Some of our housebuilder clients are getting very worried. Sales have dropped substantially lately.
A lot of that is just waiting to see what happens on the Brexit negotiations. There's likely to be a quite chunky rebound if we do agree a deal with the EU.
No, they are really not ready for this. They cannot even distinguish between stationary and moving items at speeds greater than 50MPH, and cyclist detection is sh*t. As ever, a big issue is interfacing. In this case, with other road users - and not just car drivers.
Too many people are drinking the Waymo and Tesla kool-aid. They're dong great stuff, but don't buy their hype.
I hope I'm wrong about the above, but don't believe I am.
There's a road that I use to get to work which I really can't see how driverless cars could use as it stands at the moment. It's a route in to a small town, but because residents park along it, there's really only room for cars to pass in one direction over several sections. It all works very well at the moment, with people politely letting a few cars pass, and then someone will stop to let the traffic in the other direction have a go.
The other thing I don't see is how truly driverless cars will handle things like parking in a field for, say, a wedding or a car boot sale.
I rather suspect that last 1% of the problem is going to take a lot longer to sort out that the industry expects. Might work better in big cities, though.
Well, we were talking about redesigning our towns... Quite clearly, driverless cars are not going replace drivers overnight - but it limited geographic locations, I can see it happening very quickly.
If Dyson can spend £84m on a disused airfield to test the technology, how much more might one of the tech giants spend ?
IMO the Conservatives are currently in the same state as Labour were in 2010 - utterly worn down, and totally reliant on voters thinking the other side are dangerous. Winning another election in that state can be a poisoned chalice - arguably the Conservatives would have been better off losing in 1992 than in 1997.
I did in fact say this yesterday, although I appreciate I'm a swing voter not a Conservative.
Unfortunately however while the Tories are ready for Opposition Labour are not only not remotely fit or ready for government but show no sign of being so in the foreseeable future. Which is very bad for the country and ironically for the Tories (and yes, they would have been far better off losing in 1992).
Maybe an early GE is not quite in their interests as they all seem to think...
Really?
What's Labour's Achilles Heal? Not being trusted with the public purse.
So there is a news story that Labour are disagreeing over public spending. For the majority of people who don't follow the details that is all they will hear. What impression is that likely to make? That Labour is talking about important serious stuff like money.
Sounds like a perfect bit of news management to me.
It's the Labour members who pay attention. They are the ones going "Huh???" about McDonnell's Budget response....
Labour members may or may not be paying attention, but as mentioned yesterday, plenty of sick-to-death-of-ERG-Tories will also be paying attention and hence to know that Macca won't be reversing tax incentives for the aspiring wealthy will be important.
Overnight it emerged David Cameron regards Michael Gove as a lunatic and that might hinder Gove’s chances.
Although it does beg the question of why he left him at Education for so many years...
Because he couldn't give a toss about state schools, so let Gove introduce multiple chaotic reforms to structures, funding, qualifications and initial teacher training.
He only punted him when focus groups showed him that Gove's tenure in this role was hugely unpopular. The DfE are still trying to clear up the mess.
What is odd is that in Opposition under Cameron, all the spin was how extensively the Tories were preparing for government, yet Lansley, Gove and IDS all unleashed ill-conceived revolutions that seemed to take colleagues by surprise. Did the Shadow Cabinet not talk to each other?
It doesn't look like it.
From my POV, Cameron was only interested in certain briefs, and generally just allowed others free rein, until it became clear that things were going wrong.
We're now mired in a massive recruitment and retention crisis, in the face of rising pupil numbers. Recruitment crisis can be attributed in large part to stupid and over-complex changes to initial teacher training routes (although there are of course other factors involved).
Cameron was interested in being PM. Full stop. Policy was someone else’s concern.
Maybe an early GE is not quite in their interests as they all seem to think...
Really?
What's Labour's Achilles Heal? Not being trusted with the public purse.
So there is a news story that Labour are disagreeing over public spending. For the majority of people who don't follow the details that is all they will hear. What impression is that likely to make? That Labour is talking about important serious stuff like money.
Sounds like a perfect bit of news management to me.
I admire your, ummm, optimistic interpretation of this. What people will actually hear is that Labour are SPLIT on the important serious stuff like money and haven't got a clue what to do.
I'm reminded of those Tories who thought Hague's infamous claims about his drinking would show he was a man of the people who enjoyed a pint.
IMO the Conservatives are currently in the same state as Labour were in 2010 - utterly worn down, and totally reliant on voters thinking the other side are dangerous. Winning another election in that state can be a poisoned chalice - arguably the Conservatives would have been better off losing in 1992 than in 1997.
I did in fact say this yesterday, although I appreciate I'm a swing voter not a Conservative.
