government. A De Valera of our times?
The guy has made zillions investing in the most far-flung places on the planet; he is the opposite of inward looking. He has more experience of different cultures than those who only know N19 that's for sure. How, for example, is Jeremy Corbyn not inward looking?
If you remember when "Emerging Markets" were known as "Colonies" it is easy to understand Mogg's interest in them...
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights under those circumstances and on the other that it's an offense to education.
JRM is an Old Etonian from a family with long connections in the City. He has clearly been able to use all the very big advantages he was born with to his benefit. Good luck to him. He would have been a fool not to do so. And I am certainly not suggesting that he is a fool. Whether he would have been able to do it all from scratch is a moot point - we will never know.
As for moving the Tories back from the 21st century, he gives every indication of wishing that society had stopped developing in around 1955. His position on a number of issues strongly indicates that. A lot of people think he is funny and entertaining because of that. I imagine that is because right now he is powerless and, therefore, powerless.
Leadership? Like Corbyn he has been a serial rebel from the backbenches and has no ministerial experience whatsoever. My guess is that with fellow MPs neither of those things would be to his advantage - eg, see the recent Treasury committee chairmanship vote. However, should he manage to get his name in front of Tory members, like Corbyn with Labour members he probably reflects majority views. Whether those are majority views in the country is another matter entirely.
There's a fanatic lurking behind JRM's personable young fogey demeanour. Corbyn us certainly left wing, associates with disreputable groups, is disloyal and probably not fit to be leader. But he doesn't impose his views on others in the same way.
Given a free rein, what do you imagine JRM would do?
I'm not sure. I guess his would be a very ideological, conservative, backward and inward looking government. A De Valera of our times?
The guy has made zillions investing in the most far-flung places on the planet; he is the opposite of inward looking. He has more experience of different cultures than those who only know N19 that's for sure. How, for example, is Jeremy Corbyn not inward looking?
If you remember when "Emerging Markets" were known as "Colonies" it is easy to understand Mogg's interest in them...
How sad.........
One down, several dozen more predictable suspects to go
We haven't had a general election in a year ending with "8" since 1918!!!!
If James Callaghan had called one in 1978, he might have done rather better than he actually did in 1979.
He couldn`t in 1978 because of the Lib Lab pact. Besides, it was when this ended that things started going downhill for Labour. History has repeated itself in recent years too.
We haven't had a general election in a year ending with "8" since 1918!!!!
If James Callaghan had called one in 1978, he might have done rather better than he actually did in 1979.
He couldn`t in 1978 because of the Lib Lab pact. Besides, it was when this ended that things started going downhill for Labour. History has repeated itself in recent years too.
The Lib Lab pact ended in September 1978 and an election was widely expected to be imminent until the Prime Minister performed his surreal music hall act at the TUC conference.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights under those circumstances and on the other that it's an offense to education.
Is "offense" the spelling you intended?
Asking for a friend in the USA.
My computer corrects. To be fair to the lady in question the quote from her was spoken so no corrector available.
We haven't had a general election in a year ending with "8" since 1918!!!!
If James Callaghan had called one in 1978, he might have done rather better than he actually did in 1979.
He couldn`t in 1978 because of the Lib Lab pact. Besides, it was when this ended that things started going downhill for Labour. History has repeated itself in recent years too.
The Lib Lab pact ended in September 1978 and an election was widely expected to be imminent until the Prime Minister performed his surreal music hall act at the TUC conference.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights under those circumstances and on the other that it's an offense to education.
Is "offense" the spelling you intended?
Asking for a friend in the USA.
My computer corrects. To be fair to the lady in question the quote from her was spoken so no corrector available.
The "offense to education" was too good to let past!
At my last firm, JRM had held my role before me. He was not regarded as an investment genius by my former colleagies, but there is no doubt Somerset Capital did well when he was there.
Of course, there is a strong element of "fooled by randomness" in all of this: it may be - like Nat Rothschild at Atticus - that JRM was more involved in marketing the funds than running them, or it may be that during his time at my former firm he was simply unlucky, or that he was just lucky at Somerset, or (most likely of all) he came to emerging markets at a good time. And there's nothing like a rising market to make everyone look clever.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
she's not unqualified, she's merely alternately qualified.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights under those circumstances and on the other that it's an offense to education.
Is "offense" the spelling you intended?
Asking for a friend in the USA.
My computer corrects. To be fair to the lady in question the quote from her was spoken so no corrector available.
The "offense to education" was too good to let past!
Isn't it one of those immutable laws of humanity that when you're criticising someone else's grammar/spelling/punctuation et al you're going to make a mistake like that.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
At the beginning of the interview she said "The government have obviously took heed of that". It beggars belief that this woman could some day end up in charge of our schools.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights under those circumstances and on the other that it's an offense to education.
Is "offense" the spelling you intended?
Asking for a friend in the USA.
My computer corrects. To be fair to the lady in question the quote from her was spoken so no corrector available.
The "offense to education" was too good to let past!
Isn't it one of those immutable laws of humanity that when you're criticising someone else's grammar/spelling/punctuation et al you're going to make a mistake like that.
At my last firm, JRM had held my role before me. He was not regarded as an investment genius by my former colleagies, but there is no doubt Somerset Capital did well when he was there.
Of course, there is a strong element of "fooled by randomness" in all of this: it may be - like Nat Rothschild at Atticus - that JRM was more involved in marketing the funds than running them, or it may be that during his time at my former firm he was simply unlucky, or that he was just lucky at Somerset, or (most likely of all) he came to emerging markets at a good time. And there's nothing like a rising market to make everyone look clever.
I hope you are not suggesting, Mr Smithson, that he sometimes forgot who he was working for? Outrageous......
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights under those circumstances and on the other that it's an offense to education.
Is "offense" the spelling you intended?
Asking for a friend in the USA.
My computer corrects. To be fair to the lady in question the quote from her was spoken so no corrector available.
