RobD - I believe that the new immigration rules are to favour UK citizen's jobs above other nationals. I expect EU nationals will be asked to justify their visa every couple of years and any great wave of unemployment will fall on them.
My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.
Nor is it worse.
It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.
I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.
May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?
I first saw the original on TV (perhaps via VHS) , and despite being sci-fi mad, was fairly underwhelmed. I'd never claim it was a bad film, but it didn't seem to approach the hype surrounding it. I've seen it a couple of times since, and haven't changed my view. I feel about it the same way I do about Inception: a film with massive hype that sadly underdelivers.
I do wonder if viewing it on the small screen might have had an effect. Or if I'd been exposed to knock-offs in the meantime that meant the impact was lessened.
Or perhaps I'm just an idiot ...
I saw it first at the cinema club at University so on a fairly small screen. I have since watched it perhaps 30 or 40 times including going to see it again on the big screen on its 30th anniversary.
Of course you are not an idiot. (Though as I said to Kle4 the other day you might have no soul ). I have no idea what makes some people view a film as a masterpiece whilst others go 'meh'. Anyone who claims they do really is an idiot.
All I can say for me is that the combination of the intelligent script which asks many questions without necessarily providing easy answers, the stunning cinematography, the perfect music score and the way in which the 'bad guys' are humanised makes for what is, for me, an almost perfect film.
It probably ties in with my love of Film Noir and classics like the Maltese Falcon. For me Bladerunner is second only to Casablanca as the greatest film ever made.
The new version is pushing both of those films hard for top spot.
But where do you stand on the voice-over in the first version of the original? Although Ridley Scott hates it, some BR fans think it's integral.
Love it. As I say one of the reasons I like Bladerunner so much is the film noir aspect and the voice over really adds to that. So I think it is much better 'with' than 'without'.
* "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.
Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.
Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
No. But they will be worse in the UK than elsewhere.
I wonder what hit to GDP, unemployment would be acceptable to teach the UK a lesson.
Many in the EU are tired of what they see as the UK's condescending exceptionalism and endless demands for opt-outs. Brexit is a golden opportunity for other EU countries to steal UK commerce and industry and reduce its political influence. And that is what they are going to do, with the help of our own Brexit headbangers.
Many in the UK are tired of what they see as the EU's condescending exceptionalism and endless demands for integration, regulation and money. Brexit is a golden opportunity for UK to steal EU commerce and industry and reduce its political influence. And that is what they are going to do, with the help of their own EU headbangers.
On topic, yes, an interesting piece from Don, for which, as always, many thanks.
I think the difference between the thinking of the 80s/90s and now has been partly influenced by the global financial crisis (which involved the part nationalisation of a couple of banks, one of which will undoubtedly end up costing the taxpayer millions of pounds).
There are also hybrid models of ownership out there - part public, part private. Network Rail is one example I've quoted in the past - we see local authorities setting up property investment companies and housing management companies so the line between "private" and "public" is blurred.
I agree with Don the current model of capitalism and the economic culture it perpetuates has failed. That's emphatically not to disavow capitalism in favour of Marxist economic planning but there needs to be a recognition the current economic model is failing a number of people. It's interesting to look at the dreadful productivity numbers so see how the British model is getting nowhere fast (or slowly).
An economic model for the 2020s which works for all is the holy grail.
Mixed public/private ownership seems common in Germany, and they've not done too badly.
Mr. L, Germany's a bit different, though. For a start, the word for debt and guilt is the same, whereas we're far too debt-happy. They've also benefited from the single currency, which has artificially weakened their currency to give their exports a long-term strategic advantage.
Germany also seems to have a rather better method of running the rental sector.
On the other hand, their policy of inviting in the whole bloody world is demented compared to Cameron's excellent policy on Syria, migration etc.
RobD - I believe that the new immigration rules are to favour UK citizen's jobs above other nationals. I expect EU nationals will be asked to justify their visa every couple of years and any great wave of unemployment will fall on them.
* "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.
Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.
Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
No. But they will be worse in the UK than elsewhere.
I wonder what hit to GDP, unemployment would be acceptable to teach the UK a lesson.
Many in the EU are tired of what they see as the UK's condescending exceptionalism and endless demands for opt-outs. Brexit is a golden opportunity for other EU countries to steal UK commerce and industry and reduce its political influence. And that is what they are going to do, with the help of our own Brexit headbangers.
Let’s hope that feeling of smug satisfaction can keep those out of a job warm at night.
* "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.
Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.
Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
No. But they will be worse in the UK than elsewhere.
I wonder what hit to GDP, unemployment would be acceptable to teach the UK a lesson.
