I’m not saying that a yacht is the only reason all these deals happen, but as a marketing tool and facilitator of trade there’s never been anything better.
As Mr Ace notes, the old yacht was long overdue for decommissioning when she finally finished her touring of the seas. If we are going to show that Britain is a global trading nation we could do a lot worse than hurry up Britannia’s replacement.
This has been a fascinating excursion into the world of yachts. Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there. We're well into Millennium Dome territory here.
Never mind these dull contests for 2nd and 5th, how about who will come last? I'm not convinced that the only independent should be such a strong favourite, since (a) he's the only one and (b) his backstory - standing here in Feb 1974 - will give him some profile.
In the absence of perennial strugglers One Love I reckon the Christian People's Alliance might be a spot of value at 16/1. They never seem to poll as well as you might think from their name - perhaps committed Christians aren't the sort to "waste" their vote.
As ever, DYOR, though I fear for your sanity if you do.
Charles Carey (IND) 4/5 Young People's Party 4/1 Democrats and Veterans 5/1 Libertarian Party 6/1 Radical Party 8/1 Monster Raving Loony Party 12/1 Christian Peoples Alliance 16/1 Women's Equality Party 33/1 For Britain 66/1 UKIP 100/1
I've certainly never been on a royal yacht. Perhaps that's what my previous employers were missing!
But the case for the royal yacht rests upon the idea that trade deals are signed which would not otherwise have been signed unless there was a yacht and a big party. If said deals would have been signed anyway - then the yacht did not contribute.
So yes - they are arguing that all that is missing for big new deals is a yacht.
Your "no drop off in business" argument is nonsense because it is consistent with any of: the yacht made no difference, the yacht was a drag on performance and we leapt ahead once it had gone, the yacht was brilliant and exports would have trebled if we had kept it. And here is some specific and credible evidence of the yacht getting billions of pounds of business in one trip: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/712166/Bringing-Royal-yacht-Britannia-back-could-secure-billions-of-pounds-trade-deals .
trade deals signed on a yacht =/= trade deals that would not have happened without a yacht being present. "helped generate" is one of those wonderful civil service/economist phrases where you have no idea what the attribution is. I "helped generate" the UK's GDP figure this year.
The stuff about Boris Air was presumably leaked by Theresa's people. The idea will be to contrast Boris's vanity and taste for extravagant means of transport with Theresa, who's more of a Citroën 2CV type of lady.
I’m not saying that a yacht is the only reason all these deals happen, but as a marketing tool and facilitator of trade there’s never been anything better.
As Mr Ace notes, the old yacht was long overdue for decommissioning when she finally finished her touring of the seas. If we are going to show that Britain is a global trading nation we could do a lot worse than hurry up Britannia’s replacement.
This has been a fascinating excursion into the world of yachts. Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there. We're well into Millennium Dome territory here.
Interesting rumblings on the EU. In some ways if forced to choose I’d rather stay in the SM than the CU. Even if we had to retain ‘free movement’, the end of European citizenship would mean migrants would interact with our welfare system differently (ie less!).
Perhaps it’s now sellable to the public.
It is not sellable to the public I am afraid.
Brexit without new immigration controls and leaving free movement in place for most Leave voters, especially working class Leave voters, would be no Brexit at all. Staying in the Customs Union but not being able to do our own trade deals would be just about sellable to all but the most ideological Brexiteers but staying in the Single Market with free movement continuing would not.
The only possible exception to that is if somehow we could stay in the Single Market but with new controls on free movement for the UK to reflect the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 the EU allowed us to have but Blair refused to take
The yearning some Leavers here have for Liam Fox to conduct new trade deals amazes me.
While I think the UK can set up more advantageous trade deals that will require ability and time and trying to set them up while having a shortage of both will lead to worse terms of trade than present.
That some Leavers think that not letting Liam Fox loose on the world is such a terrible sovereignty restriction that they're willing to concede control of UK immigration to the EU is beyond bizarre.
Agreed it is the latter that is key for most Leave voters
I’m not saying that a yacht is the only reason all these deals happen, but as a marketing tool and facilitator of trade there’s never been anything better.
As Mr Ace notes, the old yacht was long overdue for decommissioning when she finally finished her touring of the seas. If we are going to show that Britain is a global trading nation we could do a lot worse than hurry up Britannia’s replacement.
This has been a fascinating excursion into the world of yachts. Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there. We're well into Millennium Dome territory here.
Interesting rumblings on the EU. In some ways if forced to choose I’d rather stay in the SM than the CU. Even if we had to retain ‘free movement’, the end of European citizenship would mean migrants would interact with our welfare system differently (ie less!).
Perhaps it’s now sellable to the public.
It is not sellable to the public I am afraid.
Brexit without new immigration controls and leaving free movement in place for most Leave voters, especially working class Leave voters, would be no Brexit at all. Staying in the Customs Union but not being able to do our own trade deals would be just about sellable to all but the most ideological Brexiteers but staying in the Single Market with free movement continuing would not.
The only possible exception to that is if somehow we could stay in the Single Market but with new controls on free movement for the UK to reflect the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 the EU allowed us to have for 7 years but Blair refused to take
What would be ideal for the UK is a customs alignment (light) in goods, and single market (light) in goods, both with UK voting rights on those rules, with financial services access, services entirely UK regulated, and capped free-ish movement of workers by sector, annually reviewed in Parliament, with continent wide security/defence cooperation, as agreed between EU/UK. Our trade deals would be 50% influenced by ties to Europe and 50% what we want to do on the domestic/global stage, with the balance perhaps changing over time.
