The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
That sounds on the face of it like quite bad news?
It was baked in.
They tried to move 2-3 years ago (something to do with regulatory supervision meaning all euro clearing needed to be in the Eurozone. The ECJ blocked it)
However the 83,000 number is garbage. It’s effectively “if all euro trading (not just clearing) and all ancillary jobs left London that would be 83,000 jobs.”
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
The key question is the process and mechanism by which an extension is unanimously agreed by all member states - with opinion so far on this thread ranging from a conference call to primary legislation.
In a rare agreement on Brexit with Mr Meeks, I’d say the 29th March exit date is a much higher probability than the Betfair market suggests.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
What an ill informed post. I think Tories should expect better from their aspiring elected officials
We will almost certainly have left the EU by March 29th 2019 when if we remain in the single market and customs union and continue to have free movement until the end of December 2020 due to the transition period
And Putin will continue to murder Russian dissidents in the UK who displease him.
I expect this sort of thing is very popular in Russia, and fits in with his strongman image.
The purest form of justice would be for one his agents to have an accident whilst on holiday in the UK, but that wouldn't be very British.
The reaction of BoJo et al is hypocritical - the pot calling the kettle black. All intelligence agencies seek to have their countries' perceived opponents bumped off - some are more effective than others, e.g. Mossad. The British government does it - for example, the death of the lawyer Pat Finucane was no accident. The UK government hardly holds the moral high ground given the royal welcome being given today to one of the world's most malevolent gangsters, Mohammed bin Salman.
That's a very transparent attempt at drawing moral equivalence, with lashings of whataboutism.
Yes, the UK Government hasn't been perfect in the past. No country is. But it also doesn't make the grisly murder of its opponents on its own soil or overseas a matter of routine.
It is transparently a distraction, or just plain lazy, when the old standard of 'no country is perfect, therefore all are the same' gets trotted out.
All countries have done bad things. But some are demonstrably worse than others.
Problem is not whether we should do something but what can we actually do? The reason Miliband didn't do anything drastic is because our options are limited. We can't get at Putin or his acolytes, economic sanctions are already tight and I don't think a war against Russia would help especially since we would have no chance of winning.
If we were like Russia we could brutally torture the Ambassador and his staff to make a point but fortunately we are not so we can't.
Putin does these things because he believes he can get away with them. And the trouble is he's right.
A load of Putin's mafioso scumbags have money, assets and investments in London.
Seize it. Kick them in the balls.
They are the only real ones who can and do influence Putin.
While you are corect about the property of his cronies, to seize private assets we would need to have prima facie evidence of criminal activity. Do we have it? I doubt it.
And I'm not keen on making exceptions even for the Russian mafia. Imagine how McDonnell could use such a precedent in his crusade for Chavez style crony capitalism Socialism
It doesn't need seizing as such - not without clear evidence of it being the proceeds of crime. Sanctions to freeze assets would be a healthy start, and perfectly in line with normal practices.
Before picking a fight with Russia, or even joining the fight Russia has picked, should we not look round to see who is in our corner? Can we rely on a United States whose own president is tainted by Russian links, or an EU we have turned away from?
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
I was talking internationally. I can't think of any President in living memory who had more respect throughout the world or in Trump's case any less
I think you're confusing 'the world' with 'the BBC' there. Certainly, a lot of people wanted to like and respect Obama, and did so initially, but he turned out to be a lot of hot air in the end. The mess in Syria is in no small part down to his refusal to back up his words on the use of chemical weapons with actions.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
I don't believe Putin's plan is to be the subservient partner in any EU/Russian alliance. If, god forbid, it happens the balance of power will shift back to Moscow. Prior to that Russian tanks will have 'liberated' Brussels.
And Putin will continue to murder Russian dissidents in the UK who displease him.
I expect this sort of thing is very popular in Russia, and fits in with his strongman image.
The purest form of justice would be for one his agents to have an accident whilst on holiday in the UK, but that wouldn't be very British.
The reaction of BoJo et al is hypocritical - the pot calling the kettle black. All intelligence agencies seek to have their countries' perceived opponents bumped off - some are more effective than others, e.g. Mossad. The British government does it - for example, the death of the lawyer Pat Finucane was no accident. The UK government hardly holds the moral high ground given the royal welcome being given today to one of the world's most malevolent gangsters, Mohammed bin Salman.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
What an ill informed post. I think Tories should expect better from their aspiring elected officials
So apparently left wing EU philes definition of Europe includes Hungary and maybe Albania and Serbia and even Turkey too but not Russia? If the EU really wants to include all of Europe within its boundaries surely it has to ultimately include Russia too?