Many in the EU are tired of what they see as the UK's condescending exceptionalism and endless demands for opt-outs. Brexit is a golden opportunity for other EU countries to steal UK commerce and industry and reduce its political influence. And that is what they are going to do, with the help of our own Brexit headbangers.
Many in the UK are tired of what they see as the EU's condescending exceptionalism and endless demands for integration, regulation and money. Brexit is a golden opportunity for UK to steal EU commerce and industry and reduce its political influence. And that is what they are going to do, with the help of their own EU headbangers.
Fixed it for you
How many EU companies have said they are preparing to relocate operations to the UK after Brexit?
And how many UK companies have said they are preparing to relocate operations operations to the EU?
My posts have pitched around fairly wildly trying to make sense of how we make an honest attempt of delivering a minimally damaging Brexit, which is the least we should try and do. Which is not to say the existence of Lib Dems policies has been unwelcome - rowing back should still be taken seriously as a backstop option should the public mood change in time. However, with each month that passes this opinion shift looks less likely and it seems that any realisation will come too late. And rowing back against Brexit if public opinion does not change will be seen as a coup and will just leave the sound festering.
So, now I'm looking for the following to happen:
1. A fairly hard Brexit with a small number of bilateral agreements (mutual recognition, remote from port customs &c) to turn the worst cliff edges into slippery slopes. Ideally, Boris to be put into position to very heavily own this (e.g. DPM in charge of Brexit). If we agree little in the way of tarriff reduction, or we throw the science base under the bus, then so be it - we need to just agree enough to survive.
2. The 2 year transition, for implementation only, is essential to avoiding the cliff edge.
3. After March 2019, with limited agreement in pocket, go straight to EFTA and quickly negotiate an option to join at any point up to either December 2022 or December 2027. If not used beforehand this puts the option heavily on the agenda of the following GEs and will flush out both Labour and Tory positions.
4. This allows hard Brexit to succeed or fail in front of everyone.
5. Ideally Boris still owns the success or failure. Insofar as I am THE designated representative of the centre left, I solemnly promise that 'Boris went mop in hand to the EEA' will not be repeated daily by lefties for the next 10 squillion years
In other words, I do feel the backstop has moved from convincing the public inside 2 years, to going back into EEA at a later date.
"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." So that was conference season, then. Absolutely no impact whatsoever on the voters.
How flattering, but we are united behind the Prime Minister. [installs phone lines]. [remembers that it's not 1995]. [also remembers that I didn't win DV].
"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." So that was conference season, then. Absolutely no impact whatsoever on the voters.
FWIW, I think it's possible that there might be no deal agreed between the UK and EU until the middle of March 2019, but with emergency/extraordinary meetings of the European Council and EU Parliament, together with Westminster, finally cobbling something together in the last 96 hours, and kicking the can down the road.
But, it's perfectly possible both sides march over the cliff together, given how keen both are to tell each other to go f*ck themselves.
Voters don't think Tories would do better under prominent alternatives to May, poll suggests
Theresa May will be giving her Commons statement on Brexit soon. The last few days pitched her into her biggest crisis since the general election aftermath, and so it is quite a crucial appearance.
But there is some good news for her from the latest Guardian/ICM polling figures.
People don’t think the Conservative party would do any better at the next election under any of the prominent alternative leadership candidates featured in the survey. The only person deemed to improve the party’s prospects was an unnamed “someone quite young and able who is not currently in government”, as we put it in the survey. We asked respondents to imagine that May was removed as party leader, and to assess whether the Conservatives’s chances of winning the next election would be better or worse with various alternatives. Here are the result
Boris Johnson
Better: 22%
Worse: 43%
Net: -21
Amber Rudd
Better: 11%
Worse: 28%
Net: -17
Philip Hammond
Better: 10%
Worse: 29%
Net: -19
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Better: 11%
Worse: 34%
Net: -23
Priti Patel
Better: 6%
Worse: 31%
Net: -25
Damian Green
Better: 4%
Worse: 24%
Net: -20
“Someone quite young and able who is not currently in government”
Better: 25%
Worse: 16%
Net: +9
The poll also suggests that May remains ahead of Jeremy Corbyn in terms of who is seen as making the best prime minister. Here are the figures for who would make the best prime minister.
Theresa May: 41% (down 7 from ICM in May)
Jeremy Corbyn: 32% (up 5)
Don’t know: 27% (up 2)
May’s lead: 9 points (down 12)
May is nine points ahead of Corbyn on who would make the best prime minister - but her lead on this measure is less than half what it was mid way through the general election campaign. And the survey suggests the party conference season has not damaged the Tories. Here are the state of the party figures.
