The Dutch employers organisation VNO-NCW is blaming Brexit for Unilever’s decision:
The website DutchNews.nl quotes the organisation:
[We are sorry that] such an important decision has become swept up in the turbulent political developments in the UK.
It is also an indication of what Brexit means, a hard fight for corporate locations.
Wait until we cut corporation tax further and EU rates are harmonised internally at a higher rate..
We can’t afford to cut corporation tax even further without raising personal taxation.
All together now, cutting tax rates often increases tax takes...
Laffer deniers and data don't often mix well.
I believe Laffer has never been proved, it's a kinda nice idea which might be true. What is undoubtedly true though is that tax cuts feed the kleptocratic tendency of the kleptocratic. It can be the case that tax rates are cut, management decides to raise its own salaries at the expense of workers, and the tax take goes up, but the overall effect of the change is net bad for public finances because you are paying the poorly paid more in tax credits and stuff. And that's all before you get into bleeding heart social justice arguments.
It is obviously true in certain contexts, but equally obviously it will differ across contexts.
In this case, when you cut corporation tax from 28% to 17%, for receipts to rise overall the base on which you're applying it needs to grow by 64%.
Anecdote alert!!!!!! I was speaking to my wife about politics in general last night and I was surprised with her responses. She works in the public sector and I had thought that she might think Corbyn had some good ideas. Surprisingly her main response was that he is sexist who treats the women in his party very badly. I mentioned anti semitism / IRA but she kept on going in about his outdated misogynist attitudes. When we got onto May we agreed that she is very wishy washy and not a leader but to her that is good for a Tory.
Women have been treated badly throughout a lot of human history. Someone who treats women badly does not get a lot of female support. It also explains why Kavanugh is doing so badly amongst US female voters.
Just look at the migration numbers from outside the EU.
I think that the continual dishonesty from Cameron's government that they failed to reach the immigration target because of the EU (when you can see that they would have failed to reach the target with zero net migration from the EU) was one thing that led to Leave winning the referendum. I was always amazed that they were able to repeat that claim.
It's also a small example of the culture of dishonesty that is already the norm in our politics that makes us vulnerable to a Trump-like figure willing to take lying to ever more brazen extremes.
The big things for me have always been access to work in Europe compared to low skilled European immigration, and high skilled non Eu immigration.
I have heard it said on here that we will be missing out on employment opportunities across the whole of the EU after Brexit. It would surprise me greatly if the number of Brits working in Europe was even 1/10th of Europeans working here. I think Brits retire to Europe, but don’t go and work there to learn the language in any great numbers, as the value of speaking any language other than English Is not great. Whereas it is much more valuable for Europenaa to learn English to a good standard, and it is worth them taking low skilled work to do so.
By reacting to the demand for this low skilled work we are then restricting skilled migration from outside EU, by those who could contribute even more, and meet specific skills gap in our economy to make the whole economy function better.
This is why the politics of numbers matters, and why we need leaders not those in thrall to focus groups. The 100k net immigration number is just as bonkers as Blair’s 50% higher education number.
Agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. The Tories have not had a leader who actually led since Thatcher. She challenged their received wisdom and told them home truths about themselves that they did not like to hear. All her successors have merely pandered to their prejudices and followed the line of least resistance. Leadership it is not.
We did have some hoodie hugging and glacier adoring in the meantime, tbf.
Meaningless media stunts. Typical of today's non-leaders.
Only two Bond actors have been Englishmen – Roger Moore and Daniel Craig.
Sean Connery is Scottish, Pierce Brosnan Irish, Timothy Dalton Welsh and George Lazenby Australian.
British (rather than English), but not American. That is why we have Felix Lighter (who is now black after being white in previous Bond "versions" - for example with Timothy Dalton)
Daniel Craig is (or has been told to play it) too serious with none of that self-referential mocking that both Connery and Moore were so good at.
I think the next James Bond should be Omar Djalili.
I'm on team Hiddlestone, Craig's my favourite bond.
Tom Hiddlestone would explode in a self-love supernova (ask @Andy_Cooke for the equations) if he were to be given the gig.
Edit: I am a huge Tom Hardy fan, that said.
Tom Hardy lacks the nuance to play James Bond.
That said, he was probably the one decent thing in Venom, which was pretty bad, not quite Catwoman bad, but still pretty bad.
Almost seemed like an edition of the Species franchise.
For me James Bond shouldn't be a Jason Bourne-me too. He or she should have a much more to use your word nuanced character than Craig, who I think is nuance-less. I think Hardy could do that. As could Colin Firth for example and I'm not even joking.
Daniel Craig is (or has been told to play it) too serious with none of that self-referential mocking that both Connery and Moore were so good at.
I think the next James Bond should be Omar Djalili.
I'm on team Hiddlestone, Craig's my favourite bond.
Tom Hiddlestone would explode in a self-love supernova (ask @Andy_Cooke for the equations) if he were to be given the gig.
