The video's a bit ... thought provoking. Or it would be if it weren't 5 to 4 in the morning.
Not doing myself down, or anything, but I think I should have edited the script down another 20% and tightened it up a bit. The content is good, but I'm a bit long-winded this time around. Probably because I've been simultaneously working on the very data heavy Demographics II.
A couple of suggestions for future videos: 1) Brexit-relevant -- why CUs are lovelier than FTAs because of frictions, and the gravitational model of international trade and Europe being closer than America and all that. 2) changes in the way capitalism works a) branding means goods that ought to be fungible now aren't b) the return of conglomerates eg Amazon -- as opposed to the 30-year fashion for breaking them up c) company success (Amazon again) now depending on share prices rising (and hence market cap) rather than actual profits
CUs benefit those inside at the expense of those outside. They are not free trade - they are tools for wealth diversion not maximisation
Some might see that as an argument for remaining inside the customs union with the EU. It means frictionless trade inside the customs union which is what enables the car makers, for instance, to operate just-in-time manufacturing with international supply chains because, crucially, there is no need for customs checks at each border. A free trade agreement does not confer the same benefit.
It makes you rich at the expense of making people in developing countries poorer.
I think that’s immoral
How does giving trade access to a market of over 400 million consumers make people in the developing world poorer?
It’s only access for basic commodities. If they dare to try to add value to the product they are hammered
That is simply not true.
I’ve seen coffee highlighted as a particular example
I've deliberately not mentioned it on here, but I think I can now things have settled down.
The jobs market in tech - or at least certain areas of it - appears to be booming. Mrs J got made redundant along with some colleagues in the early summer. She did not immediately look for a job, but word got around and before her last day five companies had been in contact with her, and within a week of finishing she had three firm offers, one without an interview. She chose one with a large pay increase and negotiated the summer off, so she could have a break after her old, rather exhausting, job.
Snip
I cannot say if this is true for the whole tech sector, but her area is booming.
Despite Brexit.
(Please forgive this rather smug post. I am very happy for her.)
It should also be noted that hers is very much a 'new economy' job. She's been made redundant three or four times, always with her team, but has always got another job pretty much immediately. There's relatively little job security, but lots of demand.
Problems recruiting programmers might be due to Brexit, although we should not forget that devaluation of sterling against the Euro might be a factor here as it means a de facto pay cut (itself a secondary impact from Brexit). Against that, there are more visas available for programmers from outside the EU (as a side effect of exempting health workers).
It does raise the question, as with doctors, nurses and curry chefs, of why we cannot train programmers in this country. And imagine if we let girls have a go as well.
Although she was trained in Turkey, which despite being rather more of a misanthropic society manages to train more girls in STEM subjects than we do (leastways from the last figures I saw). The reasons for this might be very interesting to consider.
Oh, and she isn't a programmer.
Turkey had their first female fighter pilot in 1937. The RAF didn’t have their first female pilot until 1991.
But Sabiha Gökcen was Ataturk's adopted daughter, so did have a bit of help ...
And she was the first female combat pilot in the world.
Corbyn has voted against all measures of European integration in Parliament since he was first elected. He voted Leave in 1975. He conspired to frustrate the BSE campaign.
These are not the actions of someone ambivalent on the subject.
But he campaigned for remain in 2016 (admittedly not very hard) and has said on several occasions since that he would still vote remain if a new referendum were held.
The weight of opinion amongst party members and MPs is such that he could not block another referendum even if he wanted to. And surely he doesn't really want to be tasked with trying to implement Brexit having seen what it has done to the Tories.
I don't believe for a moment that Corbyn voted Remain. He's never ever been pro-EU and he didn't start being pro-EU in 2016.
If Labour were to campaign hard now for a new referendum before March 29th on a Remain / May's deal - whatever that turns out to be, even if it turns out to be No Deal and Labour were to campaign for Remain, that might be a reason for some to view Corbyn's Labour a bit more favourably.
But, as far as I can tell, Labour won't vote for May's deal and don't want Remain to be on any new vote so they are for No Deal, I assume.
Who can say? They clearly can't.
Of course, after 29th March there is no Remain option anymore and it is a question of whether Britain wants to Rejoin and the EU is willing to have us back. Another kettle of fish entirely.
Quite why May is still flogging the Chequers dead horse beats me. What bit of the EU saying "no" did she not understand?
Anyway back to work. Am grumpy as won't get result of shoulder scan until mid October, some 2 months after first appointment, 5 months after first went to doctor and 10 months after problem first arose. And all the time I have had to chase them for updates. And the bloody pain continues. Grr......
On lady programmers, who was the first female software engineer? (Using broad terms, so it was some time ago).
Ada Lovelace?
Yes - she is generally accredited as the first, although the one who arguably had the most impact on the world would be Grace Hopper. Sophie Wilson, the woman who designed many of Acorn Computers and BBC Basic, could also be argued to have had a large influence on the UK computing scene.
I've worked with Sophie.
(And I won't go into why it's a bit disingenuous to include her.)
The video's a bit ... thought provoking. Or it would be if it weren't 5 to 4 in the morning.
Not doing myself down, or anything, but I think I should have edited the script down another 20% and tightened it up a bit. The content is good, but I'm a bit long-winded this time around. Probably because I've been simultaneously working on the very data heavy Demographics II.
A couple of suggestions for future videos: 1) Brexit-relevant -- why CUs are lovelier than FTAs because of frictions, and the gravitational model of international trade and Europe being closer than America and all that. 2) changes in the way capitalism works a) branding means goods that ought to be fungible now aren't b) the return of conglomerates eg Amazon -- as opposed to the 30-year fashion for breaking them up c) company success (Amazon again) now depending on share prices rising (and hence market cap) rather than actual profits
CUs benefit those inside at the expense of those outside. They are not free trade - they are tools for wealth diversion not maximisation
That is not an inherent characteristic of a customs union. It entirely depends what policies it has on external trade.
Well yes, to the extent that a metal bar with a rounded handle and a sharpened edge is probably a knife.
A customs union that has a FT focused external policy isn’t a customs union. They only work by excluding others
Absolute nonsense. Do you think that the customs union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is inherently protectionist or is it just a demarcation of political boundaries?
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
Re McDonnells 10% share proposition it is for Hammond to counter it and introduce a scheme where employees can buy shares in their company with full tax relief and no capital gains on the future sale. That would shoot labours fox as the shares would be wholly owned by the employee, they would receive all the dividends, and they could trade them tax free
To a certain extent that exists now. I don't know the limits but my wife buys shares in the company she works for and the company gives her shares (1 for every 2 she buys) Her payment is tax and ni deductible. She has to hold them for a certain period of time as otherwise the Govt wants the tax and ni, but then they are hers to do with as she wishes. There is also another scheme for more shares but that is not tax free but still free shares.
If not already covered what happens re J McD share plan if you work for a subsidiary of an overseas owned organisation which will have nominal shareholdings 100% owned by the overseas company
I would assume they would be 'forced' to divest 10% of their holdings.
Of course, it would provide incentives for companies to break up their structure so every UK company was under the 'large company' limits, so their would have to be rules about groups etc....
But that doesn't make any sense for most of these organisations. They probably only have 2 shares owned by the overseas company or nominees and restrictions on the issuing and transferring of shares. If they have dividends at all it would only be for the purpose of transferring funds and you can't force an overseas company to issue its shares to its employees here.
You can force it by amending company law.
And the government might quite like to divert large dividends being paid to overseas countries
On lady programmers, who was the first female software engineer? (Using broad terms, so it was some time ago).
Ada Lovelace?
Yes - she is generally accredited as the first, although the one who arguably had the most impact on the world would be Grace Hopper. Sophie Wilson, the woman who designed many of Acorn Computers and BBC Basic, could also be argued to have had a large influence on the UK computing scene.
Aiui, programming in the early days was dominated by women. It was probably seen as a mundane, almost clerical task to translate the calculations that men wanted into machine code. Assembly language and compiled languages came later. There is some allusion to this in the film Hidden Figures, in the context of NASA. Otoh I've never looked for or read any serious history of the field.