The "offense to education" was too good to let past!
Isn't it one of those immutable laws of humanity that when you're criticising someone else's grammar/spelling/punctuation et al you're going to make a mistake like that.
The last few polls seem to suggest that the best bet for the Conservatives is to stick with May as leader - not just for short term stability but that electorally she may well be their best bet.
I know it might seem absolutely crazy after the GE campaign but might it just be conceivable that she might also in time be considered the best person to lead the Party into the next GE?
I don't like abusing politicians, but that is really, really scummy behavior.
What is not acceptable is that the council does not appear to have complied with the requirement to spend Section 106 receipts on improving or expanding social housing stock inside or outside the borough.
That doesn't change the fact that maintaining extensive social housing within the borough itself seems like a profligate use of taxpayer funds.
JRM is an Old Etonian from a family with long connections in the City. He has clearly been able to use all the very big advantages he was born with to his benefit. Good luck to him. He would have been a fool not to do so. And I am certainly not suggesting that he is a fool. Whether he would have been able to do it all from scratch is a moot point - we will never know.
As for moving the Tories back from the 21st century, he gives every indication of wishing that society had stopped developing in around 1955. His position on a number of issues strongly indicates that. A lot of people think he is funny and entertaining because of that. I imagine that is because right now he is powerless and, therefore, powerless.
Leadership? Like Corbyn he has been a serial rebel from the backbenches and has no ministerial experience whatsoever. My guess is that with fellow MPs neither of those things would be to his advantage - eg, see the recent Treasury committee chairmanship vote. However, should he manage to get his name in front of Tory members, like Corbyn with Labour members he probably reflects majority views. Whether those are majority views in the country is another matter entirely.
There's a fanatic lurking behind JRM's personable young fogey demeanour. Corbyn us certainly left wing, associates with disreputable groups, is disloyal and probably not fit to be leader. But he doesn't impose his views on others in the same way.
Given a free rein, what do you imagine JRM would do?
I'm not sure. I guess his would be a very ideological, conservative, backward and inward looking government. A De Valera of our times?
The guy has made zillions investing in the most far-flung places on the planet; he is the opposite of inward looking. He has more experience of different cultures than those who only know N19 that's for sure. How, for example, is Jeremy Corbyn not inward looking?
You asked me what kind of government JRM might lead. With a lot of effort I imagined the improbable and made a suggestion.
Fwiw De Valera as an American citizen with a Spanish father had plenty of experience of different cultures. It didn't stop him running a nationalistic, backward and inward looking government in Ireland.
We haven't had a general election in a year ending with "8" since 1918!!!!
If James Callaghan had called one in 1978, he might have done rather better than he actually did in 1979.
He couldn`t in 1978 because of the Lib Lab pact. Besides, it was when this ended that things started going downhill for Labour. History has repeated itself in recent years too.
The Lib Lab pact ended in September 1978 and an election was widely expected to be imminent until the Prime Minister performed his surreal music hall act at the TUC conference.
Indeed . Moreover the Lib Lab pact did not interfere with Callaghan's right to call an election had he so wished.
I don't like abusing politicians, but that is really, really scummy behavior.
What is not acceptable is that the council does not appear to have complied with the requirement to spend Section 106 receipts on improving or expanding social housing stock inside or outside the borough.
That doesn't change the fact that maintaining extensive social housing within the borough itself seems like a profligate use of taxpayer funds.
I don't understand why social cleansing is acceptable, either, tbh.
Why shouldn't a firefighter who risked his/her life going into grenfell be able to afford to live in the kensington/chelsea council area?
Or a teacher who teaches in a local school, or whatever.
I don't understand how that is "a profligate use of taxpayer funds."
The last few polls seem to suggest that the best bet for the Conservatives is to stick with May as leader - not just for short term stability but that electorally she may well be their best bet.
I know it might seem absolutely crazy after the GE campaign but might it just be conceivable that she might also in time be considered the best person to lead the Party into the next GE?
I think May is excellent for the Conservatives. She should lead them in the next general election.
I don't like abusing politicians, but that is really, really scummy behavior.
What is not acceptable is that the council does not appear to have complied with the requirement to spend Section 106 receipts on improving or expanding social housing stock inside or outside the borough.
That doesn't change the fact that maintaining extensive social housing within the borough itself seems like a profligate use of taxpayer funds.
Perhaps because the inhabitants of that borough use the hospitals, schools and other services and that without the social housing most of the people providing those services would not be able to live in London and the services would collapse or cost the tax payer a lot more.
In the end K&C committed themselves to building 200 new social housing units a year. They have managed 340 in 5 years. What is the point of setting yourself targets you have no intention of keeping?
I don't like abusing politicians, but that is really, really scummy behavior.
What is not acceptable is that the council does not appear to have complied with the requirement to spend Section 106 receipts on improving or expanding social housing stock inside or outside the borough.
That doesn't change the fact that maintaining extensive social housing within the borough itself seems like a profligate use of taxpayer funds.
I don't understand why social cleansing is acceptable, either, tbh.
Why shouldn't a firefighter who risked his/her life going into grenfell be able to afford to live in the kensington/chelsea council area?
Or a teacher who teaches in a local school, or whatever.
I don't understand how that is "a profligate use of taxpayer funds."
The borders of London boroughs are pretty arbitrary. I don't see why they can't commute across them like the vast majority of us mere mortals.
The last few polls seem to suggest that the best bet for the Conservatives is to stick with May as leader - not just for short term stability but that electorally she may well be their best bet.
I know it might seem absolutely crazy after the GE campaign but might it just be conceivable that she might also in time be considered the best person to lead the Party into the next GE?
I think May is excellent for the Conservatives. She should lead them in the next general election.
What TMay showed is that she simply does not have the required personal qualities to be a successful election winning leader. She can't empathise something that became apparent during the campaign. It was only Ruth Davidson's Scottish performance that saved the day for the Tories
Freshly discharged from hospital following open heart surgery, so I don't have the energy to check on whether this has already been highlighted.