In other words, half-out/half-in, and no longer part of the EU political project. But, that looser sort of associate membership probably isn’t on offer, so there will need to be a compromise.
EU flash PMIs looking extremely wobbly. Germany especially so. It does feel as though the party is over on the continent which doesn't bode well for our export growth.
Never mind these dull contests for 2nd and 5th, how about who will come last? I'm not convinced that the only independent should be such a strong favourite, since (a) he's the only one and (b) his backstory - standing here in Feb 1974 - will give him some profile.
In the absence of perennial strugglers One Love I reckon the Christian People's Alliance might be a spot of value at 16/1. They never seem to poll as well as you might think from their name - perhaps committed Christians aren't the sort to "waste" their vote.
As ever, DYOR, though I fear for your sanity if you do.
Charles Carey (IND) 4/5 Young People's Party 4/1 Democrats and Veterans 5/1 Libertarian Party 6/1 Radical Party 8/1 Monster Raving Loony Party 12/1 Christian Peoples Alliance 16/1 Women's Equality Party 33/1 For Britain 66/1 UKIP 100/1
Committed Christians probably don't vote much differently from the population in general.
Never mind these dull contests for 2nd and 5th, how about who will come last? I'm not convinced that the only independent should be such a strong favourite, since (a) he's the only one and (b) his backstory - standing here in Feb 1974 - will give him some profile.
In the absence of perennial strugglers One Love I reckon the Christian People's Alliance might be a spot of value at 16/1. They never seem to poll as well as you might think from their name - perhaps committed Christians aren't the sort to "waste" their vote.
As ever, DYOR, though I fear for your sanity if you do.
Charles Carey (IND) 4/5 Young People's Party 4/1 Democrats and Veterans 5/1 Libertarian Party 6/1 Radical Party 8/1 Monster Raving Loony Party 12/1 Christian Peoples Alliance 16/1 Women's Equality Party 33/1 For Britain 66/1 UKIP 100/1
I was thinking of going for the Christian Peoples Party, but I note that their candidate stood here in the 2017 election. I reckon people who vote for the Libertarian Party probably don't know what they are voting for!
Even so, the First Minister might be onto something. Buy-one-get-one-free deals haven’t always served Scotland well. We’re still trying to work out how we ended up with two Murrells for the price of one.
It’s not just low-cost pizza. Sturgeon’s government wants to crack down on advertising for fatty and salty foods and to extend taxes on sugary drinks. At least Margaret Thatcher only took our milk. Sturgeon wants to empty the entire fridge.
Somehow, Saint Nicola of the Sacred Selfie has turned into Supernanny Sturgeon, a finger-wagging, eyebrow-raising, tut-tutting interferer. Where once thousands packed into concert halls to hang on her every word, now they just want her to give it a rest.
We don’t have a First Minister so much as the human equivalent of a self-service checkout: ‘Do you know how much sugar is in that cake? Do you really need that second G&T? Did you not see the half-price offer on peas and carrots?’
Interesting rumblings on the EU. In some ways if forced to choose I’d rather stay in the SM than the CU. Even if we had to retain ‘free movement’, the end of European citizenship would mean migrants would interact with our welfare system differently (ie less!).
Perhaps it’s now sellable to the public.
It is not sellable to the public I am afraid.
Brexit without new immigration controls and leaving free movement in place for most Leave voters, especially working class Leave voters, would be no Brexit at all. Staying in the Customs Union but not being able to do our own trade deals would be just about sellable to all but the most ideological Brexiteers but staying in the Single Market with free movement continuing would not.
The only possible exception to that is if somehow we could stay in the Single Market but with new controls on free movement for the UK to reflect the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 the EU allowed us to have but Blair refused to take
The yearning some Leavers here have for Liam Fox to conduct new trade deals amazes me.
While I think the UK can set up more advantageous trade deals that will require ability and time and trying to set them up while having a shortage of both will lead to worse terms of trade than present.
That some Leavers think that not letting Liam Fox loose on the world is such a terrible sovereignty restriction that they're willing to concede control of UK immigration to the EU is beyond bizarre.
Why the obsession on Liam Fox? The individual matters less than the principle, today it may be Liam Fox but in 5 years time it probably won't be.
I was thinking of going for the Christian Peoples Party, but I note that their candidate stood here in the 2017 election. I reckon people who vote for the Libertarian Party probably don't know what they are voting for!
The only possible exception to that is if somehow we could stay in the Single Market but with new controls on free movement for the UK to reflect the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 the EU allowed us to have for 7 years but Blair refused to take
Good to see that you are watering down your definition of 'ending free movement' - a few days ago you were talking about work permits, now you are talking about 'transitional controls'. Next week you will just fall back on playing 'Land of Hope an Glory' at immigration at Heathrow.
Yep, the Tory sellout on Brexit is well on its way....
The stuff about Boris Air was presumably leaked by Theresa's people. The idea will be to contrast Boris's vanity and taste for extravagant means of transport with Theresa, who's more of a Citroën 2CV type of lady.
I'm not sure because the Sun includes Boris complaining that Voyager (the PM's plane) is never available for him. Would TM want to leak a story critical of her own private jet use?
Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there.
Even if the MoD wanted to spend the money they can't just magically create 270 officers and rates from nowhere. Many of the senior roles will need 10-15 years of experience. It would involve decrewing and disposing of a T23 or a T45. Most of them would have to be pressganged as a draft to HMY Britannia wasn't exactly sought after and generally reserved for those considered too stupid or incompetent for service on a real warship.
It could be crewed as an RFA or, more likely, outsourced to Serco.
I've certainly never been on a royal yacht. Perhaps that's what my previous employers were missing!