I hesitate to call for it and I'm sure there is a good potential retaliation, international law and morality based argument against it... but in conflicts between nations at this level if a foreign power has assassinated someone on our soil it is tempting to call for payment back in kind.
I feel we lack real options to retaliate in any other meaningful way.
Yes there is, kick all the Russians out of London. Make them do their laundry somewhere else.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
I was talking internationally. I can't think of any President in living memory who had more respect throughout the world or in Trump's case any less
I think you're confusing 'the world' with 'the BBC' there. Certainly, a lot of people wanted to like and respect Obama, and did so initially, but he turned out to be a lot of hot air in the end. The mess in Syria is in no small part down to his refusal to back up his words on the use of chemical weapons with actions.
Barack Obama was certainly charming and popular. But he didn't seem to like us very much.
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
Brexiters don’t care who and what they tarnish. They are happy to criticise Queen and country if needs be.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
I don't believe Putin's plan is to be the subservient partner in any EU/Russian alliance. If, god forbid, it happens the balance of power will shift back to Moscow. Prior to that Russian tanks will have 'liberated' Brussels.
Better get that EU army off the ground pretty soon then!
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
I was talking internationally. I can't think of any President in living memory who had more respect throughout the world or in Trump's case any less
I think you're confusing 'the world' with 'the BBC' there. Certainly, a lot of people wanted to like and respect Obama, and did so initially, but he turned out to be a lot of hot air in the end. The mess in Syria is in no small part down to his refusal to back up his words on the use of chemical weapons with actions.
You're broadly right on domestic ratings though Obama did hit 69 - generally he avoided both extremes, and I'd personally argue that this was partly because he avoided blundering into any more wars like Syria, which are usually initially popular before they go horribly wrong.
But I think that Roger is right internationally. People tend to be conflicted about American Presidents, half admiring and half resentful, but Obama managed to be generally liked without many hangups.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
What an ill informed post. I think Tories should expect better from their aspiring elected officials
So apparently leftwingers definition of Europe includes Hungary and maybe Albania and Serbia and even Turkey too but not Russia? If the EU really wants to include all of Europe within its boundaries surely it has to ultimately include Russia too?
Considering it would have to be more democratic and free to do so I can't see that as anything but a good thing. Although I'm not sure that would be as good for Putin?
UKIP is dead. Long live ConKIP. Labour have the Momentum party within a party, where Corbyn has captured the leadership of both. ConKIP's leader isn't yet leader of the Tory party, but he is the favourite for the job once ZombieMay finally gets decapitated.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
I don't believe Putin's plan is to be the subservient partner in any EU/Russian alliance. If, god forbid, it happens the balance of power will shift back to Moscow. Prior to that Russian tanks will have 'liberated' Brussels.
UKIP is dead. Long live ConKIP. Labour have the Momentum party within a party, where Corbyn has captured the leadership of both. ConKIP's leader isn't yet leader of the Tory party, but he is the favourite for the job once ZombieMay finally gets decapitated.
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
Brexiters don’t care who and what they tarnish. They are happy to criticise Queen and country if needs be.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Yep. FDR won 4 terms. Doubt even Kennedy would have sustained his popularity that long.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
I don't believe Putin's plan is to be the subservient partner in any EU/Russian alliance. If, god forbid, it happens the balance of power will shift back to Moscow. Prior to that Russian tanks will have 'liberated' Brussels.
They're all out today......
Brexiters is an alliance of the decrepit, the duped
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
Brexiters don’t care who and what they tarnish. They are happy to criticise Queen and country if needs be.
No wonder Putin is a fan.
Who are you calling a Brexiter?
FYI I'm a Remain Democrat.
Bollocks. Your everyone’s favourite Maybot. I hope the Tories pay over time for your night time shifts.
At least next week we'll have some proper betting to get involved with instead of this political-rated nonsense.
I could certainly envisage a mutually-agreed extension to the A50 deadline of a few weeks if loose ends need to be resolved and the full ratification process needs to happen. However, that appears to be catered for within the complex rules behind the bet.