It represents the hilarious handover between Twitter's 'pretend' Jacob Rees Mogg and the real one, who clearly has big ambitions. It went along these lines...
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
That someone ambitious and intelligent* enough to make it to the front bench of parliament has no qualifications does show a failure of schooling rather than of the individual. It may well better equip her to deal with the problems within the education system.
*There is a big difference in being intelligent and educated, John Major being another example.
I don't like abusing politicians, but that is really, really scummy behavior.
What is not acceptable is that the council does not appear to have complied with the requirement to spend Section 106 receipts on improving or expanding social housing stock inside or outside the borough.
That doesn't change the fact that maintaining extensive social housing within the borough itself seems like a profligate use of taxpayer funds.
I don't understand why social cleansing is acceptable, either, tbh.
Why shouldn't a firefighter who risked his/her life going into grenfell be able to afford to live in the kensington/chelsea council area?
Or a teacher who teaches in a local school, or whatever.
I don't understand how that is "a profligate use of taxpayer funds."
The borders of London boroughs are pretty arbitrary. I don't see why they can't commute across them like the vast majority of us mere mortals.
Well if the area is too good for poor lowly firemen perhaps they should choose not to go put out any fires in the borough. After all it is clear they are not wanted nor apparently needed.
Freshly discharged from hospital following open heart surgery, so I don't have the energy to check on whether this has already been highlighted.
It represents the hilarious handover between Twitter's 'pretend' Jacob Rees Mogg and the real one, who clearly has big ambitions. It went along these lines...
Jacob Rees-Mogg was last matched for next Conservative leader at 7 on Betfair. Either the price is crazy or the Conservative party is crazy. Or both.
If J R-M is the answer then the Conservative Party and the country are in deep deep sh1t
I can't see it myself. The evidence that he has any substantial Parliamentary support is entirely lacking. Liam Fox and Andrea Leadsom already have the support of the bulk of the nutters and both seem to have the inclination to run again. If he can't get into the last two among MPs, he's not going to get to kiss the Queen's hand.
70 would look a fairer price than 7.
Going by the Boris mould of 'Tory who is relatively popular', it should take many years and some actual senior position experience before the Moggster can be genuinely considered for a top role.
But who knows what the country wants anymore, and party members are even less predictable than the public.
Freshly discharged from hospital following open heart surgery, so I don't have the energy to check on whether this has already been highlighted.
It represents the hilarious handover between Twitter's 'pretend' Jacob Rees Mogg and the real one, who clearly has big ambitions. It went along these lines...
The last few polls seem to suggest that the best bet for the Conservatives is to stick with May as leader - not just for short term stability but that electorally she may well be their best bet.
I know it might seem absolutely crazy after the GE campaign but might it just be conceivable that she might also in time be considered the best person to lead the Party into the next GE?
I think May is excellent for the Conservatives. She should lead them in the next general election.
What TMay showed is that she simply does not have the required personal qualities to be a successful election winning leader. She can't empathise something that became apparent during the campaign. It was only Ruth Davidson's Scottish performance that saved the day for the Tories
That just confirms that May is ideal for leading the Conservatives. She is a cold-blooded .......
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
Just picked up the story that Dr Fox is arguing for a transitional period "of just a few months" as any longer period would be betraying the vote.
Given it is his department that is the most behind, this seems astonishing. Dr Fox, stop being "on maneuvers" and start putting mutual recognition of standards agreements in place with our major trading partners. And please replicate the existing deals. Some indication that we would like to join EFTA (even sans EEA), might be a good start too.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
As far as I'm aware, discussions are ongoing and extensive. Sure, there are disagreements, but I would largely discount stories like this.
Just picked up the story that Dr Fox is arguing for a transitional period "of just a few months" as any longer period would be betraying the vote.
Given it is his department that is the most behind, this seems astonishing. Dr Fox, stop being "on maneuvers" and start putting mutual recognition of standards agreements in place with our major trading partners.
Hear hear. I am so sick of everything under the sun being 'betraying the vote'. Each side has a particularly annoying stock response, designed to distract from any real point and cheer up the more extreme, and that one was overused to death within months of the vote.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
I've been to hundreds of meetings many of which I've struggled to stay alert but the one thing I've never done is arrive without notes to at least show willing. If he thought he was there for a photo op then he should be ashamed of himself. It shows how pointless he actually is.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
I've been to hundreds of meetings many of which I've struggled to stay alert but the one thing I've never done is arrive without some notes to at least show willing. If thought he was just there for a photo op then he should be ashamed of himself. It shows that he's pointless.
Why would he bring notes when the actual work was being done by one of 90+ other officials? If you listened to Radio 4 today you would have heard a very pro Remain diplomat saying the question of notes was utter rubbish and just showed how little the journalists understood about the process.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
The reports are saying that it's not just a case of the British not agreeing to the EU's demands; it's that the British still aren't presenting anything concrete about what they actually want. If we were to present a firm position of our own then, even if it was way off what the EU's position was, that atleast might be a starting point for constructive negotiations.
One side believes our negotiators are incompetant, the other that they are plying a blinder. In reality you have to hope the truth is somewhere in the middle. Some people have to take their polorized glasses off and analyse the overall picture.
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
That someone ambitious and intelligent* enough to make it to the front bench of parliament has no qualifications does show a failure of schooling rather than of the individual. It may well better equip her to deal with the problems within the education system.
*There is a big difference in being intelligent and educated, John Major being another example.
I think you're probably right. No one should be a slave to the English language which is changing all the time. The only thing I would say is that some of the least educated people through native wit can make their point persuasively. She isn't one of them.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
The reports are saying that it's not just a case of the British not agreeing to the EU's demands; it's that the British still aren't presenting anything concrete about what they actually want. If we were to present a firm position of our own then, even if it was way off what the EU's position was, that atleast might be a starting point for constructive negotiations.