Labour: 41% (down 1 from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)
Conservatives: 41% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 7% (down 1)
Ukip: 4% (no change)
Greens: 2% (no change)
Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention.
ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative sample of 2,052 adults aged 18+ online on 6 to 8 October 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." So that was conference season, then. Absolutely no impact whatsoever on the voters.
"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." So that was conference season, then. Absolutely no impact whatsoever on the voters.
* "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.
Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.
Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
No. But they will be worse in the UK than elsewhere.
I wonder what hit to GDP, unemployment would be acceptable to teach the UK a lesson.
Many in the EU are tired of what they see as the UK's condescending exceptionalism and endless demands for opt-outs. Brexit is a golden opportunity for other EU countries to steal UK commerce and industry and reduce its political influence. And that is what they are going to do, with the help of our own Brexit headbangers.
Many in the UK are tired of what they see as the EU's condescending exceptionalism and endless demands for integration, regulation and money. Brexit is a golden opportunity for UK to steal EU commerce and industry and reduce its political influence. And that is what they are going to do, with the help of their own EU headbangers.
Fixed it for you
How many EU companies have said they are preparing to relocate operations to the UK after Brexit?
And how many UK companies have said they are preparing to relocate operations operations to the EU?
I'll probably open an EU office post Brexit. That isn't the same as relocate.
I believe about 5% of the news I hear, it is all distributed with a agenda behind it by people with a belief (and therefore not in a good mental state to be objective) or by people with an interest (often financial) which makes it bent to a certain perspective. I listen to a cross section, filter, weigh up and laugh at the extremes on both sides.
How flattering, but we are united behind the Prime Minister. [installs phone lines]. [remembers that it's not 1995]. [also remembers that I didn't win DV].
We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
We can't.
As Ian Dunt noted on the previous thread, the consequences of WTO are so bad not even hardline Brexiteers like Zahawi can't sell it to the electorate.
As soon as they admit in public how catastrophic it will actually be, they can't deliver it.
There may be a few starry-eyed Brexiteers who really do believe in WTO and that it will provide a brave new world for the UK.
I suspect, however, that most Brexiteers who call for preparations for WTO do so to strengthen the hand of the UK negotiators. They can see that unless the UK makes a credible case for being able to take the WTO route, it has a very weak hand. Unfortunately it can't make a credible case. The threat is as transparent as Cameron's threat to the EU that he might recommend Leave if they didn't come up with the goods. And we know how that turned out.
Unless there is a terrible negotiating accident and we do in fact crash out, the result is that we will take what is on offer. We'll pay the bill, accept the ECJ, accept the rules and end up in a worse position that remaining in the EU. As that slowly dawns, there will be a rolling WTF conversation across the UK. There will be cries of betrayal, shouts of told you so, and a clear majority for cancelling the whole exercise. We know who will then take the blame.
The assumption is that the UK would want to run back to the EU, to cling to nurse.
But, would it? I mean, would it really?
In both the "no deal", and "bad deal", scenarios, I think it's likely the UK electorate would be extremely angry, both at the EU and at HMG, but it wouldn't look to run back to re-join an organisation that had been seen to act unreasonably over our departure.
It's more likely we'd soldier on and make the best of it, but it would poison both our domestic politics, and UK-EU relations, for very many years.
Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising.
Or just maybe, the public can see through Momentum patching over Labour's cracking facade.....
We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
We can't.
As Ian Dunt noted on the previous thread, the consequences of WTO are so bad not even hardline Brexiteers like Zahawi can't sell it to the electorate.
As soon as they admit in public how catastrophic it will actually be, they can't deliver it.
There may be a few starry-eyed Brexiteers who really do believe in WTO and that it will provide a brave new world for the UK.
I suspect, however, that most Brexiteers who call for preparations for WTO do so to strengthen the hand of the UK negotiators. They can see that unless the UK makes a credible case for being able to take the WTO route, it has a very weak hand. Unfortunately it can't make a credible case. The threat is as transparent as Cameron's threat to the EU that he might recommend Leave if they didn't come up with the goods. And we know how that turned out.
Unless there is a terrible negotiating accident and we do in fact crash out, the result is that we will take what is on offer. We'll pay the bill, accept the ECJ, accept the rules and end up in a worse position that remaining in the EU. As that slowly dawns, there will be a rolling WTF conversation across the UK. There will be cries of betrayal, shouts of told you so, and a clear majority for cancelling the whole exercise. We know who will then take the blame.
The assumption is that the UK would want to run back to the EU, to cling to nurse.