It seems beyond credibility that Theresa May, of all people, would turn round and stop the whole Brexit process in its tracks (she did last year for her own vanity project admittedly). I can only imagine the reaction of some of her acolytes on here if she were to do so while her life expectancy as Conservative Party leader could be measured in hours.
Barring some other political convulsion - 30 Conservative MPs split off, join the LDs who then join with Labour to bring the whole thing to a halt in the Commons - which also seems to stretch credibility well beyond its limit, we will leave the political institutions of the EU on or about 29/3/19.
As for the transition period where we remain de facto members, place your bets on any time between 18 months and 10 years and that's the market to be thinking about.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
I don't believe Putin's plan is to be the subservient partner in any EU/Russian alliance. If, god forbid, it happens the balance of power will shift back to Moscow. Prior to that Russian tanks will have 'liberated' Brussels.
They're all out today......
Brexiters is an alliance of the decrepit, the duped
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
Brexiters don’t care who and what they tarnish. They are happy to criticise Queen and country if needs be.
No wonder Putin is a fan.
Who are you calling a Brexiter?
FYI I'm a Remain Democrat.
Bollocks. Your everyone’s favourite Maybot. I hope the Tories pay over time for your night time shifts.
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
Brexiters don’t care who and what they tarnish. They are happy to criticise Queen and country if needs be.
No wonder Putin is a fan.
You do see the dichotomy of making that statement in support of one of the strongest Brexiteers on here in answer to a statement in which he was defending a prominent Remain supporter?
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
Brexiters don’t care who and what they tarnish. They are happy to criticise Queen and country if needs be.
No wonder Putin is a fan.
Well I can only speak for myself and I disagree with you.
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
Brexiters don’t care who and what they tarnish. They are happy to criticise Queen and country if needs be.
@CarlottaVance - your Theresa May lightsabre picture still makes me smile. I’m obviously easy to please
It’s amusing how some posters can’t understand how somebody else can vote Remain but accept the decision of the referendum, and be able to assess Brussels’ position with critical thinking rather than mindless reverence.
I can’t see how it will cost 83,000 jobs but it will cost influence and diminishes the City.
Xavier Rolet came up with that figure.
It is based on all jobs going plus all related support/back office/compliance/legal jobs.
The ousted French head of the LSE......
Please don't do this. Rolet built the LSE into an industry titan from when he took over. He did a great job and while I agree his figure is pessimistic, it has nothing to do with his being French or being ousted from the top job at LSE (especially since the number will predate the difficulty he ran into).
Brexiters don’t care who and what they tarnish. They are happy to criticise Queen and country if needs be.
Especially as Brussels is already "its biggest centre of operations".
No trace of confirmation bias there. No sirree.
But 83,000 jobs lost? What are we talking about here - closing down the NHS?
As we were told on 24/06/16:
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
“You’re looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.” '
I'd be interested to know how many London banking jobs there are now compared to before the Referendum.
Of course there have been thousands of banking jobs lost before and since then but they were prole jobs in prole towns and caused by branch closures and therefore deemed unimportant.
Leavers have done far more to enable Vladimir Putin's international objectives than anything he himself has done in the last couple of years. Complaining now about an aggressive militaristic power that disregards international norms is self-defeating.
Given most Russians live in European Russia perhaps the EU should invite Russia to take Britain's place after Brexit? After all, most of the old Eastern Block is now part of the EU and has just swapped directions from Moscow for directions from Brussels
I don't believe Putin's plan is to be the subservient partner in any EU/Russian alliance. If, god forbid, it happens the balance of power will shift back to Moscow. Prior to that Russian tanks will have 'liberated' Brussels.
Better get that EU army off the ground pretty soon then!
Waste of time, anyway Europe have the US military to come to its rescue...oh wait!
I could certainly envisage a mutually-agreed extension to the A50 deadline of a few weeks if loose ends need to be resolved and the full ratification process needs to happen. However, that appears to be catered for within the complex rules behind the bet.
If I'm reading this right then even a day's extension would mean Betfair would pay people who bet on "no". If you "settle on the extended date" and the extended date is April 1st, that means they didn't leave by March 29th.
BTW is it just me or do lengthy explanations like this mostly seem to end up making the thing more ambiguous than if they'd just let the question stand on its own?
It shows much the tories have utterly capitulated to dogma when Liam Fox is +57.3 and Spreadsheet Phil is -39.6 when we're experiencing decent economic performance despite Brexit.
