Have been busy doing interesting stuff. I see that May is still crap and still unable to pick a team. Plus ca change....
Anyway O/T a question for the PB Brains Trust: testimonials on a website? Yes / no? Named or not? How many? Obviously, it's not a school report and lots of "this person was brilliant" is tiresome and egomaniacal. But I want to get across that I don't just have a brilliant concept but that I've actually been doing it and it's been successful so that people can feel confident about using me.
Any bright / helpful ideas most welcome. By VM if you want. One doesn't want to go clogging up the thread, esp when there are so many wonderful ways of saying FFS! when describing our government........
Many thanks.
Definitely yes. We are in the TripAdvisor, Uber, Ebay ratings era.
People want to know they are not buying a lemon. Plus if you are new and selling to banks (not seen the website) then someone in procurement will want to know how many customers you have/have had etc.
Have been busy doing interesting stuff. I see that May is still crap and still unable to pick a team. Plus ca change....
Anyway O/T a question for the PB Brains Trust: testimonials on a website? Yes / no? Named or not? How many? Obviously, it's not a school report and lots of "this person was brilliant" is tiresome and egomaniacal. But I want to get across that I don't just have a brilliant concept but that I've actually been doing it and it's been successful so that people can feel confident about using me.
Any bright / helpful ideas most welcome. By VM if you want. One doesn't want to go clogging up the thread, esp when there are so many wonderful ways of saying FFS! when describing our government........
Many thanks.
I know that blogs are sooo noughties but the occasional erudite article on your area of expertise could help people to decide that you know what you're talking about.
The changes will address disparities very slowly indeed - and the squeeze on budgets will see a significant proportion of even those who are relative gainers struggling. But it's a gesture in the right direction.
It's incredibly hard to deal with this kind of disparity quickly without creating unacceptable cliff-edge changes for the losers, and money is going to remain tight given the unavoidable need to put more into the NHS and social care just to stand still.
That sort of attitude and the sneering condescension towards working class people in areas of high EU immigration that led to the Leave vote. I voted Remain because I wanted Cameron and Osborne to stay and consider the economic benefits of the EU trump the disadvantages. However next time you're in Sussex take a stroll through the grimy streets of Bognor Regis, and you might understand the reason why people were happy to vote Leave.
It is well known among our soon to be ex EU partners that the country divided roughly in half. As a shorthand they were told that the educated city dwellers voted REMAIN whereas the less well educated country bumpkins voted LEAVE.
So when the English urinate on the beaches of Benidorm or vomit on the side of Tavernas in Crete it's assumed they're the country bumpkins they didn't previously know existed.
So the only thing keeping our international credibility even vaguely intact are the Metropolitan elite.
Perhaps the country bumpkins are the ones who are watching the Eastern Europeans urinate on the beaches of Bognor and vomit on the side of Wetherspoons in Boston. That's probably why they couldn't care less about the hurt feelings of the metropolitan elite.
You can't possibly have any comprehension of what it's like to live in places where resources like education and health are stretched to breaking point. So you really shouldn't judge other people.
However it doesn't help if the increased tax take remains with the metropolitan elite rather than being spent in places where it's needed.
Unspoofable...
Why unspoofable?
Well, can you explain the mechanism by which taxation of East Europeans is directed to a class of people who might reasonably be described as metropolitan and elite?
I wasn't really suggesting that all Eastern Europeans in the West Sussex had their taxation directed to the metropolitan elite as I suspect you well knew. It is fair to say that the funding in West Sussex schools is much lower than that in London and other cities.
The tax revenues raised from the migrants isn't being spent on schools, hospitals and transport in the areas where they live.
Actually what is spent in London is less than the tax take from London, not the other way around. This is of course right, since tax has a redistributive purpose not only between individuals but between regions of the country.
Have been busy doing interesting stuff. I see that May is still crap and still unable to pick a team. Plus ca change....
Anyway O/T a question for the PB Brains Trust: testimonials on a website? Yes / no? Named or not? How many? Obviously, it's not a school report and lots of "this person was brilliant" is tiresome and egomaniacal. But I want to get across that I don't just have a brilliant concept but that I've actually been doing it and it's been successful so that people can feel confident about using me.
Any bright / helpful ideas most welcome. By VM if you want. One doesn't want to go clogging up the thread, esp when there are so many wonderful ways of saying FFS! when describing our government........
Many thanks.
I assume targeted at people who don't know you from Adam? So testimonials that back up your claims of why you are NOT Adam are good. And marketing 101 - everyone says they are good. You need to say why you are different . It's a blend of what people are looking for, what you want to be and what you are.
Secondary concern is to improve your website's findability. Any words that match what your eventual customers are searching on will help. It all links up.
For anyone thinking of betting on next year's US mid-terms, particularly on the composition of the US House, this is once again essential reading from Sean Trende analyzing the tea leaves from the VA elections.
Mr. Mark, imagine if a Roman were transported here from the time of Augustus and saw that ****ing concrete box of misery. They'd be astonished things could go so far backwards.
Miss Cyclefree, I'd say yes, but no more than 2-3.
Have been busy doing interesting stuff. I see that May is still crap and still unable to pick a team. Plus ca change....
Anyway O/T a question for the PB Brains Trust: testimonials on a website? Yes / no? Named or not? How many? Obviously, it's not a school report and lots of "this person was brilliant" is tiresome and egomaniacal. But I want to get across that I don't just have a brilliant concept but that I've actually been doing it and it's been successful so that people can feel confident about using me.
Any bright / helpful ideas most welcome. By VM if you want. One doesn't want to go clogging up the thread, esp when there are so many wonderful ways of saying FFS! when describing our government........
Many thanks.
I assume targeted at people who don't know you from Adam? So testimonials that back up your claims of why you are NOT Adam are good. And marketing 101 - everyone says they are good. You need to say why you are different . It's a blend of what people are looking for, what you want to be and what you are.
Secondary concern is to improve your website's findability. Any words that match what your eventual customers are searching on will help. It all links up.
I have avoided testimonials on my site, partly because only an idiot would put up anything other than stellar testimonials, so they don't really give any information to anyone who does not know me.
I think it is better to put up descriptions of projects you have worked on, suitably sanitized to protect the customer if necessary, so that people can see what you actually do and the impact it has.
Have been busy doing interesting stuff. I see that May is still crap and still unable to pick a team. Plus ca change....
Anyway O/T a question for the PB Brains Trust: testimonials on a website? Yes / no? Named or not? How many? Obviously, it's not a school report and lots of "this person was brilliant" is tiresome and egomaniacal. But I want to get across that I don't just have a brilliant concept but that I've actually been doing it and it's been successful so that people can feel confident about using me.
Any bright / helpful ideas most welcome. By VM if you want. One doesn't want to go clogging up the thread, esp when there are so many wonderful ways of saying FFS! when describing our government........
Many thanks.
I know that blogs are sooo noughties but the occasional erudite article on your area of expertise could help people to decide that you know what you're talking about.
+1 And link any major publications of yours, particularly recent ones directly relevant to your consulting services.
Surely the architects should be put on trial and compelled by curfew to live on the top floor of that for thirty or 40 years, rather than feted by the V and A?