Edit: I am a huge Tom Hardy fan, that said.
Tom Hardy lacks the nuance to play James Bond.
That said, he was probably the one decent thing in Venom, which was pretty bad, not quite Catwoman bad, but still pretty bad.
Almost seemed like an edition of the Species franchise.
For me James Bond shouldn't be a Jason Bourne-me too. He or she should have a much more to use your word nuanced character than Craig, who I think is nuance-less. I think Hardy could do that. As could Colin Firth for example and I'm not even joking.
I cannot imagine Colin Firth delivering the line 'Now the whole world's gonna know that you died scratching my balls'
Only two Bond actors have been Englishmen – Roger Moore and Daniel Craig.
Sean Connery is Scottish, Pierce Brosnan Irish, Timothy Dalton Welsh and George Lazenby Australian.
British (rather than English), but not American. That is why we have Felix Lighter (who is now black after being white in previous Bond "versions" - for example with Timothy Dalton)
I'd settle for Elba. His Beasts of No Nation was immense.
In fact, I was just thinking, after watching Bunk in the dreadful Jack Ryan last night, that I might have to go and re-watch The Wire soon.
Just look at the migration numbers from outside the EU.
I think that the continual dishonesty from Cameron's government that they failed to reach the immigration target because of the EU (when you can see that they would have failed to reach the target with zero net migration from the EU) was one thing that led to Leave winning the referendum. I was always amazed that they were able to repeat that claim.
It's also a small example of the culture of dishonesty that is already the norm in our politics that makes us vulnerable to a Trump-like figure willing to take lying to ever more brazen extremes.
The big things for me have always been access to work in Europe compared to low skilled European immigration, and high skilled non Eu immigration.
I have heard it said on here that we will be missing out on employment opportunities across the whole of the EU after Brexit. It would surprise me greatly if the number of Brits working in Europe was even 1/10th of Europeans working here. I think Brits retire to Europe, but don’t go and work there to learn the language in any great numbers, as the value of speaking any language other than English Is not great. Whereas it is much more valuable for Europenaa to learn English to a good standard, and it is worth them taking low skilled work to do so.
By reacting to the demand for this low skilled work we are then restricting skilled migration from outside EU, by those who could contribute even more, and meet specific skills gap in our economy to make the whole economy function better.
This is why the politics of numbers matters, and why we need leaders not those in thrall to focus groups. The 100k net immigration number is just as bonkers as Blair’s 50% higher education number.
Agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. The Tories have not had a leader who actually led since Thatcher. She challenged their received wisdom and told them home truths about themselves that they did not like to hear. All her successors have merely pandered to their prejudices and followed the line of least resistance. Leadership it is not.
We did have some hoodie hugging and glacier adoring in the meantime, tbf.
Meaningless media stunts. Typical of today's non-leaders.
All part of the drip-drip narrative. He was mocked but the image stuck. Helped the detoxification project which is now of course in tatters.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I don't think so. In 1783 when the system was set up, there were 13 States. I think only 5 or 6 were slave owning (not sure about Delaware). Most of the Slave states had substantial white male populations so wouldn't be under represented, the smaller population states were in New England and Delaware.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I don't think so. In 1783 when the system was set up, there were 13 States. I think only 5 or 6 were slave owning (not sure about Delaware). Most of the Slave states had substantial white male populations so wouldn't be under represented, the smaller population states were in New England and Delaware.
The entire thing about slaves counting as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of census was so the slave owning states wouldn't lose out on electoral votes and congressional representatives.
Daniel Craig is (or has been told to play it) too serious with none of that self-referential mocking that both Connery and Moore were so good at.
I think the next James Bond should be Omar Djalili.
I'm on team Hiddlestone, Craig's my favourite bond.
Tom Hiddlestone would explode in a self-love supernova (ask @Andy_Cooke for the equations) if he were to be given the gig.
Edit: I am a huge Tom Hardy fan, that said.
Tom Hardy lacks the nuance to play James Bond.
That said, he was probably the one decent thing in Venom, which was pretty bad, not quite Catwoman bad, but still pretty bad.
Almost seemed like an edition of the Species franchise.
For me James Bond shouldn't be a Jason Bourne-me too. He or she should have a much more to use your word nuanced character than Craig, who I think is nuance-less. I think Hardy could do that. As could Colin Firth for example and I'm not even joking.
I cannot imagine Colin Firth delivering the line 'Now the whole world's gonna know that you died scratching my balls'
Daniel Craig is (or has been told to play it) too serious with none of that self-referential mocking that both Connery and Moore were so good at.
I think the next James Bond should be Omar Djalili.
I'm on team Hiddlestone, Craig's my favourite bond.
Tom Hiddlestone would explode in a self-love supernova (ask @Andy_Cooke for the equations) if he were to be given the gig.
Edit: I am a huge Tom Hardy fan, that said.
Tom Hardy lacks the nuance to play James Bond.
That said, he was probably the one decent thing in Venom, which was pretty bad, not quite Catwoman bad, but still pretty bad.