@THescreamingeagles Any chance of Labour being punished at the polls on May 3rd for their trees debacle. Best placed challengers are Lib Dems in the SW of the city, Green around the centre/Nether-edge and maybe the Tories up towards Penistone or just the normal Labour walkover ?
Is £150,000 (excluding salaries) significant? Some academics have gone to a conference. It didn't cost much and the direct link to the DoH is tendentious.
@THescreamingeagles Any chance of Labour being punished at the polls on May 3rd for their trees debacle. Best placed challengers are Lib Dems in the SW of the city, Green around the centre/Nether-edge and maybe the Tories up towards Penistone or just the normal Labour walkover ?
That’s what I said on Monday.
There’s two types of really annoyed voters now
1) Those who object to the tree cutting
2) Those who object to the heavy handedness of the council and rozzers.
UKIP is dead. Long live ConKIP. Labour have the Momentum party within a party, where Corbyn has captured the leadership of both. ConKIP's leader isn't yet leader of the Tory party, but he is the favourite for the job once ZombieMay finally gets decapitated.
One Nation is coming though...
I'd be happy to see that but it feels further away than ever. Labour have made a decisive step away from the centre but having a fringe group take over the leadership and increasingly tightening its grip on the rest of the party. The Tories aren't yet run by ConKIP but May only remains leader because she drives their political agenda. The LibDems immolated themselves by becoming the Tories' fag (in the public school sense) and seem unable to refloat themselves as anything relevant.
@THescreamingeagles Any chance of Labour being punished at the polls on May 3rd for their trees debacle. Best placed challengers are Lib Dems in the SW of the city, Green around the centre/Nether-edge and maybe the Tories up towards Penistone or just the normal Labour walkover ?
That’s what I said on Monday.
There’s two types of really annoyed voters now
1) Those who object to the tree cutting
2) Those who object to the heavy handedness of the council and rozzers.
Yes I remember expressing sceptisicm - Hopefully people will vote for the candidate best placed to beat Labour in their ward *cough*
Is £150,000 (excluding salaries) significant? Some academics have gone to a conference. It didn't cost much and the direct link to the DoH is tendentious.
If £150k isn't significant then I don't want to hear about funding problems anymore.
Mr. Pulpstar/Mr. Eagles, d'you think the yellows might take Sheffield, then? [I assume that's whereof you speak].
Mr. Sandpit, from a political perspective it's been very good for her. She's handled herself well, as you said, and being tough on charities that stand accused of sexual misconduct goes down well with pretty much everyone.
Is £150,000 (excluding salaries) significant? Some academics have gone to a conference. It didn't cost much and the direct link to the DoH is tendentious.
If £150k isn't significant then I don't want to hear about funding problems anymore.
Save the thousands, and the millions look after themselves.
It shows much the tories have utterly capitulated to dogma when Liam Fox is +57.3 and Spreadsheet Phil is -39.6 when we're experiencing decent economic performance despite Brexit.
My problem with Penny Mordaunt is her surname. It's very challenging to approach - far trickier than any other name in the list. If it was 'Morduant' - as my brain wants to make it - it'd be an unusual name but fairly obvious how to pronounce. But as it stands I can see no way to use that 'u'? Is it essentially redundant ('Mordant')? Or does it make the 'a' long? If so, that'squite a challenging name - in general, in British surnames, the first syllable is generally the long one. This isof course no comment either way on her politcalor personal qualities.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
Pretty well meaningless. Any poll which doesn't have Washington and Lincoln at the top has no sense of historical perspective. I'd put FDR third, and struggle to come up with a clear fourth.
Is £150,000 (excluding salaries) significant? Some academics have gone to a conference. It didn't cost much and the direct link to the DoH is tendentious.
Err, yes. No problem with funding academics, but when their winter conferences are always in the Southern Hemisphere or in a ski resort it’s a fair point to note that taxpayers are on the hook for this. £250k is seven or eight nurses, or two or three doctors.
Especially as Brussels is already "its biggest centre of operations".
No trace of confirmation bias there. No sirree.
But 83,000 jobs lost? What are we talking about here - closing down the NHS?
As we were told on 24/06/16:
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
“You’re looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.” '
I'd be interested to know how many London banking jobs there are now compared to before the Referendum.
Of course there have been thousands of banking jobs lost before and since then but they were prole jobs in prole towns and caused by branch closures and therefore deemed unimportant.