Just done some quick numbers on McD's 10% share plan. Looking at BT:
There are approx ≈ 10 billion shares in issue.
That means the 10% plan would create 1 billion new shares.
There are approx 72,000 UK employees.
So each employee will get approx 13,800 shares each.
Latest div per share figures are about 15p.
So workers would get ≈ £2000 a year in div.
This would be capped at £500, so UK government gets extra tax of ≈ £1500 per worker. That's around £100 million.
All very rough, and of course the div per share figure would probably drop as 10% more shares in issue, but unless I have missed something (and I may have - I'm no finance guru), two things strike me:
a) How long before workers and unions are saying hang on a minute - I could be getting £2K extra a year, but it is capped at £500?
b) This is a massive tax take from corporate sector, disguised as a share employee scheme.
What gets my goat is the fact (at least, I think it's right) that although they are voting shares, the individual employees don't get individual voting rights. Instead, a 'group' gets the votes.
I'm intelligent enough to make my own mind up how I would vote, thank you very much.
Missed that aspect. I suspect the 'group' will turn out to be the unions.
That is until Momentum finally fall out with unions, as they are virtually Tories, and the 'group' becomes Jon Lansman.
Not only do employees not get the full dividend nor any voting rights but they don’t own the shares either. They can’t sell them, can’t build any sort of nest egg. So the employees get shafted - that £500 dividend payment will come out of the pot for salaries, the company gets taxed more, other shareholders ie our pension funds get diluted and lose out and the only ones to benefit are the union representatives.
I am all in favour of extending share ownership schemes to employees. I have benefited from some myself. And I don’t object either to the principle of having directors on boards representing the interests of employees. But this scheme is a scam which does little for employees. It is a pay off to unions. About the only people who will benefit will be the lawyers and accountants merrily finding a way round it.
How would it work for companies that are currently 100% owned by employees?
No idea. Don't suppose John McD has either.
All of the shareholders in my brother’s company are employees... but I doubt that what Mr McD intends...
The video's a bit ... thought provoking. Or it would be if it weren't 5 to 4 in the morning.
Not doing myself down, or anything, but I think I should have edited the script down another 20% and tightened it up a bit. The content is good, but I'm a bit long-winded this time around. Probably because I've been simultaneously working on the very data heavy Demographics II.
A couple of suggestions for future videos: 1) Brexit-relevant -- why CUs are lovelier than FTAs because of frictions, and the gravitational model of international trade and Europe being closer than America and all that. 2) changes in the way capitalism works a) branding means goods that ought to be fungible now aren't b) the return of conglomerates eg Amazon -- as opposed to the 30-year fashion for breaking them up c) company success (Amazon again) now depending on share prices rising (and hence market cap) rather than actual profits
CUs benefit those inside at the expense of those outside. They are not free trade - they are tools for wealth diversion not maximisation
That is not an inherent characteristic of a customs union. It entirely depends what policies it has on external trade.
Well yes, to the extent that a metal bar with a rounded handle and a sharpened edge is probably a knife.
A customs union that has a FT focused external policy isn’t a customs union. They only work by excluding others
Absolute nonsense. Do you think that the customs union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is inherently protectionist or is it just a demarcation of political boundaries?
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Lots of ifs and not ruling out....classic politician speak that at first hearing you definitely think says one thing, but actually doesn't quite say that.
Mr. JohnL, it is a bit weird how certain things can migrate, in terms of gender stereotypes. High heels were invented as court shoes for men, for example.
Re McDonnells 10% share proposition it is for Hammond to counter it and introduce a scheme where employees can buy shares in their company with full tax relief and no capital gains on the future sale. That would shoot labours fox as the shares would be wholly owned by the employee, they would receive all the dividends, and they could trade them tax free
To a certain extent that exists now. I don't know the limits but my wife buys shares in the company she works for and the company gives her shares (1 for every 2 she buys) Her payment is tax and ni deductible. She has to hold them for a certain period of time as otherwise the Govt wants the tax and ni, but then they are hers to do with as she wishes. There is also another scheme for more shares but that is not tax free but still free shares.
Thanks for that. It is nearly 10 years since I retired so not too clued up on present position.
However, now is the time for Hammond to make a big offer to Company employees
If not already covered what happens re J McD share plan if you work for a subsidiary of an overseas owned organisation which will have nominal shareholdings 100% owned by the overseas company
I would assume they would be 'forced' to divest 10% of their holdings.
Of course, it would provide incentives for companies to break up their structure so every UK company was under the 'large company' limits, so their would have to be rules about groups etc....
But that doesn't make any sense for most of these organisations. They probably only have 2 shares owned by the overseas company or nominees and restrictions on the issuing and transferring of shares. If they have dividends at all it would only be for the purpose of transferring funds and you can't force an overseas company to issue its shares to its employees here.
You can force it by amending company law.
And the government might quite like to divert large dividends being paid to overseas countries
No you can't. You can pass any law you like here but you can't force Ford in the US to issue shares to UK employees.
You can force them to issue shares in their UK subsidiary but it will simply stop paying dividends to the holding company.
Corbyn, Milne and McDonnell want us to leave the EU. A chaotic no deal Brexit makes it likelier that they will win the next election, after which they would be able to operate without the constraints of EU membership.
We are not going to have a second referendum with Remain as an option. It is not in the interest of the Conservative Party or the Labour leadership.
The outcome that best suits the Conservative party is No Brexit that they don't own. Therefore a second referendum with a Remain option that they somehow conspire to be forced into is very much in their interests. The same logic that led to Cameron going down the route of a referendum to aim to use the popular will to impose a view on the Conservative party applies more than ever today.
Sorry, but you’re letting your personal desires cloud your thinking. A party which has 70-80% of its support base in favour of Brexit would not benefit if it contrived to have the process halted. May cannot be forced into conceding a referendum; it would only happen if Corbyn gets into No 10 without an election. That is not acceptable, even to Soubry and Clarke.
Brexit being halted without it being the Tories’ fault is their ideal outcome. They can retreat to their default position of blaming Europe for all ills and blaming the people who frustrated Brexit, which is likely to be a reasonably strong electoral position for them in future. They could promise a new in-out referendum and everything, and insist that this time they wouldn’t let ‘enemies of the people’ (etc) thwart it.
Conversely, Brexit proceeding is probably good for Labour unless it goes well, which isn’t appearing that likely. They can get a couple of full terms out of a ‘fixing the mess the Tories made by mismanaging’ Brexit narrative. They don’t even have to ever make the argument that Brexit was a bad idea, they can just say that the people in charge screwed it up.
Provided that the Tories do just enough to look like they tried, and Labour do just enough to look like they tried to stop, neither will alienate their base by facilitating an outcome which their supporters broadly oppose.
That's an exceptionally smart comment. Unfortunately, in order to stop something that's already in motion, someone is going to have to take some positive steps. Since as you say it isn't in Labour's interests to do so and it isn't in the Conservatives' interests to be seen to do so, car crash Brexit here we come.
What gets my goat is the fact (at least, I think it's right) that although they are voting shares, the individual employees don't get individual voting rights. Instead, a 'group' gets the votes.
I'm intelligent enough to make my own mind up how I would vote, thank you very much.
Missed that aspect. I suspect the 'group' will turn out to be the unions.
That is until Momentum finally fall out with unions, as they are virtually Tories, and the 'group' becomes Jon Lansman.
Not only do employees not get the full dividend nor any voting rights but they don’t own the shares either. They can’t sell them, can’t build any sort of nest egg. So the employees get shafted - that £500 dividend payment will come out of the pot for salaries, the company gets taxed more, other shareholders ie our pension funds get diluted and lose out and the only ones to benefit are the union representatives.
I am all in favour of extending share ownership schemes to employees. I have benefited from some myself. And I don’t object either to the principle of having directors on boards representing the interests of employees. But this scheme is a scam which does little for employees. It is a pay off to unions. About the only people who will benefit will be the lawyers and accountants merrily finding a way round it.
How would it work for companies that are currently 100% owned by employees?