That is not what the report says at all. It simply says that Britain has not, in the opinion of the EU, 'engaged seriously with the issue of payments'. That clearly means we have said the EU demands are unacceptable. Anything else is simply you and the Independent skewing the reports to look bad on the UK negotiating team.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
The reports are saying that it's not just a case of the British not agreeing to the EU's demands; it's that the British still aren't presenting anything concrete about what they actually want. If we were to present a firm position of our own then, even if it was way off what the EU's position was, that atleast might be a starting point for constructive negotiations.
That is not what the report says at all. It simply says that Britain has not, in the opinion of the EU, 'engaged seriously with the issue of payments'. That clearly means we have said the EU demands are unacceptable. Anything else is simply you and the Independent skewing the reports to look bad on the UK negotiating team.
I know for a fact that meetings between officials are going on right now, so it's either the EU grandstanding or the UK making it clear that nothing is decided until everything is decided
"Germany car exports news latest euro DAX Volkswagen BMW Daimler Is Germany heading for stock market disaster? German carmakers at risk of export meltdown "
Perhaps we should start negotiations by halting the sale of Mercedes cars until they can actually pass emissions tests - after all, hasn't the EU threatened to fine the UK over the Volkswagen deception because we haven't taken any action against Volkswagen?
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
That someone ambitious and intelligent* enough to make it to the front bench of parliament has no qualifications does show a failure of schooling rather than of the individual. It may well better equip her to deal with the problems within the education system.
*There is a big difference in being intelligent and educated, John Major being another example.
I think you're probably right. No one should be a slave to the English language which is changing all the time. The only thing I would say is that some of the least educated people through native wit can make their point persuasively. She isn't one of them.
Language is a tool and has a function. The reason grammar and spelling are important is not because of some random pomposity or snobbery, it is because if the language is changed then in many cases the meaning is also changed. That may not matter as much in day to day conversation or even typing a comment on a blog like PB, but it matters a great deal when people are discussing matters of state, law or business in an official capacity. The fact that someone who hopes to be in a position of authority within Government is unable to write coherent, grammatically correct sentences should be a concern to everyone.
The referendum was aproject did it have outcomes, benefits, risk ananysis and contingency plans, probably no. Brexit is a project does it have an objectve, measurable outcomes, critical path analsis, risk analasis and contingency pans? I hope so but there is little evidence of them. Maybe we need TSE to proramme manage this so someone appears to be doing what's needed.
The referendum was aproject did it have outcomes, benefits, risk ananysis and contingency plans, probably no. Brexit is a project does it have an objectve, measurable outcomes, critical path analsis, risk analasis and contingency pans? I hope so but there is little evidence of them. Maybe we need TSE to proramme manage this so someone appears to be doing what's needed.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
The reports are saying that it's not just a case of the British not agreeing to the EU's demands; it's that the British still aren't presenting anything concrete about what they actually want. If we were to present a firm position of our own then, even if it was way off what the EU's position was, that atleast might be a starting point for constructive negotiations.
That is not what the report says at all. It simply says that Britain has not, in the opinion of the EU, 'engaged seriously with the issue of payments'. That clearly means we have said the EU demands are unacceptable. Anything else is simply you and the Independent skewing the reports to look bad on the UK negotiating team.
I know for a fact that meetings between officials are going on right now, so it's either the EU grandstanding or the UK making it clear that nothing is decided until everything is decided
I really cant get why any PBer would take any statement on negotiations without a mountain of salt atm
OT. "The teachers that 'ave wrote out to parents" (Yesterday's Newsnight)
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
That someone ambitious and intelligent* enough to make it to the front bench of parliament has no qualifications does show a failure of schooling rather than of the individual. It may well better equip her to deal with the problems within the education system.
*There is a big difference in being intelligent and educated, John Major being another example.
I think you're probably right. No one should be a slave to the English language which is changing all the time. The only thing I would say is that some of the least educated people through native wit can make their point persuasively. She isn't one of them.
pah
as our leading autocoprophagist you would say that
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
The reports are saying that it's not just a case of the British not agreeing to the EU's demands; it's that the British still aren't presenting anything concrete about what they actually want. If we were to present a firm position of our own then, even if it was way off what the EU's position was, that atleast might be a starting point for constructive negotiations.
That is not what the report says at all. It simply says that Britain has not, in the opinion of the EU, 'engaged seriously with the issue of payments'. That clearly means we have said the EU demands are unacceptable. Anything else is simply you and the Independent skewing the reports to look bad on the UK negotiating team.
I know for a fact that meetings between officials are going on right now, so it's either the EU grandstanding or the UK making it clear that nothing is decided until everything is decided
I'm inclined to think one of two options, either a) the EU has decided hard brexit is in its political interests, even if the result would be economically damaging for the entire region or b) their strategy is that 'there is no such thing as soft brexit, only (full) Brexit or no Brexit, and their aim is to dare the UK into jumping off the economic cliff edge, with the full intention that public opinion can be swayed and the UK can be persuaded to remain.
Of course both (a) and (b) are compatible with each other - it is in the EU's political interests to punish us pour encourager les autres, or have us admit the error of our ways, for both political and economic reasons. We have far more need of a deal somewhere in the middle of that, which they know, hence their current tactics.
We haven't had a general election in a year ending with "8" since 1918!!!!
If James Callaghan had called one in 1978, he might have done rather better than he actually did in 1979.
He couldn`t in 1978 because of the Lib Lab pact. Besides, it was when this ended that things started going downhill for Labour. History has repeated itself in recent years too.
The Lib Lab pact ended in September 1978 and an election was widely expected to be imminent until the Prime Minister performed his surreal music hall act at the TUC conference.
Indeed . Moreover the Lib Lab pact did not interfere with Callaghan's right to call an election had he so wished.