Unfortunately however while the Tories are ready for Opposition Labour are not only not remotely fit or ready for government but show no sign of being so in the foreseeable future. Which is very bad for the country and ironically for the Tories (and yes, they would have been far better off losing in 1992).
I’m not entirely sure the official Opposition are ready, or able, to be that.
Overnight it emerged David Cameron regards Michael Gove as a lunatic and that might hinder Gove’s chances.
Although it does beg the question of why he left him at Education for so many years...
Because he couldn't give a toss about state schools, so let Gove introduce multiple chaotic reforms to structures, funding, qualifications and initial teacher training.
He only punted him when focus groups showed him that Gove's tenure in this role was hugely unpopular. The DfE are still trying to clear up the mess.
What is odd is that in Opposition under Cameron, all the spin was how extensively the Tories were preparing for government, yet Lansley, Gove and IDS all unleashed ill-conceived revolutions that seemed to take colleagues by surprise. Did the Shadow Cabinet not talk to each other?
It doesn't look like it.
From my POV, Cameron was only interested in certain briefs, and generally just allowed others free rein, until it became clear that things were going wrong.
We're now mired in a massive recruitment and retention crisis, in the face of rising pupil numbers. Recruitment crisis can be attributed in large part to stupid and over-complex changes to initial teacher training routes (although there are of course other factors involved).
Cameron was interested in being PM. Full stop. Policy was someone else’s concern.
True. He was a PR man, no substance and poor judgement.
It is the very crux of Labour's dilemma - vote to support the government in order to avoid disruption (to say the least) for the country; or vote down the government because you believe the country would in all cases be better off with you in government.
Maybe an early GE is not quite in their interests as they all seem to think...
Really?
What's Labour's Achilles Heal? Not being trusted with the public purse.
So there is a news story that Labour are disagreeing over public spending. For the majority of people who don't follow the details that is all they will hear. What impression is that likely to make? That Labour is talking about important serious stuff like money.
Sounds like a perfect bit of news management to me.
It's the Labour members who pay attention. They are the ones going "Huh???" about McDonnell's Budget response....
Labour members may or may not be paying attention, but as mentioned yesterday, plenty of sick-to-death-of-ERG-Tories will also be paying attention and hence to know that Macca won't be reversing tax incentives for the aspiring wealthy will be important.
He won't be reversing tax incentives for the aspiring wealthy and more importantly, not for backbench MPs either, especially not the ones who might take part in confidence votes.
Overnight it emerged David Cameron regards Michael Gove as a lunatic and that might hinder Gove’s chances.
Although it does beg the question of why he left him at Education for so many years...
Because he couldn't give a toss about state schools, so let Gove introduce multiple chaotic reforms to structures, funding, qualifications and initial teacher training.
He only punted him when focus groups showed him that Gove's tenure in this role was hugely unpopular. The DfE are still trying to clear up the mess.
What is odd is that in Opposition under Cameron, all the spin was how extensively the Tories were preparing for government, yet Lansley, Gove and IDS all unleashed ill-conceived revolutions that seemed to take colleagues by surprise. Did the Shadow Cabinet not talk to each other?
It doesn't look like it.
From my POV, Cameron was only interested in certain briefs, and generally just allowed others free rein, until it became clear that things were going wrong.
We're now mired in a massive recruitment and retention crisis, in the face of rising pupil numbers. Recruitment crisis can be attributed in large part to stupid and over-complex changes to initial teacher training routes (although there are of course other factors involved).
In the case of education, a lot of Gove's ideas actually had merit, at any rate on paper. The problem was his implementation of them, which was rushed and incompetent, and his refusal to listen to expert advice, because he had wrongly got it into his head that everyone in education hated him and was against him. The latter mysteriously became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He listened far too much to the losers and liars of OFSTED, the DfE and OFQUAL, and also to his spectacularly stupid advisers, and produced a dog's breakfast as a result. His dishonest attempts (and hose of the even more untrustworthy Cummings) to pretend otherwise now just look utterly pathetic.
Maybe an early GE is not quite in their interests as they all seem to think...
Really?
What's Labour's Achilles Heal? Not being trusted with the public purse.
So there is a news story that Labour are disagreeing over public spending. For the majority of people who don't follow the details that is all they will hear. What impression is that likely to make? That Labour is talking about important serious stuff like money.
Sounds like a perfect bit of news management to me.
It's the Labour members who pay attention. They are the ones going "Huh???" about McDonnell's Budget response....