But the case for the royal yacht rests upon the idea that trade deals are signed which would not otherwise have been signed unless there was a yacht and a big party. If said deals would have been signed anyway - then the yacht did not contribute.
So yes - they are arguing that all that is missing for big new deals is a yacht.
Your "no drop off in business" argument is nonsense because it is consistent with any of: the yacht made no difference, the yacht was a drag on performance and we leapt ahead once it had gone, the yacht was brilliant and exports would have trebled if we had kept it. And here is some specific and credible evidence of the yacht getting billions of pounds of business in one trip: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/712166/Bringing-Royal-yacht-Britannia-back-could-secure-billions-of-pounds-trade-deals .
trade deals signed on a yacht =/= trade deals that would not have happened without a yacht being present. "helped generate" is one of those wonderful civil service/economist phrases where you have no idea what the attribution is. I "helped generate" the UK's GDP figure this year.
Ok so you have proved that there is no such thing as marketing. Well done.
Interesting rumblings on the EU. In some ways if forced to choose I’d rather stay in the SM than the CU. Even if we had to retain ‘free movement’, the end of European citizenship would mean migrants would interact with our welfare system differently (ie less!).
Perhaps it’s now sellable to the public.
It is not sellable to the public I am afraid.
Brexit without new immigration controls and leaving free movement in place for most Leave voters, especially working class Leave voters, would be no Brexit at all. Staying in the Customs Union but not being able to do our own trade deals would be just about sellable to all but the most ideological Brexiteers but staying in the Single Market with free movement continuing would not.
The only possible exception to that is if somehow we could stay in the Single Market but with new controls on free movement for the UK to reflect the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 the EU allowed us to have but Blair refused to take
The yearning some Leavers here have for Liam Fox to conduct new trade deals amazes me.
While I think the UK can set up more advantageous trade deals that will require ability and time and trying to set them up while having a shortage of both will lead to worse terms of trade than present.
That some Leavers think that not letting Liam Fox loose on the world is such a terrible sovereignty restriction that they're willing to concede control of UK immigration to the EU is beyond bizarre.
Why the obsession on Liam Fox? The individual matters less than the principle, today it may be Liam Fox but in 5 years time it probably won't be.
Because the deals Fox signs will not lapse when he is replaced.
Does anyone have information on the betting prices prior to the 2015 Irish referendum on gay marriage? The reason I ask is that the voteshare for liberalisation, 62%, was 8% lower than it was showing in the last few polls. Was the starting price 5 or was it more like 12 or lower?
Meanwhile the Yes side in the abortion referendum debate is offering an unworkability argument. Unlike some of their other arguments, at least this connects with the real lives of many people.
One thing is that even in GB many women who have abortions have to travel a fair distance to get them, and while for some of course this is a nuisance and a cause of expense they would rather not incur, for others it is OK because having the pregnancy terminated a long way from home is preferred, for emotional rather than privacy reasons. Which is not to say it isn't much more time consuming to have to travel across the Irish Sea and back.
I've no idea who pulpstar is but he knows nothing about the dynamics of by elections.
My stint as guest editor begins Sunday evening, I’ll be quite happy to publish your article Fisking Pulpstar’s article, it will also be an opportunity to share your wisdom with PB.
Mike on hols? So we can expect an international situation / Brexit meltdown / govt crisis to start next week?
I've no idea who pulpstar is but he knows nothing about the dynamics of by elections.
My stint as guest editor begins Sunday evening, I’ll be quite happy to publish your article Fisking Pulpstar’s article, it will also be an opportunity to share your wisdom with PB.
Mike on hols? So we can expect an international situation / Brexit meltdown / govt crisis to start next week?
Mike and myself are both out of the country this weekend so Lord knows what’s going to happen.
Bloody striking French making Mike bring forward his holidays.
I've certainly never been on a royal yacht. Perhaps that's what my previous employers were missing!
But the case for the royal yacht rests upon the idea that trade deals are signed which would not otherwise have been signed unless there was a yacht and a big party. If said deals would have been signed anyway - then the yacht did not contribute.
So yes - they are arguing that all that is missing for big new deals is a yacht.
Your "no drop off in business" argument is nonsense because it is consistent with any of: the yacht made no difference, the yacht was a drag on performance and we leapt ahead once it had gone, the yacht was brilliant and exports would have trebled if we had kept it. And here is some specific and credible evidence of the yacht getting billions of pounds of business in one trip: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/712166/Bringing-Royal-yacht-Britannia-back-could-secure-billions-of-pounds-trade-deals .
trade deals signed on a yacht =/= trade deals that would not have happened without a yacht being present. "helped generate" is one of those wonderful civil service/economist phrases where you have no idea what the attribution is. I "helped generate" the UK's GDP figure this year.
Ok so you have proved that there is no such thing as marketing. Well done.
Nor time pressure. Hey Mr Rich Man, there’s a government minister and a minor Royal coming here next month, wouldn’t it be great if we could have the contract signed while they’re here with all the British and local media? If you’d like to meet the minister and get in the papers then the contract will of course be ready by that date...
I've certainly never been on a royal yacht. Perhaps that's what my previous employers were missing!
But the case for the royal yacht rests upon the idea that trade deals are signed which would not otherwise have been signed unless there was a yacht and a big party. If said deals would have been signed anyway - then the yacht did not contribute.
So yes - they are arguing that all that is missing for big new deals is a yacht.
