TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
I was thinking of Peter Mandelson, neither an MP nor a peer when he was brought into the cabinet by Gordon Brown in 2008, who then ennobled Mandy.
It would take a peerage for Dave then, agreed
No problems with a Peerage for Dave, he’s a former PM and more than worthy of a senior role in government if he wishes to accept it.
TCO on the other hand has, by his actions since leaving office, forfeited his right to be anywhere near any Conservative government for the foreseeable future.
By far the most boring part of it has been being a Tory MP. Unless that is made more interesting for him I fear he will be off doing something else all too soon.
Useless as an MP regardless, typical Tory.
Goes without saying Malcolm. Even although he is a Scot.
LOL, had an interesting life before choosing mediocrity mind you. Never mentioned on here but the entertainment from the annual Scottish Labour Leadership contest is up there with the best of them. The skullduggery is superb.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets overproblem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
You can take the moral high ground if you like but inheritance tax and the dementia tax were deeply unpopular with the voters, especially with the high value of house prices at least inheritance ensures some of that benefit filters down to the younger generation. That was why the Tories got a big boost after cutting the former and a big hit by proposing the latter.
Funding care beyond the assets already provided should be by social insurance/national insurance as it is in Japan and the Netherlands or by encouraging insurance provision secured against the value of the home as an option
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
I was thinking of Peter Mandelson, neither an MP nor a peer when he was brought into the cabinet by Gordon Brown in 2008, who then ennobled Mandy.
It would take a peerage for Dave then, agreed
No problems with a Peerage for Dave, he’s a former PM and more than worthy of a senior role in government if he wishes to accept it.
TCO on the other hand has, by his actions since leaving office, forfeited his right to be anywhere near any Conservative government for the foreseeable future.
There is also no evidence I can see he wants to return to government
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
I think it is ambiguous because of the punctuation; if xy is a legitimate way of writing x multiplied by y, then 2(1+2) is 6: from the layout, because they aren't using proper notation, we don't know if all of 2(1+2), or only 2, is below the line represented by /
TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
I was thinking of Peter Mandelson, neither an MP nor a peer when he was brought into the cabinet by Gordon Brown in 2008, who then ennobled Mandy.
It would take a peerage for Dave then, agreed
No problems with a Peerage for Dave, he’s a former PM and more than worthy of a senior role in government if he wishes to accept it.
TCO on the other hand has, by his actions since leaving office, forfeited his right to be anywhere near any Conservative government for the foreseeable future.
The irrational venom that Leavers conjure up for successive hate figures is quite remarkable. And then they wonder why people don't rally behind their cause.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps Labour can help the voters 'understand' how necessary it is to pay £50bn to the EU at the next general election much as the Tories helped voters 'understand' how necessary it was to take a dementia sufferer's house to pay for their personal social care at the last general election?
Can I just say, I was never taught BODMAS at school. And actually, I'm grateful for that because I just bracket every component in Excel.
I remember getting taught PEMDAS (the French version) in school in Brussels when I was about 10, then I moved to a US school in DC the next year and it was back to 2+2=4 and lots of sport.
(For the record, I am a proud Citizen of Nowhere. UK/Eire dual citizen, educated in Belgium, US and UK.)
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
Excel says 9.
I don't think there is any doubt that 9 is the right answer. I am relieved that others also thought it was 1.
I am adamant that the answer is 1. Everything to the right of the 'divides by' is the denominator, hence 6 over 6.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps Labour can help the voters 'understand' how necessary it is to pay £50bn to the EU at the next general election much as the Tories helped voters 'understand' how necessary it was to take a dementia sufferer's house to pay for their personal social care at the last general election?
By far the most boring part of it has been being a Tory MP. Unless that is made more interesting for him I fear he will be off doing something else all too soon.
Useless as an MP regardless, typical Tory.
Goes without saying Malcolm. Even although he is a Scot.
LOL, had an interesting life before choosing mediocrity mind you. Never mentioned on here but the entertainment from the annual Scottish Labour Leadership contest is up there with the best of them. The skullduggery is superb.
Its disappointing this has not had more coverage. Kezia's decision that there were better things to do with her life has been overwhelmingly vindicated.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps Labour can help the voters 'understand' how necessary it is to pay £50bn to ?
Most people believe in paying their bills.
I am sure CCHQ would be delighted for Labour to test that theory at the next election! Perhaps UK taxpayers will stump up an extra £50 billion of their money for the EU without complaint as you suggest but I would not bet on it.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
I think it is ambiguous because of the punctuation; if xy is a legitimate way of writing x multiplied by y, then 2(1+2) is 6: from the layout, because they aren't using proper notation, we don't know if all of 2(1+2), or only 2, is below the line represented by /
The answer is still 9 if you can count though.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
Why would the EU agree to that?
It would piss them off mightily. And that is obviously bad. But I thought leavers were rebels who didn't care about that kind of thing.
But it's not in our power to unilaterally withdraw A50. So, the agreement of each of the 27 States would be needed.
We just announce it. They'd have to accept it our throw us out. Presumably at the very least Ireland would veto our expulsion.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
Why would the EU agree to that?
It would piss them off mightily. And that is obviously bad. But I thought leavers were rebels who didn't care about that kind of thing.
But it's not in our power to unilaterally withdraw A50. So, the agreement of each of the 27 States would be needed.
We just announce it. They'd have to accept it our throw us out. Presumably at the very least Ireland would veto our expulsion.
I don't think that works for the reasons I gave in my thread header on Friday.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps Labour can help the voters 'understand' how necessary it is to pay £50bn to ?
Most people believe in paying their bills.
I am sure CCHQ would be delighted for Labour to test that theory at the next election! Perhaps UK taxpayers will stump up an extra £50 billion of their money for the EU without complaint as you suggest but I would not bet on it.