And who will the Labour members turn to instead? I doubt Corbyn's honeymoon with the card carriers will last forever but until there is a credible alternative they can afford to take a few risks and that front.
on topic. Isn't it just the case that old stores, brands, retail models (eg department stores) are no longer viable, and new ones take their place? Old shops close down, new ones open. Certainly, there seems to be a growth in specialist retail outlet that cater for niches that are poorly served online. Isn't this just best understood as change?
How are towns become Dormitories for the poor? I travel around the place quite a lot. To my mind, the part of the country that is becoming a dormitory for the poor are the outskirts of London. Poor, run down housing, cramped conditions, uncared for public spaces, etc. Other parts that are less economically well off, including coastal towns, are in reality nicer places to live.
I agree with most of this, actually.
Overextended, highly geared chains of yesteryear with expensive legacy property deals are failing. And as Alastair points out, the mid-market is struggling. I see regeneration in many inland towns that I don't see - or frankly, think we'll ever see - in coastal towns like Rhyl and Teignmouth.
I opened a shop in a small town in 2016 - its going well. Admittedly we are in the luxury end of the market, and the successs is largely because of our other channels, but the shop more than washes its face and has helped to grow the larger business.
BTW I used to work in retail consulting - worth listening to people like Richard Hyman on how the market is adapting.
Maybe an early GE is not quite in their interests as they all seem to think...
Really?
What's Labour's Achilles Heal? Not being trusted with the public purse.
So there is a news story that Labour are disagreeing over public spending. For the majority of people who don't follow the details that is all they will hear. What impression is that likely to make? That Labour is talking about important serious stuff like money.
Sounds like a perfect bit of news management to me.
It's the Labour members who pay attention. They are the ones going "Huh???" about McDonnell's Budget response....
Labour members may or may not be paying attention, but as mentioned yesterday, plenty of sick-to-death-of-ERG-Tories will also be paying attention and hence to know that Macca won't be reversing tax incentives for the aspiring wealthy will be important.
He won't be reversing tax incentives for the aspiring wealthy and more importantly, not for backbench MPs either, especially not the ones who might take part in confidence votes.
You mean, like that confidence vote where they voted by five to one to sack Corbyn?
It is the very crux of Labour's dilemma - vote to support the government in order to avoid disruption (to say the least) for the country; or vote down the government because you believe the country would in all cases be better off with you in government.
I see the "global laughing stock" that has "trashed its reputation" is still in the World Bank "Top 10" of places to do business.....ahead of 26 other EU countries:
It is the very crux of Labour's dilemma - vote to support the government in order to avoid disruption (to say the least) for the country; or vote down the government because you believe the country would in all cases be better off with you in government.
Can I remind people I have been saying for a while that whatever tortuous reasoning they use, Labour will ultimately have a whipped vote against a Brexit deal because they are like that? As will the SNP (although there is a faint chance they may allow a free vote).
However, that may not be disastrous if the Lib Dems and Caroline Lucas elect to vote for a deal ahead of a crash. Whether they will is another question.
To be fair, he isn’t mystic meg, how would he know this is going to take place and hardly the only backbench MP from any party to have taken Saudi money to go on a jolly. Before this even the likes of the guardian were saying his new bloke in charge of Saudi was a reformer etc with the lifting on bans in cinemas and women drivers etc.
It is the very crux of Labour's dilemma - vote to support the government in order to avoid disruption (to say the least) for the country; or vote down the government because you believe the country would in all cases be better off with you in government.
Can I remind people I have been saying for a while that whatever tortuous reasoning they use, Labour will ultimately have a whipped vote against a Brexit deal because they are like that? As will the SNP (although there is a faint chance they may allow a free vote).
However, that may not be disastrous if the Lib Dems and Caroline Lucas elect to vote for a deal ahead of a crash. Whether they will is another question.
No chance (although Stephen Lloyd MP has pledged not to vote against.)
Both parties firmly anti-Brexit, why on earth would either endorse a deal that is everything they've been campaigning against? Similar for Labour but with more potential for rebels. If TMay is getting this through the Commons, it'll be with a rock solid Tory vote behind her. The others won't have reason to back May now after being ignored for so long.
Is @MarqueeMark right that the opposition would share the blame if it's a no-deal? possible but I doubt it - TMay has been all about her getting the Brexit deal through, she's made it personal and a test of her authority, hard to see why the opposition would take the flack if it falls due to Tory rebels.
To be fair, he isn’t mystic meg, how would he know this is going to take place and hardly the only backbench MP from any party to have taken Saudi money to go on a jolly.
To be even fairer, the answer's no because he didn't have any to start with.
That Sporcle quiz is really quite horrendous - mixing and matching several different sets of boundaries and definitions entirely inconsistently.