Almost seemed like an edition of the Species franchise.
He might make a pretty good Bond villain.
Hiddlestone would be awful. The only thing he was good at (and yes, I have seen some of his Shakespearean efforts) was playing Loki.
The scratching my balls scene and this scene with Hiddleston are the two only times I've feared I'd be ejected from a cinema, I couldn't breathe and was unable to stop laughing very loudly.
Daniel Craig is (or has been told to play it) too serious with none of that self-referential mocking that both Connery and Moore were so good at.
I think the next James Bond should be Omar Djalili.
I'm on team Hiddlestone, Craig's my favourite bond.
Tom Hiddlestone would explode in a self-love supernova (ask @Andy_Cooke for the equations) if he were to be given the gig.
Edit: I am a huge Tom Hardy fan, that said.
Tom Hardy lacks the nuance to play James Bond.
That said, he was probably the one decent thing in Venom, which was pretty bad, not quite Catwoman bad, but still pretty bad.
Almost seemed like an edition of the Species franchise.
For me James Bond shouldn't be a Jason Bourne-me too. He or she should have a much more to use your word nuanced character than Craig, who I think is nuance-less. I think Hardy could do that. As could Colin Firth for example and I'm not even joking.
Funny how "super agents" all have the initials "JB" - Jack Bauer, James Bond, Gilberto de Piento...
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
IIRC the weighting of 2 senators for each state goes back to the founding fathers, well before slavery became an issue. It has not changed since 1783.
Slavery was an issue right at the foundation of the United States. The compromise of slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person is part of that tension. Every step of expansion of the United States was be deviled by arguemnts about slavery and the balance of senators between slave holding and non slave holding states being upset. Right from the version first expansion.
QoS also has a good level of wit/humour in the phonecalls etc between Dench, Craig and Kinnear.
M: Ask him about Slate. Tanner: She wants to know about Slate. James Bond: Slate was a dead end. Tanner: He says it was a dead end. M: Damn it! He killed him.
Also in La Paz.
James Bond: [at a dirty, small motel] What are we doing? Strawberry Fields: We're teachers on sabbatical. This fits our cover. James Bond: No it doesn't. I'd rather stay at a morgue. Come on. [cut to nicer hotel] James Bond: [to the hotel receptionist] Hello. We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery.
Should probably drop some weight from his superman portrayal though. Bond is fit but not ridiculously jacked.
Cavill would have been a decent choice ... he can certainly do the tongue in cheek (as he demonstrated in the silly but entertaining The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) which would make a nice contrast to the Craig-serious years.
QoS also has a good level of wit/humour in the phonecalls etc between Dench, Craig and Kinnear.
M: Ask him about Slate. Tanner: She wants to know about Slate. James Bond: Slate was a dead end. Tanner: He says it was a dead end. M: Damn it! He killed him.
Also in La Paz.
James Bond: [at a dirty, small motel] What are we doing? Strawberry Fields: We're teachers on sabbatical. This fits our cover. James Bond: No it doesn't. I'd rather stay at a morgue. Come on. [cut to nicer hotel] James Bond: [to the hotel receptionist] Hello. We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery.
a witty script does not a self-aware James Bond make.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
IIRC the weighting of 2 senators for each state goes back to the founding fathers, well before slavery became an issue. It has not changed since 1783.
Slavery was an issue right at the foundation of the United States. The compromise of slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person is part of that tension. Every step of expansion of the United States was be deviled by arguemnts about slavery and the balance of senators between slave holding and non slave holding states being upset. Right from the version first expansion.
And equally to the point, the weighting was there to protect the then interests of states who ratified the constitution. Maintaining the same privileges over the next couple of centuries and multiplication of the number of states makes little sense.
The practical constitutional barriers to effecting any change in the arrangement are, of course, immense.
Andy_Cooke said: » show previous quotes Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed. Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba. As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
Can I just say that this is the sort of answer I read PB for.
QoS also has a good level of wit/humour in the phonecalls etc between Dench, Craig and Kinnear.
M: Ask him about Slate. Tanner: She wants to know about Slate. James Bond: Slate was a dead end. Tanner: He says it was a dead end. M: Damn it! He killed him.
Also in La Paz.
James Bond: [at a dirty, small motel] What are we doing? Strawberry Fields: We're teachers on sabbatical. This fits our cover. James Bond: No it doesn't. I'd rather stay at a morgue. Come on. [cut to nicer hotel] James Bond: [to the hotel receptionist] Hello. We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery.
a witty script does not a self-aware James Bond make.
I feel they ought to introduce 'Haven't got a clue' as well, to make it a fairer competition.
My own reading is that "don't know" includes a lot of "Theresa May but I'm not going to vote for her anyway and I'm certainly not going to admit it to you".
I feel they ought to introduce 'Haven't got a clue' as well, to make it a fairer competition.
My own reading is that "don't know" includes a lot of "Theresa May but I'm not going to vote for her anyway and I'm certainly not going to admit it to you".