My memory of that time is that Callaghan and Steel agreed that there would be a six months gap between the end of the Pact and any general election, so that the Liberal Party could recover its independent identity. Of course, both Steel and Callaghan were gentlemen, so they stuck by their word.
But the Militant Tendency of that time thought that the Labour Party was now back in power, unfettered by the Liberals, and so they went mad with their Winter of Discontent. Labour militants paved the way for the unhappiness of the Thatcher years.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
The reports are saying that it's not just a case of the British not agreeing to the EU's demands; it's that the British still aren't presenting anything concrete about what they actually want. If we were to present a firm position of our own then, even if it was way off what the EU's position was, that atleast might be a starting point for constructive negotiations.
That is not what the report says at all. It simply says that Britain has not, in the opinion of the EU, 'engaged seriously with the issue of payments'. That clearly means we have said the EU demands are unacceptable. Anything else is simply you and the Independent skewing the reports to look bad on the UK negotiating team.
I know for a fact that meetings between officials are going on right now, so it's either the EU grandstanding or the UK making it clear that nothing is decided until everything is decided
I'm inclined to think one of two options, either a) the EU has decided hard brexit is in its political interests, even if the result would be economically damaging for the entire region or b) their strategy is that 'there is no such thing as soft brexit, only (full) Brexit or no Brexit, and their aim is to dare the UK into jumping off the economic cliff edge, with the full intention that public opinion can be swayed and the UK can be persuaded to remain.
Of course both (a) and (b) are compatible with each other - it is in the EU's political interests to punish us pour encourager les autres, or have us admit the error of our ways, for both political and economic reasons. We have far more need of a deal somewhere in the middle of that, which they know, hence their current tactics.
Yes, remember the interview with Macron before he was elected in which he denounced Dave's deal as being a sign of weakness from the EU? They see Brexit as an opportunity to force the UK to make a binary choice: out-out or in-in.
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
The reports are saying that it's not just a case of the British not agreeing to the EU's demands; it's that the British still aren't presenting anything concrete about what they actually want. If we were to present a firm position of our own then, even if it was way off what the EU's position was, that atleast might be a starting point for constructive negotiations.
That is not what the report says at all. It simply says that Britain has not, in the opinion of the EU, 'engaged seriously with the issue of payments'. That clearly means we have said the EU demands are unacceptable. Anything else is simply you and the Independent skewing the reports to look bad on the UK negotiating team.
I know for a fact that meetings between officials are going on right now, so it's either the EU grandstanding or the UK making it clear that nothing is decided until everything is decided
I'm inclined to think one of two options, either a) the EU has decided hard brexit is in its political interests, even if the result would be economically damaging for the entire region or b) their strategy is that 'there is no such thing as soft brexit, only (full) Brexit or no Brexit, and their aim is to dare the UK into jumping off the economic cliff edge, with the full intention that public opinion can be swayed and the UK can be persuaded to remain.
Of course both (a) and (b) are compatible with each other - it is in the EU's political interests to punish us pour encourager les autres, or have us admit the error of our ways, for both political and economic reasons. We have far more need of a deal somewhere in the middle of that, which they know, hence their current tactics.
Yes, remember the interview with Macron before he was elected in which he denounced Dave's deal as being a sign of weakness from the EU? They see Brexit as an opportunity to force the UK to make a binary choice: out-out or in-in.
I'm inclined to think one of two options, either a) the EU has decided hard brexit is in its political interests, even if the result would be economically damaging for the entire region or b) their strategy is that 'there is no such thing as soft brexit, only (full) Brexit or no Brexit, and their aim is to dare the UK into jumping off the economic cliff edge, with the full intention that public opinion can be swayed and the UK can be persuaded to remain.
Of course both (a) and (b) are compatible with each other - it is in the EU's political interests to punish us pour encourager les autres, or have us admit the error of our ways, for both political and economic reasons. We have far more need of a deal somewhere in the middle of that, which they know, hence their current tactics.
Yes, remember the interview with Macron before he was elected in which he denounced Dave's deal as being a sign of weakness from the EU? They see Brexit as an opportunity to force the UK to make a binary choice: out-out or in-in.
I think you are dead on the money here. To re-hash the tired poker analogy, the EU always suspected us of holding a 2-7o, but the election literally allowed them to see our cards - weak and divided, GE2017 has shown the UK is holding the worst hand possible at this point in time.
They are quite correct to exploit their negotiating position to the fullest. The UK back in on humbled terms would be a win, the UK out and no longer holding up the programme would be a temporary economic loss but ultimately a political gain for the project.
It is hard to see how the UK can bluff its way out of this one, as I doubt there is a majority in the UK for the hardest of hard brexits and I don't think any party will want to be tied to that, making a second referendum inevitable.
Their negotiating strategy seems clear to me: the EU simply has to call us all in and watch us fold.
I'm inclined to think one of two options, either a) the EU has decided hard brexit is in its political interests, even if the result would be economically damaging for the entire region or b) their strategy is that 'there is no such thing as soft brexit, only (full) Brexit or no Brexit, and their aim is to dare the UK into jumping off the economic cliff edge, with the full intention that public opinion can be swayed and the UK can be persuaded to remain.
Of course both (a) and (b) are compatible with each other - it is in the EU's political interests to punish us pour encourager les autres, or have us admit the error of our ways, for both political and economic reasons. We have far more need of a deal somewhere in the middle of that, which they know, hence their current tactics.
Yes, remember the interview with Macron before he was elected in which he denounced Dave's deal as being a sign of weakness from the EU? They see Brexit as an opportunity to force the UK to make a binary choice: out-out or in-in.
I think you are dead on the money here. To re-hash the tired poker analogy, the EU always suspected us of holding a 2-7o, but the election literally allowed them to see our cards - weak and divided, GE2017 has shown the UK is holding the worst hand possible at this point in time.
They are quite correct to exploit their negotiating position to the fullest. The UK back in on humbled terms would be a win, the UK out and no longer holding up the programme would be a temporary economic loss but ultimately a political gain for the project.