The back pages of Private Eye are full of people, significantly often it appearsTory suppoorters, who apparently do not believe in paying their bills. And make careers out of it.
It would be pretty interesting though to see some major changes, with a number of newer and untested figures in place (while I am a fan of experience, there are plenty of examples of people with no relevant or truly comparable experience getting the top job even), being big and bold. But of course the old guard never go quietly, and certainly not when they are still duking it out for the top job themselves.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
Why would the EU agree to that?
It would piss them off mightily. And that is obviously bad. But I thought leavers were rebels who didn't care about that kind of thing.
But it's not in our power to unilaterally withdraw A50. So, the agreement of each of the 27 States would be needed.
We just announce it. They'd have to accept it our throw us out. Presumably at the very least Ireland would veto our expulsion.
It might not be a case of being able to veto, since it may not require voting to accept our unilateral decision, as it may or may not be revocable at all, in which case it isn't up to them?
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
Excel says 9.
I don't think there is any doubt that 9 is the right answer. I am relieved that others also thought it was 1.
I am adamant that the answer is 1. Everything to the right of the 'divides by' is the denominator, hence 6 over 6.
TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
I was thinking of Peter Mandelson, neither an MP nor a peer when he was brought into the cabinet by Gordon Brown in 2008, who then ennobled Mandy.
It would take a peerage for Dave then, agreed
No problems with a Peerage for Dave, he’s a former PM and more than worthy of a senior role in government if he wishes to accept it.
TCO on the other hand has, by his actions since leaving office, forfeited his right to be anywhere near any Conservative government for the foreseeable future.
The irrational venom that Leavers conjure up for successive hate figures is quite remarkable. And then they wonder why people don't rally behind their cause.
If irrational venom toward hate figures was a significant factor in putting people off from rallying to a cause, we'd not have...causes.
We just announce it. They'd have to accept it our throw us out. Presumably at the very least Ireland would veto our expulsion.
They wouldn't have to accept it quickly. They could sit on their hands and wait for the next council meeting, and wait for us to prove that we really mean it.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer actually said what he's worried about is that we're not agreeing to the method of calculating the bill. I'd have a lot more respect for Starmer if he could provide some details on what our position is and what their position is. And then why we should give concessions.
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets over £100 000 would still be liable for care costs under the Tories plans (including the home if they needed residential care) it was including the home for personal care costs that was the problem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
Why then should people who work have to pay to keep people who don't, by your logic everyone should pay their own way. Have to say it would be significantly cheaper to buy really good cover for life compared to the sums I have paid to the government for supposed cover.
If they have large amounts of capital we don't give them benefits until that capital is exhausted. It is the elderly we are treating differently. The State is there to cover needs not inheritance pots.
Well quite.
Either propose a fully costed national care service with £12-15bn in personal tax rises on current earners to pay to current recipients- as the NHS and pensions work...
Or
Propose that those sitting on significant assets should be expected to use those assets to pay for their care in retirement.
It’s not possible to do both. The Conservatives’ policy in their manifesto was the right way to go and was a good policy, the issue was that they didn’t have every minister on the airwaves 24/7 to defend it in the days after the manifesto launch.
Complacency is the problem, they genuinely all thought that they were looking at a huge majority, therefore wanted to tackle something that’s been on the “too difficult” list for decades. They didn’t expect their opponents to go as hard as they did against it (as it mainly affects the middle classes in the south of England who have always voted Con) and the “dementia tax” meme caught hold very quickly among the young who are relying on their parents for their property deposits.
We just announce it. They'd have to accept it our throw us out. Presumably at the very least Ireland would veto our expulsion.
They wouldn't have to accept it quickly. They could sit on their hands and wait for the next council meeting, and wait for us to prove that we really mean it.
We'd still have regained the initiative. As things stand we have no room for manouevre because of the timescale.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer actually said what he's worried about is that we're not agreeing to the method of calculating the bill. I'd have a lot more respect for Starmer if he could provide some details on what our position is and what they're position is. And then why we should give concessions.
Yes, that would be helpful. I recall an earlier report which explained why the EU demand for the exit bill had increased from their initial demand, and it claimed it was because now included what was essentially the EU amazon wish list, a number of unbudgeted projects years in the future which they had decided we were on the hook for still. But I cannot speak as to the accuracy of that.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? .
It appears to be whatever we are prepared to pay + what we are not prepared to pay/ Junkers wine bill. Even although the denominator is not small the outcome is large.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer actually said what he's worried about is that we're not agreeing to the method of calculating the bill. I'd have a lot more respect for Starmer if he could provide some details on what our position is and what they're position is. And then why we should give concessions.
Yes, that would be helpful. I recall an earlier report which explained why the EU demand for the exit bill had increased from their initial demand, and it claimed it was because now included what was essentially the EU amazon wish list, a number of unbudgeted projects years in the future which they had decided we were on the hook for still. But I cannot speak as to the accuracy of that.
McDonnell said this morning that the Treasury was not ‘letting on’ what the figures were, or how they were calculated. It made it impossible for Starmer and himself to quote figures themselves.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer actually said what he's worried about is that we're not agreeing to the method of calculating the bill. I'd have a lot more respect for Starmer if he could provide some details on what our position is and what they're position is. And then why we should give concessions.
Yes, that would be helpful. I recall an earlier report which explained why the EU demand for the exit bill had increased from their initial demand, and it claimed it was because now included what was essentially the EU amazon wish list, a number of unbudgeted projects years in the future which they had decided we were on the hook for still. But I cannot speak as to the accuracy of that.
McDonnell said this morning that the Treasury was not ‘letting on’ what the figures were, or how they were calculated. It made it impossible for Starmer and himself to quote figures themselves.
And also impossible for them to give an opinion on what concessions should be made.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
Universities are publically funded institutions of strategic importance to the country. There is no way that the government can simply remove itself from the process. And we can't afford to give everyone a fund, there is no money left. I would not be against the idea that those doing multi-year apprenticeships for high skilled jobs should have access to funds on the same generous terms as students though.