Andy_Cooke said: » show previous quotes Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed. Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba. As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
Can I just say that this is the sort of answer I read PB for.
There are some very clever contributors on this forum. Amazing
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
But is was not designed to impose the political views of the minority on the majority, as now, for instance, via the Supreme Court.
It was specifically designed that the Supreme Court appointments were more reflected by States than by Population. That's why power to approve appointments was given to the Senate not the House.
America wasn't designed as a pure democracy.
Indeed, remember that until the 1910s Senators were appointed by the state legislatures rather than elected directly.
At the time the constitution was framed, it was likely not anticipated that there would be states like California and Texas with populations close to 100 times the size of the smallest ones.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I think that anomalous historical revisionism. I doubt they considered that a factor at the time.
I'm not sure when the Senate structure was established, but presumably it was before slavery became a contentious issue?
Yes, it was to protect the interests of the smaller states,particularly as Virginia had such a large population compared to some of the others. Here is the population of the 13 colonies in 1770:
1. Virginia 447,016 2. Pennsylvania 240,057 3. Massachusetts 235,808 4. Maryland 202,599 5. North Carolina 197,200 6. Connecticut 183,881 7. New York 162,920 8. South Carolina 124,244 9. New Jersey 117,431 10. Rhode Island 58,196 11. New Hampshire 62,396 12. Delaware 35,496 13. Georgia 23,375
QoS also has a good level of wit/humour in the phonecalls etc between Dench, Craig and Kinnear.
M: Ask him about Slate. Tanner: She wants to know about Slate. James Bond: Slate was a dead end. Tanner: He says it was a dead end. M: Damn it! He killed him.
Also in La Paz.
James Bond: [at a dirty, small motel] What are we doing? Strawberry Fields: We're teachers on sabbatical. This fits our cover. James Bond: No it doesn't. I'd rather stay at a morgue. Come on. [cut to nicer hotel] James Bond: [to the hotel receptionist] Hello. We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery.
a witty script does not a self-aware James Bond make.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I think that anomalous historical revisionism. I doubt they considered that a factor at the time.
I'm not sure when the Senate structure was established, but presumably it was before slavery became a contentious issue?
Term time of course so the professional historian who knows about these things is Otherwise Engaged, but wasn’t the Senate structure established very early on indeed; Continental Congress time?
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I think that anomalous historical revisionism. I doubt they considered that a factor at the time.
I'm not sure when the Senate structure was established, but presumably it was before slavery became a contentious issue?
Term time of course so the professional historian who knows about these things is Otherwise Engaged, but wasn’t the Senate structure established very early on indeed; Continental Congress time?
I believe it was, but not with sufficient confidence to state it as a fact.
QoS also has a good level of wit/humour in the phonecalls etc between Dench, Craig and Kinnear.
M: Ask him about Slate. Tanner: She wants to know about Slate. James Bond: Slate was a dead end. Tanner: He says it was a dead end. M: Damn it! He killed him.
Also in La Paz.
James Bond: [at a dirty, small motel] What are we doing? Strawberry Fields: We're teachers on sabbatical. This fits our cover. James Bond: No it doesn't. I'd rather stay at a morgue. Come on. [cut to nicer hotel] James Bond: [to the hotel receptionist] Hello. We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery.
a witty script does not a self-aware James Bond make.
Craig actually has quite a nice touch in self-deprecating humour, occasionally. Though QoS was, of course, awful.
As was Spectre (although not quite as bad).
The case for Craig is weakened by the fact that he has only made one good Bond film, Casino Royale, albeit the the best film in the entire series. Skyfall is half-decent, but massively overrated.
Pre conservative conference and TM speech. Lets see if it moves the dial or not
The country is in its gravest crisis since the War,.
Dearie me..
Suez Winter(s) of Discontent 2008 financial crash Falklands Iraq wars post 9/11 terrorism etc etc
leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close.
If anyone needed evidence that many Brexiteers weren't at the front of the queue when brains were handed out need only to look at the quote: "leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close". Not all Brexit supporters are stupid, but posts like this one don't exactly help their image. This IS one of the gravest crisis since the war, and it is entirely self inflicted . If you cant see that you are a fool.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I think that anomalous historical revisionism. I doubt they considered that a factor at the time.
I'm not sure when the Senate structure was established, but presumably it was before slavery became a contentious issue?
It was a contentious issue at the founding of the United States.
Part of the historical revisionism that took place in post Reconstruction America was pushing the idea that slavery was a settled issue up until the few years leading to the ACW, created by agitators and subversives.
The reality is that the question of slavery poisoned and affected every single important structural issue in the USA from the writing of the constitution onwards.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I don't think so. In 1783 when the system was set up, there were 13 States. I think only 5 or 6 were slave owning (not sure about Delaware). Most of the Slave states had substantial white male populations so wouldn't be under represented, the smaller population states were in New England and Delaware.