I checked at the start of the year (though the figures were up to about August 2017 IIRC) and there are more financial services jobs than in June 2016.
They've said there would be job cuts every week for the last 80 weeks.
Sure it might now happen - but it hasn't happened yet.
@CarlottaVance - your Theresa May lightsabre picture still makes me smile. I’m obviously easy to please
It’s amusing how some posters can’t understand how somebody else can vote Remain but accept the decision of the referendum, and be able to assess Brussels’ position with critical thinking rather than mindless reverence.
Mr. Pulpstar/Mr. Eagles, d'you think the yellows might take Sheffield, then? [I assume that's whereof you speak].
Mr. Sandpit, from a political perspective it's been very good for her. She's handled herself well, as you said, and being tough on charities that stand accused of sexual misconduct goes down well with pretty much everyone.
No. Plus it isn’t an all out election just one third of seats.
Hunt is 6th in the last Tory next leader poll behind Raab, Rudd, Boris, Gove (who tops this poll) and Mogg who is not in the Cabinet was first
Yes but who cares what the members think? For betting purposes, who will MPs vote into the final rounds? And the lesson of John Major and Theresa May is that winning the leadership is about who you are not, more than who you are. I'd look at the grey men (of both sexes).
Hunt is 6th in the last Tory next leader poll behind Raab, Rudd, Boris, Gove (who tops this poll) and Mogg who is not in the Cabinet was first
Yes but who cares what the members think? For betting purposes, who will MPs vote into the final rounds? And the lesson of John Major and Theresa May is that winning the leadership is about who you are not, more than who you are. I'd look at the grey men (of both sexes).
Boris v Rudd is still the most likely final 2 at the moment in my view, though if Mogg or Gove run themselves rather than backing Boris replace him one of those two
I cannot see an extension of the Article 50 process. It is too complex and too prone to going off the rails at the last moment if someone decides to be difficult. No sensible politician or government would count on getting it and would seek to put any transitional arrangements into the transitional agreement instead.
There is a risk, however, that those in the room at the end might "stop the clock" and pretend it is still the 29th whilst some final details are hammered out. Such a pretence may work for the purposes of the UK and the EU but not for the purposes of this bet.
I am also a bit nervous about wording like "the Treaties cease to apply to the UK." If we have a transitional period where we agree that the treaties do apply, that the repeal of the ECA 1972 is suspended to allow new EU regulations to apply but we no longer have MEPs and no right to attend the Council of Ministers (even if we are invited in some observer capacity) have we left or not?
For these reasons and others I think this is a messy bet with considerable uncertainty attached to it. I am not playing.
Is £150,000 (excluding salaries) significant? Some academics have gone to a conference. It didn't cost much and the direct link to the DoH is tendentious.
Err, yes. No problem with funding academics, but when their winter conferences are always in the Southern Hemisphere or in a ski resort it’s a fair point to note that taxpayers are on the hook for this. £250k is seven or eight nurses, or two or three doctors.
No surprise to me at all that our participation costs £4k a person.
The reality is plenty of private sector employers do the same.
The question is not, how much it is, but what do we gain from it?
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
Pretty well meaningless. Any poll which doesn't have Washington and Lincoln at the top has no sense of historical perspective. I'd put FDR third, and struggle to come up with a clear fourth.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
I was talking internationally. I can't think of any President in living memory who had more respect throughout the world or in Trump's case any less
I think you're confusing 'the world' with 'the BBC' there. Certainly, a lot of people wanted to like and respect Obama, and did so initially, but he turned out to be a lot of hot air in the end. The mess in Syria is in no small part down to his refusal to back up his words on the use of chemical weapons with actions.
You're broadly right on domestic ratings though Obama did hit 69 - generally he avoided both extremes, and I'd personally argue that this was partly because he avoided blundering into any more wars like Syria, which are usually initially popular before they go horribly wrong.
But I think that Roger is right internationally. People tend to be conflicted about American Presidents, half admiring and half resentful, but Obama managed to be generally liked without many hangups.
i'd agree with that, but with the rider that while he ended up liked, he wasn't particularly respected.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
Pretty well meaningless. Any poll which doesn't have Washington and Lincoln at the top has no sense of historical perspective. I'd put FDR third, and struggle to come up with a clear fourth.