We need more and better alternatives to arts degrees which do so little to boost the earning capacity of the recipients (ducks).
If you include a degree in law as an arts degree, hmmmmmmmmm you may have a point.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps Labour can help the voters 'understand' how necessary it is to pay £50bn to the EU at the next general election much as the Tories helped voters 'understand' how necessary it was to take a dementia sufferer's house to pay for their personal social care at the last general election?
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
We won't be as the Tories would get a new leader and call a general election pretty soon after to ensure they had a mandate for not paying £50 billion to the EU.
If Labour then lose that election, Corbyn goes and they get a leader who wants to return to the single market in the general election after next they may then be able to make that case if the economy goes south after a few years of no deal but not straight away
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
I think it is ambiguous because of the punctuation; if xy is a legitimate way of writing x multiplied by y, then 2(1+2) is 6: from the layout, because they aren't using proper notation, we don't know if all of 2(1+2), or only 2, is below the line represented by /
The answer is still 9 if you can count though.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
Universities are publically funded institutions of strategic importance to the country. There is no way that the government can simply remove itself from the process. And we can't afford to give everyone a fund, there is no money left. I would not be against the idea that those doing multi-year apprenticeships for high skilled jobs should have access to funds on the same generous terms as students though.
We need more and better alternatives to arts degrees which do so little to boost the earning capacity of the recipients (ducks).
If you include a degree in law as an arts degree, hmmmmmmmmm you may have a point.
Law is not an arts degree but a social science and if you do corporate law on qualification you earn well above the average graduate
Macron: There are three possible ways to react to right-wing extremist parties. The first is to act as though they don't exist and to no longer risk taking political initiatives that could get these parties against you. That has happened many times in France and we have seen that it doesn't work. The people that you are actually hoping to support no longer see themselves reflected in your party's speeches. And it allows the right wing to build its audience. The second reaction is to chase after these right-wing extremist parties in fascination.
DER SPIEGEL: And the third possibility?
Macron: To say, these people are my true enemies and to engage them in battle. Exactly that is the story of the second round of the presidential election in France. That is also what I told our German friends: Don't be shy with these people. Look at me, the Front National got many more votes than the AfD. Ms. Le Pen ended up with 34 percent of the vote, 34 percent! I defended Europe, an open society and all my values. And today, the Front National has been significantly weakened. In the debates, you don't hear anything from them anymore - because we engaged them in battle. Now is the time to be bold! The only answer to the AfD is courage and ambition.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets over £100 000 would still be liable for care costs under the Tories plans (including the home if they needed residential care) it was including the home for personal care costs that was the problem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
Why .
If they have large amounts of capital we don't give them benefits until that capital is exhausted. It is the elderly we are treating differently. The State is there to cover needs not inheritance pots.
Surely national insurance is the best way of funding care costs then, as that was originally set up to fund needs like pensions and healthcare and unemployment benefits if required?
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer actually said what he's worried about is that we're not agreeing to the method of calculating the bill. I'd have a lot more respect for Starmer if he could provide some details on what our position is and what their position is. And then why we should give concessions.
Wait a minute. How can Starmer outline what our position is when the government can't?
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer actually said what he's worried about is that we're not agreeing to the method of calculating the bill. I'd have a lot more respect for Starmer if he could provide some details on what our position is and what their position is. And then why we should give concessions.
Wait a minute. How can Starmer outline what our position is when the government can't?
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
Excel says 9.
Which version of Excel? Different versions are well known for doing math(s) differently.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
What the fuck has happened to the Tory Party. I mean, I've never been a fan but I did used to afford it a grudging respect. But the current lot are just Godawful. I've run out of pejorative adjectives, I just can't, any more. Where is the talent, the understanding of business and how the 21st Century actually works?
Universities are publically funded institutions of strategic importance to the country. There is no way that the government can simply remove itself from the process. And we can't afford to give everyone a fund, there is no money left. I would not be against the idea that those doing multi-year apprenticeships for high skilled jobs should have access to funds on the same generous terms as students though.
We need more and better alternatives to arts degrees which do so little to boost the earning capacity of the recipients (ducks).
If you include a degree in law as an arts degree, hmmmmmmmmm you may have a point.
Law is not an arts degree but a social science and if you do corporate law on qualification you earn well above the average graduate
More philosophy than anything, I would have thought. And you can`t get much more "arts" then that.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
Mr. Monksfield, a very difficult situation, coupled with two effective co-leaders departing simultaneously, an incumbent with shot authority, genuine disagreements within Cabinet, and at least one noisy idiot whose sole concern is his own ambition to the exclusion of both party and national interest.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time, probably too much, she should have eased back a little on the austerity rhetoric and gone harder on tax cuts and Labour's tax rise plans rather than proposing the disastrous dementia tax
Labour don't need to claim fiscal responsibility. From their viewpoint it's enough for the Conservatives to lose the right to make that claim.
As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.
And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.
They do - but that looks at it the wrong way. What they've done is decrease the salience of it as an issue. One of the most notable features of the last election campaign was the Tories' inability to forensically dismantle Labour spending plans that were, to put it generously, optimistic. Why? Because they couldn't give any plausible concrete figures themselves thanks to Brexit. If you're forced to the roulette table, why not bet big? The Tories can't say 'Labour would put your job under threat', because even if it's totally true, they're gambling with it too.
Of course lots of voters are keen on Brexit. The problem for the Tories is that research has shown that a) They didn't vote in the GE in the numbers they did in the referendum, b) Other than ex-kippers, were less likely to defect from their old party to the Tories than liberal remainer Tories were to Labour and c) Are clustered in the wrong places where their votes are wasted. To give one obvious example, the Tories halved Dennis Skinner's majority without getting close and picked off a handful of northern seats, but lost far more in London and the metropolitan south.