But, would it? I mean, would it really?
In both the "no deal", and "bad deal", scenarios, I think it's likely the UK electorate would be extremely angry, both at the EU and at HMG, but it wouldn't look to run back to re-join an organisation that had been seen to act unreasonably over our departure.
It's more likely we'd soldier on and make the best of it, but it would poison both our domestic politics, and UK-EU relations, for very many years.
This analysis is based on the false premise that HMG is pursuing a united strategy and the public are behind them. That is not the case.
Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising.
Or just maybe, the public can see through Momentum patching over Labour's cracking facade.....
"Ooh Jeremy Corbyn" a Sheffield Rally moment?
Or the public are less and less aware of conferences and they make no material difference.
We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
We can't.
As Ian Dunt noted on the previous thread, the consequences of WTO are so bad not even hardline Brexiteers like Zahawi can't sell it to the electorate.
As soon as they admit in public how catastrophic it will actually be, they can't deliver it.
There may be a few starry-eyed Brexiteers who really do believe in WTO and that it will provide a brave new world for the UK.
I suspect, however, that most Brexiteers who call for preparations for WTO do so to strengthen the hand of the UK negotiators. They can see that unless the UK makes a credible case for being able to take the WTO route, it has a very weak hand. Unfortunately it can't make a credible case. The threat is as transparent as Cameron's threat to the EU that he might recommend Leave if they didn't come up with the goods. And we know how that turned out.
Unless there is a terrible negotiating accident and we do in fact crash out, the result is that we will take what is on offer. We'll pay the bill, accept the ECJ, accept the rules and end up in a worse position that remaining in the EU. As that slowly dawns, there will be a rolling WTF conversation across the UK. There will be cries of betrayal, shouts of told you so, and a clear majority for cancelling the whole exercise. We know who will then take the blame.
The assumption is that the UK would want to run back to the EU, to cling to nurse.
But, would it? I mean, would it really?
In both the "no deal", and "bad deal", scenarios, I think it's likely the UK electorate would be extremely angry, both at the EU and at HMG, but it wouldn't look to run back to re-join an organisation that had been seen to act unreasonably over our departure.
It's more likely we'd soldier on and make the best of it, but it would poison both our domestic politics, and UK-EU relations, for very many years.
This analysis is based on the false premise that HMG is pursuing a united strategy and the public are behind them. That is not the case.
No it isn't.
It is based on the assumption that the populace will unite after the event. That is far more likely as there will be a bogyman to blame, be it EU, Tory party or the man on the moon.
Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising.
Or just maybe, the public can see through Momentum patching over Labour's cracking facade.....
"Ooh Jeremy Corbyn" a Sheffield Rally moment?
Or maybe it is just MOE. Not really much change from the Election result.
I get extremely annoyed when the private sector gets the upside risk but the taxpayer picks up the tab if it all goes wrong.
Interesting article from Mr. Brind and very interesting that the FT (those well-known communists?) are also picking up on the problems of utility privatisation specifically
I certainly think the nationalisations discussed in the Labour Manifesto are likely to the upper end... and it's quite possible we wouldn't even get there.
But if instead we get a system which stops these companies avoiding tax, gets a better deal for consumers and taxpayers - then of course I'm fine with that.
The problem isn't so much privatisation but the regulatory system and the rates of return allowed.
The system was designed to encourage large capital investment as that was what was needed at the time. So returns on regulated assets were set high. In subsequent rounds Ofwat and others have been completed bamboozled in negotiations about the possible debt funding levels and the cost of debt.
fundamentally running a utility should get you 7% return on equity plus cost of debt covered (with perhaps an incentive to encourage them to minimise the cost of debt) and a fee for managing large capex projects.
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
I do find it amusing that by far the best example of organisations which secure “for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry” are the mega investment banks - in the case of Goldman Sachs, $367K per worker on average.
Beat that, Sidney Webb!
It's why we sold our broker and our investment bank!
@JohnRentoul: Theresa May is going to solve post-Brexit relations with the EU by throwing adjectives at it: "a dynamic, creative and unique relationship"
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
I was pointing out Theresa May would be a disaster when the village thought she was Thatcher incarnate.
We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
We can't.
As Ian Dunt noted on the previous thread, the consequences of WTO are so bad not even hardline Brexiteers like Zahawi can't sell it to the electorate.
As soon as they admit in public how catastrophic it will actually be, they can't deliver it.
There may be a few starry-eyed Brexiteers who really do believe in WTO and that it will provide a brave new world for the UK.