'London' is apparently all of Greater London, but 'Manchester' is only the city of Manchester itself. 'Birmingham' seems about right with its 1.08m figure, except that Sutton Coldfield counts as an answer in its own right, despite very definitely being part of (that particular definition of) Birmingham. God knows who checks this things before publication. Some idiot across the pond who knows no different, probably.
(I've been known to flounce out of pub quizzes where the answer is anything to do with cities or counties and the quizmaster doesn't explain which set of boundaries, thus rendering the correct answer ambiguous.)
Do these things only matter to those of us on the Autistic spectrum or do others get annoyed too?
That Sporcle quiz is really quite horrendous - mixing and matching several different sets of boundaries and definitions entirely inconsistently.
'London' is apparently all of Greater London, but 'Manchester' is only the city of Manchester itself. 'Birmingham' seems about right with its 1.08m figure, except that Sutton Coldfield counts as an answer in its own right, despite very definitely being part of (that particular definition of) Birmingham. God knows who checks this things before publication. Some idiot across the pond who knows no different, probably.
(I've been known to flounce out of pub quizzes where the answer is anything to do with cities or counties and the quizmaster doesn't explain which set of boundaries, thus rendering the correct answer ambiguous.)
Do these things only matter to those of us on the Autistic spectrum or do others get annoyed too?
No, I was miffed as well, although not as miffed as I was by its refusal to accept Weston-Super-Mare and then saying it was one of the answers.
Wasn't Kingston upon Thames also included separately? I may be confusing that with Hull.
That Sporcle quiz is really quite horrendous - mixing and matching several different sets of boundaries and definitions entirely inconsistently.
'London' is apparently all of Greater London, but 'Manchester' is only the city of Manchester itself. 'Birmingham' seems about right with its 1.08m figure, except that Sutton Coldfield counts as an answer in its own right, despite very definitely being part of (that particular definition of) Birmingham. God knows who checks this things before publication. Some idiot across the pond who knows no different, probably.
(I've been known to flounce out of pub quizzes where the answer is anything to do with cities or counties and the quizmaster doesn't explain which set of boundaries, thus rendering the correct answer ambiguous.)
Do these things only matter to those of us on the Autistic spectrum or do others get annoyed too?
Apologies for annoying you. It was intended as just a bit of fun.
British bank Barclays will ask the UK’s high court in the coming months to allow it transfer business worth about €250 billion to the Republic as the lender steps up its Brexit preparations.
Barclays has already confirmed that it intends to move its non-UK European business to the Republic from Britain ahead of the country’s planned departure from the EU in March 2019.
The bank has applied to the UK high court for an order allowing it to transfer its European Economic Area (EEA) business to the Republic and expects this to be heard on January 22nd.
The hearing will cover corporate banking, investment banking, private clients and customers’ overseas business based in the EEA. Anyone who believes the plan will damage their interests can make their case at the January hearing.
According to reports last week, the move will involve the transfer of €250 billion in group assets to the Republic. The EEA comprises the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
It is the very crux of Labour's dilemma - vote to support the government in order to avoid disruption (to say the least) for the country; or vote down the government because you believe the country would in all cases be better off with you in government.
Can I remind people I have been saying for a while that whatever tortuous reasoning they use, Labour will ultimately have a whipped vote against a Brexit deal because they are like that? As will the SNP (although there is a faint chance they may allow a free vote).
However, that may not be disastrous if the Lib Dems and Caroline Lucas elect to vote for a deal ahead of a crash. Whether they will is another question.
No chance (although Stephen Lloyd MP has pledged not to vote against.)
Both parties firmly anti-Brexit, why on earth would either endorse a deal that is everything they've been campaigning against? Similar for Labour but with more potential for rebels. If TMay is getting this through the Commons, it'll be with a rock solid Tory vote behind her. The others won't have reason to back May now after being ignored for so long.
Is @MarqueeMark right that the opposition would share the blame if it's a no-deal? possible but I doubt it - TMay has been all about her getting the Brexit deal through, she's made it personal and a test of her authority, hard to see why the opposition would take the flack if it falls due to Tory rebels.
Yes agree that last bit (and disagree with @MarqueeMark ). No deal will belong to TMay. Lab will simply say if the deal had been better for Britain they would have voted for it, that they wouldn't have started from there, and that if they had been in charge it would have been puppies and owls for all.
I find it amusing that tax cuts to the so called rich (£50,000 pa earners) is popular and McDonnell's political antennae knows this so he endorses it causing outrage among his fellow mps.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
Theresa May has already told us that no deal is better than a bad deal. The Conservatives cannot then complain if opposition parties agree with that sentiment and then form their own assessment of the quality of the deal.
I find it amusing that tax cuts to the so called rich (£50,000 pa earners) is popular and McDonnell's political antennae knows this so he endorses it causing outrage among his fellow mps.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
It was largely a non-event Budget which is unlikely to feature on the radar of many people. Forgotten by the weekend.