Ultimately, their additional problem may well be that while there was a majority for Brexit, there's not one for its implications. Put the economy first and concede several points to the EU and they'll enrage the "out means out" crowd, go hard on no deal and the leavers who voted that way because they were told it was a no-lose deal and would be easy, are likely to blame the government for messing up, not their own vote. Leave voters are unlikely to admit they voted for a ridiculous fantasy - they'll blame the government.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
What the fuck has happened to the Tory Party. I mean, I've never been a fan but I did used to afford it a grudging respect. But the current lot are just Godawful. I've run out of pejorative adjectives, I just can't, any more. Where is the talent, the understanding of business and how the 21st Century actually works?
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer actually said what he's worried about is that we're not agreeing to the method of calculating the bill. I'd have a lot more respect for Starmer if he could provide some details on what our position is and what their position is. And then why we should give concessions.
Wait a minute. How can Starmer outline what our position is when the government can't?
The fact that Starmer can even make these statements and not get laughed of town is a sad indictment on the level of political debate in the UK.
The EU want us to agree to the methodology of the 'bill', NOT the number, so that when we get to the end of the process they can ramp up the bill to the max and claim that was what we agreed, at which point there will be no leverage left as we will be just before Brexit (and of course we will not have prepared for no deal). It is absolutely childish to suggest that you can conduct a negotiation in that manner.
The obvious point is that the UK does not have 50 billion or any amount to pay for something that we are not obliged to pay. It will have to be borrowed. Perhaps the Tories should say that if we pay any Brexit bill that is fine, but it will have to be funded from immediate rises in general taxation. On that basis, the discussion will be over in about five minutes.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
We won't be as the Tories would get a new leader and call a general election pretty soon after to ensure they had a mandate for not paying £50 billion to the EU.
If Labour then lose that election, Corbyn goes and they get a leader who wants to return to the single market in the general election after next they may then be able to make that case if the economy goes south after a few years of no deal but not straight away
I doubt that Labour will be that interested in returning to the single market once we are out of it. I completely agree that the Tories will own the consequences of Brexit, but there is probably a small window of opportunity to call a red, white and blue election on the back of a No Deal and a new PM - one that might secure them a small majority. It would be the last general election the Tories win for a very long time.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time
Labour don't need to claim fiscal responsibility. From their viewpoint it's enough for the Conservatives to lose the right to make that claim.
As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.
And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.
They do - but that looks at it the wrong way. What they've done is decrease the salience of it as an issue. One of the most notable features of the last election campaign was the Tories' inability to forensically dismantle Labour spending plans that were, to put it generously, optimistic. Why? Because they couldn't give any plausible concrete figures themselves thanks to Brexit. If you're forced to the roulette table, why not bet big? The Tories can't say 'Labour would put your job under threat', because even if it's totally true, they're gambling with it too.
Of course lots of voters are keen on Brexit. The problem for the Tories is that research has shown that a) They didn't vote in the GE in the numbers they did in the referendum, b) Other than ex-kippers, were less likely to defect from their old party to the Tories than liberal remainer Tories were to Labour and c) Are clustered in the wrong places where their votes are wasted. To give one obvious example, the Tories halved Dennis Skinner's majority without getting close and picked off a handful of northern seats, but lost far more in London and the metropolitan south.
Ultimately, their additional problem may well be that while there was a majority for Brexit, there's not one for its implications. Put the economy first and concede several points to the EU and they'll enrage the "out means out" crowd, go hard on no deal and the leavers who voted that way because they were told it was a no-lose deal and would be easy, are likely to blame the government for messing up, not their own vote. Leave voters are unlikely to admit they voted for a ridiculous fantasy - they'll blame the government.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
Excel says 9.
Which version of Excel? Different versions are well known for doing math(s) differently.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
Only to Pete North who has been obsessed by his own genius for years and therefore cannot accept that his flawed Flexit approach was always a terrible idea as it has no connection to political reality. If we exit to the EEA we will NEVER leave, and the key demands of voters in the referendum will have been ignored. Even Labour got this.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
"Tony Blair explained his priorities in three words: education, education, education, I can do it in three letters: NHS."
People believe that they've already paid for the social care through their NI contributions.
What the Conservatives should have done was put social care under the NHS and, very publicly, increase NHS funding (without mentioning its extra responsibilities).
To pay for the extra funding increase taxes on property or a levy on unpopular businesses.
Something that has barely been mentioned, and should be massively significant in the Brexit negotiations, is that the U.K. should be able to insist that U.K. - based revenue from international companies like Facebook and Google should be subject to U.K. corporation tax. There’s tens of billions of tax revenue available if these companies are forced to operate under U.K. rather than EU jurisdiction.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
I have a feeling that Parliament will not allow a 'No Deal' situation.
But it isn’t up to Parliament, we’re leaving.
Unless Parliament decides to revoke Article 50.
We'll see.
For example, this:
"Several hundred amendments to the EU withdrawal bill include one tabled by the former cabinet minister Dominic Grieve and signed by nine other Tory MPs, together with members of all the other main parties, saying any final deal must be approved by an entirely separate act of parliament."
Macron: There are three possible ways to react to right-wing extremist parties. The first is to act as though they don't exist and to no longer risk taking political initiatives that could get these parties against you. That has happened many times in France and we have seen that it doesn't work. The people that you are actually hoping to support no longer see themselves reflected in your party's speeches. And it allows the right wing to build its audience. The second reaction is to chase after these right-wing extremist parties in fascination.
DER SPIEGEL: And the third possibility?
Macron: To say, these people are my true enemies and to engage them in battle. Exactly that is the story of the second round of the presidential election in France. That is also what I told our German friends: Don't be shy with these people. Look at me, the Front National got many more votes than the AfD. Ms. Le Pen ended up with 34 percent of the vote, 34 percent! I defended Europe, an open society and all my values. And today, the Front National has been significantly weakened. In the debates, you don't hear anything from them anymore - because we engaged them in battle. Now is the time to be bold! The only answer to the AfD is courage and ambition.