I suspect, however, that most Brexiteers who call for preparations for WTO do so to strengthen the hand of the UK negotiators. They can see that unless the UK makes a credible case for being able to take the WTO route, it has a very weak hand. Unfortunately it can't make a credible case. The threat is as transparent as Cameron's threat to the EU that he might recommend Leave if they didn't come up with the goods. And we know how that turned out.
Unless there is a terrible negotiating accident and we do in fact crash out, the result is that we will take what is on offer. We'll pay the bill, accept the ECJ, accept the rules and end up in a worse position that remaining in the EU. As that slowly dawns, there will be a rolling WTF conversation across the UK. There will be cries of betrayal, shouts of told you so, and a clear majority for cancelling the whole exercise. We know who will then take the blame.
The assumption is that the UK would want to run back to the EU, to cling to nurse.
But, would it? I mean, would it really?
In both the "no deal", and "bad deal", scenarios, I think it's likely the UK electorate would be extremely angry, both at the EU and at HMG, but it wouldn't look to run back to re-join an organisation that had been seen to act unreasonably over our departure.
It's more likely we'd soldier on and make the best of it, but it would poison both our domestic politics, and UK-EU relations, for very many years.
This analysis is based on the false premise that HMG is pursuing a united strategy and the public are behind them. That is not the case.
Yes, I might be wrong. But, I don't see the evidence for your theory that the public will run enthusiastically toward the Euro and federalism either.
My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.
Nor is it worse.
It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.
I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.
May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?
I first saw the original on TV (perhaps via VHS) , and despite being sci-fi mad, was fairly underwhelmed. I'd never claim it was a bad film, but it didn't seem to approach the hype surrounding it. I've seen it a couple of times since, and haven't changed my view. I feel about it the same way I do about Inception: a film with massive hype that sadly underdelivers.
I do wonder if viewing it on the small screen might have had an effect. Or if I'd been exposed to knock-offs in the meantime that meant the impact was lessened.
Or perhaps I'm just an idiot ...
I would add that Mark Kermode the other day correctly identified (IMHO) that science fiction films can be split into pre-Bladerunner and post-Bladerunner categories, such was the visual impact of the film and its influence on later Science fiction cinematography.
So I do wonder if there is some truth in your comment about exposure to later knock offs (although not exactly in the way you mean)
I think Kermode's right on that. SciFi of the seventies (yes, even Star Wars and Battlestar) feel and look lighter in many ways.
Then again, two of my favourite films are Highlander and Primer. The first has Spongebob's Eugene Krab as a villain, and the latter is gloriously impenetrable (although if you want true madness, try the same writer's Upsteam Color).
So perhaps I'm not the best to declare on good films ...
Amused that the term works as rhymind slang too, given her demented approach to technology.
Edited extra bit: rhyming, even.
Surely anyone who could conceivably be a Ruddite is already batting for Davidson (or even Hammond). The demand for a committed Remainer whose department is arbitrarily intimidating EU citizens in a policy area of key priority to the EU is very, very niche.
Voters don't think Tories would do better under prominent alternatives to May, poll suggests
“Someone quite young and able who is not currently in government”
Better: 25%
Worse: 16%
Net: +9
The poll also suggests that May remains ahead of Jeremy Corbyn in terms of who is seen as making the best prime minister. Here are the figures for who would make the best prime minister.
Theresa May: 41% (down 7 from ICM in May)
Jeremy Corbyn: 32% (up 5)
Don’t know: 27% (up 2)
May’s lead: 9 points (down 12)
May is nine points ahead of Corbyn on who would make the best prime minister - but her lead on this measure is less than half what it was mid way through the general election campaign. And the survey suggests the party conference season has not damaged the Tories. Here are the state of the party figures.
Labour: 41% (down 1 from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)
Conservatives: 41% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 7% (down 1)
Ukip: 4% (no change)
Greens: 2% (no change)
Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention.
ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative sample of 2,052 adults aged 18+ online on 6 to 8 October 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Anonymous fresh young thing will always beat know entity.
The best play for the Tories is to do competence and credible long-term plan better than Labour, with a leader who can communicate.
That to me makes it Gove, or Hunt. If it's a post Brexit situation for a new leader in Autumn 2021, say, I'd probably go for Hunt.
I'd want him reshuffled away from Health for a couple of years first.
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
I was pointing out Theresa May would be a disaster when the village thought she was Thatcher incarnate.
Voters don't think Tories would do better under prominent alternatives to May, poll suggests
“Someone quite young and able who is not currently in government”
Better: 25%
Worse: 16%
Net: +9
The poll also suggests that May remains ahead of Jeremy Corbyn in terms of who is seen as making the best prime minister. Here are the figures for who would make the best prime minister.