I live in a small town largely, in the middle anyway Georgian at the latest, often though Georgian fronts grafted on to 14/15th centurey house. There are a lot of the original houses, too. The oldest house, as far as is known, has timbers felled in 1321 or thereabouts.
About 50 years ago one of the houses a) caught fire and b) subsequently collapsed. It was replaced by a block of half a dozen shops with flats over which must have been designed by the same architects. Right bang in the middle of the town. Appoafrently architecture students are now brought here to show them what not to do
You only have to look at some of the 50s/60s/70s stuff added to some of the Oxford college to see how inappropriate much of the development was at that time. Most of the colleges seem to have some concrete monostrosity that they would rather like to pretend doesn't exist any longer.
Cambridge is the same. This one's a university building but looking back over its 49 disastrous years it would have been cheaper to bring in the bulldozers and hire a competent architect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeley_Historical_Library
Mr. T, on the other hand, if you have good things said about you by person X or company Y, that may sway people. The person saying it may be the more important half of a testimonial.
On concrete: it's entirely possible to make great buildings using mostly concrete. Like the Colosseum, which was built in the 1st century AD. But it's baffling that soulless boxes of melancholy were inflicted upon the nation for so long.
Mr. Mark, imagine if a Roman were transported here from the time of Augustus and saw that ****ing concrete box of misery. They'd be astonished things could go so far backwards.
Miss Cyclefree, I'd say yes, but no more than 2-3.
I would imagine the grottier insulae looked quite like Robin Hood Gardens, though the ones in the photo from Ostia are nice. btw if you are ever in Rome you should go to Ostia, it is just a few stops on the underground, very well preserved and almost deserted by comparison with Pompeii.
Mr. Z, not much of a traveller, but if I do visit Rome I shall try and remember that. Ostia's also interesting because the port was made using concrete that set underwater.
Surely the architects should be put on trial and compelled by curfew to live on the top floor of that for thirty or 40 years, rather than feted by the V and A?
I live in a small town largely, in the middle anyway Georgian at the latest, often though Georgian fronts grafted on to 14/15th centurey house. There are a lot of the original houses, too. The oldest house, as far as is known, has timbers felled in 1321 or thereabouts.
About 50 years ago one of the houses a) caught fire and b) subsequently collapsed. It was replaced by a block of half a dozen shops with flats over which must have been designed by the same architects. Right bang in the middle of the town. Appoafrently architecture students are now brought here to show them what not to do
You only have to look at some of the 50s/60s/70s stuff added to some of the Oxford college to see how inappropriate much of the development was at that time. Most of the colleges seem to have some concrete monostrosity that they would rather like to pretend doesn't exist any longer.
Cambridge is the same. This one's a university building but looking back over its 49 disastrous years it would have been cheaper to bring in the bulldozers and hire a competent architect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeley_Historical_Library
I remember studying in that; in rainy weather the floor was covered in buckets catching the drips from the ceiling, and it was impossible to heat properly in the winter. But it is at least visually and architecturally interesting. I took the OP to be referring to some of the carbuncle-like blocks of flats that were erected as halls of residence in the 1950s-70s.
Have been busy doing interesting stuff. I see that May is still crap and still unable to pick a team. Plus ca change....
Anyway O/T a question for the PB Brains Trust: testimonials on a website? Yes / no? Named or not? How many? Obviously, it's not a school report and lots of "this person was brilliant" is tiresome and egomaniacal. But I want to get across that I don't just have a brilliant concept but that I've actually been doing it and it's been successful so that people can feel confident about using me.
Any bright / helpful ideas most welcome. By VM if you want. One doesn't want to go clogging up the thread, esp when there are so many wonderful ways of saying FFS! when describing our government........
Many thanks.
I assume targeted at people who don't know you from Adam? So testimonials that back up your claims of why you are NOT Adam are good. And marketing 101 - everyone says they are good. You need to say why you are different . It's a blend of what people are looking for, what you want to be and what you are.
Secondary concern is to improve your website's findability. Any words that match what your eventual customers are searching on will help. It all links up.
I have avoided testimonials on my site, partly because only an idiot would put up anything other than stellar testimonials, so they don't really give any information to anyone who does not know me.
I think it is better to put up descriptions of projects you have worked on, suitably sanitized to protect the customer if necessary, so that people can see what you actually do and the impact it has.
Personally I rely a fair bit on reviews and testimonials. Not at all for the star rating, which I assume to five stars in every case but for what the reviewers and the business owners think is important to mention. So I would rate restaurants more highly if they or the reviewers mentioned particular dishes rather just saying "delicious". It indicates a seriousness about the cooking when I have nothing else to go on when choosing a place to eat. Vacuous reviews and testimonials can be counterproductive.
Mr. T, on the other hand, if you have good things said about you by person X or company Y, that may sway people. The person saying it may be the more important half of a testimonial..
Good point. Most of the testimonials I have seen are from people whom no-one would know. If you can have a big name as your testimonial, or someone senior at a corporation with a household name, then that, as you say, is a different matter.
My field is arcane enough that there are few such names, and in any case, it is small enough that we all know each other.
Have been busy doing interesting stuff. I see that May is still crap and still unable to pick a team. Plus ca change....
Anyway O/T a question for the PB Brains Trust: testimonials on a website? Yes / no? Named or not? How many? Obviously, it's not a school report and lots of "this person was brilliant" is tiresome and egomaniacal. But I want to get across that I don't just have a brilliant concept but that I've actually been doing it and it's been successful so that people can feel confident about using me.
Any bright / helpful ideas most welcome. By VM if you want. One doesn't want to go clogging up the thread, esp when there are so many wonderful ways of saying FFS! when describing our government........
Many thanks.
I assume targeted at people who don't know you from Adam? So testimonials that back up your claims of why you are NOT Adam are good. And marketing 101 - everyone says they are good. You need to say why you are different . It's a blend of what people are looking for, what you want to be and what you are.
Secondary concern is to improve your website's findability. Any words that match what your eventual customers are searching on will help. It all links up.
I have avoided testimonials on my site, partly because only an idiot would put up anything other than stellar testimonials, so they don't really give any information to anyone who does not know me.
I think it is better to put up descriptions of projects you have worked on, suitably sanitized to protect the customer if necessary, so that people can see what you actually do and the impact it has.
Personally I rely a fair bit on reviews and testimonials. Not at all for the star rating, which I assume to five stars in every case but for what the reviewers and the business owners think is important to mention. So I would rate restaurants more highly if they or the reviewers mentioned particular dishes rather just saying "delicious". It indicates a seriousness about the cooking when I have nothing else to go on when choosing a place to eat. Vacuous reviews and testimonials can be counterproductive.
Ha! At this rate, PB will have me rethinking my approach.
I have done videos and some of my talks have been picked up by the press and reported. But a lot, understandably, have not been open to the public so it is not easy - given confidentiality obligations etc - to write about stuff that I've done. (Not outside the world of fiction, anyway).
And confidentiality/discretion are important to my actual / likely clients.
And the stuff I do have on there is sufficiently known to make me known, certainly in terms of work. I think I need to differentiate why my presentations/training are so much better than anything my competitors can provide - and I have lots of quotes saying that but I will see if I can get some named testimonials rather than lots of anonymous stuff, which could have been made up. (Not that they weren't but who is to know that.)
I am looking into the idea of doing a TED talk, though........ and getting the next presentation I'm doing filmed. A link to me in action is probably best of all.