That Sporcle quiz is really quite horrendous - mixing and matching several different sets of boundaries and definitions entirely inconsistently.
'London' is apparently all of Greater London, but 'Manchester' is only the city of Manchester itself. 'Birmingham' seems about right with its 1.08m figure, except that Sutton Coldfield counts as an answer in its own right, despite very definitely being part of (that particular definition of) Birmingham. God knows who checks this things before publication. Some idiot across the pond who knows no different, probably.
(I've been known to flounce out of pub quizzes where the answer is anything to do with cities or counties and the quizmaster doesn't explain which set of boundaries, thus rendering the correct answer ambiguous.)
Do these things only matter to those of us on the Autistic spectrum or do others get annoyed too?
I have an ASD diagnosis and it is annoying, but I've come across worse in a work context where people should know better.
Here someone has probably just scraped a list from Wikipedia to use in a quiz. I would be more annoyed if I had needed to put the towns and cities in size order though.
Theresa May has already told us that no deal is better than a bad deal. The Conservatives cannot then complain if opposition parties agree with that sentiment and then form their own assessment of the quality of the deal.
I do hope Dianne Abbott uses this line in parliament.
I find it amusing that tax cuts to the so called rich (£50,000 pa earners) is popular and McDonnell's political antennae knows this so he endorses it causing outrage among his fellow mps.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
Some of this is a rehearsal for the inevitable fury over betrayal when/if Jezza's government doesn't deliver a socialist paradise on earth within months of taking office.
McD wants to win.
Others want purity and think they will win anyway because they live in echo chambers.
I find it amusing that tax cuts to the so called rich (£50,000 pa earners) is popular and McDonnell's political antennae knows this so he endorses it causing outrage among his fellow mps.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
It was largely a non-event Budget which is unlikely to feature on the radar of many people. Forgotten by the weekend.
Maybe a little after but it will be seen in pay packets from next April, especially the 4.9% increase in the national living wage and the increase in the personal allowance to £12,500
Whether Labour ends up facilitating the passage of the Withdrawal Bill or not surely depends on one crucial point: whether the government succeeds in framing it as 'This deal or no deal'. Bear in mind that the financial markets and businesses will all be rejoicing like it's the best thing in years to have a deal in sight. I'm not sure that voting it down (in the same lobbies as the Rees-Moggs of this world - really?) will be a viable strategy. Diane Abbott is quite right to point to Labour's Remain-supporting voters, but Remain-supporting voters aren't chaos-supporting voters.
I suspect that Labour will end up abstaining. "It's a terrible deal, and if we'd been in charge we would have been given unicorns and free beer by the EU, but we won't oppose it because the alternative is huge economic disruption".
Do you fancy a bet on whether Labour will whip The Vote (tm)? I'll give you evens.
You'd need to be more precise than that. For a start, it's whipping to vote against the deal. For another, do we then say that if Corbyn announces an intention to whip and then backs down if he faces revolt, that the vote is or is not whipped?
And might I suggest a sum of £10 to be paid for site running expenses by the loser rather than evens?
Whether Labour ends up facilitating the passage of the Withdrawal Bill or not surely depends on one crucial point: whether the government succeeds in framing it as 'This deal or no deal'. Bear in mind that the financial markets and businesses will all be rejoicing like it's the best thing in years to have a deal in sight. I'm not sure that voting it down (in the same lobbies as the Rees-Moggs of this world - really?) will be a viable strategy. Diane Abbott is quite right to point to Labour's Remain-supporting voters, but Remain-supporting voters aren't chaos-supporting voters.
I suspect that Labour will end up abstaining. "It's a terrible deal, and if we'd been in charge we would have been given unicorns and free beer by the EU, but we won't oppose it because the alternative is huge economic disruption".
It'd be the best option, I expect one or two would still vote both for (Kate Hoey) and against though.
I find it amusing that tax cuts to the so called rich (£50,000 pa earners) is popular and McDonnell's political antennae knows this so he endorses it causing outrage among his fellow mps.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
It was largely a non-event Budget which is unlikely to feature on the radar of many people. Forgotten by the weekend.
Maybe a little after but it will be seen in pay packets from next April, especially the 4.9% increase in the national living wage and the increase in the personal allowance to £12,500
According to the BBC my wife and I, moderate income (and drinking) pensioners will be about £2 per week better off. Maybe a little more if my various work-related pensions rise a bit.
No. "expected" in this context means more or less 100% stone cold cert a deal will be formally agreed on that date.