The entire thing about slaves counting as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of census was so the slave owning states wouldn't lose out on electoral votes and congressional representatives.
Yes, so the House of Representatives were altered by the slavery issue, but not the Senate.
Initially the independent states acted quite autonomously with considerable variation in customs etc, quite an inhibitor of trade and growth. The decision on a Federal system was quite contoversial at the time, and of course there was no A50!
Pre conservative conference and TM speech. Lets see if it moves the dial or not
The country is in its gravest crisis since the War,.
Dearie me..
Suez Winter(s) of Discontent 2008 financial crash Falklands Iraq wars post 9/11 terrorism etc etc
leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close.
If anyone needed evidence that many Brexiteers weren't at the front of the queue when brains were handed out need only to look at the quote: "leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close". Not all Brexit supporters are stupid, but posts like this one don't exactly help their image. This IS one of the gravest crisis since the war, and it is entirely self inflicted . If you cant see that you are a fool.
It may be one of the biggest examples of mass hysteria since the war but the reality and outcomes are far more benign than any of the other examples.
Pre conservative conference and TM speech. Lets see if it moves the dial or not
The country is in its gravest crisis since the War,.
Dearie me..
Suez Winter(s) of Discontent 2008 financial crash Falklands Iraq wars post 9/11 terrorism etc etc
leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close.
If anyone needed evidence that many Brexiteers weren't at the front of the queue when brains were handed out need only to look at the quote: "leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close". Not all Brexit supporters are stupid, but posts like this one don't exactly help their image. This IS one of the gravest crisis since the war, and it is entirely self inflicted . If you cant see that you are a fool.
It is the process of leaving that is as much of a source of crisis, as the actual leaving itself.
We could be facing a major constitutional crisis in weeks.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I think that anomalous historical revisionism. I doubt they considered that a factor at the time.
I'm not sure when the Senate structure was established, but presumably it was before slavery became a contentious issue?
Term time of course so the professional historian who knows about these things is Otherwise Engaged, but wasn’t the Senate structure established very early on indeed; Continental Congress time?
To be fair the two Senator per state Structure is the part of the US structure least affected with slavery compromises at foundation .
But that played forward into massive destabilising rows about how and when new states could be admitted to the union. The history of the USA expanding pre civil war is one of the desires of slave holding states to be balanced against non-slave holders.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I don't think so. In 1783 when the system was set up, there were 13 States. I think only 5 or 6 were slave owning (not sure about Delaware). Most of the Slave states had substantial white male populations so wouldn't be under represented, the smaller population states were in New England and Delaware.
The entire thing about slaves counting as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of census was so the slave owning states wouldn't lose out on electoral votes and congressional representatives.
Yes, so the House of Representatives were altered by the slavery issue, but not the Senate.
Initially the independent states acted quite autonomously with considerable variation in customs etc, quite an inhibitor of trade and growth. The decision on a Federal system was quite contoversial at the time, and of course there was no A50!
We should count ourselves lucky. Confirming there was no A50, so to speak, cost 4 years of war and over 600,000 lives.
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Under the plan in the making, the EU would get assurances that the emergency Irish border fix would be indefinite, while Britain would get its way in having all of the United Kingdom - rather than just Northern Ireland - stay in a customs union with the bloc should the border ‘backstop’ be triggered."
This is the key para, and again involves May telling the bigots from NI to sod off. To be honest, I hope she does. The spectacle of the DUP tail wagging the dog has to end. An ethno-nationalist hard-right-Loyalist shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of decent dealmaking.
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
"Under the plan in the making, the EU would get assurances that the emergency Irish border fix would be indefinite, while Britain would get its way in having all of the United Kingdom - rather than just Northern Ireland - stay in a customs union with the bloc should the border ‘backstop’ be triggered."
This is the key para, and again involves May telling the bigots from NI to sod off. To be honest, I hope she does. The spectacle of the DUP tail wagging the dog has to end. An ethno-nationalist hard-right-Loyalist shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of decent dealmaking.
It looks very much as thought the EU have accepted a fudge which makes it possible to get round the barmy backstop block. It should never have been proposed by the EU or agreed by the UK in the first place; all it has done is get in the way of discussing the actual solutions to the border question which can only be discussed in the context of a deal which makes the backstop redundant.
Also its' fundamentally stupid. Even if the Tory party 'dies' something new will replace it, which would just be a 'new' younger hipper Tory Party in some way or form.
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I think that anomalous historical revisionism. I doubt they considered that a factor at the time.
I'm not sure when the Senate structure was established, but presumably it was before slavery became a contentious issue?
Term time of course so the professional historian who knows about these things is Otherwise Engaged, but wasn’t the Senate structure established very early on indeed; Continental Congress time?
I believe it was, but not with sufficient confidence to state it as a fact.
I’ve clearly got far too much time on my hands, so I’ve been searching Wikipedia, which says '1787 Constitutional Convention, in James Madison's Virginia Plan, which proposed a bicameral national legislature, and in the Connecticut Compromise, an agreement reached between delegates from small-population states and those from large-population states that in part defined the structure and representation that each state would have in the new Congress.’