Your "no drop off in business" argument is nonsense because it is consistent with any of: the yacht made no difference, the yacht was a drag on performance and we leapt ahead once it had gone, the yacht was brilliant and exports would have trebled if we had kept it. And here is some specific and credible evidence of the yacht getting billions of pounds of business in one trip: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/712166/Bringing-Royal-yacht-Britannia-back-could-secure-billions-of-pounds-trade-deals .
trade deals signed on a yacht =/= trade deals that would not have happened without a yacht being present. "helped generate" is one of those wonderful civil service/economist phrases where you have no idea what the attribution is. I "helped generate" the UK's GDP figure this year.
Ok so you have proved that there is no such thing as marketing. Well done.
You do not justify 'marketing' by just looking at the total sales and then saying it was all down to marketing!
Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there.
Even if the MoD wanted to spend the money they can't just magically create 270 officers and rates from nowhere. Many of the senior roles will need 10-15 years of experience. It would involve decrewing and disposing of a T23 or a T45. Most of them would have to be pressganged as a draft to HMY Britannia wasn't exactly sought after and generally reserved for those considered too stupid or incompetent for service on a real warship.
It could be crewed as an RFA or, more likely, outsourced to Serco.
Surely any replacement would require a significantly smaller crew ?
The budget could come from the Trade department - if the cost benefit is as claimed, where's the problem. Commission a study and go from there.
(Done properly, it might also kickstart a new luxury yacht business in the UK.)
Did anyone hear the questioning of Caroline Nokes by the NI select committee ? Embarrassing ignorance from a minister five months in post, on what is a highly pertinent issue.
Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there.
Even if the MoD wanted to spend the money they can't just magically create 270 officers and rates from nowhere. Many of the senior roles will need 10-15 years of experience. It would involve decrewing and disposing of a T23 or a T45. Most of them would have to be pressganged as a draft to HMY Britannia wasn't exactly sought after and generally reserved for those considered too stupid or incompetent for service on a real warship.
It could be crewed as an RFA or, more likely, outsourced to Serco.
Just out of interest - if we did decide to sail the royal yacht to, say, Dubai... what do you reckon we would we have to do to protect it? Send a warship along with it?
If there was a referendum on the Brexit deal (accept/reject) there would be a massive vote to reject on this basis. Funny how Remainers only support another referendum when they can rig the question...
I've certainly never been on a royal yacht. Perhaps that's what my previous employers were missing!
But the case for the royal yacht rests upon the idea that trade deals are signed which would not otherwise have been signed unless there was a yacht and a big party. If said deals would have been signed anyway - then the yacht did not contribute.
So yes - they are arguing that all that is missing for big new deals is a yacht.
Your "no drop off in business" argument is nonsense because it is consistent with any of: the yacht made no difference, the yacht was a drag on performance and we leapt ahead once it had gone, the yacht was brilliant and exports would have trebled if we had kept it. And here is some specific and credible evidence of the yacht getting billions of pounds of business in one trip: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/712166/Bringing-Royal-yacht-Britannia-back-could-secure-billions-of-pounds-trade-deals .
trade deals signed on a yacht =/= trade deals that would not have happened without a yacht being present. "helped generate" is one of those wonderful civil service/economist phrases where you have no idea what the attribution is. I "helped generate" the UK's GDP figure this year.
Ok so you have proved that there is no such thing as marketing. Well done.
Inflation still well under control even with negative real interest rates for around a decade now.
That is only because you do not understand the definition of 'inflation'.
The statistic put out by the Government that you are referring to does not measure inflation.
It is the Government's prefferred measure and that which BoE/Carney is measured on. If you fancy including assets in the calculation that particular horse left the stable back in the late 90s.
Did anyone hear the questioning of Caroline Nokes by the NI select committee ? Embarrassing ignorance from a minister five months in post, on what is a highly pertinent issue.
Mind you, her refusal to sound embarrassed about it was almost impressive.
If there was a referendum on the Brexit deal (accept/reject) there would be a massive vote to reject on this basis. Funny how Remainers only support another referendum when they can rig the question...
A Tsipras-style kamikaze referendum wouldn't end up with no deal, even if no deal won.
Inflation still well under control even with negative real interest rates for around a decade now.
That is only because you do not understand the definition of 'inflation'.
The statistic put out by the Government that you are referring to does not measure inflation.
It is the Government's prefferred measure and that which BoE/Carney is measured on. If you fancy including assets in the calculation that particular horse left the stable back in the late 90s.
Of course it is the Government's preferred measure. That is because it does not measure inflation. That way they can have a lot of inflation and very low interest rates and claim they have hit their target.
The CPI does not measure inflation. It measures the theoretical cost of living of a theoretical person who buys a basket of goods that the Government can and does change at will. Since the core assumption is that when prices rise, price substitution occurs, the CPI can show no increase even though prices are rising strongly.
If you want to understand how the trick is done, look at shadowstats.com. It shows for the US how all the changes in the inflation formula always result in the headline rate falling. As prices rise, inflation formulae simply remove these goods from the calculation.
If you think that inflation really should measure the change in prices of a FIXED basket of goods, over time, then that figure will show inflation of between 6-10%. Which is what you would expect given the increase in money supply.
And yes, asset price inflation is no different than consumer price inflation. The fabrication that it is somehow different has led the World economy into long term stagnation.
"In a letter to Cabinet colleagues, seen by the Telegraph, the Environment Secretary blames the Treasury for a defeat in the House of Lords last week which could force the Government to retain all EU environmental protections after Brexit.
It is understood that the Chancellor blocked plans to give a new post-Brexit environmental watchdog the power to fine the Government and local authorities if they fail to increase recycling and cut pollution."
If there was a referendum on the Brexit deal (accept/reject) there would be a massive vote to reject on this basis. Funny how Remainers only support another referendum when they can rig the question...