It is hard to see how the UK can bluff its way out of this one, as I doubt there is a majority in the UK for the hardest of hard brexits and I don't think any party will want to be tied to that, making a second referendum inevitable.
Their negotiating strategy seems clear to me: the EU simply has to call us all in and watch us fold.
In which case why do we bother voting? Why not deny the legitimacy of democracy? The EU will be regarded by many as a coercive prison, no longer a matter of real choice. Where does that leave us?
It wasn't the Common Market then but Hotel California after all?
In which case why do we bother voting? Why not deny the legitimacy of democracy? The EU will be regarded by many as a coercive prison, no longer a matter of real choice. Where does that leave us?
Democracy cannot be used to vote ourselves a new reality.
If a Chavist government were elected and all sorts of chaos ensued would you say that the financial system was a coercive prison that was denying the legitimacy of democracy or would you say that the people had got it wrong?
In which case why do we bother voting? Why not deny the legitimacy of democracy? The EU will be regarded by many as a coercive prison, no longer a matter of real choice. Where does that leave us?
Democracy cannot be used to vote ourselves a new reality.
If a Chavist government were elected and all sorts of chaos ensued would you say that the financial system was a coercive prison that was denying the legitimacy of democracy or would you say that the people had got it wrong?
I do not see the point from the EU's viewpoint of "forcing" us not to leave without winning hearts and minds. What then? What is the point of having a sullen partially positively hostile semi captive? None at all. Repercussions will abound.
Our reality is that if they wish to make life awkward shortish term they can. It's strategically pointless though, as their reality is nobody else is going to leave voluntarily so their whole "play tough pour encourager les autres " is missing the point whilst risking creating a "problem UK" either within or without their borders.
Yes, remember the interview with Macron before he was elected in which he denounced Dave's deal as being a sign of weakness from the EU? They see Brexit as an opportunity to force the UK to make a binary choice: out-out or in-in.
I think you are dead on the money here. To re-hash the tired poker analogy, the EU always suspected us of holding a 2-7o, but the election literally allowed them to see our cards - weak and divided, GE2017 has shown the UK is holding the worst hand possible at this point in time.
They are quite correct to exploit their negotiating position to the fullest. The UK back in on humbled terms would be a win, the UK out and no longer holding up the programme would be a temporary economic loss but ultimately a political gain for the project.
It is hard to see how the UK can bluff its way out of this one, as I doubt there is a majority in the UK for the hardest of hard brexits and I don't think any party will want to be tied to that, making a second referendum inevitable.
Their negotiating strategy seems clear to me: the EU simply has to call us all in and watch us fold.
In which case why do we bother voting? Why not deny the legitimacy of democracy? The EU will be regarded by many as a coercive prison, no longer a matter of real choice. Where does that leave us?
It wasn't the Common Market then but Hotel California after all?
It shouldn't be a prison, of course not, but signing up to, and being a member of, such a huge and complex organisation is a massive undertaking and extricating oneself from it is necessarily a long and painful process. Therefore a decision to leave shouldn't be made on a simple majority. There should've been a requirement for a much clearer decision before Brexit could be initiated, say 60%.
The problem with 52-48 is that within a few weeks or months of the vote the opinion could be 48-52 (and apparently that's approximately what it is at the moment) so you end up in the situation where five years of the political life of this country are hijacked, and the country's future relationships are undergoing great upheaval, even though most politicians and most people don't want to do it.
If the hurdle is 60%, it's much clearer what we want, and much less likely that we'll change our mind.
The last few polls seem to suggest that the best bet for the Conservatives is to stick with May as leader - not just for short term stability but that electorally she may well be their best bet.
I know it might seem absolutely crazy after the GE campaign but might it just be conceivable that she might also in time be considered the best person to lead the Party into the next GE?
No. After March 2019 she's done.
I don't think she has any intention of doing another election anyway....
Yes, remember the interview with Macron before he was elected in which he denounced Dave's deal as being a sign of weakness from the EU? They see Brexit as an opportunity to force the UK to make a binary choice: out-out or in-in.
I think you are dead on the money here. To re-hash the tired poker analogy, the EU always suspected us of holding a 2-7o, but the election literally allowed them to see our cards - weak and divided, GE2017 has shown the UK is holding the worst hand possible at this point in time.
They are quite correct to exploit their negotiating position to the fullest. The UK back in on humbled terms would be a win, the UK out and no longer holding up the programme would be a temporary economic loss but ultimately a political gain for the project.
It is hard to see how the UK can bluff its way out of this one, as I doubt there is a majority in the UK for the hardest of hard brexits and I don't think any party will want to be tied to that, making a second referendum inevitable.
Their negotiating strategy seems clear to me: the EU simply has to call us all in and watch us fold.
In which case why do we bother voting? Why not deny the legitimacy of democracy? The EU will be regarded by many as a coercive prison, no longer a matter of real choice. Where does that leave us?
It wasn't the Common Market then but Hotel California after all?
It shouldn't be a prison, of course not, but signing up to, and being a member of, such a huge and complex organisation is a massive undertaking and extricating oneself from it is necessarily a long and painful process. Therefore a decision to leave shouldn't be made on a simple majority. There should've been a requirement for a much clearer decision before Brexit could be initiated, say 60%.
The problem with 52-48 is that within a few weeks or months of the vote the opinion could be 48-52 (and apparently that's approximately what it is at the moment) so you end up in the situation where five years of the political life of this country are hijacked, and the country's future relationships are undergoing great upheaval, even though most politicians and most people don't want to do it.
If the hurdle is 60%, it's much clearer what we want, and much less likely that we'll change our mind.
I do not see the point from the EU's viewpoint of "forcing" us not to leave without winning hearts and minds. What then? What is the point of having a sullen partially positively hostile semi captive? None at all. Repercussions will abound.