Theresa May: 41% (down 7 from ICM in May)
Jeremy Corbyn: 32% (up 5)
Don’t know: 27% (up 2)
May’s lead: 9 points (down 12)
May is nine points ahead of Corbyn on who would make the best prime minister - but her lead on this measure is less than half what it was mid way through the general election campaign. And the survey suggests the party conference season has not damaged the Tories. Here are the state of the party figures.
Labour: 41% (down 1 from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)
Conservatives: 41% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 7% (down 1)
Ukip: 4% (no change)
Greens: 2% (no change)
Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention.
ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative sample of 2,052 adults aged 18+ online on 6 to 8 October 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Anonymous fresh young thing will always beat know entity.
The best play for the Tories is to do competence and credible long-term plan better than Labour, with a leader who can communicate.
That to me makes it Gove, or Hunt. If it's a post Brexit situation for a new leader in Autumn 2021, say, I'd probably go for Hunt.
I'd want him reshuffled away from Health for a couple of years first.
He has been there for too long. All the polling shows to me is that little has changed since the GE - everyone is nervous about Brexit. If she pulls off anything half decent it'll be game on for the Tories. If not - there 's no great groundswell for Corbynism as far as one can see.
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
I was pointing out Theresa May would be a disaster when the village thought she was Thatcher incarnate.
Just saying.
42% of voters clearly think you are wrong.
I forget losing Cameron's majority constitutes a success for Mrs May.
"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." So that was conference season, then. Absolutely no impact whatsoever on the voters.
Your recommendations could be summed up as: get rid of the loyal and the sane, promote the treacherous and the mad.
By treacherous and mad, I assume you mean those you don't agree with. Apart from Boris - and applying that description to him is at least debatable - who is treacherous and who is mad on that list?
N.B. I had a reader from Ethiopia after posting my link... which nom de plume could that be?
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
I was pointing out Theresa May would be a disaster when the village thought she was Thatcher incarnate.
Just saying.
42% of voters clearly think you are wrong.
I forget losing Cameron's majority constitutes a success for Mrs May.
I'm sorry you don't like the polling but we are where we are.
"Microsoft appears to have abandoned its smartphone operating system ambitions. The company's Windows 10 chief has tweeted that developing new features and hardware for the Mobile version of the OS was no longer a "focus". Joe Belfiore added that he had also switched to Android himself."
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
I was pointing out Theresa May would be a disaster when the village thought she was Thatcher incarnate.
Just saying.
42% of voters clearly think you are wrong.
I forget losing Cameron's majority constitutes a success for Mrs May.
I'm sorry you don't like the polling but we are where we are.
Just to be clear, you consider the general election result a success for the Tory party?
@JohnRentoul: "Freedom of movement *as we know it* will end" March 2019: this is the recent fudge. Trans: nothing will change except a registration scheme
I've spoken in the past about how I like the village I live in, and how it's a pleasant place to live. Yet I've heard rumours of crime and of trouble, although have never encountered any. I like living here.
Yet last night, whilst on my evening constitutional, I came across a whole load of police a couple of streets away from my home. A man had been stabbed in broad daylight, and the attack was witnessed by at least one child (an acquaintance's daughter).
It's pretty much on the route I take my little 'un to his school.
Having heard some of the stories about what happened (and I won't say them on here as it will be a very active investigation), I do wonder how much crime goes on under the radar, as it were.
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
I was pointing out Theresa May would be a disaster when the village thought she was Thatcher incarnate.
Just saying.
42% of voters clearly think you are wrong.
I forget losing Cameron's majority constitutes a success for Mrs May.
I'm sorry you don't like the polling but we are where we are.
Just to be clear, you consider the general election result a success for the Tory party?
Nope - but more people appear to support the May led Tory government than have voted Tory in recent times. Sadly you typify the hyperbolic nature of political commentary or what passes for it these days. Thankfully, the voters have got a much clearer sense of perspective. Brexit has divided the country down the middle - the polling reflects this but the commentary generally does not.
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
It's looked since June that we are essentially in a situation where there are two blocs of voters with pretty fixed views. It's hard to see what is going to shift things, except a change of leadership at the top of one of the parties. May and Corbyn need each other like no two party leaders have needed each other before.
TSE on the ICM poll: "Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention."
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
I was pointing out Theresa May would be a disaster when the village thought she was Thatcher incarnate.
Just saying.
42% of voters clearly think you are wrong.
I forget losing Cameron's majority constitutes a success for Mrs May.
I'm sorry you don't like the polling but we are where we are.