A Tsipras-style kamikaze referendum wouldn't end up with no deal, even if no deal won.
Of course not - because you Remainers would ignore the result again! Thanks for confirming this....
On topic, an excellent case put by Pulpstar, with which I wouldn't argue on any point. As he says, the bet is about value, not 'most likely' as such. That said, I'd assume that the postal votes for the by-election will go out in about a week. That's very little time for the Lib Dems to gain traction before a lot of votes become unavailable and I think that Pulpstar's inference that the Tories should probably be marginal favourites for the head-to-head against the LDs is right.
Even so, the First Minister might be onto something. Buy-one-get-one-free deals haven’t always served Scotland well. We’re still trying to work out how we ended up with two Murrells for the price of one.
It’s not just low-cost pizza. Sturgeon’s government wants to crack down on advertising for fatty and salty foods and to extend taxes on sugary drinks. At least Margaret Thatcher only took our milk. Sturgeon wants to empty the entire fridge.
Somehow, Saint Nicola of the Sacred Selfie has turned into Supernanny Sturgeon, a finger-wagging, eyebrow-raising, tut-tutting interferer. Where once thousands packed into concert halls to hang on her every word, now they just want her to give it a rest.
We don’t have a First Minister so much as the human equivalent of a self-service checkout: ‘Do you know how much sugar is in that cake? Do you really need that second G&T? Did you not see the half-price offer on peas and carrots?’
It might do Mr Daisley no harm if his fridge was emptied. On second thoughts take away his fridge as well in case he tries to eat that out of desperation.
"In a letter to Cabinet colleagues, seen by the Telegraph, the Environment Secretary blames the Treasury for a defeat in the House of Lords last week which could force the Government to retain all EU environmental protections after Brexit.
It is understood that the Chancellor blocked plans to give a new post-Brexit environmental watchdog the power to fine the Government and local authorities if they fail to increase recycling and cut pollution."
For once, Hammond is right. One of the major things that has undermined democracy has been taking powers out of the hands of Ministers and passing them to unelected bodies. We keep being told that these things need to be 'independent' of the Government. Er - why? We can vote out a Government if we don't like their decisions.
This just allows unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to run the country. And we can see how incompetent and lacking independence they are when we look at Brexit.
The only possible exception to that is if somehow we could stay in the Single Market but with new controls on free movement for the UK to reflect the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 the EU allowed us to have for 7 years but Blair refused to take
Good to see that you are watering down your definition of 'ending free movement' - a few days ago you were talking about work permits, now you are talking about 'transitional controls'. Next week you will just fall back on playing 'Land of Hope an Glory' at immigration at Heathrow.
Yep, the Tory sellout on Brexit is well on its way....
Also this proposal is misleading to say the least. There is nothing stopping UK imposing transitional controls when Serbia, Bosnia etc join the EU, as we did for Romania and Bulgaria. So I presume HYUFD means retrospective controls imposed on Poland and the other members which joined in 2004. I can assure him that the chance of the EU agreeing to that is absolutely zero. Also pretty ineffective unless it also affected those immigrants already here.
As you say Lewisham East was over a third Leave at the EU referendum and the Labour candidate in Lewisham East is much more Europhile than Kate Hoey was so there is less room for the LDs to campaign on a 'Stop Brexit' platform
From what I have seen of it, the Lib Dem campaign is not so much "Stop Brexit", as "Corbyn needs to get himself sorted out". This leads into "Vote Labour and you have no idea what you will end up with". Pretty much like voting Tory, of course.
And then we have the ridiculousness of said fine. Where would the money go? If it stays in the state, it's shuffled from column A to column B and makes no difference beyond wasting money on bureaucracy.
Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there.
Even if the MoD wanted to spend the money they can't just magically create 270 officers and rates from nowhere. Many of the senior roles will need 10-15 years of experience. It would involve decrewing and disposing of a T23 or a T45. Most of them would have to be pressganged as a draft to HMY Britannia wasn't exactly sought after and generally reserved for those considered too stupid or incompetent for service on a real warship.
It could be crewed as an RFA or, more likely, outsourced to Serco.
Just out of interest - if we did decide to sail the royal yacht to, say, Dubai... what do you reckon we would we have to do to protect it? Send a warship along with it?
I imagine HMY Britannia II sponsored by HSBC would have a great deal more in the way of defensive subsystems than the old one did. Which is one reason why it's not going to be cheap or need a smaller company. In a rough neighbourhood like the Gulf of Aden or Straits of Hormuz they would need air cover for ASuW and Medevac so it would probably be escorted by a T23 or Batch 2 River OPV.
If there was a referendum on the Brexit deal (accept/reject) there would be a massive vote to reject on this basis. Funny how Remainers only support another referendum when they can rig the question...
A Tsipras-style kamikaze referendum wouldn't end up with no deal, even if no deal won.
Of course not - because you Remainers would ignore the result again! Thanks for confirming this....
No it's going to be a 'people's' vote. Of course if the people vote the wrong he way again we can always ask they to keeping voting or just ignore what they say.
I am clearly what the yes question is - accept the deal. But what is the no question - reject the deal, stay in the EU on current or different terms by revoking article 50 (assuming the other 27 members agree) or agree another deal or leave with no deal?
If there was a referendum on the Brexit deal (accept/reject) there would be a massive vote to reject on this basis. Funny how Remainers only support another referendum when they can rig the question...
A Tsipras-style kamikaze referendum wouldn't end up with no deal, even if no deal won.
Of course not - because you Remainers would ignore the result again! Thanks for confirming this....
Hola Archer
you seem particularly vexed this evening. Has your delivery of Kendal Mint Cake and resupply of Union Jack boxer shorts failed to arrive?