When and if the day dawns that a deal is agreed expect the whole dynamic to change. The markets will react positively. Phil Hammond will restate the deal dividend, the press and media will be asking mps of all parties are they prepared to crash the economy by voting the deal down and in those circumstances what would they do and how would they do it
The media would have a field day and the public would be horified if politicians crashed our econony, even more than is likely with by accepting a deal on the table
I find it amusing that tax cuts to the so called rich (£50,000 pa earners) is popular and McDonnell's political antennae knows this so he endorses it causing outrage among his fellow mps.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
It was largely a non-event Budget which is unlikely to feature on the radar of many people. Forgotten by the weekend.
Maybe a little after but it will be seen in pay packets from next April, especially the 4.9% increase in the national living wage and the increase in the personal allowance to £12,500
According to the BBC my wife and I, moderate income (and drinking) pensioners will be about £2 per week better off. Maybe a little more if my various work-related pensions rise a bit.
Does that include your pension uplift of 2.6% in April
Then again abstaining could perhaps finally shoot Labour's credibility with the hardcore remain brigade.
They are bound to damage some part of their mutually-contradictory support, whatever they do.
Labour certainly has some horrendous decisions to make on whether to support the bill or not. But it's Corbyn's own fault. I expect many MPs may well back the bill regardless of what Corbyn says or does. A whipped abstention probably keeps Labour more united than say a whip against. I don't think the front bench will support the deal, the membership would have a fit.
I find it amusing that tax cuts to the so called rich (£50,000 pa earners) is popular and McDonnell's political antennae knows this so he endorses it causing outrage among his fellow mps.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
It was largely a non-event Budget which is unlikely to feature on the radar of many people. Forgotten by the weekend.
Maybe a little after but it will be seen in pay packets from next April, especially the 4.9% increase in the national living wage and the increase in the personal allowance to £12,500
According to the BBC my wife and I, moderate income (and drinking) pensioners will be about £2 per week better off. Maybe a little more if my various work-related pensions rise a bit.
Does that include your pension uplift of 2.6% in April
According to the Beebs calculator they included pension payable after April 1st. Even if it didn’t we’re not talking much more.
Then again abstaining could perhaps finally shoot Labour's credibility with the hardcore remain brigade.
They are bound to damage some part of their mutually-contradictory support, whatever they do.
Labour certainly has some horrendous decisions to make on whether to support the bill or not. But it's Corbyn's own fault.
They've played it very well so far, to be honest. Of course it's easier from opposition, but even allowing for that they've done well in political terms, especially given how divided their own MPs and supporters are.
Then again abstaining could perhaps finally shoot Labour's credibility with the hardcore remain brigade.
They are bound to damage some part of their mutually-contradictory support, whatever they do.
To be fair, kudos to Corbyn et al for cleaving to Schrodinger's Brexit for so long. My step children by my second marriage are Corbynites to a man (all are under 25) and they all think he's an ardent Europhile. Disobliging them would be like telling a four year old that Santa isn't real, so I keep my counsel (interesting anecdote , all four voted Remain, but none would contemplate adopting the Euro).
Then again abstaining could perhaps finally shoot Labour's credibility with the hardcore remain brigade.
They are bound to damage some part of their mutually-contradictory support, whatever they do.
Labour certainly has some horrendous decisions to make on whether to support the bill or not. But it's Corbyn's own fault.
They've played it very well so far, to be honest. Of course it's easier from opposition, but even allowing for that they've done well in political terms, especially given how divided their own MPs and supporters are.
I think now a deal seems to actually be here they'll face more trouble though.
Whether Labour ends up facilitating the passage of the Withdrawal Bill or not surely depends on one crucial point: whether the government succeeds in framing it as 'This deal or no deal'. Bear in mind that the financial markets and businesses will all be rejoicing like it's the best thing in years to have a deal in sight. I'm not sure that voting it down (in the same lobbies as the Rees-Moggs of this world - really?) will be a viable strategy. Diane Abbott is quite right to point to Labour's Remain-supporting voters, but Remain-supporting voters aren't chaos-supporting voters.
I suspect that Labour will end up abstaining. "It's a terrible deal, and if we'd been in charge we would have been given unicorns and free beer by the EU, but we won't oppose it because the alternative is huge economic disruption".
I think it's worth reiterating that it looks likely there will be little detail, if any, about the final trade deal. This deal would only be about the Withdrawal Agreement and entering the transition to negotiate the final trade deal.
So in many ways it is not The Deal. Abstaining at this point still leaves open the option of voting against The Final Deal in 2020 (or whenever).
This probably makes abstaining more likely, particularly as Corbyn is a Leaver and so doesn't see it as the last chance to stop Brexit - but set against that is Corbyn's focus on another election. Arguing that voting against the deal is voting for an election, rather than for no deal, is where the political battle will take place.