No idea. Don't suppose John McD has either.
All of the shareholders in my brother’s company are employees... but I doubt that what Mr McD intends...
LOL, not quite.
McD’s proposals would be a great exercise in just how fragmented companies could be, and just how many inventive ways could be found to get the money offshore while staying under various thresholds and regulations. Great news for lawyers, accountants and, happily for your brother, bankers.
On lady programmers, who was the first female software engineer? (Using broad terms, so it was some time ago).
Ada Lovelace?
Yes - she is generally accredited as the first, although the one who arguably had the most impact on the world would be Grace Hopper. Sophie Wilson, the woman who designed many of Acorn Computers and BBC Basic, could also be argued to have had a large influence on the UK computing scene.
Aiui, programming in the early days was dominated by women. It was probably seen as a mundane, almost clerical task to translate the calculations that men wanted into machine code. Assembly language and compiled languages came later. There is some allusion to this in the film Hidden Figures, in the context of NASA. Otoh I've never looked for or read any serious history of the field.
My granddad was called a 'computer', as he worked with figures in a sort-of accounts department for Derby Corporation Tramways. I've always wondered if I inherited my fondness for maths from him.
I haven't watched 'Hidden Figures' yet, but it'd be a shame if it didn't include Margaret Hamilton, who led the team developing the Apollo software:
It does raise the question, as with doctors, nurses and curry chefs, of why we cannot train programmers in this country. And imagine if we let girls have a go as well.
Speaking as a female programmer who has worked with many other female programmers....
The training is not the problem, nor is the programming, but the work environment can be very hostile towards women. Most male programmers are fine, but amongst a small (but not insignificant) number there is extreme hostility towards women.
Look at some of the spats in the games community recently where some women were simply asking why (in games) women had to butchered as part of the background to the story, or given as prizes to "warriors", etc. The women in question received death threats, threats of rape and more than one had to have police protection and move house for their own safety.
The video's a bit ... thought provoking. Or it would be if it weren't 5 to 4 in the morning.
Not doing myself down, or anything, but I think I should have edited the script down another 20% and tightened it up a bit. The content is good, but I'm a bit long-winded this time around. Probably because I've been simultaneously working on the very data heavy Demographics II.
A couple of suggestions for future videos: 1) Brexit-relevant -- why CUs are lovelier than FTAs because of frictions, and the gravitational model of international trade and Europe being closer than America and all that. 2) changes in the way capitalism works a) branding means goods that ought to be fungible now aren't b) the return of conglomerates eg Amazon -- as opposed to the 30-year fashion for breaking them up c) company success (Amazon again) now depending on share prices rising (and hence market cap) rather than actual profits
CUs benefit those inside at the expense of those outside. They are not free trade - they are tools for wealth diversion not maximisation
That is not an inherent characteristic of a customs union. It entirely depends what policies it has on external trade.
Well yes, to the extent that a metal bar with a rounded handle and a sharpened edge is probably a knife.
A customs union that has a FT focused external policy isn’t a customs union. They only work by excluding others
Absolute nonsense. Do you think that the customs union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is inherently protectionist or is it just a demarcation of political boundaries?
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Why don’t you go and find an example of a customs union with a unilateral free trade policy then?
The video's a bit ... thought provoking. Or it would be if it weren't 5 to 4 in the morning.
Not doing myself down, or anything, but I think I should have edited the script down another 20% and tightened it up a bit. The content is good, but I'm a bit long-winded this time around. Probably because I've been simultaneously working on the very data heavy Demographics II.
A couple of suggestions for future videos: 1) Brexit-relevant -- why CUs are lovelier than FTAs because of frictions, and the gravitational model of international trade and Europe being closer than America and all that. 2) changes in the way capitalism works a) branding means goods that ought to be fungible now aren't b) the return of conglomerates eg Amazon -- as opposed to the 30-year fashion for breaking them up c) company success (Amazon again) now depending on share prices rising (and hence market cap) rather than actual profits
CUs benefit those inside at the expense of those outside. They are not free trade - they are tools for wealth diversion not maximisation
That is not an inherent characteristic of a customs union. It entirely depends what policies it has on external trade.
Well yes, to the extent that a metal bar with a rounded handle and a sharpened edge is probably a knife.
A customs union that has a FT focused external policy isn’t a customs union. They only work by excluding others
Absolute nonsense. Do you think that the customs union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is inherently protectionist or is it just a demarcation of political boundaries?
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
Tariffs are not the main feature of a customs union which is the idea that once a good is in, it is in, so if an American good is landed and checked at Rotterdam, say, then it never needs to be checked again as it crosses borders to France and then on to Britain, and of course this is win-win for goods originating inside the customs union. This leads to frictionless trade and that is the important point, not the tariff (if any) because that is just another element to the price, along with the cost of shipping. You could drop a tariff to zero and that would still be true.
Mr. Sandpit, it could be a lot worse. I'm glad I was made aware of the possibility when the only cost was potentially a couple of small stakes winning bets.
I only glanced at the Russian market. I think 8.5 on Bottas each way (green if top 2) worth considering, perhaps, and the 71 on someone in the crowd wearing "I went to Salisbury and all I get was this lousy perfume" t-shirt*.
*Fictional market.
Fictional but laugh-out-loud funny. You owe me a new keyboard!
Lots of ifs and not ruling out....classic politician speak that at first hearing you definitely think says one thing, but actually doesn't quite say that.
The media coverage of Starmer being applauded to the rafters' and no doubt lots of EU flags waving' for his confirmation that remain will be on the ballot paper is going to go down like a lead balloon in all the leave constituencies and lots of labour mps in those areas will be very worried and angry today
What gets my goat is the fact (at least, I think it's right) that although they are voting shares, the individual employees don't get individual voting rights. Instead, a 'group' gets the votes.
I'm intelligent enough to make my own mind up how I would vote, thank you very much.
Missed that aspect. I suspect the 'group' will turn out to be the unions.
That is until Momentum finally fall out with unions, as they are virtually Tories, and the 'group' becomes Jon Lansman.
Not only do employees not get the full dividend nor any voting rights but they don’t own the shares either. They can’t sell them, can’t build any sort of nest egg. So the employees get shafted - that £500 dividend payment will come out of the pot for salaries, the company gets taxed more, other shareholders ie our pension funds get diluted and lose out and the only ones to benefit are the union representatives.
I am all in favour of extending share ownership schemes to employees. I have benefited from some myself. And I don’t object either to the principle of having directors on boards representing the interests of employees. But this scheme is a scam which does little for employees. It is a pay off to unions. About the only people who will benefit will be the lawyers and accountants merrily finding a way round it.
How would it work for companies that are currently 100% owned by employees?
No idea. Don't suppose John McD has either.
All of the shareholders in my brother’s company are employees... but I doubt that what Mr McD intends...
LOL, not quite.
McD’s proposals would be a great exercise in just how fragmented companies could be, and just how many inventive ways could be found to get the money offshore while staying under various thresholds and regulations. Great news for lawyers, accountants and, happily for your brother, bankers.
The companies most effected would be small highly profitable businesses, who already due to their size probably pay all their taxes in full (as too costly to do a Starbucks)....not sure they are the ones that you should be attacking.
If not already covered what happens re J McD share plan if you work for a subsidiary of an overseas owned organisation which will have nominal shareholdings 100% owned by the overseas company
I would assume they would be 'forced' to divest 10% of their holdings.
Of course, it would provide incentives for companies to break up their structure so every UK company was under the 'large company' limits, so their would have to be rules about groups etc....
But that doesn't make any sense for most of these organisations. They probably only have 2 shares owned by the overseas company or nominees and restrictions on the issuing and transferring of shares. If they have dividends at all it would only be for the purpose of transferring funds and you can't force an overseas company to issue its shares to its employees here.
You can force it by amending company law.
And the government might quite like to divert large dividends being paid to overseas countries
No you can't. You can pass any law you like here but you can't force Ford in the US to issue shares to UK employees.
You can force them to issue shares in their UK subsidiary but it will simply stop paying dividends to the holding company.