Inflation still well under control even with negative real interest rates for around a decade now.
That is only because you do not understand the definition of 'inflation'.
The statistic put out by the Government that you are referring to does not measure inflation.
It is the Government's prefferred measure and that which BoE/Carney is measured on. If you fancy including assets in the calculation that particular horse left the stable back in the late 90s.
Of course it is the Government's preferred measure. That is because it does not measure inflation. That way they can have a lot of inflation and very low interest rates and claim they have hit their target.
The CPI does not measure inflation. It measures the theoretical cost of living of a theoretical person who buys a basket of goods that the Government can and does change at will. Since the core assumption is that when prices rise, price substitution occurs, the CPI can show no increase even though prices are rising strongly.
If you want to understand how the trick is done, look at shadowstats.com. It shows for the US how all the changes in the inflation formula always result in the headline rate falling. As prices rise, inflation formulae simply remove these goods from the calculation.
If you think that inflation really should measure the change in prices of a FIXED basket of goods, over time, then that figure will show inflation of between 6-10%. Which is what you would expect given the increase in money supply.
And yes, asset price inflation is no different than consumer price inflation. The fabrication that it is somehow different has led the World economy into long term stagnation.
I think that's right. Pretending that soaring house prices and rents don't contribute to "inflation" is one of the absurdities of our age. It has led to the persistence of ruinously loose monetary policy and shafted the younger generations for decades to come.
Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there.
Even if the MoD wanted to spend the money they can't just magically create 270 officers and rates from nowhere. Many of the senior roles will need 10-15 years of experience. It would involve decrewing and disposing of a T23 or a T45. Most of them would have to be pressganged as a draft to HMY Britannia wasn't exactly sought after and generally reserved for those considered too stupid or incompetent for service on a real warship.
It could be crewed as an RFA or, more likely, outsourced to Serco.
Surely any replacement would require a significantly smaller crew ?
The budget could come from the Trade department - if the cost benefit is as claimed, where's the problem. Commission a study and go from there.
(Done properly, it might also kickstart a new luxury yacht business in the UK.)
I agree - though there are only so many savings on crewing that can be made on a National Yacht, as much of the value will come from the experience those visiting it have, and that means high quality personal service from stewards and the like.
I disagree with those who say that existing RN personnel would need to be stripped to crew it. It'd be several years in the building so plenty of time to prepare. As a prestige, non-front-line ship, the senior roles could probably be filled by people who'd otherwise have retired from the navy, and the junior ones could be appointed as with any other position.
And then we have the ridiculousness of said fine. Where would the money go? If it stays in the state, it's shuffled from column A to column B and makes no difference beyond wasting money on bureaucracy.
Well if you have someone vaguely good at politics in charge ...
"But the Treasury has stated specifically that it intends to give money collected in Libor-related fines so far to military charities. In October, the government announced it would pay £35m to the armed forces community .
Among the recipients are Help for Heroes - which will receive £2.7m to support veterans suffering from mental health issues - the Royal Marines Families and Veterans Centre in Dorset, which is getting £2.3m, and Army Play, which was awarded £1.5m.
The government has also committed to transfer £10m a year from Libor fines "in perpetuity" to armed-forces charities."
As you say Lewisham East was over a third Leave at the EU referendum and the Labour candidate in Lewisham East is much more Europhile than Kate Hoey was so there is less room for the LDs to campaign on a 'Stop Brexit' platform
From what I have seen of it, the Lib Dem campaign is not so much "Stop Brexit", as "Corbyn needs to get himself sorted out". This leads into "Vote Labour and you have no idea what you will end up with". Pretty much like voting Tory, of course.
Pretty un-self aware of the Lib Dems to be lecturing others that they need to sort themselves out.
On topic, knowing Lewisham pretty well, IMO East is demographically not at all favourable for the Libs these days, save for a nice bit around Blackheath. The Tory vote is an extension of Bromley and won't vote tactically in the main. Despite the ramping of Smithson and others they will struggle even to come second IMO, if they do it will be down to differential turnout.
Mr. Topping, this is a British website, with British time. We'll have no antipodean chronographics here!
Ironically this website is run on an American server with a comment system based in Canada.
PB’s tech support, aka Robert, is also based in America
This Bank Holiday weekend will see threads written and published in France, Spain, Ukraine, and Germany.
PB is clearly run by the Liberal Metropolitan Elite.
Have you got two different versions of a “Liverpool’s performance in the European Cup Final is the perfect metaphor for Brexit” thread, ready to post the appropriate one on Sunday morning?
Mr. Topping, this is a British website, with British time. We'll have no antipodean chronographics here!
Ironically this website is run on an American server with a comment system based in Canada.
PB’s tech support, aka Robert, is also based in America
This Bank Holiday weekend will see threads written and published in France, Spain, Ukraine, and Germany.
PB is clearly run by the Liberal Metropolitan Elite.
Have you got two different versions of a “Liverpool’s performance in the European Cup Final is the perfect metaphor for Brexit” thread, ready to post the appropriate one on Sunday morning?
Liverpool win: Remainer City wins in Europe. Liverpool lose: Britain defeated in Europe.
Its the Andy Murray Scottish/British phenomenon in reverse.
Mr. Topping, this is a British website, with British time. We'll have no antipodean chronographics here!
Ironically this website is run on an American server with a comment system based in Canada.
PB’s tech support, aka Robert, is also based in America
This Bank Holiday weekend will see threads written and published in France, Spain, Ukraine, and Germany.
PB is clearly run by the Liberal Metropolitan Elite.