Ha, you can almost hear strains of La Marseillaise in the background during these last few lines. Magnifique.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
I am sure they do. We'll see how they feel post No Deal Brexit.
In a likely snap general election post No Deal Brexit the same as they did in that poll I imagine
Yep, that is very possible. It would be the last general election the Tories win in my lifetime.
If Labour then get a pro single market leader and take the UK back into the single market after winning the subsequent election the Tories would likely be out for a decade or more as after 1997 until another Cameron like leader comes along, but after winning most seats for 4 successive general elections that would not be surprising.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
What the fuck has happened to the Tory Party. I mean, I've never been a fan but I did used to afford it a grudging respect. But the current lot are just Godawful. I've run out of pejorative adjectives, I just can't, any more. Where is the talent, the understanding of business and how the 21st Century actually works?
Universities are publically funded institutions of strategic importance to the country. There is no way that the government can simply remove itself from the process. And we can't afford to give everyone a fund, there is no money left. I would not be against the idea that those doing multi-year apprenticeships for high skilled jobs should have access to funds on the same generous terms as students though.
We need more and better alternatives to arts degrees which do so little to boost the earning capacity of the recipients (ducks).
If you include a degree in law as an arts degree, hmmmmmmmmm you may have a point.
Law is not an arts degree but a social science and if you do corporate law on qualification you earn well above the average graduate
More philosophy than anything, I would have thought. And you can`t get much more "arts" then that.
And corporate lawyers are grossly overpaid.
Law degrees are largely rote learning of case law and key legislation with a bit of philosophy tacked on the side.
Corporate lawyers being overpaid does not change the point
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
What the fuck has happened to the Tory Party. I mean, I've never been a fan but I did used to afford it a grudging respect. But the current lot are just Godawful. I've run out of pejorative adjectives, I just can't, any more. Where is the talent, the understanding of business and how the 21st Century actually works?
"Several hundred amendments to the EU withdrawal bill include one tabled by the former cabinet minister Dominic Grieve and signed by nine other Tory MPs, together with members of all the other main parties, saying any final deal must be approved by an entirely separate act of parliament."
Well, this is good news. The Government will get a crap deal, Parliament will reject it and we will end up with no deal.
Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
I agree the answer should be 9 (as does Google). In BODMAS division takes place before multiplication, so it’s (6/2)*(1+2).
As others say, the issue here is really the lack of brackets which causes needless ambiguity.
It’s not needless ambiguity, it’s deliberate ambiguity on the part of those who profit from millions of people sharing this among their internet friends.
See how many ads are around the pages linked, they’re looking for clicks not a BODMAS discussion.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie
Yep -
75% of voters believe even a £40 than that!
Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us
Perhaps
That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.
We won't be as the Tories would get a new leader and call a
I doubt that Labour will be that interested in returning to the single market once we are out of it. I completely agree that the Tories will own the consequences of Brexit, but there is probably a small window of opportunity to call a red, white and blue election on the back of a No Deal and a new PM - one that might secure them a small majority. It would be the last general election the Tories win for a very long time.
After nearly a decade of falling immigration and no free movement a leader like Umunna certainly would. I would accept that if Tories win most seats for a 4th consecutive general election a la 1992 they would be out for longer perhaps than if they lost the next general election to Corbyn, which could see a quick revival.
Had the Tories lost in 1992 to Kinnock in the same way they may have been back quicker than winning it then losing in 1997 to Blair
The only negotiating Johnson did with Germany was to waste £100s on 3 water cannon he bought second-hand off Merkel only to be told by Mrs May he couldn't use them.Add this to the costs of his garden bridge fiasco,and his fantasy bird-killing airport in the Thames Estuary,itis accurate to describe Johnson as a first-class waster.
I suspect at this very moment his 3 water cannon are watering the playing fields of Eton but does anyone know where he has stashed them?
Starmer says we should give in on the ECJ and pay what the EU are demanding.
What is the current number demanded? Whatever amount is conceded too will be too much for many people, but there's some that are easier to accept as reasonable.
Starmer actually said what he's worried about is that we're not agreeing to the method of calculating the bill. I'd have a lot more respect for Starmer if he could provide some details on what our position is and what their position is. And then why we should give concessions.
Wait a minute. How can Starmer outline what our position is when the government can't?
The fact that Starmer can even make these statements and not get laughed of town is a sad indictment on the level of political debate in the UK.
The EU want us to agree to the methodology of the 'bill', NOT the number, so that when we get to the end of the process they can ramp up the bill to the max and claim that was what we agreed, at which point there will be no leverage left as we will be just before Brexit (and of course we will not have prepared for no deal). It is absolutely childish to suggest that you can conduct a negotiation in that manner.
The obvious point is that the UK does not have 50 billion or any amount to pay for something that we are not obliged to pay. It will have to be borrowed. Perhaps the Tories should say that if we pay any Brexit bill that is fine, but it will have to be funded from immediate rises in general taxation. On that basis, the discussion will be over in about five minutes.
Surely the answer to that is to propose a methodology with our own estimates attached. And publish it. Then haggle about the details. Time is running short. The reason this has not been done is nowt to do with high principle or the EU. It is because of internal Tory politics. If it could be agreed within Cabinet, it would have been done by now. As it is it appears not to have even been discussed. Under these circumstances, what Starmer has to say is a matter of no importance.
Surely the answer to that is to propose a methodology with our own estimates attached. And publish it. Then haggle about the details. Time is running short. The reason this has not been done is nowt to do with high principle or the EU. It is because of internal Tory politics. If it could be agreed within Cabinet, it would have been done by now. As it is it appears not to have even been discussed. Under these circumstances, what Starmer has to say is a matter of no importance.