Incidentally, I've been inundated by calls/emails from so-called web designers offering their services. Every single one without exception has been more or less illiterate.......
I have done videos and some of my talks have been picked up by the press and reported. But a lot, understandably, have not been open to the public so it is not easy - given confidentiality obligations etc - to write about stuff that I've done. (Not outside the world of fiction, anyway).
And confidentiality/discretion are important to my actual / likely clients.
And the stuff I do have on there is sufficiently known to make me known, certainly in terms of work. I think I need to differentiate why my presentations/training are so much better than anything my competitors can provide - and I have lots of quotes saying that but I will see if I can get some named testimonials rather than lots of anonymous stuff, which could have been made up. (Not that they weren't but who is to know that.)
I am looking into the idea of doing a TED talk, though........ and getting the next presentation I'm doing filmed. A link to me in action is probably best of all.
Incidentally, I've been inundated by calls/emails from so-called web designers offering their services. Every single one without exception has been more or less illiterate.......
A TED talk is an awesome idea if you can get it arranged, huge publicity and adds massive credibility to a startup company.
If you can get named testimonials then fantastic, if not then some artistic licence with real-life scenarios at “A FTSE 100 Bank” is probably okay for starters. As TimT says those you’re targeting understand that confidentiality is an important part of the business. More important are references that people who have worked with you can give to a potential customer on a confidential basis.
Your spam web designers are all probably Indians or Ukrainians trying to earn hard currency. Not worth the effort, when you can work from a Wordpress template for pennies these days.
I assume targeted at people who don't know you from Adam? So testimonials that back up your claims of why you are NOT Adam are good. And marketing 101 - everyone says they are good. You need to say why you are different . It's a blend of what people are looking for, what you want to be and what you are.
Secondary concern is to improve your website's findability. Any words that match what your eventual customers are searching on will help. It all links up.
I have avoided testimonials on my site, partly because only an idiot would put up anything other than stellar testimonials, so they don't really give any information to anyone who does not know me.
I think it is better to put up descriptions of projects you have worked on, suitably sanitized to protect the customer if necessary, so that people can see what you actually do and the impact it has.
Personally I rely a fair bit on reviews and testimonials. Not at all for the star rating, which I assume to five stars in every case but for what the reviewers and the business owners think is important to mention. So I would rate restaurants more highly if they or the reviewers mentioned particular dishes rather just saying "delicious". It indicates a seriousness about the cooking when I have nothing else to go on when choosing a place to eat. Vacuous reviews and testimonials can be counterproductive.
Ha! At this rate, PB will have me rethinking my approach.
Morris Dancer's point is a good one. It's the Myers-Briggs personality factor. I suspect you, like me, have a strongly judgmental personality. We like to see solutions to be demonstrated to us. We like to read the read around the subject before rationalising a solution. The perceptive half of the world likes to hear recommendations, places a large store on reputation and believes in an emotional truth. Things are right when they feel right.
Mr. Mark, imagine if a Roman were transported here from the time of Augustus and saw that ****ing concrete box of misery. They'd be astonished things could go so far backwards.
Miss Cyclefree, I'd say yes, but no more than 2-3.
I would imagine the grottier insulae looked quite like Robin Hood Gardens, though the ones in the photo from Ostia are nice. btw if you are ever in Rome you should go to Ostia, it is just a few stops on the underground, very well preserved and almost deserted by comparison with Pompeii.
All insulae had the better apartments at the bottom, as Roman water technology could get a supply to the first floor or so, if you were lucky, but not higher, and so the penthouse apartment was the one you had to schlepp water etc the furthest too. IIRC no insula apartment was considered upmarket accommodation.
I second the motion to visit Ostia if in Rome. It's worth it for the Piazza of the Corporations alone. This is a square with the remains of shipping offices around it, each with the name and logo of the shipping company in mosaic.
Penny Mourdaunt an excellent choice for the new DFID Secretary and a fresh, relatively young face too.
The very same Penny Mordaunt who questioned why the FBU and firefighters tweeted to her that they were looking forward to working with her when she got her job at DCLG. She didn't realise that she was the responsible minister for the Fire Service..........
Penny Mourdaunt an excellent choice for the new DFID Secretary and a fresh, relatively young face too.
The very same Penny Mordaunt who questioned why the FBU and firefighters tweeted to her that they were looking forward to working with her when she got her job at DCLG. She didn't realise that she was the responsible minister for the Fire Service..........
She's non too clued up on Turkey's application for EU status either.
What happened to the convention that MPs don't read their speeches out word for word?
'In principle a member is not permitted to read a speech, but may make reference to notes. Similarly a member may read extracts from documents but such extracts and quotations should be reasonably short'
I was surprised to read that the principle was reinforced by recommendation of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. The reasoning remains that it maintains the cut and thrust of debate, and debate is more than merely hearing people read out prepared speeches, they should reference what has been said by others, so a prepared speech word for word would not work.
The rules do go on to say that unless appealed to the chair does not normally intervene to enforce the rule, and Erskine May even suggests a passive aggressive comment that can be made instead to the effect that the 'notes used by the honorable member appear to be unusually full'. In any case it does say the rule is relaxed for opening speeches, important ministerial statements and highly technical bills, maiden speeches.
It seems to be stronger in the Lords, being 'alien to the customs of the house and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates', and where extended notes are used they should not be adhered to too closely.
Those look to me like a reasonable central forecast, although it could all end up less amicable than he thinks.
Looks way too optimistic to me.
Certainly on the optimistic side. If that is how it pans out, it will be merely a minor disaster rather than a catastrophe. I thought points 6, 7 and 8 were particularly interesting.
Those look to me like a reasonable central forecast, although it could all end up less amicable than he thinks.
Looks way too optimistic to me.
Certainly on the optimistic side. If that is how it pans out, it will be merely a minor disaster rather than a catastrophe. I thought points 6, 7 and 8 were particularly interesting.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
Dutching Jan, Feb, Mar, April or later might be right. That's basically betting at 1.42 no cabinet resignations from now till the end of the year. Not for me though, Boris' survival at even money till the end of the year is my only related play at the moment.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
Yes, modern architecture is one of the few professions where designers can be hugely praised by their colleagues for designs which fail the most basic test of actually being fit for the purpose.
The problem with RHG (and similar buildings) is not so much that they're ugly as very uncomfortable to live in, riddled with damp and vermin, badly plumbed, ill-lit, and fell of dark corridors and corners where people can be assaulted.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
If it gets to the point where both sides are so caught up in their own flaws, us particularly, that a botched up deal is the best we can do, then it seems equally unlikely either side could manage the not uncomplicated task of arranging to remain in after all.
Yes, modern architecture is one of the few professions where designers can be hugely praised by their colleagues for designs which fail the most basic test of actually being fit for the purpose.
I'm a fan of architects trying out new ideas, innovative designs and the like, but artistry has to take a backseat to functionality somewhere. I recall getting into quite the argument with a university lecturer of mine once, because he considered me to be very old fashioned and judgemental after he mentioned this fancy hotel (I forget where) with a very creative design and where apparently people struggle to find the entrance due to its odd design (or at the least as you approach the building, it is not visually clear where it might be), and I commented that was a pretty bloody stupid design then, given they presumably wanted people to find their way in.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
If it gets to the point where both sides are so caught up in their own flaws, us particularly, that a botched up deal is the best we can do, then it seems equally unlikely either side could manage the not uncomplicated task of arranging to remain in after all.