I misread your post - the proposal is U.K. subs (they do it in South Africa although that has ended up as a means to enrich political cronies)
On lady programmers, who was the first female software engineer? (Using broad terms, so it was some time ago).
Ada Lovelace?
Yes - she is generally accredited as the first, although the one who arguably had the most impact on the world would be Grace Hopper. Sophie Wilson, the woman who designed many of Acorn Computers and BBC Basic, could also be argued to have had a large influence on the UK computing scene.
Aiui, programming in the early days was dominated by women. It was probably seen as a mundane, almost clerical task to translate the calculations that men wanted into machine code. Assembly language and compiled languages came later. There is some allusion to this in the film Hidden Figures, in the context of NASA. Otoh I've never looked for or read any serious history of the field.
My granddad was called a 'computer', as he worked with figures in a sort-of accounts department for Derby Corporation Tramways. I've always wondered if I inherited my fondness for maths from him.
I haven't watched 'Hidden Figures' yet, but it'd be a shame if it didn't include Margaret Hamilton, who led the team developing the Apollo software:
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Why don’t you go and find an example of a customs union with a unilateral free trade policy then?
See you later 😎
You won't find any large countries with a policy of unilateral free trade either so that's a spurious point.
A customs union tears down walls within it; it says nothing about how high the walls with the rest of the world are.
What gets my goat is the fact (at least, I think it's right) that although they are voting shares, the individual employees don't get individual voting rights. Instead, a 'group' gets the votes.
I'm intelligent enough to make my own mind up how I would vote, thank you very much.
Missed that aspect. I suspect the 'group' will turn out to be the unions.
That is until Momentum finally fall out with unions, as they are virtually Tories, and the 'group' becomes Jon Lansman.
Not only do employees not get the full dividend nor any voting rights but they don’t own the shares either. They can’t sell them, can’t build any sort of nest egg. So the employees get shafted - that £500 dividend payment will come out of the pot for salaries, the company gets taxed more, other shareholders ie our pension funds get diluted and lose out and the only ones to benefit are the union representatives.
I am all in favour of extending share ownership schemes to employees. I have benefited from some myself. And I don’t object either to the principle of having directors on boards representing the interests of employees. But this scheme is a scam which does little for employees. It is a pay off to unions. About the only people who will benefit will be the lawyers and accountants merrily finding a way round it.
How would it work for companies that are currently 100% owned by employees?
No idea. Don't suppose John McD has either.
All of the shareholders in my brother’s company are employees... but I doubt that what Mr McD intends...
LOL, not quite.
McD’s proposals would be a great exercise in just how fragmented companies could be, and just how many inventive ways could be found to get the money offshore while staying under various thresholds and regulations. Great news for lawyers, accountants and, happily for your brother, bankers.
Lots of ifs and not ruling out....classic politician speak that at first hearing you definitely think says one thing, but actually doesn't quite say that.
The media coverage of Starmer being applauded to the rafters' and no doubt lots of EU flags waving' for his confirmation that remain will be on the ballot paper is going to go down like a lead balloon in all the leave constituencies and lots of labour mps in those areas will be very worried and angry today
It does raise the question, as with doctors, nurses and curry chefs, of why we cannot train programmers in this country. And imagine if we let girls have a go as well.
Speaking as a female programmer who has worked with many other female programmers....
The training is not the problem, nor is the programming, but the work environment can be very hostile towards women. Most male programmers are fine, but amongst a small (but not insignificant) number there is extreme hostility towards women.
Look at some of the spats in the games community recently where some women were simply asking why (in games) women had to butchered as part of the background to the story, or given as prizes to "warriors", etc. The women in question received death threats, threats of rape and more than one had to have police protection and move house for their own safety.
It does raise the question, as with doctors, nurses and curry chefs, of why we cannot train programmers in this country. And imagine if we let girls have a go as well.
Speaking as a female programmer who has worked with many other female programmers....
The training is not the problem, nor is the programming, but the work environment can be very hostile towards women. Most male programmers are fine, but amongst a small (but not insignificant) number there is extreme hostility towards women.
Look at some of the spats in the games community recently where some women were simply asking why (in games) women had to butchered as part of the background to the story, or given as prizes to "warriors", etc. The women in question received death threats, threats of rape and more than one had to have police protection and move house for their own safety.
None of this seems to happen to nurses, doctors or curry chefs...
Totally agree with that. It can be a *very* hostile environment at times, much to my personal annoyance (I like having women around me in the workplace. Ahem.)
I do wonder if it's because the really good engineers often tend to be rather lacking in interpersonal skills, and find it hard enough to get on with people of the same sex, yet alone those of the opposite.
But there's also expectations. Not enough young women are going into such subjects at university, which means when I was recruiting graduates female candidates were exceptionally rare. Girls at school need to be told that science, technology and engineering can be a great career.
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Why don’t you go and find an example of a customs union with a unilateral free trade policy then?
See you later 😎
You won't find any large countries with a policy of unilateral free trade either so that's a spurious point.
A customs union tears down walls within it; it says nothing about how high the walls with the rest of the world are.
You have it the wrong way around. The whole point of the customs union is to build a big wall around the outside, in order to protect those inside from international competition.
Mr. JohnL, it is a bit weird how certain things can migrate, in terms of gender stereotypes. High heels were invented as court shoes for men, for example.
My understanding is that cowboy boots still have high heels so their feet stay in the stirrups.
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Why don’t you go and find an example of a customs union with a unilateral free trade policy then?
See you later 😎
You won't find any large countries with a policy of unilateral free trade either so that's a spurious point.
A customs union tears down walls within it; it says nothing about how high the walls with the rest of the world are.
You’re discussing theory. I’m looking at practical reality.
Ask a proper free trader what they think of customs unions and - at best - you’ll get very tepid approval
The outcome that best suits the Conservative party is No Brexit that they don't own. Therefore a second referendum with a Remain option that they somehow conspire to be forced into is very much in their interests. The same logic that led to Cameron going down the route of a referendum to aim to use the popular will to impose a view on the Conservative party applies more than ever today.
Sorry, but you’re letting your personal desires cloud your thinking. A party which has 70-80% of its support base in favour of Brexit would not benefit if it contrived to have the process halted. May cannot be forced into conceding a referendum; it would only happen if Corbyn gets into No 10 without an election. That is not acceptable, even to Soubry and Clarke.
Brexit being halted without it being the Tories’ fault is their ideal outcome. They can retreat to their default position of blaming Europe for all ills and blaming the people who frustrated Brexit, which is likely to be a reasonably strong electoral position for them in future. They could promise a new in-out referendum and everything, and insist that this time they wouldn’t let ‘enemies of the people’ (etc) thwart it.
Conversely, Brexit proceeding is probably good for Labour unless it goes well, which isn’t appearing that likely. They can get a couple of full terms out of a ‘fixing the mess the Tories made by mismanaging’ Brexit narrative. They don’t even have to ever make the argument that Brexit was a bad idea, they can just say that the people in charge screwed it up.
Provided that the Tories do just enough to look like they tried, and Labour do just enough to look like they tried to stop, neither will alienate their base by facilitating an outcome which their supporters broadly oppose.
That's an exceptionally smart comment. Unfortunately, in order to stop something that's already in motion, someone is going to have to take some positive steps. Since as you say it isn't in Labour's interests to do so and it isn't in the Conservatives' interests to be seen to do so, car crash Brexit here we come.
Yes. Come next April we will all be finding out whether No Deal really is better than a bad deal. Or whether it is total and utter bollocks, to cap the total and utter bollocks the Tories have made of these negotiations over the last two and a bit years.
Mr. Sandpit, as I'm currently writing comedy, that's rather nice to hear.
Mrs C, there are genuine problems of sexism in videogames. Naughty Dog had to fight to get Ellie on the cover of The Last of Us, despite her clearly being one of the two protagonists (there's no plot without her).
Some complaints, however, are ridiculous and obscure more genuine concerns. On 'dead girlfriend' or 'rape as motivation [for revenge]' I'd say that can affect fiction more widely than just videogames. And there are some daft examples. People complaining you can't be female in an FPS game, and then complaining when you can shoot loads of women.