Again you are talking Presidents from centuries ago, not really relevant when we were basically just looking at post-war presidents
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
Lincoln coming second is justifiable, if it's to someone like Washington or Franklin Roosevelt. Reagan, while a better-than-average president, however, is a different matter.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Yep. FDR won 4 terms. Doubt even Kennedy would have sustained his popularity that long.
Kennedy remains popular because he was good looking and had the fortune to get shot before it went wrong in Vietnam and with Civil Rights. Ask people what he did and you might get some vague notion of national renewal or avoiding nuclear war, which while not insignificant, is a pretty low bar.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
Lincoln coming second is justifiable, if it's to someone like Washington or Franklin Roosevelt. Reagan, while a better-than-average president, however, is a different matter.
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
Lincoln coming second is justifiable, if it's to someone like Washington or Franklin Roosevelt. Reagan, while a better-than-average president, however, is a different matter.
Brexiters is an alliance of the decrepit, the duped
Big words, big man. Go into a pub in Hull and Stoke and start spouting that. See how long before the decrepit take exception and start, er, re-educating you on your assumptions....
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Yep. FDR won 4 terms. Doubt even Kennedy would have sustained his popularity that long.
Kennedy remains popular because he was good looking and had the fortune to get shot before it went wrong in Vietnam and with Civil Rights. Ask people what he did and you might get some vague notion of national renewal or avoiding nuclear war, which while not insignificant, is a pretty low bar.
JFK's speeches are better known than his record in office.
The costs quoted seem rather high too. I can fly to Capetown a lot cheaper than £2500 and find a hotel for less than £350 per night quite easily.
My own study leave budget, including course fees is £800 per year, so often self fund conferences.
Guido is saying that every academic institution funded by the DoH is sending representatives to the conference. He’s probably also assuming that they’ll be taking the 11 hour flight in the comfy seats and that the hotels in town will set their rates for the conference.
Sunlight is always a good thing though, maybe people might ask the institutions concerned for the actual costs of what appears to be little more than a jolly.
Hard working doctors might not appreciate the extent to which those on the civil service, academia and NGOs take the piss with these conferences.
Brexiters is an alliance of the decrepit, the duped
Big words, big man. Go into a pub in Hull and Stoke and start spouting that. See how long before the decrepit take exception and start, er, re-educating you on your assumptions....
It does sound as if you're saying that many leavers are violent thugs who cannot take criticism ...
The pendulum is swinging in much greater arcs that it's ever done before. The most charming and popular US President has been replaced by a redneck vulgarian moron.
Leaving aside the somewhat inaccurate description of Trump, it's not true to say that Obama was the most popular US president. Going by the gallup series, that accolade goes to George W Bush, who hit a 90% approval rating immediately post-9/11 (he also scored one of the lowest approval ratings in history, bottoming out at 25% - only Nixon and Truman have scored worse). By contrast, Obama never received a better than his inaugural rating of 67%. He did do well in avoiding deep negatives, never dropping below 40% - but Kennedy and Eisenhower did better.
According to a 2011 Gallup Obama was the 4th most popular post-war President with Reagan first then Clinton then Kennedy
I don't trust those sort of polls. They always skew to the present and recent past, as evidenced there. Clinton and Kennedy greater than Washington or FDR?! Slight lack of historical perspective there, I think.
Well that is always going to be the case in that polling favours more recent leaders a bit more than those from centuries past but as I only looked at post-war presidents the point still stands (though Lincoln came second)
Pretty well meaningless. Any poll which doesn't have Washington and Lincoln at the top has no sense of historical perspective. I'd put FDR third, and struggle to come up with a clear fourth.
Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson' legacy was as divided as that of LBJ. Certainly one of the most consequential presidents, but a clear fourth best ? If you're prepared to ignore the expansion of slavery, perhaps.
I hesitate to call for it and I'm sure there is a good potential retaliation, international law and morality based argument against it... but in conflicts between nations at this level if a foreign power has assassinated someone on our soil it is tempting to call for payment back in kind.
I feel we lack real options to retaliate in any other meaningful way.
Yes there is, kick all the Russians out of London. Make them do their laundry somewhere else.
Anticipating that possibility, the vast majority of rich and shady Russians in London have made sure to obtain British or other EU citizenship. Countries like Malta and Cyprus sell EU passports.