It wasn’t slavery which was the issue which bedevilled the two reps issue; it was the possibility of extending to the West, and again according Wikipedia ‘one reason the large states accepted the Connecticut Compromise was a fear that the small states would either refuse to join the Union, or, as Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware threatened, "the small ones w[ould] find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice”
And now I must continue sorting out my household and car insurance!
Also its' fundamentally stupid. Even if the Tory party 'dies' something new will replace it, which would just be a 'new' younger hipper Tory Party in some way or form.
To be fair, Corbynism has already condemned one great political party to oblivion, so you can understand that they might think they can manage another.
Pre conservative conference and TM speech. Lets see if it moves the dial or not
The country is in its gravest crisis since the War,.
Dearie me..
Suez Winter(s) of Discontent 2008 financial crash Falklands Iraq wars post 9/11 terrorism etc etc
leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close.
If anyone needed evidence that many Brexiteers weren't at the front of the queue when brains were handed out need only to look at the quote: "leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close". Not all Brexit supporters are stupid, but posts like this one don't exactly help their image. This IS one of the gravest crisis since the war, and it is entirely self inflicted . If you cant see that you are a fool.
It may be one of the biggest examples of mass hysteria since the war but the reality and outcomes are far more benign than any of the other examples.
The Mirror are making a hash of reporting on the lastest 'no deal' aviation notice.
There are two main elements. First, there is the potential that EU airspace is closed to UK flights and vice-versa. This is certainly possible, but so catastrophic (on both sides of the border) that it is unlikely to ever happen. The UK (and the CAA) are an integral part of the EU's air management and regulation framework.
The second is about compensation. The UK government has committed to backstopping the current position where it can - for flights out of the UK. (The quote from Thomas Cook is misleading - airlines are never responsible for circumstances outside their control - whatever those are). ATOL protection will continue, but c.f. the above if there are no flights in or out of the UK...
Also its' fundamentally stupid. Even if the Tory party 'dies' something new will replace it, which would just be a 'new' younger hipper Tory Party in some way or form.
Maybe, but it's not certain. For the Tory party to die British politics would probably have to fracture along new fault lines to replace the left-right, unions-CofE divide that has sustained the Tory Labour duopoly.
The pro-anti treaty divide in Irish politics that created the FF-FG duopoly in Ireland didn't leave much room for a centre-left party in Irish politics.
There is no knowing how things would end up if either of the main parties were to die.
Pre conservative conference and TM speech. Lets see if it moves the dial or not
The country is in its gravest crisis since the War,.
Dearie me..
Suez Winter(s) of Discontent 2008 financial crash Falklands Iraq wars post 9/11 terrorism etc etc
leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close.
If anyone needed evidence that many Brexiteers weren't at the front of the queue when brains were handed out need only to look at the quote: "leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close". Not all Brexit supporters are stupid, but posts like this one don't exactly help their image. This IS one of the gravest crisis since the war, and it is entirely self inflicted . If you cant see that you are a fool.
It may be one of the biggest examples of mass hysteria since the war but the reality and outcomes are far more benign than any of the other examples.
Nobody has died because of Brexit have they ?
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence. Anyone comes up with anything questioning and it is shouted down. The fact is that no-one, in particular the charlatans that fronted this massive con, have actually explained what benefits will come from risking our stability on this folly.
It would be much more honest if they said "OK, let's be honest, we hate foreigners and the EU is full of them. So is the UN so lets pull out of that too , oh and NATO. We don't care if it causes regional instability, as there is a small chance it might not, and well if it does and loads of people lose heir jobs, I don't care" . It wouldn't make me like you any more but at least I would respect your honesty
The US is a federal system - the Senate is weighted to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Its weighted to protect the interests of slave owning States, and they've never revised that.
I think that anomalous historical revisionism. I doubt they considered that a factor at the time.
I'm not sure when the Senate structure was established, but presumably it was before slavery became a contentious issue?
Term time of course so the professional historian who knows about these things is Otherwise Engaged, but wasn’t the Senate structure established very early on indeed; Continental Congress time?
To be fair the two Senator per state Structure is the part of the US structure least affected with slavery compromises at foundation .
But that played forward into massive destabilising rows about how and when new states could be admitted to the union. The history of the USA expanding pre civil war is one of the desires of slave holding states to be balanced against non-slave holders.
It did (and the later expansion and growth of the US also plays into the criticism of the two senators per state structure) - but at the time of the ratification of the constitution, slavery was a (temporarily) settled compromise, rather than the heated issue it became a few decades later.
The expectation, certainly on the part of the non-slaveholding states, was that the institution of slavery would die out. The industrial revolution (initiated in the US with the invention and adoption of the cotton gin), and industrialised plantation slavery changed that (note the constitution described slaves as 'other persons'; plantation slavery required that they be viewed primarily as property).