There's also some (alas) nastiness in the fanbases which isn't limited to sexism. A CoD developer, following a patch which altered weapon reload times by tiny fractions to try and balance things better, get death threats for both himself and his family.
Strongly suspect the likes of Anita Sarkeesian have done more harm than good when it comes to combating something that's real.
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Why don’t you go and find an example of a customs union with a unilateral free trade policy then?
See you later 😎
You won't find any large countries with a policy of unilateral free trade either so that's a spurious point.
A customs union tears down walls within it; it says nothing about how high the walls with the rest of the world are.
You have it the wrong way around. The whole point of the customs union is to build a big wall around the outside, in order to protect those inside from international competition.
Why is it that the wall not higher then? The EU has lower average external tariffs than Norway does.
Aiui, programming in the early days was dominated by women. It was probably seen as a mundane, almost clerical task to translate the calculations that men wanted into machine code
(My italics)
Exactly correct. Being "mundane" and "clerical" is was viewed as low status = women's work.
Once it started attracting high salaries and status, it became too hard for women's brains
Re McDonnells 10% share proposition it is for Hammond to counter it and introduce a scheme where employees can buy shares in their company with full tax relief and no capital gains on the future sale. That would shoot labours fox as the shares would be wholly owned by the employee, they would receive all the dividends, and they could trade them tax free
To a certain extent that exists now. I don't know the limits but my wife buys shares in the company she works for and the company gives her shares (1 for every 2 she buys) Her payment is tax and ni deductible. She has to hold them for a certain period of time as otherwise the Govt wants the tax and ni, but then they are hers to do with as she wishes. There is also another scheme for more shares but that is not tax free but still free shares.
Thanks for that. It is nearly 10 years since I retired so not too clued up on present position.
However, now is the time for Hammond to make a big offer to Company employees
Politically it would be the obvious thing to do, particularly if you make it more attractive for companies that have been reticent to do so up until now and publicises what is there currently, without all the caveats of the J McD scheme which as far as I can see offers no incentive for employees.
By the way in my wife's case the shares are in the overseas holding company (this isn't some tax avoidance scheme, but like many organisations it is a genuine overseas company with subsidiaries all over the world and is quoted on the foreign exchange of the home country). And because it isn't a crackpot scheme it works with no additional issues other than exchange rates.
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Why don’t you go and find an example of a customs union with a unilateral free trade policy then?
See you later 😎
You won't find any large countries with a policy of unilateral free trade either so that's a spurious point.
A customs union tears down walls within it; it says nothing about how high the walls with the rest of the world are.
You’re discussing theory. I’m looking at practical reality.
Ask a proper free trader what they think of customs unions and - at best - you’ll get very tepid approval
Opposition to customs unions is based on ideological objections to pooled sovereignty, not on any practical objections to the trade policies that result from them.
How would it work for companies that are currently 100% owned by employees?
No idea. Don't suppose John McD has either.
All of the shareholders in my brother’s company are employees... but I doubt that what Mr McD intends...
LOL, not quite.
McD’s proposals would be a great exercise in just how fragmented companies could be, and just how many inventive ways could be found to get the money offshore while staying under various thresholds and regulations. Great news for lawyers, accountants and, happily for your brother, bankers.
The companies most effected would be small highly profitable businesses, who already due to their size probably pay all their taxes in full (as too costly to do a Starbucks)....not sure they are the ones that you should be attacking.
Indeed, and even worse, it would discriminate against British companies and in favour of their international competitors.
Consider Ferrari and McLaren as an example, why would the latter want to build cars and make most of its international profits in the U.K., where the treatment of their company puts them at a disadvantage compared to their competitors? Most likely it would set up a company somewhere else in the world (Singapore, Bahrain?) where all international (ex-UK) sales and profits are registered.
We see this in the US with Apple and Amazon keeping international profits offshore, to a total of a trillion dollars. Part of the recent tax bill there was to encourage this money back onshore with tax breaks.
Mr. Sandpit, as I'm currently writing comedy, that's rather nice to hear.
Mrs C, there are genuine problems of sexism in videogames. Naughty Dog had to fight to get Ellie on the cover of The Last of Us, despite her clearly being one of the two protagonists (there's no plot without her).
Some complaints, however, are ridiculous and obscure more genuine concerns. On 'dead girlfriend' or 'rape as motivation [for revenge]' I'd say that can affect fiction more widely than just videogames. And there are some daft examples. People complaining you can't be female in an FPS game, and then complaining when you can shoot loads of women.
There's also some (alas) nastiness in the fanbases which isn't limited to sexism. A CoD developer, following a patch which altered weapon reload times by tiny fractions to try and balance things better, get death threats for both himself and his family.
Strongly suspect the likes of Anita Sarkeesian have done more harm than good when it comes to combating something that's real.
Whether Sarkeesian did more harm than good may be debatable (I think she was generally correct in many of her observations), but she did not deserve threats of rape, murder, etc and to have all her personal details, including her address, plastered all over the internet.
Corbyn has voted against all measures of European integration in Parliament since he was first elected. He voted Leave in 1975. He conspired to frustrate the BSE campaign.
These are not the actions of someone ambivalent on the subject.
But he campaigned for remain in 2016 (admittedly not very hard) and has said on several occasions since that he would still vote remain if a new referendum were held.
The weight of opinion amongst party members and MPs is such that he could not block another referendum even if he wanted to. And surely he doesn't really want to be tasked with trying to implement Brexit having seen what it has done to the Tories.
I don't believe for a moment that Corbyn voted Remain. He's never ever been pro-EU and he didn't start being pro-EU in 2016.
If Labour were to campaign hard now for a new referendum before March 29th on a Remain / May's deal - whatever that turns out to be, even if it turns out to be No Deal and Labour were to campaign for Remain, that might be a reason for some to view Corbyn's Labour a bit more favourably.
But, as far as I can tell, Labour won't vote for May's deal and don't want Remain to be on any new vote so they are for No Deal, I assume.
Who can say? They clearly can't.
Of course, after 29th March there is no Remain option anymore and it is a question of whether Britain wants to Rejoin and the EU is willing to have us back. Another kettle of fish entirely.
Quite why May is still flogging the Chequers dead horse beats me. What bit of the EU saying "no" did she not understand?
Anyway back to work. Am grumpy as won't get result of shoulder scan until mid October, some 2 months after first appointment, 5 months after first went to doctor and 10 months after problem first arose. And all the time I have had to chase them for updates. And the bloody pain continues. Grr......
Went to the GP in August about pain in my ankle, the result I suspect of a nasty injury in student days. Sent for an X-Ray, done at the walk-in same day. No results yet. At least 5 weeks apparently. Got fed up, went privately to see a physio and it’s sorted.
Bloody Tory under-funding. Either that or because (EU) specialist has gone home.
Really has taken over labour from Corbyn and now the remain party with the lib dems.
This is going to result in a civil war in labour and lots of lost labour seats in leave areas
You hope. It really won’t you know.
Brexit is now recognised by most people to be the pile of ordure it always was. That fact will become clearer and clearer as every day passes and it will weigh down the Tory party like a stinking stone.
What gets my goat is the fact (at least, I think it's right) that although they are voting shares, the individual employees don't get individual voting rights. Instead, a 'group' gets the votes.
I'm intelligent enough to make my own mind up how I would vote, thank you very much.
Missed that aspect. I suspect the 'group' will turn out to be the unions.
That is until Momentum finally fall out with unions, as they are virtually Tories, and the 'group' becomes Jon Lansman.
Not only do employees not get the full dividend nor any voting rights but they don’t own the shares either. They can’t sell them, can’t build any sort of nest egg. So the employees get shafted - that £500 dividend payment will come out of the pot for salaries, the company gets taxed more, other shareholders ie our pension funds get diluted and lose out and the only ones to benefit are the union representatives.