Our reality is that if they wish to make life awkward shortish term they can. It's strategically pointless though, as their reality is nobody else is going to leave voluntarily so their whole "play tough pour encourager les autres " is missing the point whilst risking creating a "problem UK" either within or without their borders.
Short termism from them. And daft.
I think the aim of the EU right now _is_ to win hearts and minds, at least over the next two years.
Look at that staged shot of them with their stacks of paperwork out and the UK holding nothing - the aim is to portray the UK as incompetent and incapable of going it alone, with the aim of forcing an unpopular government into a second referendum on leaving on economically humiliating terms that would be unacceptable to the majority. Or to borrow the old saying, get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.
I will admit I am reading tea leaves but I am trying to look at the EU's behaviour with a cui bono mindset. To me it seems clear the EU are trying to push a choice between rock hard brexit and remaining in (knowing the Tories would maximise their electoral chances by delegating that decision to a referendum, therefore deflecting some of the blame if it goes wrontg).
All out or all in are acceptable outcomes for the EU, because it eliminates the problem of the equivocating UK either way. We are either relegated to being a Norway or Switzerland in their eyes, else we are forced to be 'good Europeans' and embrace political union head on.
It is the UK that requires a negotiated settlement somewhere in the middle, not the EU. To again borrow a poker analogy, the UK is in the weaker negotiating position right now because we have far fewer 'outs' than the EU.
I genuinely wish I were more optimistic about the UK's chances, but with the Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack, the EU have the upper hand because the people leading us are motivated to seek the best outcomes for themselves, not their country.
Ask yourself one simple question: Does David Davis want the best outcome for the UK right now, or the one most likely to lead him to victory in a leadership contest? If you know this and I know this the EU know this and will act accordingly.
Davis wins supporters within his own ranks by posturing for hardest possible Brexit but loses support in the country at large. The EU will be fully cognisant of this and will exploit it to maximun advantage.
I can understand Kuenssberg earning a lot. Why Fiona Bruce ? What does she do other newsreaders don't ?
Positive ratings ? Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
The last few polls seem to suggest that the best bet for the Conservatives is to stick with May as leader - not just for short term stability but that electorally she may well be their best bet.
I know it might seem absolutely crazy after the GE campaign but might it just be conceivable that she might also in time be considered the best person to lead the Party into the next GE?
No. After March 2019 she's done.
I don't think she has any intention of doing another election anyway....
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
Did you see the party political broadcast I posted yesterday that Major gave just before the 97 election? If you listen to his words and then look at the result of the election, it's difficult not to conclude that the people who have undermined democracy have been the Eurosceptics.
I can understand Kuenssberg earning a lot. Why Fiona Bruce ? What does she do other newsreaders don't ?
Positive ratings ? Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
Why should licence fee payers be paying for ratings?
If you want to be commercial and chase ratings then show commercials or raise funds privately. Those who are taxed to have a TV whether they watch BBC or not shouldn't be compelled to pay those taxes just to boost the ratings of BBC News. If Fiona Bruce is so popular she can get paid more by commercial stations like ITV then good luck to her. But that isn't happening anyway.
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
Did you see the party political broadcast I posted yesterday that Major gave just before the 97 election? If you listen to his words and then look at the result of the election, it's difficult not to conclude that the people who have undermined democracy have been the Eurosceptics.
Sounds sensible. He was right that it would be wrong for Britain to give those powers to Europe, but Blair did that anyway. So now we are left in a position where to regain the powers that Blair gave away which sensible europhiles like Major wanted not to is to leave the EU.
Comments
70 would look a fairer price than 7.
This is not a cute question but does anyone think it's OK for a minister of education (a shadow minister in this case) to be so inarticulate that the only thing in common between her sentence and one written in English is that she's using English words?
I've just looked at her CV and she left school without an O level. I'm torn between thinking it's commendable that she's reached such dizzy heights and that it's an offense to education.
Asking for a friend in the USA.
This series has often been very, very good.
Onward to Lords on Sunday!
Of course, there is a strong element of "fooled by randomness" in all of this: it may be - like Nat Rothschild at Atticus - that JRM was more involved in marketing the funds than running them, or it may be that during his time at my former firm he was simply unlucky, or that he was just lucky at Somerset, or (most likely of all) he came to emerging markets at a good time. And there's nothing like a rising market to make everyone look clever.
Errrr
Expect Jose to sulk all season now.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002035.html
Who is he working for now?
Think you lot have got a good player is Saleh
I know it might seem absolutely crazy after the GE campaign but might it just be conceivable that she might also in time be considered the best person to lead the Party into the next GE?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40643072
What the hell are they thinking?
Really scummy behavior.
That doesn't change the fact that maintaining extensive social housing within the borough itself seems like a profligate use of taxpayer funds.
Fwiw De Valera as an American citizen with a Spanish father had plenty of experience of different cultures. It didn't stop him running a nationalistic, backward and inward looking government in Ireland.
Why shouldn't a firefighter who risked his/her life going into grenfell be able to afford to live in the kensington/chelsea council area?
Or a teacher who teaches in a local school, or whatever.
I don't understand how that is "a profligate use of taxpayer funds."
In the end K&C committed themselves to building 200 new social housing units a year. They have managed 340 in 5 years. What is the point of setting yourself targets you have no intention of keeping?
It represents the hilarious handover between Twitter's 'pretend' Jacob Rees Mogg and the real one, who clearly has big ambitions. It went along these lines...
https://twitter.com/JakeReesMogg/status/887202605264515072
https://twitter.com/JakeReesMogg/status/887203231788666880
https://twitter.com/JakeReesMogg/status/887203579676807168
https://twitter.com/JakeReesMogg/status/887203898758496256
https://twitter.com/JakeReesMogg/status/887041577234956288
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/886208542667046912
*There is a big difference in being intelligent and educated, John Major being another example.