Have you got two different versions of a “Liverpool’s performance in the European Cup Final is the perfect metaphor for Brexit” thread, ready to post the appropriate one on Sunday morning?
I do have a piece in the next few weeks about that.
If we do have another referendum then there's only one man who can win it for Remain, and that's Jürgen Klopp.
Even you'll be campaigning for Remain after you read this interview.
On the radio they've just said that Boris wants his own 'Brexit jet' as the governmental jets are rarely available for him.
Bless.
Rather like with the discussions about a new ‘Royal Yacht’, the economic case for it is very easy to make in the amount of trade it can generate.
Trade generated because our ambassador/FS turns up in a yacht rather than on a plane?
You’d be surprised how much goodwill is generated among local businesses by an invite to an Embassy party.
An invitation to a party on the Royal Yacht is several notches above it, and something g that can’t be easily replicated by many others
It's only useful to British businesses with the right connections to the UK government though. Joe Bloggs Inc can't dangle an invitation to a party on the Royal Yacht.
Mr. Sandpit, one would've thought so. But apparently Clegg et al. now believe we need a new vote, which absolutely isn't a referendum, because democracy got it wrong last time.
As others are finding rebranding 'Voting again' as 'The (posh) People's Vote (because you proles got it wrong last time) and why 'IndyRef2' is a definite no-no.....
Mr. Sandpit, one would've thought so. But apparently Clegg et al. now believe we need a new vote, which absolutely isn't a referendum, because democracy got it wrong last time.
‘If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy’
Mr. Eagles, if we had voted 52% Remain, would you be advocating another referendum in such a short time? Would anyone beyond the most noisy and truculent of Conservative backbenchers?
Mr. Sandpit, one would've thought so. But apparently Clegg et al. now believe we need a new vote, which absolutely isn't a referendum, because democracy got it wrong last time.
‘If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy’
Do you agree with the man delivering Brexit?
Robert Smithson made the point that 'this would be it' before the referendum. I'm sure the population at large took note of such sage advice.
Mr. Sandpit, one would've thought so. But apparently Clegg et al. now believe we need a new vote, which absolutely isn't a referendum, because democracy got it wrong last time.
On the radio they've just said that Boris wants his own 'Brexit jet' as the governmental jets are rarely available for him.
Bless.
Rather like with the discussions about a new ‘Royal Yacht’, the economic case for it is very easy to make in the amount of trade it can generate.
Trade generated because our ambassador/FS turns up in a yacht rather than on a plane?
You’d be surprised how much goodwill is generated among local businesses by an invite to an Embassy party.
An invitation to a party on the Royal Yacht is several notches above it, and something g that can’t be easily replicated by many others
I can imagine that the odd embassy party is a nice thing to throw around. Costing in the thousands of pounds. Our embassy in Beijing spent 75k on business entertainment in 2014, somewhere you'd imagine we were trying fairly hard.
A 250m+ quid royal yacht is a different kettle of fish when it comes to cost/benefit analysis. I mean the entire budget of the Department for International Trade is 350m/year, so you'd be looking at something like 10% just on having a boat sailing round the world.
Mr. Eagles, if we had voted 52% Remain, would you be advocating another referendum in such a short time? Would anyone beyond the most noisy and truculent of Conservative backbenchers?
Yes they would, and a Brexiteer promising another referendum would have been in prime position to take over from Cameron around now.
Mr. Eagles, if we had voted 52% Remain, would you be advocating another referendum in such a short time? Would anyone beyond the most noisy and truculent of Conservative backbenchers?
If Cameron's deal had been vetoed by the EU Parliament, then quite possibly yes.
Mr. Eagles, if we had voted 52% Remain, would you be advocating another referendum in such a short time? Would anyone beyond the most noisy and truculent of Conservative backbenchers?
If the situation changed such as the EU not honouring Dave's deal.
Leave promised stuff which they aren't delivering and shamelessly ignoring.
Lest we forget Boris and Gove voted against giving the NHS £350 million per week.
The notion we would have a majority in the Lords or a significant minority in the Commons noisily advocating another referendum is fanciful at best. The best guide for this is what happened after the Lisbon Treaty passed, without the promised referendum. There was no late referendum. It was simply allowed to stand.
That's why those who hesitated plumped to leave, because they/we feared it was the only opportunity. Any pro-EU vote is carved in stone forever. Any anti-EU voted is ignored or re-run.
Comments
Apparently your 'average' 100m superyacht costs $275m. Will the MoD keep to budget? I wonder. HMY Britannia had 250 crew plus 21 officers. That's 7 figures on staff just there.
We're well into Millennium Dome territory here.
In the absence of perennial strugglers One Love I reckon the Christian People's Alliance might be a spot of value at 16/1. They never seem to poll as well as you might think from their name - perhaps committed Christians aren't the sort to "waste" their vote.
Form, such as it is, can be found here.
As ever, DYOR, though I fear for your sanity if you do.
Charles Carey (IND) 4/5
Young People's Party 4/1
Democrats and Veterans 5/1
Libertarian Party 6/1
Radical Party 8/1
Monster Raving Loony Party 12/1
Christian Peoples Alliance 16/1
Women's Equality Party 33/1
For Britain 66/1
UKIP 100/1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_(yacht)
EU flash PMIs looking extremely wobbly. Germany especially so. It does feel as though the party is over on the continent which doesn't bode well for our export growth.
https://twitter.com/arsenal/status/999207906951204865?s=21
Yep, the Tory sellout on Brexit is well on its way....
It could be crewed as an RFA or, more likely, outsourced to Serco.
Meanwhile the Yes side in the abortion referendum debate is offering an unworkability argument. Unlike some of their other arguments, at least this connects with the real lives of many people.