You should know perfectly well why the UK won't do this. The UK has no legal liability to pay. Therefore, if they concede a methodology they will be agreeing to pay huge sums of money IN RETURN FOR NOTHING. The Cabinet are not actually divided on this at all - everyone knows that the UK will never agree the Brexit bill unless and until they agree a trade deal in return.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
I watched the other day The Keizer Report in the USA , they were in a uber driverless cab.Amazing technology but obvious implications .
Waymo/Google are recruiting volunteers for a soft launch in Phoenix.
Thanks much appreciated , I was just amazed how the Uber cab driverless went around the busy city setting , I expected lorries in a convoy on the motorway , but the technology is moving so fast.
"Several hundred amendments to the EU withdrawal bill include one tabled by the former cabinet minister Dominic Grieve and signed by nine other Tory MPs, together with members of all the other main parties, saying any final deal must be approved by an entirely separate act of parliament."
Well, this is good news. The Government will get a crap deal, Parliament will reject it and we will end up with no deal.
Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.
DavidL - but then you do tax the householder to pay for the care - it is just that you want to exclude them from benefiting. Would you extend this principle to any other illness?
Macron: There are three possible ways to react to right-wing extremist parties. The first is to act as though they don't exist and to no longer risk taking political initiatives that could get these parties against you. That has happened many times in France and we have seen that it doesn't work. The people that you are actually hoping to support no longer see themselves reflected in your party's speeches. And it allows the right wing to build its audience. The second reaction is to chase after these right-wing extremist parties in fascination.
DER SPIEGEL: And the third possibility?
Macron: To say, these people are my true enemies and to engage them in battle. Exactly that is the story of the second round of the presidential election in France. That is also what I told our German friends: Don't be shy with these people. Look at me, the Front National got many more votes than the AfD. Ms. Le Pen ended up with 34 percent of the vote, 34 percent! I defended Europe, an open society and all my values. And today, the Front National has been significantly weakened. In the debates, you don't hear anything from them anymore - because we engaged them in battle. Now is the time to be bold! The only answer to the AfD is courage and ambition.
Ha, you can almost hear strains of La Marseillaise in the background during these last few lines. Magnifique.
I like the opening question here by Der Spiegel , just imagine Trump with the same question!
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
I may be overanswering this, but
Option 1: applying BODMAS ================ 6/2(1+2) = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3 = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 2: write out the equation in pen on paper ============================= Recall that prior to spreadsheets and LaTex and Word equations, people used to write maths down on paper with pens/pencil. It would have been depicted as 6/2(1+2) = 6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multipled by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 3: various computer languages ====================== I'm not going to go into depth with this, particularly since these days the younger crowd think only R and Python exist, but the answer would be 9 or 1 dependent on which language/software you use. This is why I would write this as [6/2]*[1+2], to resolve the ambiguity.
You should know perfectly well why the UK won't do this. The UK has no legal liability to pay. Therefore, if they concede a methodology they will be agreeing to pay huge sums of money IN RETURN FOR NOTHING. The Cabinet are not actually divided on this at all - everyone knows that the UK will never agree the Brexit bill unless and until they agree a trade deal in return.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
The other realistic option is that the people who said Brexit was a good idea will be told to 'go whistle' by the electorate.
If you listen to the (very few) No Dealers who go beyond the platitudes of No Deal is Bettter than a Bad Deal and We Must be Prepared to Walk Away to get a Reasonable Deal, it turns out the No Deal option is qualified. What they actually mean is, having told the EU to Go Whistle, you won't get a Eurocent from us and you can stick your ECJ up your backside, the EU will then happily agree to keep Euratom, Open Skies, the Medicines Agency etc etc etc etc etc etc etc open for us. A No Deal Deal as it were. Which seems like have cake and eat to me.
They don't explain whether the No Deal Deal No Deal (ie REALLY no Deal) is still better than a bad deal and why the EU should be pressured by claims that they are going to agree stuff in the end, even though we walk away, and therefore should offer us a better deal.
The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
I may be overanswering this, but
Option 1: applying BODMAS ================ 6/2(1+2) = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket = 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3 = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 2: write out the equation in pen on paper ============================= Recall that prior to spreadsheets and LaTex and Word equations, people used to write maths down on paper with pens/pencil. It would have been depicted as 6/2(1+2) = 6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multipled by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line = 3 multiplied by 3 = 9
Option 3: various computer languages ====================== I'm not going to go into depth with this, particularly since these days the younger crowd think only R and Python exist, but the answer would be 9 or 1 dependent on which language/software you use. This is why I would write this as [6/2]*[1+2], to resolve the ambiguity.
I hope this is helpful
More just wrong. You offer the reading "6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line" when there is no reason to privilege this interpretation over "6 on top of horizontal line above (2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket) all on on bottom line." We just can't tell.
"Several hundred amendments to the EU withdrawal bill include one tabled by the former cabinet minister Dominic Grieve and signed by nine other Tory MPs, together with members of all the other main parties, saying any final deal must be approved by an entirely separate act of parliament."
Well, this is good news. The Government will get a crap deal, Parliament will reject it and we will end up with no deal.
Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.
What do you suggest?
Glad you asked. The only rational decision at this stage is to terminate the negotiations.
Read the great analysis provided by Martin Howe QC. The facts are that the EU CANNOT deliver a trade deal as part of the A50 negotiations. The only outcome of continued negotiations is that we get close to the Brexit date and the EU blackmail us to get whatever they want because at that point we are not prepared for WTO. We cannot lock in a transition period at any time - it will all be up in the air until the last moment. The European Parliament could scupper any deal at the last minute or basically engage in their own last minute blackmail - and who really thinks this won't happen?