Brexit is a like Jenga tower where the pieces are being slowly removed one by one. Arranging its demolition won't require a Fred Dibnah.
Those look to me like a reasonable central forecast, although it could all end up less amicable than he thinks.
Looks way too optimistic to me.
Certainly on the optimistic side. If that is how it pans out, it will be merely a minor disaster rather than a catastrophe. I thought points 6, 7 and 8 were particularly interesting.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
There is some degree to which I welcome government paralysis. They can't mess things up.
Edit: And it may be as simple as that. No deal plus. Let's have a big plus.
I can't help but think that the best way forward for everyone is for the Brexit negotiations to be overseen by an independent international arbitrator. The current mechanism isn't working for either side.
Why do Brexiteers always remind me of Millwall supporters....
WE DONT LIKE TO BE PUSHED AROUND. WE"RE ENGLISH AND WE DO WHAT WE WANT!
Thank God for the Metropolitan elite or we really would be pariahs
That sort of attitude and the sneering condescension towards working class people in areas of high EU immigration that led to the Leave vote. I voted Remain because I wanted Cameron and Osborne to stay and consider the economic benefits of the EU trump the disadvantages. However next time you're in Sussex take a stroll through the grimy streets of Bognor Regis, and you might understand the reason why people were happy to vote Leave.
It is well known among our soon to be ex EU partners that the country divided roughly in half. As a shorthand they were told that the educated city
So when the English urinate on the beaches of Benidorm or vomit on the side of Tavernas in Crete it's assumed they're the country bumpkins they didn't previously know existed.
So the only thing keeping our international credibility even vaguely intact are the Metropolitan elite.
Perhaps the country bumpkins are the ones who are watching the Eastern Europeans urinate on the beaches of Bognor and vomit on the side of Wetherspoons in Boston. That's probably why they couldn't care less about the hurt feelings of the metropolitan
he reception places it has available in 2018...
However it doesn't help if the increased tax take remains with the metropolitan elite rather than being spent in places where it's needed.
Unspoofable...
Why unspoofable?
Well, can you explain the mechanism by which taxation of East Europeans is directed to a class of people who might reasonably be described as metropolitan and elite?
I wasn't really suggesting that all Eastern Europeans in the West Sussex had their taxation directed to the metropolitan elite as I suspect you well knew. It is fair to say that the funding in West Sussex schools is much lower than that in London and other cities.
The tax revenues raised from the migrants isn't being spent on schools, hospitals and transport in the areas where they live.
An influx of migrants to an area will increase school funding under the National Funding Formula both absolutely and per pupil (assuming the school concerned already receives more than the guaranteed minimum per pupil).
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
If it gets to the point where both sides are so caught up in their own flaws, us particularly, that a botched up deal is the best we can do, then it seems equally unlikely either side could manage the not uncomplicated task of arranging to remain in after all.
Brexit is a like Jenga tower where the pieces are being slowly removed one by one. Arranging its demolition won't require a Fred Dibnah.
Like most metaphors, it sounds good, but is probably not very useful. If collectively the EU and the UK cannot come to a mutually satisfactory, workable deal, then why the hell would we collectively be able to come harmoniously back together? We couldn't manage that before the vote to Leave, and while there are people who won't accept any costs as the price to leave, we'd still need to find a solution for the 30% or whatever who would. And a solution for whatever number in the EU who would resist us remaining, since, as we have been told many times, plenty of them are either happy we're going or not caring.
Yes, modern architecture is one of the few professions where designers can be hugely praised by their colleagues for designs which fail the most basic test of actually being fit for the purpose.
The problem with RHG (and similar buildings) is not so much that they're ugly as very uncomfortable to live in, riddled with damp and vermin, badly plumbed, ill-lit, and fell of dark corridors and corners where people can be assaulted.
I note from its wikipedia entry that 75% of the people who actually lived there wanted it demolished! That is quite an achievement.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
If it gets to the point where both sides are so caught up in their own flaws, us particularly, that a botched up deal is the best we can do, then it seems equally unlikely either side could manage the not uncomplicated task of arranging to remain in after all.
Brexit is a like Jenga tower where the pieces are being slowly removed one by one. Arranging its demolition won't require a Fred Dibnah.
Like most metaphors, it sounds good, but is probably not very useful. If collectively the EU and the UK cannot come to a mutually satisfactory, workable deal, then why the hell would we collectively be able to come harmoniously back together? We couldn't manage that before the vote to Leave, and while there are people who won't accept any costs as the price to leave, we'd still need to find a solution for the 30% or whatever who would. And a solution for whatever number in the EU who would resist us remaining, since, as we have been told many times, plenty of them are either happy we're going or not caring.
The Tory party will have to undergo a process of debrexification. Anyone not happy to remain in it will have to go off to UKIP or form their own party. They will get nowhere electorally.
The Tories could then rejoin the EPP in a symbolic reconciliation.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
If it gets to the point where both sides are so caught up in their own flaws, us particularly, that a botched up deal is the best we can do, then it seems equally unlikely either side could manage the not uncomplicated task of arranging to remain in after all.
Brexit is a like Jenga tower where the pieces are being slowly removed one by one. Arranging its demolition won't require a Fred Dibnah.
Like most metaphors, it sounds good, but is probably not very useful. If collectively the EU and the UK cannot come to a mutually satisfactory, workable deal, then why the hell would we collectively be able to come harmoniously back together? We couldn't manage that before the vote to Leave, and while there are people who won't accept any costs as the price to leave, we'd still need to find a solution for the 30% or whatever who would. And a solution for whatever number in the EU who would resist us remaining, since, as we have been told many times, plenty of them are either happy we're going or not caring.
I can't help but think that the best way forward for everyone is for the Brexit negotiations to be overseen by an independent international arbitrator. The current mechanism isn't working for either side.
I can't help but think that the best way forward for everyone is for the Brexit negotiations to be overseen by an independent international arbitrator. The current mechanism isn't working for either side.
In what sense is it not working for the EU? They have a united position and are systematically achieving their aims.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
If it gets to the point where both sides are so caught up in their own flaws, us particularly, that a botched up deal is the best we can do, then it seems equally unlikely either side could manage the not uncomplicated task of arranging to remain in after all.
Brexit is a like Jenga tower where the pieces are being slowly removed one by one. Arranging its demolition won't require a Fred Dibnah.
Like most metaphors, it sounds good, but is probably not very useful. If collectively the EU and the UK cannot come to a mutually satisfactory, workable deal, then why the hell would we collectively be able to come harmoniously back together? We couldn't manage that before the vote to Leave, and while there are people who won't accept any costs as the price to leave, we'd still need to find a solution for the 30% or whatever who would. And a solution for whatever number in the EU who would resist us remaining, since, as we have been told many times, plenty of them are either happy we're going or not caring.
The Tory party will have to undergo a process of debrexification. Anyone not happy to remain in it will have to go off to UKIP or form their own party. They will get nowhere electorally.
A large majority of Conservative voters (let alone members or MPs) would go elsewhere, in that case, leaving the Conservatives like the Canadian PC's.