One thing is that even in GB many women who have abortions have to travel a fair distance to get them, and while for some of course this is a nuisance and a cause of expense they would rather not incur, for others it is OK because having the pregnancy terminated a long way from home is preferred, for emotional rather than privacy reasons. Which is not to say it isn't much more time consuming to have to travel across the Irish Sea and back.
Bloody striking French making Mike bring forward his holidays.
I think his biggest issue is his inability to speak much English not the limited budget.
Another special Juan(de) Ramos?
The budget could come from the Trade department - if the cost benefit is as claimed, where's the problem. Commission a study and go from there.
(Done properly, it might also kickstart a new luxury yacht business in the UK.)
Embarrassing ignorance from a minister five months in post, on what is a highly pertinent issue.
Ramos > Poch
If there was a referendum on the Brexit deal (accept/reject) there would be a massive vote to reject on this basis. Funny how Remainers only support another referendum when they can rig the question...
The statistic put out by the Government that you are referring to does not measure inflation.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/michael-cohens-taxi-business-partner-evgeny-the-taxi-king-freidman-flips-will-cooperate-with-prosecutors.html?
The CPI does not measure inflation. It measures the theoretical cost of living of a theoretical person who buys a basket of goods that the Government can and does change at will. Since the core assumption is that when prices rise, price substitution occurs, the CPI can show no increase even though prices are rising strongly.
If you want to understand how the trick is done, look at shadowstats.com. It shows for the US how all the changes in the inflation formula always result in the headline rate falling. As prices rise, inflation formulae simply remove these goods from the calculation.
If you think that inflation really should measure the change in prices of a FIXED basket of goods, over time, then that figure will show inflation of between 6-10%. Which is what you would expect given the increase in money supply.
And yes, asset price inflation is no different than consumer price inflation. The fabrication that it is somehow different has led the World economy into long term stagnation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/22/michael-gove-blames-short-sighted-philip-hammond-governments/
"In a letter to Cabinet colleagues, seen by the Telegraph, the Environment Secretary blames the Treasury for a defeat in the House of Lords last week which could force the Government to retain all EU environmental protections after Brexit.
It is understood that the Chancellor blocked plans to give a new post-Brexit environmental watchdog the power to fine the Government and local authorities if they fail to increase recycling and cut pollution."
This just allows unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to run the country. And we can see how incompetent and lacking independence they are when we look at Brexit.
And then we have the ridiculousness of said fine. Where would the money go? If it stays in the state, it's shuffled from column A to column B and makes no difference beyond wasting money on bureaucracy.
I am clearly what the yes question is - accept the deal. But what is the no question - reject the deal, stay in the EU on current or different terms by revoking article 50 (assuming the other 27 members agree) or agree another deal or leave with no deal?
you seem particularly vexed this evening. Has your delivery of Kendal Mint Cake and resupply of Union Jack boxer shorts failed to arrive?
Edit: "Hola" = Furrin term for hello.
I disagree with those who say that existing RN personnel would need to be stripped to crew it. It'd be several years in the building so plenty of time to prepare. As a prestige, non-front-line ship, the senior roles could probably be filled by people who'd otherwise have retired from the navy, and the junior ones could be appointed as with any other position.
And then "The Electorate's Decision". To be followed by "The Consultation of the Masses." After which we shall enjoy "The Voter's Choice."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25214567
"But the Treasury has stated specifically that it intends to give money collected in Libor-related fines so far to military charities. In October, the government announced it would pay £35m to the armed forces community .
Among the recipients are Help for Heroes - which will receive £2.7m to support veterans suffering from mental health issues - the Royal Marines Families and Veterans Centre in Dorset, which is getting £2.3m, and Army Play, which was awarded £1.5m.
The government has also committed to transfer £10m a year from Libor fines "in perpetuity" to armed-forces charities."
On topic, knowing Lewisham pretty well, IMO East is demographically not at all favourable for the Libs these days, save for a nice bit around Blackheath. The Tory vote is an extension of Bromley and won't vote tactically in the main. Despite the ramping of Smithson and others they will struggle even to come second IMO, if they do it will be down to differential turnout.
PB’s tech support, aka Robert, is also based in America
This Bank Holiday weekend will see threads written and published in France, Spain, Ukraine, and Germany.
PB is clearly run by the Liberal Metropolitan Elite.
An invitation to a party on the Royal Yacht is several notches above it, and something g that can’t be easily replicated by many others
Liverpool lose: Britain defeated in Europe.
Its the Andy Murray Scottish/British phenomenon in reverse.
If we do have another referendum then there's only one man who can win it for Remain, and that's Jürgen Klopp.
Even you'll be campaigning for Remain after you read this interview.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/apr/23/jurgen-klopp-liverpool-champions-league-roma-mo-salah-brexit
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/999233289968930816
As others are finding rebranding 'Voting again' as 'The (posh) People's Vote (because you proles got it wrong last time) and why 'IndyRef2' is a definite no-no.....
Do you agree with the man delivering Brexit?
A 250m+ quid royal yacht is a different kettle of fish when it comes to cost/benefit analysis.
I mean the entire budget of the Department for International Trade is 350m/year, so you'd be looking at something like 10% just on having a boat sailing round the world.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/75969/brexit-debate-return-within-three-years-remain-vote
Leave promised stuff which they aren't delivering and shamelessly ignoring.
Lest we forget Boris and Gove voted against giving the NHS £350 million per week.
That's why those who hesitated plumped to leave, because they/we feared it was the only opportunity. Any pro-EU vote is carved in stone forever. Any anti-EU voted is ignored or re-run.