The only way that these negotiations would make any sense is if there was a rolling series of signed treaties as we go along - first on citizens rights, then on transition, then on trade. How the hell are we going to deal with the payment of the Brexit bill even if we give in - will the EU ever agree that it is paid years later when the trade deal is actually ratified? Of course not, they will demand the money now and then be able to renege on the trade deal. That this the whole basis of the structure of negotiations and why it has been forced into Phase 1 in the first place. All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.
There are only two sensible outcomes - join the EEA (an outcome which would mean that 589 MPs lied to their electorates) or accept that the only way forward is to prepare for WTO, execute Brexit and go back to the EU after this and try to get a trade deal when there is proper time and a sensible process. Hopefully we can get to this point sooner rather than later.
You should know perfectly well why the UK won't do this. The UK has no legal liability to pay. Therefore, if they concede a methodology they will be agreeing to pay huge sums of money IN RETURN FOR NOTHING. The Cabinet are not actually divided on this at all - everyone knows that the UK will never agree the Brexit bill unless and until they agree a trade deal in return.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
The other realistic option is that the people who said Brexit was a good idea will be told to 'go whistle' by the electorate.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.
It's a way of telling the EU that "we are not Greece" by manoeuvring ourselves into a weaker position than Greece was in.
No it isn't. If all of 2(2+1) is below the line represented by / we expand it to 6. Think of this as having two turnips and one turnip, and then the same again, so six turnips in all. So our denominator is 6 and our numerator is 6, and simple division means we end up with only one turnip. Algebra is a harsh mistress.
You should know perfectly well why the UK won't do this. The UK has no legal liability to pay. Therefore, if they concede a methodology they will be agreeing to pay huge sums of money IN RETURN FOR NOTHING. The Cabinet are not actually divided on this at all - everyone knows that the UK will never agree the Brexit bill unless and until they agree a trade deal in return.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
The other realistic option is that the people who said Brexit was a good idea will be told to 'go whistle' by the electorate.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
You should know perfectly well why the UK won't do this. The UK has no legal liability to pay. Therefore, if they concede a methodology they will be agreeing to pay huge sums of money IN RETURN FOR NOTHING. The Cabinet are not actually divided on this at all - everyone knows that the UK will never agree the Brexit bill unless and until they agree a trade deal in return.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
The other realistic option is that the people who said Brexit was a good idea will be told to 'go whistle' by the electorate.
Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers
Cancelling Brexit achieves both.
Cancelling Brexit means continued payments to the EU and free movement left uncontrolled
If you listen to the (very few) No Dealers who go beyond the platitudes of No Deal is Bettter than a Bad Deal and We Must be Prepared to Walk Away to get a Reasonable Deal, it turns out the No Deal option is qualified. What they actually mean is, having told the EU to Go Whistle, you won't get a Eurocent from us and you can stick your ECJ up your backside, the EU will then happily agree to keep Euratom, Open Skies, the Medicines Agency etc etc etc etc etc etc etc open for us. A No Deal Deal as it were. Which seems like have cake and eat to me.
They don't explain whether the No Deal Deal No Deal (ie REALLY no Deal) is still better than a bad deal and why the EU should be pressured by claims that they are going to agree stuff in the end, even though we walk away, and therefore should offer us a better deal.
The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.
I think that it was Hammond who has drawn a distinction between an agreed "No Deal" WTO hard Brexit, and a hostile "No Deal" Brexit without any transition.
Comments
TCO on the other hand has, by his actions since leaving office, forfeited his right to be anywhere near any Conservative government for the foreseeable future.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/847360/brexit-bill-britons-poll-find-it-unacceptable
Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!
(For the record, I am a proud Citizen of Nowhere. UK/Eire dual citizen, educated in Belgium, US and UK.)
It would be pretty interesting though to see some major changes, with a number of newer and untested figures in place (while I am a fan of experience, there are plenty of examples of people with no relevant or truly comparable experience getting the top job even), being big and bold. But of course the old guard never go quietly, and certainly not when they are still duking it out for the top job themselves. It might not be a case of being able to veto, since it may not require voting to accept our unilateral decision, as it may or may not be revocable at all, in which case it isn't up to them?
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/919505031925256195
Either propose a fully costed national care service with £12-15bn in personal tax rises on current earners to pay to current recipients- as the NHS and pensions work...
Or
Propose that those sitting on significant assets should be expected to use those assets to pay for their care in retirement.
It’s not possible to do both. The Conservatives’ policy in their manifesto was the right way to go and was a good policy, the issue was that they didn’t have every minister on the airwaves 24/7 to defend it in the days after the manifesto launch.
Complacency is the problem, they genuinely all thought that they were looking at a huge majority, therefore wanted to tackle something that’s been on the “too difficult” list for decades. They didn’t expect their opponents to go as hard as they did against it (as it mainly affects the middle classes in the south of England who have always voted Con) and the “dementia tax” meme caught hold very quickly among the young who are relying on their parents for their property deposits.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4981202/GLEN-OWEN-One-false-Theresa-s-checkmate.html
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/919492537206890496
If Labour then lose that election, Corbyn goes and they get a leader who wants to return to the single market in the general election after next they may then be able to make that case if the economy goes south after a few years of no deal but not straight away
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-french-president-emmanuel-macron-a-1172745.html
Macron: There are three possible ways to react to right-wing extremist parties. The first is to act as though they don't exist and to no longer risk taking political initiatives that could get these parties against you. That has happened many times in France and we have seen that it doesn't work. The people that you are actually hoping to support no longer see themselves reflected in your party's speeches. And it allows the right wing to build its audience. The second reaction is to chase after these right-wing extremist parties in fascination.
DER SPIEGEL: And the third possibility?