I am all in favour of extending share ownership schemes to employees. I have benefited from some myself. And I don’t object either to the principle of having directors on boards representing the interests of employees. But this scheme is a scam which does little for employees. It is a pay off to unions. About the only people who will benefit will be the lawyers and accountants merrily finding a way round it.
How would it work for companies that are currently 100% owned by employees?
No idea. Don't suppose John McD has either.
All of the shareholders in my brother’s company are employees... but I doubt that what Mr McD intends...
LOL, not quite.
McD’s proposals would be a great exercise in just how fragmented companies could be, and just how many inventive ways could be found to get the money offshore while staying under various thresholds and regulations. Great news for lawyers, accountants and, happily for your brother, bankers.
So not all bad, then.
It would be great for you and I, among many others that congregate here, but not so great for the Exchequer.
If not already covered what happens re J McD share plan if you work for a subsidiary of an overseas owned organisation which will have nominal shareholdings 100% owned by the overseas company
I would assume they would be 'forced' to divest 10% of their holdings.
Of course, it would provide incentives for companies to break up their structure so every UK company was under the 'large company' limits, so their would have to be rules about groups etc....
But that doesn't make any sense for most of these organisations. They probably only have 2 shares owned by the overseas company or nominees and restrictions on the issuing and transferring of shares. If they have dividends at all it would only be for the purpose of transferring funds and you can't force an overseas company to issue its shares to its employees here.
You can force it by amending company law.
And the government might quite like to divert large dividends being paid to overseas countries
No you can't. You can pass any law you like here but you can't force Ford in the US to issue shares to UK employees.
You can force them to issue shares in their UK subsidiary but it will simply stop paying dividends to the holding company.
I misread your post - the proposal is U.K. subs (they do it in South Africa although that has ended up as a means to enrich political cronies)
No problem.
But doesn't that mean this can't happen for Ford, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc, etc and also encourage companies to go offshore particularly those for whom it might be in the balance anway. I can't remember now but what is the position of Shell, Unilever, HSBC, etc.
Mrs C, I agree. Doxxing is a reprehensible thing to do.
On the substance of sexism, though, when minor or totally inconsequential things are blown out of all proportion it becomes easier to dismiss wholesale the problem. Wide muck-spreading happened for MPs' expenses, and that just tarred everyone, enabling those who had done the worst things to evade proper scrutiny whilst smearing the good name of MPs that had behaved in an entirely reasonable manner.
Really has taken over labour from Corbyn and now the remain party with the lib dems.
This is going to result in a civil war in labour and lots of lost labour seats in leave areas
I think you forget how tribal the Labour base is. They will vote Labour no matter what the leadership says or does.
I was in Liverpool yesterday and saw people wearing black T-shirts with "I still hate Thatcher" printed in big whit letters across the front. I was not surprised in the slightest...
Really has taken over labour from Corbyn and now the remain party with the lib dems.
This is going to result in a civil war in labour and lots of lost labour seats in leave areas
You hope. It really won’t you know.
Brexit is now recognised by most people to be the pile of ordure it always was. That fact will become clearer and clearer as every day passes and it will weigh down the Tory party like a stinking stone.
And 71% do not consider Corbyn competent to deal with brexit and 68% do not think labour are
Really has taken over labour from Corbyn and now the remain party with the lib dems.
This is going to result in a civil war in labour and lots of lost labour seats in leave areas
You hope. It really won’t you know.
Brexit is now recognised by most people to be the pile of ordure it always was. That fact will become clearer and clearer as every day passes and it will weigh down the Tory party like a stinking stone.
And 71% do not consider Corbyn competent to deal with brexit and 68% do not think labour are
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Why don’t you go and find an example of a customs union with a unilateral free trade policy then?
See you later 😎
You won't find any large countries with a policy of unilateral free trade either so that's a spurious point.
A customs union tears down walls within it; it says nothing about how high the walls with the rest of the world are.
You’re discussing theory. I’m looking at practical reality.
Ask a proper free trader what they think of customs unions and - at best - you’ll get very tepid approval
Opposition to customs unions is based on ideological objections to pooled sovereignty, not on any practical objections to the trade policies that result from them.
The time I spent studying the Zollverein convinced me they were bad in principle
Beggar thy neighbour is not a good philosophy for life
The video's a bit ... thought provoking. Or it would be if it weren't 5 to 4 in the morning.
Not doing myself down, or anything, but I think I should have edited the script down another 20% and tightened it up a bit. The content is good, but I'm a bit long-winded this time around. Probably because I've been simultaneously working on the very data heavy Demographics II.
arket cap) rather than actual profits
CUs benefit those inside at the expense of those outside. They are not free trade - they are tools for wealth diversion not maximisation
That is not an inherent characteristic of a customs union. It entirely depends what policies it has on external trade.
Well yes, to the extent that a metal bar with a rounded handle and a sharpened edge is probably a knife.
A customs union that has a FT focused external policy isn’t a customs union. They only work by excluding others
Absolute nonsense. Do you think that the customs union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is inherently protectionist or is it just a demarcation of political boundaries?
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
Tariffs are not the main feature of a customs union which is the idea that once a good is in, it is in, so if an American good is landed and checked at Rotterdam, say, then it never needs to be checked again as it crosses borders to France and then on to Britain, and of course this is win-win for goods originating inside the customs union. This leads to frictionless trade and that is the important point, not the tariff (if any) because that is just another element to the price, along with the cost of shipping. You could drop a tariff to zero and that would still be true.
Seeing as the EEC had a customs union why did the single market have to be invented to remove checks at borders within the customs union?
The RAF didn’t have their first female pilot until 1991.
JAG was on my Tucano course at Linton. She thought she was going back to the Phantom OCU as an instructor but ended flying up Andovers full of Elsans around.
"Life expectancy progress in UK 'stops for first time
Women's life expectancy from birth remains 82.9 years and for men it is 79.2, the figures from the Office for National Statistics, for 2015-17, show. In some parts of the UK, life expectancy has even decreased. For men and women in Scotland and Wales, it declined by more than a month. Men in Northern Ireland have seen a similar fall.'"
Mr. Sandpit, as I'm currently writing comedy, that's rather nice to hear.
Mrs C, there are genuine problems of sexism in videogames. Naughty Dog had to fight to get Ellie on the cover of The Last of Us, despite her clearly being one of the two protagonists (there's no plot without her).
Some complaints, however, are ridiculous and obscure more genuine concerns. On 'dead girlfriend' or 'rape as motivation [for revenge]' I'd say that can affect fiction more widely than just videogames. And there are some daft examples. People complaining you can't be female in an FPS game, and then complaining when you can shoot loads of women.
There's also some (alas) nastiness in the fanbases which isn't limited to sexism. A CoD developer, following a patch which altered weapon reload times by tiny fractions to try and balance things better, get death threats for both himself and his family.
Strongly suspect the likes of Anita Sarkeesian have done more harm than good when it comes to combating something that's real.
Whether Sarkeesian did more harm than good may be debatable (I think she was generally correct in many of her observations), but she did not deserve threats of rape, murder, etc and to have all her personal details, including her address, plastered all over the internet.
I think the abominable treatment she received from pasty men living in their mothers' basements did, paradoxically, more good than harm. [Not for her as an individual, obviously!]
I was appalled by what she went through, but it forced a lot of people to take note of the underlying misogyny of "bro culture", and forced a lot of people to stop passively ignoring and tolerating it, and start acting upon it. Spotlights were shone into dark and fetid places.
That’s not a customs union, that’s a single country.
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
It can be just two countries, but you're right - the defining feature of a customs union is that it eliminates tariff and rules of origin barriers internally and has a common external tariff (i.e. a common trade policy). It does not say anything about whether the external tariff is higher or lower than it would be if the members ran independent trade policies, and even if the customs union had a policy of unilateral free trade with the rest of the world, it would still serve a purpose because of rules of origin.
Why don’t you go and find an example of a customs union with a unilateral free trade policy then?
See you later 😎
You won't find any large countries with a policy of unilateral free trade either so that's a spurious point.
A customs union tears down walls within it; it says nothing about how high the walls with the rest of the world are.