I can't help but think that the best way forward for everyone is for the Brexit negotiations to be overseen by an independent international arbitrator. The current mechanism isn't working for either side.
In what sense is it not working for the EU? They have a united position and are systematically achieving their aims.
But they don't have a united position. There are EU member states that want to see things progress more swiftly as they are perfectly well aware that they will also suffer with a bad deal.
I can't help but think that the best way forward for everyone is for the Brexit negotiations to be overseen by an independent international arbitrator. The current mechanism isn't working for either side.
In what sense is it not working for the EU? They have a united position and are systematically achieving their aims.
But they don't have a united position. There are EU member states that want to see things progress more swiftly as they are perfectly well aware that they will also suffer with a bad deal.
'Progress' in this context does not mean conceding to the UK's position. It means beating down the UK more quickly.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
If it gets to the point where both sides are so caught up in their own flaws, us particularly, that a botched up deal is the best we can do, then it seems equally unlikely either side could manage the not uncomplicated task of arranging to remain in after all.
Brexit is a like Jenga tower where the pieces are being slowly removed one by one. Arranging its demolition won't require a Fred Dibnah.
Like most metaphors, it sounds good, but is probably not very useful. If collectively the EU and the UK cannot come to a mutually satisfactory, workable deal, then why the hell would we collectively be able to come harmoniously back together? We couldn't manage that before the vote to Leave, and while there are people who won't accept any costs as the price to leave, we'd still need to find a solution for the 30% or whatever who would. And a solution for whatever number in the EU who would resist us remaining, since, as we have been told many times, plenty of them are either happy we're going or not caring.
The Tory party will have to undergo a process of debrexification. Anyone not happy to remain in it will have to go off to UKIP or form their own party. They will get nowhere electorally.
They are running around like headless chickens. The astonishing thing was that the whole Brexit referendum was so that the Tories wouldn't run around like headless chickens. None so odd as ToryMPs! (Folk a very firm 2nd).
This will pass though, and post Brexit in whatever shape it might be the Tories will once again be united. That'll be Mrs May, the embattled FSec Boris, and a collection of others.
I can't help but think that the best way forward for everyone is for the Brexit negotiations to be overseen by an independent international arbitrator. The current mechanism isn't working for either side.
In what sense is it not working for the EU? They have a united position and are systematically achieving their aims.
But they don't have a united position. There are EU member states that want to see things progress more swiftly as they are perfectly well aware that they will also suffer with a bad deal.
'Progress' in this context does not mean conceding to the UK's position. It means beating down the UK more quickly.
Oh well let’s just meekly give in and be ruled over by foreigners from Brussels then.
Those look to me like a reasonable central forecast, although it could all end up less amicable than he thinks.
Looks way too optimistic to me.
Certainly on the optimistic side. If that is how it pans out, it will be merely a minor disaster rather than a catastrophe. I thought points 6, 7 and 8 were particularly interesting.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
I think it will happen broadly as Charles Grant lays it out, with the exception of (7), a partial Single Market option, that there is no prospect of the EU agreeing to at present.
We will pay the €60 billion or whatever the figure is because we want our aeroplanes to fly. Unfortunately we will wait until disaster is staring us in the face before agreeing, when it would obviously be more sensible to get it done and move on, since we will be paying anyway.
Eventually we will fit into the EU agenda. It's not worth us doing anything else. They have set up the process to that end.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I have done videos and some of my talks have been picked up by the press and reported. But a lot, understandably, have not been open to the public so it is not easy - given confidentiality obligations etc - to write about stuff that I've done. (Not outside the world of fiction, anyway).
And confidentiality/discretion are important to my actual / likely clients.
And the stuff I do have on there is sufficiently known to make me known, certainly in terms of work. I think I need to differentiate why my presentations/training are so much better than anything my competitors can provide - and I have lots of quotes saying that but I will see if I can get some named testimonials rather than lots of anonymous stuff, which could have been made up. (Not that they weren't but who is to know that.)
I am looking into the idea of doing a TED talk, though........ and getting the next presentation I'm doing filmed. A link to me in action is probably best of all.
Incidentally, I've been inundated by calls/emails from so-called web designers offering their services. Every single one without exception has been more or less illiterate.......
As someone who (amongst other services) provides specialist web-design, you would love to sit in on some of the conversations I have with the so-called web-designers. I suspect that all their office furniture has worn-out, rounded corners.....
Those look to me like a reasonable central forecast, although it could all end up less amicable than he thinks.
Looks way too optimistic to me.
Certainly on the optimistic side. If that is how it pans out, it will be merely a minor disaster rather than a catastrophe. I thought points 6, 7 and 8 were particularly interesting.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
I think it will happen broadly as Charles Grant lays it out, with the exception of (7), a partial Single Market option, that there is no prospect of the EU agreeing to at present.
We will pay the €60 billion or whatever the figure is because we want our aeroplanes to fly. Unfortunately we will wait until disaster is staring us in the face before agreeing, when it would obviously be more sensible to get it done and move on, since we will be paying anyway.
Eventually we will fit into the EU agenda. It's not worth us doing anything else. They have set up the process to that end.
"We will pay the €60 billion"
We will, I'm sure, but the EU need to consider that we might not. From a British perspective that's not so bad and if I found E60b down the back of my sofa I'd be quite pleased.
It really might be the case that the damage to the UK from no deal is small, and that the damage to the EU is big. In many ways it should be the case. GB as an international trading nation 'beyond compare' would perhaps be making a sacrifice to join a restrictive club.
Those look to me like a reasonable central forecast, although it could all end up less amicable than he thinks.
Looks way too optimistic to me.
Certainly on the optimistic side. If that is how it pans out, it will be merely a minor disaster rather than a catastrophe. I thought points 6, 7 and 8 were particularly interesting.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
I think it will happen broadly as Charles Grant lays it out, with the exception of (7), a partial Single Market option, that there is no prospect of the EU agreeing to at present.
We will pay the €60 billion or whatever the figure is because we want our aeroplanes to fly. Unfortunately we will wait until disaster is staring us in the face before agreeing, when it would obviously be more sensible to get it done and move on, since we will be paying anyway.
Eventually we will fit into the EU agenda. It's not worth us doing anything else. They have set up the process to that end.
"We will pay the €60 billion"
We will, I'm sure, but the EU need to consider that we might not. From a British perspective that's not so bad and if I found E60b down the back of my sofa I'd be quite pleased.
It really might be the case that the damage to the UK from no deal is small, and that the damage to the EU is big. In many ways it should be the case. GB as an international trading nation 'beyond compare' would perhaps be making a sacrifice to join a restrictive club.
Rightly or wrongly the EU doesn't care. We will pay the €60 billion.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I for one would feel I was no longer living in a democracy and indeed effectively under a foreign power my vote cannot remove.
Those look to me like a reasonable central forecast, although it could all end up less amicable than he thinks.
Looks way too optimistic to me.
Certainly on the optimistic side. If that is how it pans out, it will be merely a minor disaster rather than a catastrophe. I thought points 6, 7 and 8 were particularly interesting.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
I think it will happen broadly as Charles Grant lays it out, with the exception of (7), a partial Single Market option, that there is no prospect of the EU agreeing to at present.