Which framing of the vote wins? (Note: reality does not have a vote in this contest)
I've often said that if we don't get May's deal, then the alternative is no-deal by default, or no Brexit.
The Article 50 process can only end one of those three ways.
Well Labour's arguement is 'let us negotiate and we'll do a better deal' That would be what they want.
but i expect once the EU deem a deal has been settled they'll be in no mood to re-open it. it'll be 'these terms or no terms'.
I expect Labour's positioning on this won't actually be too difficult if they, god forbid, make it to No 10. Seeing as we're bound to be in the customs transitional thingamajiggy - they'll simply never trigger the backstop - or just extend the transition for another parliament. To be honest I can see the transition period being pretty much eternally extended by Gov'ts of both flavours. It might one day come to a head with the EU, but that's probably about a decade away.
That Sporcle quiz is really quite horrendous - mixing and matching several different sets of boundaries and definitions entirely inconsistently.
'London' is apparently all of Greater London, but 'Manchester' is only the city of Manchester itself. 'Birmingham' seems about right with its 1.08m figure, except that Sutton Coldfield counts as an answer in its own right, despite very definitely being part of (that particular definition of) Birmingham. God knows who checks this things before publication. Some idiot across the pond who knows no different, probably.
(I've been known to flounce out of pub quizzes where the answer is anything to do with cities or counties and the quizmaster doesn't explain which set of boundaries, thus rendering the correct answer ambiguous.)
Do these things only matter to those of us on the Autistic spectrum or do others get annoyed too?
Sporcle is a mixed bag - the quizzes are only as good as their creators. There are some better top UK settlement quizzes on there by more consistent definitions but you have to have a bit of a hunt. Most of them state their source.
Do you fancy a bet on whether Labour will whip The Vote (tm)? I'll give you evens.
You'd need to be more precise than that. For a start, it's whipping to vote against the deal. For another, do we then say that if Corbyn announces an intention to whip and then backs down if he faces revolt, that the vote is or is not whipped?
And might I suggest a sum of £10 to be paid for site running expenses by the loser rather than evens?
- Whipped against the deal (any whip, not just three line) - As they walk through the division doors (so last minute changes count, but post whip enforcement does not).
£10 to the site sounds good.
As for other details, I shan't be arguing given the amount (whether it's a vote on "the Deal" may be ambiguous by the PB brains Trust should be able to clarify...)
I've often said that if we don't get May's deal, then the alternative is no-deal by default, or no Brexit.
The Article 50 process can only end one of those three ways.
I am a little surprised that even today a poll on leaving is at 50 -50
To reverse the decision to remain that has to move solidly in favour of remain
That’s my concern about another vote. I think we have to experience the troubles that will follow (I’m a remainer, so that’s what expect. Don’t tell me different) before public opinion swings hard in favour of rejoining. In fact I think I’m a Rejoiner, rather than a Remainer, now.
I find it amusing that tax cuts to the so called rich (£50,000 pa earners) is popular and McDonnell's political antennae knows this so he endorses it causing outrage among his fellow mps.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
It was largely a non-event Budget which is unlikely to feature on the radar of many people. Forgotten by the weekend.
Maybe a little after but it will be seen in pay packets from next April, especially the 4.9% increase in the national living wage and the increase in the personal allowance to £12,500
According to the BBC my wife and I, moderate income (and drinking) pensioners will be about £2 per week better off. Maybe a little more if my various work-related pensions rise a bit.
Does that include your pension uplift of 2.6% in April
According to the Beebs calculator they included pension payable after April 1st. Even if it didn’t we’re not talking much more.
Of course everyone has different state pensions but our increase amounts to approx £9.20 per week in our state pension. I estimate that the nett annual income will rise by £478 + £34 less tax, making an increase of £502
Comments
Quite clearly, driverless cars are not going replace drivers overnight - but it limited geographic locations, I can see it happening very quickly.
If Dyson can spend £84m on a disused airfield to test the technology, how much more might one of the tech giants spend ?
There are a few other nascent British efforts, like this one:
https://www.addisonlee.com/addlib/addison-lee-group-oxbotica-join-forces-strategic-alliance-make-self-driving-services-reality-london/
Unfortunately however while the Tories are ready for Opposition Labour are not only not remotely fit or ready for government but show no sign of being so in the foreseeable future. Which is very bad for the country and ironically for the Tories (and yes, they would have been far better off losing in 1992).
I'm reminded of those Tories who thought Hague's infamous claims about his drinking would show he was a man of the people who enjoyed a pint.
He listened far too much to the losers and liars of OFSTED, the DfE and OFQUAL, and also to his spectacularly stupid advisers, and produced a dog's breakfast as a result. His dishonest attempts (and hose of the even more untrustworthy Cummings) to pretend otherwise now just look utterly pathetic.