Macron: To say, these people are my true enemies and to engage them in battle. Exactly that is the story of the second round of the presidential election in France. That is also what I told our German friends: Don't be shy with these people. Look at me, the Front National got many more votes than the AfD. Ms. Le Pen ended up with 34 percent of the vote, 34 percent! I defended Europe, an open society and all my values. And today, the Front National has been significantly weakened. In the debates, you don't hear anything from them anymore - because we engaged them in battle. Now is the time to be bold! The only answer to the AfD is courage and ambition.
And corporate lawyers are grossly overpaid.
Unless Parliament decides to revoke Article 50.
But otherwise it's going well.
Of course lots of voters are keen on Brexit. The problem for the Tories is that research has shown that a) They didn't vote in the GE in the numbers they did in the referendum, b) Other than ex-kippers, were less likely to defect from their old party to the Tories than liberal remainer Tories were to Labour and c) Are clustered in the wrong places where their votes are wasted. To give one obvious example, the Tories halved Dennis Skinner's majority without getting close and picked off a handful of northern seats, but lost far more in London and the metropolitan south.
Ultimately, their additional problem may well be that while there was a majority for Brexit, there's not one for its implications. Put the economy first and concede several points to the EU and they'll enrage the "out means out" crowd, go hard on no deal and the leavers who voted that way because they were told it was a no-lose deal and would be easy, are likely to blame the government for messing up, not their own vote. Leave voters are unlikely to admit they voted for a ridiculous fantasy - they'll blame the government.
The EU want us to agree to the methodology of the 'bill', NOT the number, so that when we get to the end of the process they can ramp up the bill to the max and claim that was what we agreed, at which point there will be no leverage left as we will be just before Brexit (and of course we will not have prepared for no deal). It is absolutely childish to suggest that you can conduct a negotiation in that manner.
The obvious point is that the UK does not have 50 billion or any amount to pay for something that we are not obliged to pay. It will have to be borrowed. Perhaps the Tories should say that if we pay any Brexit bill that is fine, but it will have to be funded from immediate rises in general taxation. On that basis, the discussion will be over in about five minutes.
Only to Pete North who has been obsessed by his own genius for years and therefore cannot accept that his flawed Flexit approach was always a terrible idea as it has no connection to political reality. If we exit to the EEA we will NEVER leave, and the key demands of voters in the referendum will have been ignored. Even Labour got this.
"Several hundred amendments to the EU withdrawal bill include one tabled by the former cabinet minister Dominic Grieve and signed by nine other Tory MPs, together with members of all the other main parties, saying any final deal must be approved by an entirely separate act of parliament."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/14/cross-party-group-no-deal-theresa-may-brexit-eu
Corporate lawyers being overpaid does not change the point
Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.
See how many ads are around the pages linked, they’re looking for clicks not a BODMAS discussion.
Had the Tories lost in 1992 to Kinnock in the same way they may have been back quicker than winning it then losing in 1997 to Blair
The only negotiating Johnson did with Germany was to waste £100s on 3 water cannon he bought second-hand off Merkel only to be told by Mrs May he couldn't use them.Add this to the costs of his garden bridge fiasco,and his fantasy bird-killing airport in the Thames Estuary,itis accurate to describe Johnson as a first-class waster.
I suspect at this very moment his 3 water cannon are watering the playing fields of Eton but does anyone know where he has stashed them?
Time is running short.
The reason this has not been done is nowt to do with high principle or the EU.
It is because of internal Tory politics.
If it could be agreed within Cabinet, it would have been done by now. As it is it appears not to have even been discussed.
Under these circumstances, what Starmer has to say is a matter of no importance.
To agree to a methodology now would be the most grotesque betrayal of the UK national interest imaginable. Either the EU grow up and accept that they will never get a Brexit Bill unless they make concessions at the same time (eg a trade deal), or there will be no deal and they will get no money. There are no other realistic options.
https://twitter.com/KirstyStricklan/status/919515609674780677
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/919161289284444160
Option 1: applying BODMAS
================
6/2(1+2)
= 6 divided by 2 multiplied by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket
= 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3
= 3 multiplied by 3
= 9
Option 2: write out the equation in pen on paper
=============================
Recall that prior to spreadsheets and LaTex and Word equations, people used to write maths down on paper with pens/pencil. It would have been depicted as
6/2(1+2)
= 6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line
= 3 multipled by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line
= 3 multiplied by 3
= 9
Option 3: various computer languages
======================
I'm not going to go into depth with this, particularly since these days the younger crowd think only R and Python exist, but the answer would be 9 or 1 dependent on which language/software you use. This is why I would write this as [6/2]*[1+2], to resolve the ambiguity.
I hope this is helpful
They don't explain whether the No Deal Deal No Deal (ie REALLY no Deal) is still better than a bad deal and why the EU should be pressured by claims that they are going to agree stuff in the end, even though we walk away, and therefore should offer us a better deal.
The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.
Read the great analysis provided by Martin Howe QC. The facts are that the EU CANNOT deliver a trade deal as part of the A50 negotiations. The only outcome of continued negotiations is that we get close to the Brexit date and the EU blackmail us to get whatever they want because at that point we are not prepared for WTO. We cannot lock in a transition period at any time - it will all be up in the air until the last moment. The European Parliament could scupper any deal at the last minute or basically engage in their own last minute blackmail - and who really thinks this won't happen?
The only way that these negotiations would make any sense is if there was a rolling series of signed treaties as we go along - first on citizens rights, then on transition, then on trade. How the hell are we going to deal with the payment of the Brexit bill even if we give in - will the EU ever agree that it is paid years later when the trade deal is actually ratified? Of course not, they will demand the money now and then be able to renege on the trade deal. That this the whole basis of the structure of negotiations and why it has been forced into Phase 1 in the first place. All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.
There are only two sensible outcomes - join the EEA (an outcome which would mean that 589 MPs lied to their electorates) or accept that the only way forward is to prepare for WTO, execute Brexit and go back to the EU after this and try to get a trade deal when there is proper time and a sensible process. Hopefully we can get to this point sooner rather than later.