We will pay the €60 billion or whatever the figure is because we want our aeroplanes to fly. Unfortunately we will wait until disaster is staring us in the face before agreeing, when it would obviously be more sensible to get it done and move on, since we will be paying anyway.
Eventually we will fit into the EU agenda. It's not worth us doing anything else. They have set up the process to that end.
"We will pay the €60 billion"
We will, I'm sure, but the EU need to consider that we might not. From a British perspective that's not so bad and if I found E60b down the back of my sofa I'd be quite pleased.
It really might be the case that the damage to the UK from no deal is small, and that the damage to the EU is big. In many ways it should be the case. GB as an international trading nation 'beyond compare' would perhaps be making a sacrifice to join a restrictive club.
Rightly or wrongly the EU doesn't care. We will pay the €60 billion.
Or we won't. It is possible that we won't. Such a sum is really what is due. The EU will have to fill that hole. It'd be very unfair of us not to pay all this money of course!
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I for one would feel I was no longer living in a democracy and indeed effectively under a foreign power my vote cannot remove.
Hardly a healthy or stable situation.
If it happens and we revisit the last referendum it will be because your people blew it and didn't deliver what they said they would deliver. If that disturbs you, you need to make very sure that they DO deliver a successful Brexit
It really might be the case that the damage to the UK from no deal is small, and that the damage to the EU is big.
And your proof for this supposition is?
I'd not have phrased matters in such a way if I had proof. When your counterpart wants to settle on the basis that you give them cash then it seems to me that no deal is something they fear more than you do.
@williamglenn is right, the Conservatives need to undergo a detoxification. Moves to right have now not worked in about three general elections in recent memory for them - 2001, 2005 and 2017. It is one thing for you not to win big with a right wing message against Blair’s centrist Labour Party, but to not win a majority and to actually lose to seats to the most left wing Labour leader in modern political history (who had such a chequered past) is truly something.
Right wing rhetoric on immigration - the thing which, along with Brexit was supposed to lead to a super majority on the back of WWC voters in fact repelled voters as much as it attracted them, as it turns out not everyone is a great fan of the statements some Conservatives make about immigrants and their descendants.
Sean_F says that most Conservative voters will go elsewhere, but that didn’t happen in 2015, when Cameron won the first Conservative majority in twenty-five years. I happen to think, reflecting on it more that Cameron’s dextofication hit the brakes when the party ended up becoming engulfed by the austerity agenda which was clearly not his original plan in 2006. But Cameron still attempted to make some improvements by marketing the Tories as a forward-looking party, and trying to persuade groups which had not traditionally voted Tory that there was a place for them in the party. Of course, a lot of this was all image to a degree - I never got the impression Cameron actually changed the minds of many Conservative activists/members, and there seemed to be a section of the party who always tolerated him at most. Brexit has revealed to us something that we all knew - that the old Tory party never really went away.
Now the ‘Brexit’ Conservative Party appears to be representative of those who would like a world as designed by Paul Dacre. Andrew Cooper’s (Cameron’s former head of strategy) tweet on May going to that banquet was golden:
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I for one would feel I was no longer living in a democracy and indeed effectively under a foreign power my vote cannot remove.
Hardly a healthy or stable situation.
If it happens and we revisit the last referendum it will be because your people blew it and didn't deliver what they said they would deliver. If that disturbs you, you need to make very sure that they DO deliver a successful Brexit
It depends on the definition of “successful”. I suspect most Remainers want zero economic loss, as of course do I. However, if it takes that loss to maintain a democracy not the bureaucracy with window dressing I fear we’d get as the NW province of the USE, then I’m prepared for that, and would see it as success. Either way as the rest of the world expands, plugging ourselves into that rather than a Euro centric future, will in my view erase any loss ( or more likely less growth for a bit) over the longer term.
Ultimately my desire is to be able to really fire those who rule over me. I won’t get that in a USE I fear.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I for one would feel I was no longer living in a democracy and indeed effectively under a foreign power my vote cannot remove.
Hardly a healthy or stable situation.
+1.
If the decision were to be reversed at this point, it would be an absolute vindication of the strongest argument to leave. Even if the decision were to be endorsed in a second referendum, it would raise the cry of "you will always keep us voting until we vote the right way".
And if Brexit proves impossible, then we have checked into the Hotel California - handed over our sovereignty to an undemocratic and unelected foreign power with no ability to bring those powers back.
Those remainers saying we have to leave are quite correct - the only difference is they hope that the country will go down in flames and that we will be punished, actually punished, for standing up for our democratic rights.
It is the EU that is at fault, not the UK. If the EU ever became an actual democracy, one where I had the ability to hire and fire the people who made laws over me, I would vote to rejoin in a heartbeat.
It really might be the case that the damage to the UK from no deal is small, and that the damage to the EU is big.
And your proof for this supposition is?
I'd not have phrased matters in such a way if I had proof. When your counterpart wants to settle on the basis that you give them cash then it seems to me that no deal is something they fear more than you do.
Not necessarily, if we are bothered less about paying money than about other outcomes, eg planes flying, getting particular medicines, keeping our nuclear power plants operational.
Moving the argument on a bit we should WANT to pay money. One of the biggest consequences of Brexit is our severe loss of influence. Whereas before we could vote in the European Council and influence parliament and the Commission, now money is one of the few levers remaining to us. If the EU wants money, which it does, that gives us leverage. We should be focusing our negotiations on what we get for the money rather than trying not to pay it. As Alistair points out, the government is not thinking straight.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I for one would feel I was no longer living in a democracy and indeed effectively under a foreign power my vote cannot remove.
Hardly a healthy or stable situation.
If it happens and we revisit the last referendum it will be because your people blew it and didn't deliver what they said they would deliver. If that disturbs you, you need to make very sure that they DO deliver a successful Brexit
It depends on the definition of “successful”. I suspect most Remainers want zero economic loss, as of course do I. However, if it takes that loss to maintain a democracy not the bureaucracy with window dressing I fear we’d get as the NW province of the USE, then I’m prepared for that, and would see it as success. Either way as the rest of the world expands, plugging ourselves into that rather than a Euro centric future, will in my view erase any loss ( or more likely less growth for a bit) over the longer term.
Ultimately my desire is to be able to really fire those who rule over me. I won’t get that in a USE I fear.
Definition of successful is people who voted Leave don't change their minds.
Edit. It's up to your people to make sure they don'yt.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I for one would feel I was no longer living in a democracy and indeed effectively under a foreign power my vote cannot remove.
Hardly a healthy or stable situation.
If it happens and we revisit the last referendum it will be because your people blew it and didn't deliver what they said they would deliver. If that disturbs you, you need to make very sure that they DO deliver a successful Brexit
It depends on the definition of “successful”. I suspect most Remainers want zero economic loss, as of course do I. However, if it takes that loss to maintain a democracy not the bureaucracy with window dressing I fear we’d get as the NW province of the USE, then I’m prepared for that, and would see it as success. Either way as the rest of the world expands, plugging ourselves into that rather than a Euro centric future, will in my view erase any loss ( or more likely less growth for a bit) over the longer term.
Ultimately my desire is to be able to really fire those who rule over me. I won’t get that in a USE I fear.
Definition of successful is people who voted Leave don't change their minds.
If your interface with the world is twitter the Conservatives will never be untoxified.