You’re discussing theory. I’m looking at practical reality.
Ask a proper free trader what they think of customs unions and - at best - you’ll get very tepid approval
Opposition to customs unions is based on ideological objections to pooled sovereignty, not on any practical objections to the trade policies that result from them.
The time I spent studying the Zollverein convinced me they were bad in principle
Beggar thy neighbour is not a good philosophy for life
According to wiki, objectives 1 and 3 we’re screwing the Austrians and the French respectively. Objective 2 was making the economy work better
That's like saying that mercantilism is an argument against nation states. If the Zollverein had instead been a unified nation state pursuing the same policies, what difference would it have made?
The RAF didn’t have their first female pilot until 1991.
JAG was on my Tucano course at Linton. She thought she was going back to the Phantom OCU as an instructor but ended flying up Andovers full of Elsans around.
I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive about anyone you met whilst in the military.
For several years the party conferences have been taking place earlier than was previously the case. I recall that the Tory Conference usually coincided with Thatcher's birthday - 13th October - with Labour having had theirs at the beginning of the month. Any idea as to why they appear to have been brought forward?
Mrs C, I agree. Doxxing is a reprehensible thing to do.
On the substance of sexism, though, when minor or totally inconsequential things are blown out of all proportion it becomes easier to dismiss wholesale the problem. Wide muck-spreading happened for MPs' expenses, and that just tarred everyone, enabling those who had done the worst things to evade proper scrutiny whilst smearing the good name of MPs that had behaved in an entirely reasonable manner.
My understanding (which may well be wrong) is that Sarkeesian's content was blown way out of proportion. Her stance was basically "it's valid to make a feminist critique of video games, and here is one", not that the industry had to bend over backwards to make every game a bastion of social justice
I was appalled by what she went through, but it forced a lot of people to take note of the underlying misogyny of "bro culture", and forced a lot of people to stop passively ignoring and tolerating it, and start acting upon it. Spotlights were shone into dark and fetid places.
So Keir Starmer has said to the EU-do not offer the UK anything. Within weeks we may get a second referendum and a Remain vote. Is that it or have I missed something?
The RAF didn’t have their first female pilot until 1991.
JAG was on my Tucano course at Linton. She thought she was going back to the Phantom OCU as an instructor but ended flying up Andovers full of Elsans around.
I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive about anyone you met whilst in the military.
Here's one: we had a USMC exchange officer on 801NAS. When we deployed for OSW over Iraq we were all shitting ourselves over the prospect of banging out over "Bandit Country". (Sea Harriers being not the most reliable steeds with many single points of failure). Our USMC colleague was seen putting a very large knife in his boot. I said, "What the fuck are you going to do with that?"
Our crew cutted hero replied, "If I get shot down, I'm going to stab the first fucking ***-**** I see with an AK-47. Then I'm going to use that AK-47 to take over a T-55 (tank). Then I'm going to drive that T-55 to Baghdad and shell the fuck out of Saddam's palace."
Late to the party, but I agree with the post about EBITDA: Earnings before bad stuff.
Tax - cashflow, gotta pay it Interest - cashflow, gotta pay it Depreciation - cashflow smoothed out for capital expenditure
Only 'A' is possibly not a cashflow (or possibly is, depends what the intangible is).
I know one.... ahem... business, that regularly argues their expenditure is 'goodwill', so they can capitalise it and then AMORTISE it, so it drops below their line. All sorts is dumped there. I've seen rent and purchases dumped there, just to push EBITDA up.
So Keir Starmer has said to the EU-do not offer the UK anything. Within weeks we may get a second referendum and a Remain vote. Is that it or have I missed something?
Fair comment. The political damage to labour in leave areas could be severe
The RAF didn’t have their first female pilot until 1991.
JAG was on my Tucano course at Linton. She thought she was going back to the Phantom OCU as an instructor but ended flying up Andovers full of Elsans around.
I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive about anyone you met whilst in the military.
Just to clarify: JAG was a good operator but the time she finished BFT F-4 ops were winding down and the OCU was replaced by an aptly named "cell" on 74.
Mr. Stereotomy, it's a long time, huzzah, since I watched any videos related to such matters, but the impression I got at the time was that Sarkeesian was seeking to make a name/money for herself by blowing minor matters out of proportion.
SJW nonsense has gotten more severe more recently. Still remember the bleating that Kingdom Come Deliverance, a game set in Bohemia in 1403, didn't have any black people in it.
The RAF didn’t have their first female pilot until 1991.
JAG was on my Tucano course at Linton. She thought she was going back to the Phantom OCU as an instructor but ended flying up Andovers full of Elsans around.
I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive about anyone you met whilst in the military.
Here's one: we had a USMC exchange officer on 801NAS. When we deployed for OSW over Iraq we were all shitting ourselves over the prospect of banging out over "Bandit Country". (Sea Harriers being not the most reliable steeds with many single points of failure). Our USMC colleague was seen putting a very large knife in his boot. I said, "What the fuck are you going to do with that?"
Our crew cutted hero replied, "If I get shot down, I'm going to stab the first fucking ***-**** I see with an AK-47. Then I'm going to use that AK-47 to take over a T-55 (tank). Then I'm going to drive that T-55 to Baghdad and shell the fuck out of Saddam's palace."
He ended up a 2* in the Corps...
So that's not a line from Hot Shots: Part Deux, then? This chap didn't look a leeetle bit like Charlie Sheen?
Lots of ifs and not ruling out....classic politician speak that at first hearing you definitely think says one thing, but actually doesn't quite say that.
The media coverage of Starmer being applauded to the rafters' and no doubt lots of EU flags waving' for his confirmation that remain will be on the ballot paper is going to go down like a lead balloon in all the leave constituencies and lots of labour mps in those areas will be very worried and angry today
Hardly rapturous applause. Enthusiastic perhaps. Get the BBC politico down to a Championship game on a weekday evening, away from home, when your team scores a last-minute equaliser and then come back to me with rapturous.
Labour still don't have a Brexit policy, they have a Brexit cold war.
So Keir Starmer has said to the EU-do not offer the UK anything. Within weeks we may get a second referendum and a Remain vote. Is that it or have I missed something?
Fair comment. The political damage to labour in leave areas could be severe
I doubt that. Brexit is not a very salient issue for Labour voters - whether they voted Leave or Remain.
The RAF didn’t have their first female pilot until 1991.
JAG was on my Tucano course at Linton. She thought she was going back to the Phantom OCU as an instructor but ended flying up Andovers full of Elsans around.
I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive about anyone you met whilst in the military.
Here's one: we had a USMC exchange officer on 801NAS. When we deployed for OSW over Iraq we were all shitting ourselves over the prospect of banging out over "Bandit Country". (Sea Harriers being not the most reliable steeds with many single points of failure). Our USMC colleague was seen putting a very large knife in his boot. I said, "What the fuck are you going to do with that?"
Our crew cutted hero replied, "If I get shot down, I'm going to stab the first fucking ***-**** I see with an AK-47. Then I'm going to use that AK-47 to take over a T-55 (tank). Then I'm going to drive that T-55 to Baghdad and shell the fuck out of Saddam's palace."
He ended up a 2* in the Corps...
So that's not a line from Hot Shots: Part Deux, then? This chap didn't look a leeetle bit like Charlie Sheen?
I think a variation of it was first coined on the Western Front in 1914!
So Keir Starmer has said to the EU-do not offer the UK anything. Within weeks we may get a second referendum and a Remain vote. Is that it or have I missed something?
Fair comment. The political damage to labour in leave areas could be severe
I doubt that. Brexit is not a very salient issue for Labour voters - whether they voted Leave or Remain.
Comments
And she was the first female combat pilot in the world.
I don't believe for a moment that Corbyn voted Remain. He's never ever been pro-EU and he didn't start being pro-EU in 2016.
If Labour were to campaign hard now for a new referendum before March 29th on a Remain / May's deal - whatever that turns out to be, even if it turns out to be No Deal and Labour were to campaign for Remain, that might be a reason for some to view Corbyn's Labour a bit more favourably.