This strike - and its effects on students, who are - at the moment paying for nothing - seem to have fallen off the radar. They shouldn’t. My son, in his second year, has had very little teaching since it started. So far all his coursework and exam results have shown him heading for a II(I). End of year exams are not that far off. To say that he is mightily pissed with what is happening would not be an exaggeration. As am I on his behalf.
What is the Education Minister doing about this? Big fees, usurious interest rates, now no teaching..... and the Tories wonder why the young and, increasingly, their parents won’t vote for them.
Especially as Brussels is already "its biggest centre of operations".
No trace of confirmation bias there. No sirree.
But 83,000 jobs lost? What are we talking about here - closing down the NHS?
As we were told on 24/06/16:
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
“You’re looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.” '
I'd be interested to know how many London banking jobs there are now compared to before the Referendum.
Of course there have been thousands of banking jobs lost before and since then but they were prole jobs in prole towns and caused by branch closures and therefore deemed unimportant.
I checked at the start of the year (though the figures were up to about August 2017 IIRC) and there are more financial services jobs than in June 2016.
They've said there would be job cuts every week for the last 80 weeks.
Sure it might now happen - but it hasn't happened yet.
I expect there will be job cuts in some areas (or perhaps jobs not replaced as people leave) but job increases in others.
I would say that AI and globalisation are bigger threats to London banking than Brexit.
Hunt is 6th in the last Tory next leader poll behind Raab, Rudd, Boris, Gove (who tops this poll) and Mogg who is not in the Cabinet was first
Yes but who cares what the members think? For betting purposes, who will MPs vote into the final rounds? And the lesson of John Major and Theresa May is that winning the leadership is about who you are not, more than who you are. I'd look at the grey men (of both sexes).
Boris v Rudd is still the most likely final 2 at the moment in my view, though if Mogg or Gove run themselves rather than backing Boris replace him one of those two
Mordaunt coming up on the rails for the new generation though. Some of the old guard might think her a little flippant/crass in the past, but I suspect most won't hold that against her. Certainly makes her appear more human than Theresa May to many.
Can't see Rudd getting close to being offered to the members.
Brexiters is an alliance of the decrepit, the duped
Big words, big man. Go into a pub in Hull and Stoke and start spouting that. See how long before the decrepit take exception and start, er, re-educating you on your assumptions....
It does sound as if you're saying that many leavers are violent thugs who cannot take criticism ...
I'm saying that many Remainers think they can make offensive, belittling comments on the net that they wouldn't have the balls to stand up and say in the real world.
Brexiters is an alliance of the decrepit, the duped
Big words, big man. Go into a pub in Hull and Stoke and start spouting that. See how long before the decrepit take exception and start, er, re-educating you on your assumptions....
It does sound as if you're saying that many leavers are violent thugs who cannot take criticism ...
The prospect of an overflowing colostomy bag or displaced wig is generally an impediment to Leaver fisticuffs.
Comments
http://news.gallup.com/poll/146183/Americans-Say-Reagan-Greatest-President.aspx
They tried to move 2-3 years ago (something to do with regulatory supervision meaning all euro clearing needed to be in the Eurozone. The ECJ blocked it)
However the 83,000 number is garbage. It’s effectively “if all euro trading (not just clearing) and all ancillary jobs left London that would be 83,000 jobs.”
At the moment, I think Renault might be interesting to look at, possibly also Sauber (if the numbers are low enough).
https://www.ft.com/content/8b2fae86-d4e8-11e7-a303-9060cb1e5f44
In a rare agreement on Brexit with Mr Meeks, I’d say the 29th March exit date is a much higher probability than the Betfair market suggests.
I’ll put that down as a lesser test of success than handing it £350m a week.
All countries have done bad things. But some are demonstrably worse than others.
Oh, gosh. Now I've done it myself. Excuse me, I need to go explain to myself what I've done wrong.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/frankensteins-monster-he-was-stitched-up-say-millennials-ddmvcrpxg
"Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein is not the monster. Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster."
No wonder Putin is a fan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
But I think that Roger is right internationally. People tend to be conflicted about American Presidents, half admiring and half resentful, but Obama managed to be generally liked without many hangups.
FYI I'm a Remain Democrat.
I hope the Tories pay over time for your night time shifts.
At least next week we'll have some proper betting to get involved with instead of this political-rated nonsense.
I could certainly envisage a mutually-agreed extension to the A50 deadline of a few weeks if loose ends need to be resolved and the full ratification process needs to happen. However, that appears to be catered for within the complex rules behind the bet.