However perhaps the days of social media are numbered - people may tire of the constant virtue signalling and fake news.
What the Cons need to get back to is competence and stability. I don't that is possible whilst we are in a war - a media war - with the powerful EU.
May needs to scrape the barnacles off the boat and focus on 1-2 non EU topics to satisfy the domestic agenda for the next 16 months. Suck up a one off payment for a reasonable EU deal but no lasting impact on the Uk one we have left.
She can then hand over to Gove who can bring the imagination needed to win in 2022.
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I for one would feel I was no longer living in a democracy and indeed effectively under a foreign power my vote cannot remove.
Hardly a healthy or stable situation.
+1.
If the decision were to be reversed at this point, it would be an absolute vindication of the strongest argument to leave. Even if the decision were to be endorsed in a second referendum, it would raise the cry of "you will always keep us voting until we vote the right way".
And if Brexit proves impossible, then we have checked into the Hotel California - handed over our sovereignty to an undemocratic and unelected foreign power with no ability to bring those powers back.
Those remainers saying we have to leave are quite correct - the only difference is they hope that the country will go down in flames and that we will be punished, actually punished, for standing up for our democratic rights.
It is the EU that is at fault, not the UK. If the EU ever became an actual democracy, one where I had the ability to hire and fire the people who made laws over me, I would vote to rejoin in a heartbeat.
But does anybody really see that happening?
Not leaving would mean a ready made excuse for anything that ever went wrong again, rightly or wrongly, and levels of resentment at the EU and anything connected with it turned up to eleven.
What happened to the convention that MPs don't read their speeches out word for word?
There is no such convention, and it's quite common. You're thinking of the convention that you don't read out a question.
Erskine May disagrees (though it says the chair would not normally intervene unless called upon - it is a convention after all, not a firm rule), it devotes over a page to the reading of speeches (not questions) and why in principle this is not permitted, and the Select Committee on modernization of the house of commons also disagrees
We share the broad consensus that the free flow of debate is better served if backbench Members do not read from a text prepared in advance. t
"The instability at the heart of the government reflects the personal inadequacy of Tory ministers, but, politically, it runs deeper. When given a vote on something important, the majority of people voted against Westminster, against London, against the elites. Obviously, they have not taken back control, but what becomes clearer daily is that neither has the government. It is incapable of doing so. Its members are like children who shut their eyes and think no one else can see them. They lie, smear and dissemble as the UK falls apart.
This may not be anarchy as we imagined it, but the chaos at the top of our system is the reckoning. We are crashing in the same car."
Tastes vary. But in the end it usually comes down to what the neighbours are like.
Quite right, and I'm sure that most politicians spend most of their time on this. Perhaps this is a good distraction in light of my previous post. It's not so though.
Politicians need to stay in more!
I cannot explain why the politician with the greatest support in the country is also the politician that would ruin the largest number of lives. (He might also temporarily boost the well-being of a very large number of lives, and in each and every case they'd have the rug taken away)
I have two reasons for believing that this is too optimistic.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
You might well be right, although as he notes there are powerful economic pressures on both sides to come to some kind of botched-up deal. Certainly the election result has made the risk of disaster much greater.
If that is how it pans out Britain may as well stay in the EU, to be honest.
I despise Leavers who blame the EU or Remainers for Brexit shortcomings or claim it would be a perversion of democracy to revisit the decision. You sold the project; you deliver it. I accept the uplands might be a bit overcast and not wholly sunlit, but I don't want a desert. If you can't deliver it, admit your mistake and we can do something different, like stay in the EU.
I for one would feel I was no longer living in a democracy and indeed effectively under a foreign power my vote cannot remove.
Hardly a healthy or stable situation.
+1.
If the decision were to be reversed at this point, it would be an absolute vindication of the strongest argument to leave. Even if the decision were to be endorsed in a second referendum, it would raise the cry of "you will always keep us voting until we vote the right way".
And if Brexit proves impossible, then we have checked into the Hotel California - handed over our sovereignty to an undemocratic and unelected foreign power with no ability to bring those powers back.
Those remainers saying we have to leave are quite correct - the only difference is they hope that the country will go down in flames and that we will be punished, actually punished, for standing up for our democratic rights.
It is the EU that is at fault, not the UK. If the EU ever became an actual democracy, one where I had the ability to hire and fire the people who made laws over me, I would vote to rejoin in a heartbeat.
But does anybody really see that happening?
Not leaving would mean a ready made excuse for anything that ever went wrong again, rightly or wrongly, and levels of resentment at the EU and anything connected with it turned up to eleven.
Not Leaving would be far worse for both us and the EU. Most people can see this. But the Continuity Ultras and the EU Project Choir are not most people.
Not Leaving would be far worse for both us and the EU. Most people can see this. But the Continuity Ultras and the EU Project Choir are not most people.
The United Kingdom can cease to be a member of the EU by simply ceasing to be. That may yet prove to be the ineluctable outcome of the referendum.
Comments
People want to know they are not buying a lemon. Plus if you are new and selling to banks (not seen the website) then someone in procurement will want to know how many customers you have/have had etc.
I'm not betting on this market but the least bad value looks like the 8/1 on January to me.
Secondary concern is to improve your website's findability. Any words that match what your eventual customers are searching on will help. It all links up.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/09/thoughts_on_the_virginia_races_135491.html
Miss Cyclefree, I'd say yes, but no more than 2-3.
I think it is better to put up descriptions of projects you have worked on, suitably sanitized to protect the customer if necessary, so that people can see what you actually do and the impact it has.
He didn't handle the situation with any sense of compassion or natural justice. His actions led to the death of someone he called a friend.
Anyone with honour would have stepped down.
+1 And link any major publications of yours, particularly recent ones directly relevant to your consulting services.
On concrete: it's entirely possible to make great buildings using mostly concrete. Like the Colosseum, which was built in the 1st century AD. But it's baffling that soulless boxes of melancholy were inflicted upon the nation for so long.
I would imagine the grottier insulae looked quite like Robin Hood Gardens, though the ones in the photo from Ostia are nice. btw if you are ever in Rome you should go to Ostia, it is just a few stops on the underground, very well preserved and almost deserted by comparison with Pompeii.
My field is arcane enough that there are few such names, and in any case, it is small enough that we all know each other.
I have done videos and some of my talks have been picked up by the press and reported. But a lot, understandably, have not been open to the public so it is not easy - given confidentiality obligations etc - to write about stuff that I've done. (Not outside the world of fiction, anyway).
And confidentiality/discretion are important to my actual / likely clients.
And the stuff I do have on there is sufficiently known to make me known, certainly in terms of work. I think I need to differentiate why my presentations/training are so much better than anything my competitors can provide - and I have lots of quotes saying that but I will see if I can get some named testimonials rather than lots of anonymous stuff, which could have been made up. (Not that they weren't but who is to know that.)
I am looking into the idea of doing a TED talk, though........ and getting the next presentation I'm doing filmed. A link to me in action is probably best of all.
Incidentally, I've been inundated by calls/emails from so-called web designers offering their services. Every single one without exception has been more or less illiterate.......
Or perhaps it was instead the Easter adjournment debate where she was liberal with the use of the male chicken?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvLcYUXBBuc
If you can get named testimonials then fantastic, if not then some artistic licence with real-life scenarios at “A FTSE 100 Bank” is probably okay for starters. As TimT says those you’re targeting understand that confidentiality is an important part of the business. More important are references that people who have worked with you can give to a potential customer on a confidential basis.