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Pre conservative conference and TM speech. Lets see if it moves the dial or not
The country is in its gravest crisis since the War,.
Dearie me..
Suez Winter(s) of Discontent 2008 financial crash Falklands Iraq wars post 9/11 terrorism etc etc
leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close.
If anyone needed evidence that many Brexiteers weren't at the front of the queue when brains were handed out need only to look at the quote: "leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close". Not all Brexit supporters are stupid, but posts like this one don't exactly help their image. This IS one of the gravest crisis since the war, and it is entirely self inflicted . If you cant see that you are a fool.
It may be one of the biggest examples of mass hysteria since the war but the reality and outcomes are far more benign than any of the other examples.
Nobody has died because of Brexit have they ?
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence. Anyone comes up with anything questioning and it is shouted down. The fact is that no-one, in particular the charlatans that fronted this massive con, have actually explained what benefits will come from risking our stability on this folly.
It would be much more honest if they said "OK, let's be honest, we hate foreigners and the EU is full of them. So is the UN so lets pull out of that too , oh and NATO. We don't care if it causes regional instability, as there is a small chance it might not, and well if it does and loads of people lose heir jobs, I don't care" . It wouldn't make me like you any more but at least I would respect your honesty
'Shouted down'? Have you never been on Twitter, or come to think of it, on here? It's wall-to-wall Remain Ultras doing nothing but disaster-wanking.
It may be, but that is the problem with all of you that believe in your religion. It is all just hope and fantasy, no hard evidence ...
... Indeed no hard evidence from you.
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez Falklands Iraq wars The Troubles post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.
How could anyone have died due to Brexit? It hasn't happened yet
Comments
In this case, when you cut corporation tax from 28% to 17%, for receipts to rise overall the base on which you're applying it needs to grow by 64%.
Interesting question about Bond's nationality.
Only two Bond actors have been Englishmen – Roger Moore and Daniel Craig.
Sean Connery is Scottish, Pierce Brosnan Irish, Timothy Dalton Welsh and George Lazenby Australian.
Frequently it will be to the right though. Especially as the general urge of too many is to jack it up without thinking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE1evIbc3mw
In fact, I was just thinking, after watching Bunk in the dreadful Jack Ryan last night, that I might have to go and re-watch The Wire soon.
35, English.
Should probably drop some weight from his superman portrayal though. Bond is fit but not ridiculously jacked.
Hiddlestone would be awful. The only thing he was good at (and yes, I have seen some of his Shakespearean efforts) was playing Loki.
Whilst I enjoyed him in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. it was a flop.
He was pretty good in the latest Mission Impossible film he was in Tom Cruise's shadow and his own moustache which ruined the Justice League film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ZjnrHR8EA
There's even a strong thread of dry wit running all the way through Quantum of Solace. I guess Craig isn't for everyone.
The next polls should be interesting.
How on earth can labour be 6% behind after their conference if they are to be seen as an alternative government
Electoral calculus gives the conservatives an 18 seat majority on that poll
M: Ask him about Slate.
Tanner: She wants to know about Slate.
James Bond: Slate was a dead end.
Tanner: He says it was a dead end.
M: Damn it! He killed him.
Also in La Paz.
James Bond: [at a dirty, small motel] What are we doing?
Strawberry Fields: We're teachers on sabbatical. This fits our cover.
James Bond: No it doesn't. I'd rather stay at a morgue. Come on.
[cut to nicer hotel]
James Bond: [to the hotel receptionist] Hello. We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery.
I think this has probably killed his chances, though:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44819116
Idris Elba could play it several ways, since he's actually rather a good actor, and could make an excellent choice.
James Bond: I'm not dwelling on the past. I don't think you should either.
M: You killed him.
lol.
As @Nigelb has it: the Craig-serious years.
The practical constitutional barriers to effecting any change in the arrangement are, of course, immense.
Andy_Cooke said:
» show previous quotes
Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed.
Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba.
As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
Can I just say that this is the sort of answer I read PB for.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DtepbEyS1eM/TlPKy8bzEsI/AAAAAAAAD7c/atOiTws81Eg/s400/fanny+txt.jpg
Brilliant.
Though QoS was, of course, awful.
Net favourable (vs mid Sep)
Lab: -23 (-2)
Con: -22 (+6)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
But they didn't anticipate quite how politicised that would become
I'm not sure when the Senate structure was established, but presumably it was before slavery became a contentious issue?
Look at 2010 to 2015. Don't Know was in the lead for almost all of the 5 year period. Even in Jan 2015, it was ahead of Cameron.
Data here: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7rj2tjjm1c/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-050515.pdf
Given that this should be a data-driven site, it always disappoints that youse all go for the cheap LOL on this.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114508/mediaviewer/rm1874940160
The country is in its gravest crisis since the War, and this is how she thinks the PM should behave.
At the time the constitution was framed, it was likely not anticipated that there would be states like California and Texas with populations close to 100 times the size of the smallest ones.