It seems beyond credibility that Theresa May, of all people, would turn round and stop the whole Brexit process in its tracks (she did last year for her own vanity project admittedly). I can only imagine the reaction of some of her acolytes on here if she were to do so while her life expectancy as Conservative Party leader could be measured in hours.
Barring some other political convulsion - 30 Conservative MPs split off, join the LDs who then join with Labour to bring the whole thing to a halt in the Commons - which also seems to stretch credibility well beyond its limit, we will leave the political institutions of the EU on or about 29/3/19.
As for the transition period where we remain de facto members, place your bets on any time between 18 months and 10 years and that's the market to be thinking about.
https://order-order.com/2018/03/07/250000-jolly-cape-town-striking-university-dons/
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/971310885963694080
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/971308629335920641
It’s amusing how some posters can’t understand how somebody else can vote Remain but accept the decision of the referendum, and be able to assess Brussels’ position with critical thinking rather than mindless reverence.
Anyway, one less sleep until we leave the EU...
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
“You’re looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.” '
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/248265/london-banking-redundancies-brexit/
I'd be interested to know how many London banking jobs there are now compared to before the Referendum.
Of course there have been thousands of banking jobs lost before and since then but they were prole jobs in prole towns and caused by branch closures and therefore deemed unimportant.
He’s nailed on to be Mrs May’s successor.
(That was my book talking there)
Well, it's a nice thought.
Best placed challengers are Lib Dems in the SW of the city, Green around the centre/Nether-edge and maybe the Tories up towards Penistone or just the normal Labour walkover ?
There’s two types of really annoyed voters now
1) Those who object to the tree cutting
2) Those who object to the heavy handedness of the council and rozzers.
Penny Mourdaunt doing well as she’s been in the news with the fallout from the Oxfam scandal, and has handled herself very well indeed.
Michael Gove is doing so well that even Nick Palmer thinks he’s doing a good job
Mr. Sandpit, from a political perspective it's been very good for her. She's handled herself well, as you said, and being tough on charities that stand accused of sexual misconduct goes down well with pretty much everyone.
This isof course no comment either way on her politcalor personal qualities.
I'd put FDR third, and struggle to come up with a clear fourth.
They've said there would be job cuts every week for the last 80 weeks.
Sure it might now happen - but it hasn't happened yet.
Paging Mr Dancer....
There is a risk, however, that those in the room at the end might "stop the clock" and pretend it is still the 29th whilst some final details are hammered out. Such a pretence may work for the purposes of the UK and the EU but not for the purposes of this bet.
I am also a bit nervous about wording like "the Treaties cease to apply to the UK." If we have a transitional period where we agree that the treaties do apply, that the repeal of the ECA 1972 is suspended to allow new EU regulations to apply but we no longer have MEPs and no right to attend the Council of Ministers (even if we are invited in some observer capacity) have we left or not?
For these reasons and others I think this is a messy bet with considerable uncertainty attached to it. I am not playing.
The reality is plenty of private sector employers do the same.
The question is not, how much it is, but what do we gain from it?
We can't arbitrarily argue over the cash.
The costs quoted seem rather high too. I can fly to Capetown a lot cheaper than £2500 and find a hotel for less than £350 per night quite easily.
My own study leave budget, including course fees is £800 per year, so often self fund conferences.
Mr. Eagles, disappointing. One does not approve of bureaucratic arboricide.
https://www.indeed.co.uk/Banking-jobs-in-London
and 21,429 in finance (there may be some cross-over between the two):
https://www.indeed.co.uk/jobs?q=finance&l=London
In fact there seems to be lots of job vacancies everywhere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/971318244404551680
Sunlight is always a good thing though, maybe people might ask the institutions concerned for the actual costs of what appears to be little more than a jolly.
Hard working doctors might not appreciate the extent to which those on the civil service, academia and NGOs take the piss with these conferences.
Certainly one of the most consequential presidents, but a clear fourth best ? If you're prepared to ignore the expansion of slavery, perhaps.
What is the Education Minister doing about this? Big fees, usurious interest rates, now no teaching..... and the Tories wonder why the young and, increasingly, their parents won’t vote for them.
I would say that AI and globalisation are bigger threats to London banking than Brexit.
Can't see Rudd getting close to being offered to the members.
*According to me, as a member of the Labour Party.