Just to be clear, you consider the general election result a success for the Tory party?
Nope - but more people appear to support the May led Tory government than have voted Tory in recent times. Sadly you typify the hyperbolic nature of political commentary or what passes for it these days. Thankfully, the voters have got a much clearer sense of perspective. Brexit has divided the country down the middle - the polling reflects this but the commentary generally does not.
And Theresa May is so bad, that an IRA condoning Trot has see Labour receive support not seen since Blair at his pomp.
@estwebber: Corbyn says half the Conservatives want Johnson sacked and half want Hammond sacked
Labour MP: "We want them both sacked!"
Reminds me, did anyone else think Theresa May's 'there's somebody I'd like to give a P45 to and that's Jeremy Corbyn!' comeback was the worst thing about the whole conference palaver? It didn't make any sense and got a roar from the audience.
Comments
https://www.epsomconservatives.org.uk/events/dinner-boris-johnson
Fixed it for you
Germany also seems to have a rather better method of running the rental sector.
On the other hand, their policy of inviting in the whole bloody world is demented compared to Cameron's excellent policy on Syria, migration etc.
Headbangers are equal on both sides, for example.
And how many UK companies have said they are preparing to relocate operations operations to the EU?
So, now I'm looking for the following to happen:
1. A fairly hard Brexit with a small number of bilateral agreements (mutual recognition, remote from port customs &c) to turn the worst cliff edges into slippery slopes. Ideally, Boris to be put into position to very heavily own this (e.g. DPM in charge of Brexit). If we agree little in the way of tarriff reduction, or we throw the science base under the bus, then so be it - we need to just agree enough to survive.
2. The 2 year transition, for implementation only, is essential to avoiding the cliff edge.
3. After March 2019, with limited agreement in pocket, go straight to EFTA and quickly negotiate an option to join at any point up to either December 2022 or December 2027. If not used beforehand this puts the option heavily on the agenda of the following GEs and will flush out both Labour and Tory positions.
4. This allows hard Brexit to succeed or fail in front of everyone.
5. Ideally Boris still owns the success or failure. Insofar as I am THE designated representative of the centre left, I solemnly promise that 'Boris went mop in hand to the EEA' will not be repeated daily by lefties for the next 10 squillion years
In other words, I do feel the backstop has moved from convincing the public inside 2 years, to going back into EEA at a later date.
So that was conference season, then. Absolutely no impact whatsoever on the voters.
May now has a window of opportunity to refresh her top table. My recommendations here:
http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/get-rid-of-the-grey
But, it's perfectly possible both sides march over the cliff together, given how keen both are to tell each other to go f*ck themselves.
Voters don't think Tories would do better under prominent alternatives to May, poll suggests
Theresa May will be giving her Commons statement on Brexit soon. The last few days pitched her into her biggest crisis since the general election aftermath, and so it is quite a crucial appearance.
But there is some good news for her from the latest Guardian/ICM polling figures.
People don’t think the Conservative party would do any better at the next election under any of the prominent alternative leadership candidates featured in the survey. The only person deemed to improve the party’s prospects was an unnamed “someone quite young and able who is not currently in government”, as we put it in the survey.
We asked respondents to imagine that May was removed as party leader, and to assess whether the Conservatives’s chances of winning the next election would be better or worse with various alternatives. Here are the result
Boris Johnson
Better: 22%
Worse: 43%
Net: -21
Amber Rudd
Better: 11%
Worse: 28%
Net: -17
Philip Hammond
Better: 10%
Worse: 29%
Net: -19
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Better: 11%
Worse: 34%
Net: -23
Priti Patel
Better: 6%
Worse: 31%
Net: -25
Damian Green
Better: 4%
Worse: 24%
Net: -20
“Someone quite young and able who is not currently in government”
Better: 25%
Worse: 16%
Net: +9
The poll also suggests that May remains ahead of Jeremy Corbyn in terms of who is seen as making the best prime minister. Here are the figures for who would make the best prime minister.
Theresa May: 41% (down 7 from ICM in May)
Jeremy Corbyn: 32% (up 5)
Don’t know: 27% (up 2)
May’s lead: 9 points (down 12)
May is nine points ahead of Corbyn on who would make the best prime minister - but her lead on this measure is less than half what it was mid way through the general election campaign.
And the survey suggests the party conference season has not damaged the Tories. Here are the state of the party figures.
Labour: 41% (down 1 from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)
Conservatives: 41% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 7% (down 1)
Ukip: 4% (no change)
Greens: 2% (no change)
Given the contrast between the remarkable unity and optimism at the Labour conference, and the division and mayhem at the Conservative one, these figures are surprising. But they are probably a useful reminder that most people pay little or no attention to what goes on at party conferences, and that most of what preoccupies political obsessives has minimal impact on voting intention.
ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative sample of 2,052 adults aged 18+ online on 6 to 8 October 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
When will Martin Boon learn
I believe about 5% of the news I hear, it is all distributed with a agenda behind it by people with a belief (and therefore not in a good mental state to be objective) or by people with an interest (often financial) which makes it bent to a certain perspective. I listen to a cross section, filter, weigh up and laugh at the extremes on both sides.
Amused that the term works as rhymind slang too, given her demented approach to technology.
Edited extra bit: rhyming, even.
But, would it? I mean, would it really?
In both the "no deal", and "bad deal", scenarios, I think it's likely the UK electorate would be extremely angry, both at the EU and at HMG, but it wouldn't look to run back to re-join an organisation that had been seen to act unreasonably over our departure.
It's more likely we'd soldier on and make the best of it, but it would poison both our domestic politics, and UK-EU relations, for very many years.
"Ooh Jeremy Corbyn" a Sheffield Rally moment?
https://www.facebook.com/BRACWorld/videos/10155875205235555/?hc_ref=ARSwHSPG1o2Yu5q3F7i1WegKQCKf4H4T-BO8HKL5NEZ8r0UhNrsHieyqvRUrehUFCLM
Not a fucking clue...
It is based on the assumption that the populace will unite after the event. That is far more likely as there will be a bogyman to blame, be it EU, Tory party or the man on the moon.
The system was designed to encourage large capital investment as that was what was needed at the time. So returns on regulated assets were set high. In subsequent rounds Ofwat and others have been completed bamboozled in negotiations about the possible debt funding levels and the cost of debt.
fundamentally running a utility should get you 7% return on equity plus cost of debt covered (with perhaps an incentive to encourage them to minimise the cost of debt) and a fee for managing large capex projects.
Or... they are a useful reminder that most of the Westminster village comments echoed on thread headers et al on here and elsewhere have no clue as to the thoughts and views of typical voters.
Nate SilverVerified account
@NateSilver538
I hope Corker's comments will curb the media's reflex to rationalize Trump's sometimes erratic behavior. http://53eig.ht/2xNAAh6
Says more about them and the Country will not be impressed
The PM cuts a lonely figure
Just saying.
Then again, two of my favourite films are Highlander and Primer. The first has Spongebob's Eugene Krab as a villain, and the latter is gloriously impenetrable (although if you want true madness, try the same writer's Upsteam Color).
So perhaps I'm not the best to declare on good films ...
I know its their Conference but ......
The DUP will not get the Brexit they expect.
The dynamic has changed from "can i rescue the talks" to "can I save my job for another week" ?
The best play for the Tories is to do competence and credible long-term plan better than Labour, with a leader who can communicate.
That to me makes it Gove, or Hunt. If it's a post Brexit situation for a new leader in Autumn 2021, say, I'd probably go for Hunt.
I'd want him reshuffled away from Health for a couple of years first.
Thats alright then except the EU say its in the UKs court
Zero met so far
15 months wasted
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, work amongst civil servants and bureaucrats continue.
For instance they have in Lincolnshire a scale model of a French Chateau that sleeps 2 people...
N.B. I had a reader from Ethiopia after posting my link... which nom de plume could that be?
Balls are designed for knocking from one side to the other.
Labour MP: "We want them both sacked!"
https://twitter.com/JamesKelly/status/917412980668715008
"Microsoft appears to have abandoned its smartphone operating system ambitions.
The company's Windows 10 chief has tweeted that developing new features and hardware for the Mobile version of the OS was no longer a "focus".
Joe Belfiore added that he had also switched to Android himself."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41551546
A wordsmith at work.
I've spoken in the past about how I like the village I live in, and how it's a pleasant place to live. Yet I've heard rumours of crime and of trouble, although have never encountered any. I like living here.
Yet last night, whilst on my evening constitutional, I came across a whole load of police a couple of streets away from my home. A man had been stabbed in broad daylight, and the attack was witnessed by at least one child (an acquaintance's daughter).
It's pretty much on the route I take my little 'un to his school.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambourne-stabbing-swansley-lane-13736122
Having heard some of the stories about what happened (and I won't say them on here as it will be a very active investigation), I do wonder how much crime goes on under the radar, as it were.
Despite this, I still like living here.
https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/917417214743105536
Scott seems to be very excited?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hilarywardle/lets-move-the-fck-to-scotland?utm_term=.akar5VBVA#.jwyjOk1kP