Overextended, highly geared chains of yesteryear with expensive legacy property deals are failing. And as Alastair points out, the mid-market is struggling. I see regeneration in many inland towns that I don't see - or frankly, think we'll ever see - in coastal towns like Rhyl and Teignmouth.
I opened a shop in a small town in 2016 - its going well. Admittedly we are in the luxury end of the market, and the successs is largely because of our other channels, but the shop more than washes its face and has helped to grow the larger business.
BTW I used to work in retail consulting - worth listening to people like Richard Hyman on how the market is adapting.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings?region=oecd-high-income
UK: 9
Germany: 24
France: 32
Italy: 51
However, that may not be disastrous if the Lib Dems and Caroline Lucas elect to vote for a deal ahead of a crash. Whether they will is another question.
I am no media expert, but seems an entirely sensible decision from ch4.
I think there are far bigger hurdles for boris.
Both parties firmly anti-Brexit, why on earth would either endorse a deal that is everything they've been campaigning against? Similar for Labour but with more potential for rebels. If TMay is getting this through the Commons, it'll be with a rock solid Tory vote behind her. The others won't have reason to back May now after being ignored for so long.
Is @MarqueeMark right that the opposition would share the blame if it's a no-deal? possible but I doubt it - TMay has been all about her getting the Brexit deal through, she's made it personal and a test of her authority, hard to see why the opposition would take the flack if it falls due to Tory rebels.
'London' is apparently all of Greater London, but 'Manchester' is only the city of Manchester itself. 'Birmingham' seems about right with its 1.08m figure, except that Sutton Coldfield counts as an answer in its own right, despite very definitely being part of (that particular definition of) Birmingham. God knows who checks this things before publication. Some idiot across the pond who knows no different, probably.
(I've been known to flounce out of pub quizzes where the answer is anything to do with cities or counties and the quizmaster doesn't explain which set of boundaries, thus rendering the correct answer ambiguous.)
Do these things only matter to those of us on the Autistic spectrum or do others get annoyed too?
Wasn't Kingston upon Thames also included separately? I may be confusing that with Hull.
Do you fancy a bet on whether Labour will whip The Vote (tm)? I'll give you evens.
Labour are convulsing over this as they must realise that this was generally a popular budget 44 - 11 and tax cuts will always trump tax rises, especially when the rises go to paying increased benefits
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1057661038122975232?s=21
Awks.
Here someone has probably just scraped a list from Wikipedia to use in a quiz. I would be more annoyed if I had needed to put the towns and cities in size order though.
McD wants to win.
Others want purity and think they will win anyway because they live in echo chambers.
I suspect that Labour will end up abstaining. "It's a terrible deal, and if we'd been in charge we would have been given unicorns and free beer by the EU, but we won't oppose it because the alternative is huge economic disruption".
And might I suggest a sum of £10 to be paid for site running expenses by the loser rather than evens?
The media would have a field day and the public would be horified if politicians crashed our econony, even more than is likely with by accepting a deal on the table
Short term pain for long term gain.
I expect many MPs may well back the bill regardless of what Corbyn says or does. A whipped abstention probably keeps Labour more united than say a whip against.
I don't think the front bench will support the deal, the membership would have a fit.
To reverse the decision to remain that has to move solidly in favour of remain
but i expect once the EU deem a deal has been settled they'll be in no mood to re-open it. it'll be 'these terms or no terms'.
So in many ways it is not The Deal. Abstaining at this point still leaves open the option of voting against The Final Deal in 2020 (or whenever).
This probably makes abstaining more likely, particularly as Corbyn is a Leaver and so doesn't see it as the last chance to stop Brexit - but set against that is Corbyn's focus on another election. Arguing that voting against the deal is voting for an election, rather than for no deal, is where the political battle will take place.
Which framing of the vote wins? (Note: reality does not have a vote in this contest)
Seeing as we're bound to be in the customs transitional thingamajiggy - they'll simply never trigger the backstop - or just extend the transition for another parliament. To be honest I can see the transition period being pretty much eternally extended by Gov'ts of both flavours.
It might one day come to a head with the EU, but that's probably about a decade away.
- As they walk through the division doors (so last minute changes count, but post whip enforcement does not).
£10 to the site sounds good.
As for other details, I shan't be arguing given the amount (whether it's a vote on "the Deal" may be ambiguous by the PB brains Trust should be able to clarify...)
In fact I think I’m a Rejoiner, rather than a Remainer, now.
Just as the Anti-Corn Law League was destroyed in 1846, and for the same reason.
NEW THREAD
Deal.