Be LEAVE!
https://twitter.com/MrPaulDuane/status/887333392114692096gh
But who knows what the country wants anymore, and party members are even less predictable than the public.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-halt-brexit-talks-michel-barnier-brussels-david-davis-a7847641.html
By 'not ready' they actually mean not willing to submit to the EU demands and pay whatever ludicrous amount they say. If that is the attitude they are going to take then we are better off not even bothering to negotiate with them.
Given it is his department that is the most behind, this seems astonishing. Dr Fox, stop being "on maneuvers" and start putting mutual recognition of standards agreements in place with our major trading partners. And please replicate the existing deals. Some indication that we would like to join EFTA (even sans EEA), might be a good start too.
Is Germany heading for stock market disaster? German carmakers at risk of export meltdown
"
Perhaps we should start negotiations by halting the sale of Mercedes cars until they can actually pass emissions tests - after all, hasn't the EU threatened to fine the UK over the Volkswagen deception because we haven't taken any action against Volkswagen?
its all spin guff and lies
this site should grow up
as our leading autocoprophagist you would say that
I'm inclined to think one of two options, either a) the EU has decided hard brexit is in its political interests, even if the result would be economically damaging for the entire region or b) their strategy is that 'there is no such thing as soft brexit, only (full) Brexit or no Brexit, and their aim is to dare the UK into jumping off the economic cliff edge, with the full intention that public opinion can be swayed and the UK can be persuaded to remain.
Of course both (a) and (b) are compatible with each other - it is in the EU's political interests to punish us pour encourager les autres, or have us admit the error of our ways, for both political and economic reasons. We have far more need of a deal somewhere in the middle of that, which they know, hence their current tactics.
But the Militant Tendency of that time thought that the Labour Party was now back in power, unfettered by the Liberals, and so they went mad with their Winter of Discontent. Labour militants paved the way for the unhappiness of the Thatcher years.
nothing in the intervening period has changed
They are quite correct to exploit their negotiating position to the fullest. The UK back in on humbled terms would be a win, the UK out and no longer holding up the programme would be a temporary economic loss but ultimately a political gain for the project.
It is hard to see how the UK can bluff its way out of this one, as I doubt there is a majority in the UK for the hardest of hard brexits and I don't think any party will want to be tied to that, making a second referendum inevitable.
Their negotiating strategy seems clear to me: the EU simply has to call us all in and watch us fold.
It wasn't the Common Market then but Hotel California after all?
If a Chavist government were elected and all sorts of chaos ensued would you say that the financial system was a coercive prison that was denying the legitimacy of democracy or would you say that the people had got it wrong?
Our reality is that if they wish to make life awkward shortish term they can. It's strategically pointless though, as their reality is nobody else is going to leave voluntarily so their whole "play tough pour encourager les autres " is missing the point whilst risking creating a "problem UK" either within or without their borders.
Short termism from them. And daft.
The problem with 52-48 is that within a few weeks or months of the vote the opinion could be 48-52 (and apparently that's approximately what it is at the moment) so you end up in the situation where five years of the political life of this country are hijacked, and the country's future relationships are undergoing great upheaval, even though most politicians and most people don't want to do it.
If the hurdle is 60%, it's much clearer what we want, and much less likely that we'll change our mind.
I don't think she has any intention of doing another election anyway....
Look at that staged shot of them with their stacks of paperwork out and the UK holding nothing - the aim is to portray the UK as incompetent and incapable of going it alone, with the aim of forcing an unpopular government into a second referendum on leaving on economically humiliating terms that would be unacceptable to the majority. Or to borrow the old saying, get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.
I will admit I am reading tea leaves but I am trying to look at the EU's behaviour with a cui bono mindset. To me it seems clear the EU are trying to push a choice between rock hard brexit and remaining in (knowing the Tories would maximise their electoral chances by delegating that decision to a referendum, therefore deflecting some of the blame if it goes wrontg).
All out or all in are acceptable outcomes for the EU, because it eliminates the problem of the equivocating UK either way. We are either relegated to being a Norway or Switzerland in their eyes, else we are forced to be 'good Europeans' and embrace political union head on.
It is the UK that requires a negotiated settlement somewhere in the middle, not the EU. To again borrow a poker analogy, the UK is in the weaker negotiating position right now because we have far fewer 'outs' than the EU.
I genuinely wish I were more optimistic about the UK's chances, but with the Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack, the EU have the upper hand because the people leading us are motivated to seek the best outcomes for themselves, not their country.
Ask yourself one simple question: Does David Davis want the best outcome for the UK right now, or the one most likely to lead him to victory in a leadership contest? If you know this and I know this the EU know this and will act accordingly.
Davis wins supporters within his own ranks by posturing for hardest possible Brexit but loses support in the country at large. The EU will be fully cognisant of this and will exploit it to maximun advantage.
Newsreaders (assuming a baseline of literacy and comprehensibility) are really no different from any other celebrity, and presumably command salaries somewhere in line with their appeal to the public (or lack of it).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/anti-pervert-flame-throwers-sale-china/
Is it popcorn time
@Dadge
Genuine question: same 60% rules for Scottish independence?
Of course Ted Heath had much to answer for not holding a referendum in the early 70's, and I still contend Blair/Brown were grade one fools for reneging on the vote on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. I gave up any hope of meaningful reform when Cameron was sent away really sans fig leaf even, and no other vote was ever going to be in prospect ( see history above). So it was either accept the drift to an undefined bureaucratic USE or use the sledgehammer you'd been given at last as a one off. So sledgehammer it was. Imperfect, drastic, messy, 52/48 of course, but the sonic screwdriver option wasn't offered, nor was it going to be.
https://youtu.be/lLStTx7bIRk
If you want to be commercial and chase ratings then show commercials or raise funds privately. Those who are taxed to have a TV whether they watch BBC or not shouldn't be compelled to pay those taxes just to boost the ratings of BBC News. If Fiona Bruce is so popular she can get paid more by commercial stations like ITV then good luck to her. But that isn't happening anyway.