But, as far as I can tell, Labour won't vote for May's deal and don't want Remain to be on any new vote so they are for No Deal, I assume.
Who can say? They clearly can't.
Of course, after 29th March there is no Remain option anymore and it is a question of whether Britain wants to Rejoin and the EU is willing to have us back. Another kettle of fish entirely.
Quite why May is still flogging the Chequers dead horse beats me. What bit of the EU saying "no" did she not understand?
Anyway back to work. Am grumpy as won't get result of shoulder scan until mid October, some 2 months after first appointment, 5 months after first went to doctor and 10 months after problem first arose. And all the time I have had to chase them for updates. And the bloody pain continues. Grr......
(And I won't go into why it's a bit disingenuous to include her.)
A customs union is 3+ countries grouping together saying let’s collaborate in establishing a common external tariff
And the government might quite like to divert large dividends being paid to overseas countries
Handed a big stick for the conservatives to attack labour.
The conservatives the only party respecting democracy
It turns out the inside of an oven is hot.
Mr. Borough, fair enough. Such terms aren't my specialty. If we were talking about immunis and munifex it'd be another matter.
However, now is the time for Hammond to make a big offer to Company employees
You can force them to issue shares in their UK subsidiary but it will simply stop paying dividends to the holding company.
McD’s proposals would be a great exercise in just how fragmented companies could be, and just how many inventive ways could be found to get the money offshore while staying under various thresholds and regulations. Great news for lawyers, accountants and, happily for your brother, bankers.
I haven't watched 'Hidden Figures' yet, but it'd be a shame if it didn't include Margaret Hamilton, who led the team developing the Apollo software:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)
The training is not the problem, nor is the programming, but the work environment can be very hostile towards women. Most male programmers are fine, but amongst a small (but not insignificant) number there is extreme hostility towards women.
Look at some of the spats in the games community recently where some women were simply asking why (in games) women had to butchered as part of the background to the story, or given as prizes to "warriors", etc. The women in question received death threats, threats of rape and more than one had to have police protection and move house for their own safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
None of this seems to happen to nurses, doctors or curry chefs...
See you later 😎
If we are going doing the "human computer" road then Annie Cannon, Henrietta Leavitt and "Pickering's Computers" (aka the Harvard Computers).
[Edit - do not forget Annie Maunder - everyone else does]
A customs union tears down walls within it; it says nothing about how high the walls with the rest of the world are.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1044532574255636480
I do wonder if it's because the really good engineers often tend to be rather lacking in interpersonal skills, and find it hard enough to get on with people of the same sex, yet alone those of the opposite.
But there's also expectations. Not enough young women are going into such subjects at university, which means when I was recruiting graduates female candidates were exceptionally rare. Girls at school need to be told that science, technology and engineering can be a great career.
Ask a proper free trader what they think of customs unions and - at best - you’ll get very tepid approval
Mrs C, there are genuine problems of sexism in videogames. Naughty Dog had to fight to get Ellie on the cover of The Last of Us, despite her clearly being one of the two protagonists (there's no plot without her).
Some complaints, however, are ridiculous and obscure more genuine concerns. On 'dead girlfriend' or 'rape as motivation [for revenge]' I'd say that can affect fiction more widely than just videogames. And there are some daft examples. People complaining you can't be female in an FPS game, and then complaining when you can shoot loads of women.
There's also some (alas) nastiness in the fanbases which isn't limited to sexism. A CoD developer, following a patch which altered weapon reload times by tiny fractions to try and balance things better, get death threats for both himself and his family.
Strongly suspect the likes of Anita Sarkeesian have done more harm than good when it comes to combating something that's real.
This is going to result in a civil war in labour and lots of lost labour seats in leave areas
Lucky for them the Lib Dems are still very far behind.
Exactly correct. Being "mundane" and "clerical" is was viewed as low status = women's work.
Once it started attracting high salaries and status, it became too hard for women's brains
(We really need a "Rolls-eyes" icon in PB)
By the way in my wife's case the shares are in the overseas holding company (this isn't some tax avoidance scheme, but like many organisations it is a genuine overseas company with subsidiaries all over the world and is quoted on the foreign exchange of the home country). And because it isn't a crackpot scheme it works with no additional issues other than exchange rates.
Consider Ferrari and McLaren as an example, why would the latter want to build cars and make most of its international profits in the U.K., where the treatment of their company puts them at a disadvantage compared to their competitors? Most likely it would set up a company somewhere else in the world (Singapore, Bahrain?) where all international (ex-UK) sales and profits are registered.
We see this in the US with Apple and Amazon keeping international profits offshore, to a total of a trillion dollars. Part of the recent tax bill there was to encourage this money back onshore with tax breaks.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-tory-labour-policy-hitler-appeasement-terrifying-parallels-a8553686.html
Got fed up, went privately to see a physio and it’s sorted.
Bloody Tory under-funding. Either that or because (EU) specialist has gone home.
https://twitter.com/CharlieCooper8/status/1044534341341188096
Brexit is now recognised by most people to be the pile of ordure it always was. That fact will become clearer and clearer as every day passes and it will weigh down the Tory party like a stinking stone.
But doesn't that mean this can't happen for Ford, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc, etc and also encourage companies to go offshore particularly those for whom it might be in the balance anway. I can't remember now but what is the position of Shell, Unilever, HSBC, etc.
Apart from John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn yesterday.
On the substance of sexism, though, when minor or totally inconsequential things are blown out of all proportion it becomes easier to dismiss wholesale the problem. Wide muck-spreading happened for MPs' expenses, and that just tarred everyone, enabling those who had done the worst things to evade proper scrutiny whilst smearing the good name of MPs that had behaved in an entirely reasonable manner.
I was in Liverpool yesterday and saw people wearing black T-shirts with "I still hate Thatcher" printed in big whit letters across the front. I was not surprised in the slightest...
Beggar thy neighbour is not a good philosophy for life
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein
According to wiki, objectives 1 and 3 we’re screwing the Austrians and the French respectively. Objective 2 was making the economy work better
Except the Labour manifesto
Women's life expectancy from birth remains 82.9 years and for men it is 79.2, the figures from the Office for National Statistics, for 2015-17, show.
In some parts of the UK, life expectancy has even decreased.
For men and women in Scotland and Wales, it declined by more than a month. Men in Northern Ireland have seen a similar fall.'"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646
I was appalled by what she went through, but it forced a lot of people to take note of the underlying misogyny of "bro culture", and forced a lot of people to stop passively ignoring and tolerating it, and start acting upon it. Spotlights were shone into dark and fetid places.
McDonnell and McCluskey will not accept it and Starmer over reached
The Conservative Party - as in this poster - has branded itself as the party of cheats, liars and fraudsters.
This is not good for its traditional image.
Swedish PM loses vote of confidence.
But, it's unclear whether any alternative government can be formed.
Our crew cutted hero replied, "If I get shot down, I'm going to stab the first fucking ***-**** I see with an AK-47. Then I'm going to use that AK-47 to take over a T-55 (tank). Then I'm going to drive that T-55 to Baghdad and shell the fuck out of Saddam's palace."
He ended up a 2* in the Corps...
Tax - cashflow, gotta pay it
Interest - cashflow, gotta pay it
Depreciation - cashflow smoothed out for capital expenditure
Only 'A' is possibly not a cashflow (or possibly is, depends what the intangible is).
I know one.... ahem... business, that regularly argues their expenditure is 'goodwill', so they can capitalise it and then AMORTISE it, so it drops below their line. All sorts is dumped there. I've seen rent and purchases dumped there, just to push EBITDA up.
SJW nonsense has gotten more severe more recently. Still remember the bleating that Kingdom Come Deliverance, a game set in Bohemia in 1403, didn't have any black people in it.
On a lighter note, dress rehearsals commence for Corbyn's inauguration as PM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFTG94wcrz0
Get the BBC politico down to a Championship game on a weekday evening, away from home, when your team scores a last-minute equaliser and then come back to me with rapturous.
Labour still don't have a Brexit policy, they have a Brexit cold war.