1. Virginia 447,016
2. Pennsylvania 240,057
3. Massachusetts 235,808
4. Maryland 202,599
5. North Carolina 197,200
6. Connecticut 183,881
7. New York 162,920
8. South Carolina 124,244
9. New Jersey 117,431
10. Rhode Island 58,196
11. New Hampshire 62,396
12. Delaware 35,496
13. Georgia 23,375
Suez
Winter(s) of Discontent
2008 financial crash
Falklands
Iraq wars
post 9/11 terrorism
etc etc
leaving a protectionist trade cartel doesn't come close.
Dom Walsh
@DomWalsh13
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-deal/eu-negotiators-see-brexit-divorce-deal-very-close-sources-idUKKCN1MF0K9 … Reuters reporting EU officials say #Brexit deal is "very close":
- EU to concede on all-UK customs backstop
- UK to concede that backstop cannot be time-limited
- Unclear from article, but presumably NI-only regulatory backstop - tricky to get past DUP...
If she does pull off a reasonable deal, then the Tories might get through this after all.
Just then need to pivot away from brexit onto domestic issues.
I'm not @HYUFD !
You don't say.
The case for Craig is weakened by the fact that he has only made one good Bond film, Casino Royale, albeit the the best film in the entire series. Skyfall is half-decent, but massively overrated.
https://twitter.com/CathyGoldthorpe/status/1024182216568569856
Part of the historical revisionism that took place in post Reconstruction America was pushing the idea that slavery was a settled issue up until the few years leading to the ACW, created by agitators and subversives.
The reality is that the question of slavery poisoned and affected every single important structural issue in the USA from the writing of the constitution onwards.
Not to mention other receipts from NI, IT , VAT etc due to the economy being boosted.
Scotland has raised tax rates and seen a fall in revenue - not rocket science.
Initially the independent states acted quite autonomously with considerable variation in customs etc, quite an inhibitor of trade and growth. The decision on a Federal system was quite contoversial at the time, and of course there was no A50!
Nobody has died because of Brexit have they ?
We could be facing a major constitutional crisis in weeks.
But that played forward into massive destabilising rows about how and when new states could be admitted to the union. The history of the USA expanding pre civil war is one of the desires of slave holding states to be balanced against non-slave holders.
This is the key para, and again involves May telling the bigots from NI to sod off. To be honest, I hope she does. The spectacle of the DUP tail wagging the dog has to end. An ethno-nationalist hard-right-Loyalist shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of decent dealmaking.
TGOHF likes their politics, few others do.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1047808595532898305
Moore was 57 when he did View to a Kill, and it shows.
'1787 Constitutional Convention, in James Madison's Virginia Plan, which proposed a bicameral national legislature, and in the Connecticut Compromise, an agreement reached between delegates from small-population states and those from large-population states that in part defined the structure and representation that each state would have in the new Congress.’
It wasn’t slavery which was the issue which bedevilled the two reps issue; it was the possibility of extending to the West, and again according Wikipedia ‘one reason the large states accepted the Connecticut Compromise was a fear that the small states would either refuse to join the Union, or, as Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware threatened, "the small ones w[ould] find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice”
And now I must continue sorting out my household and car insurance!
https://twitter.com/MirrorMoney/status/1048163675733983234
If the ERG are against, it hardly matters what the DUP do. A counting exercise first and foremost.
There are two main elements. First, there is the potential that EU airspace is closed to UK flights and vice-versa. This is certainly possible, but so catastrophic (on both sides of the border) that it is unlikely to ever happen. The UK (and the CAA) are an integral part of the EU's air management and regulation framework.
The second is about compensation. The UK government has committed to backstopping the current position where it can - for flights out of the UK. (The quote from Thomas Cook is misleading - airlines are never responsible for circumstances outside their control - whatever those are). ATOL protection will continue, but c.f. the above if there are no flights in or out of the UK...
The pro-anti treaty divide in Irish politics that created the FF-FG duopoly in Ireland didn't leave much room for a centre-left party in Irish politics.
There is no knowing how things would end up if either of the main parties were to die.
It would be much more honest if they said "OK, let's be honest, we hate foreigners and the EU is full of them. So is the UN so lets pull out of that too , oh and NATO. We don't care if it causes regional instability, as there is a small chance it might not, and well if it does and loads of people lose heir jobs, I don't care" . It wouldn't make me like you any more but at least I would respect your honesty
The expectation, certainly on the part of the non-slaveholding states, was that the institution of slavery would die out. The industrial revolution (initiated in the US with the invention and adoption of the cotton gin), and industrialised plantation slavery changed that (note the constitution described slaves as 'other persons'; plantation slavery required that they be viewed primarily as property).
Many people died due to the following but who has died due to Brexit? Yet you think it's the "gravest crisis since the war"? Graver than all of the following?
Suez
Falklands
Iraq wars
The Troubles
post 9/11 terrorism
Your religion is blinding you.