Your spam web designers are all probably Indians or Ukrainians trying to earn hard currency. Not worth the effort, when you can work from a Wordpress template for pennies these days.
I second the motion to visit Ostia if in Rome. It's worth it for the Piazza of the Corporations alone. This is a square with the remains of shipping offices around it, each with the name and logo of the shipping company in mosaic.
Any relation to OGH?
Flat roofed buildings in the west of Scotland are failures from first principles not wonders to be feted.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border
Those look to me like a reasonable central forecast, although it could all end up less amicable than he thinks.
ITV Wales political correspondence stating that this is a 'crisis'
I was surprised to read that the principle was reinforced by recommendation of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. The reasoning remains that it maintains the cut and thrust of debate, and debate is more than merely hearing people read out prepared speeches, they should reference what has been said by others, so a prepared speech word for word would not work.
The rules do go on to say that unless appealed to the chair does not normally intervene to enforce the rule, and Erskine May even suggests a passive aggressive comment that can be made instead to the effect that the 'notes used by the honorable member appear to be unusually full'. In any case it does say the rule is relaxed for opening speeches, important ministerial statements and highly technical bills, maiden speeches.
It seems to be stronger in the Lords, being 'alien to the customs of the house and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates', and where extended notes are used they should not be adhered to too closely.
1) The government is too enervated to give the kind of lead that it would need to give in the next couple of weeks to make this work.
2) Parliament is too tumultuous at present to agree to some of the points that Mr Grant thinks Britain will need to cede.
Not for me though, Boris' survival at even money till the end of the year is my only related play at the moment.
Edit: And it may be as simple as that. No deal plus. Let's have a big plus.
The Tories could then rejoin the EPP in a symbolic reconciliation.
This will pass though, and post Brexit in whatever shape it might be the Tories will once again be united. That'll be Mrs May, the embattled FSec Boris, and a collection of others.
We will pay the €60 billion or whatever the figure is because we want our aeroplanes to fly. Unfortunately we will wait until disaster is staring us in the face before agreeing, when it would obviously be more sensible to get it done and move on, since we will be paying anyway.
Eventually we will fit into the EU agenda. It's not worth us doing anything else. They have set up the process to that end.
We will, I'm sure, but the EU need to consider that we might not. From a British perspective that's not so bad and if I found E60b down the back of my sofa I'd be quite pleased.
It really might be the case that the damage to the UK from no deal is small, and that the damage to the EU is big. In many ways it should be the case. GB as an international trading nation 'beyond compare' would perhaps be making a sacrifice to join a restrictive club.
Hardly a healthy or stable situation.
http://catalannews.com/politics/item/rajoy-received-bonuses-from-alleged-illegal-financing-fund-says-police-chief
Right wing rhetoric on immigration - the thing which, along with Brexit was supposed to lead to a super majority on the back of WWC voters in fact repelled voters as much as it attracted them, as it turns out not everyone is a great fan of the statements some Conservatives make about immigrants and their descendants.
Sean_F says that most Conservative voters will go elsewhere, but that didn’t happen in 2015, when Cameron won the first Conservative majority in twenty-five years. I happen to think, reflecting on it more that Cameron’s dextofication hit the brakes when the party ended up becoming engulfed by the austerity agenda which was clearly not his original plan in 2006. But Cameron still attempted to make some improvements by marketing the Tories as a forward-looking party, and trying to persuade groups which had not traditionally voted Tory that there was a place for them in the party. Of course, a lot of this was all image to a degree - I never got the impression Cameron actually changed the minds of many Conservative activists/members, and there seemed to be a section of the party who always tolerated him at most. Brexit has revealed to us something that we all knew - that the old Tory party never really went away.
Now the ‘Brexit’ Conservative Party appears to be representative of those who would like a world as designed by Paul Dacre. Andrew Cooper’s (Cameron’s former head of strategy) tweet on May going to that banquet was golden:
https://twitter.com/andrewcooper__/status/928387441622437888
https://monera.dk/adresser/kgs-lyngby/lehwaldsvej/lehwaldsvej-5-2-l
Tastes vary. But in the end it usually comes down to what the neighbours are like.
Ultimately my desire is to be able to really fire those who rule over me. I won’t get that in a USE I fear.
If the decision were to be reversed at this point, it would be an absolute vindication of the strongest argument to leave. Even if the decision were to be endorsed in a second referendum, it would raise the cry of "you will always keep us voting until we vote the right way".
And if Brexit proves impossible, then we have checked into the Hotel California - handed over our sovereignty to an undemocratic and unelected foreign power with no ability to bring those powers back.
Those remainers saying we have to leave are quite correct - the only difference is they hope that the country will go down in flames and that we will be punished, actually punished, for standing up for our democratic rights.
It is the EU that is at fault, not the UK. If the EU ever became an actual democracy, one where I had the ability to hire and fire the people who made laws over me, I would vote to rejoin in a heartbeat.
But does anybody really see that happening?
Moving the argument on a bit we should WANT to pay money. One of the biggest consequences of Brexit is our severe loss of influence. Whereas before we could vote in the European Council and influence parliament and the Commission, now money is one of the few levers remaining to us. If the EU wants money, which it does, that gives us leverage. We should be focusing our negotiations on what we get for the money rather than trying not to pay it. As Alistair points out, the government is not thinking straight.
Edit. It's up to your people to make sure they don'yt.
However perhaps the days of social media are numbered - people may tire of the constant virtue signalling and fake news.
What the Cons need to get back to is competence and stability. I don't that is possible whilst we are in a war - a media war - with the powerful EU.
May needs to scrape the barnacles off the boat and focus on 1-2 non EU topics to satisfy the domestic agenda for the next 16 months. Suck up a one off payment for a reasonable EU deal but no lasting impact on the Uk one we have left.
She can then hand over to Gove who can bring the imagination needed to win in 2022.
SeanT's theme tune, One Night In Bangkok, on BBC4's TOTP re-run from 22nd November 1984 right now.
We share the broad consensus that the free flow of debate is better served if backbench Members do not read from a text prepared in advance. t
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmmodern/1168/116809.htm
That it is not rigorously enforced may fool people of course, including 13 year veterans!
Reading from notes to some degree, particularly for quotation, is explicitly permitted, but it says this should be short.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/uk-has-become-ungovernable-no-one-wants-to-admit-it-suzanne-moore
"The instability at the heart of the government reflects the personal inadequacy of Tory ministers, but, politically, it runs deeper. When given a vote on something important, the majority of people voted against Westminster, against London, against the elites. Obviously, they have not taken back control, but what becomes clearer daily is that neither has the government. It is incapable of doing so. Its members are like children who shut their eyes and think no one else can see them. They lie, smear and dissemble as the UK falls apart.
This may not be anarchy as we imagined it, but the chaos at the top of our system is the reckoning. We are crashing in the same car."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvLcYUXBBuc
Politicians need to stay in more!
I cannot explain why the politician with the greatest support in the country is also the politician that would ruin the largest number of lives. (He might also temporarily boost the well-being of a very large number of lives, and in each and every case they'd have the rug taken away)