Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
It is a survey of Conservative Party members and ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership race spot on and on polls Mogg even topped a recent Yougov of Tory members as preference for next Tory leader
It never fails to amaze me that you quote conhome surveys as if they have any relation to reality. They represent the hard brexit wing of the membership of approx 125,000 and have little to do with the wider conservative voting public who find Boris and his fellow travellers unsuitable to lead the party to electoral success. They are divisive and do not represent my views of my party and never will. Indeed on their election to office a good numbers of conservative mps, especially women, have said they will resign as they could not serve under them
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
I assume the causes are: China, UK decimation of diesel sales, EU reduction in new car sales and Brexit issues. JLR are almost uniquely placed to suffer as they specialise in large diesel powered cars, with a very small percentage of Petrol.
The demonization of Diesel at this time may be environmentally correct but was a bit of an economic own goal.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
They're not entirely independent events, but they're also not entirely non-independent so the answer is complicated.
If they were independent then it would be 0.85*0.85=0.7225
If we were to simplify matters by assuming that the probability of the Democrats winning the Senate, but not the House, was zero then it is simply 0.85-(1-0.85)=0.7
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
It is a survey of Conservative Party members and ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership race spot on and on polls Mogg even topped a recent Yougov of Tory members as preference for next Tory leader
It never fails to amaze me that you quote conhome surveys as if they have any relation to reality. They represent the hard brexit wing of the membership of approx 125,000 and have little to do with the wider conservative voting public who find Boris and his fellow travellers unsuitable to lead the party to electoral success. They are divisive and do not represent my views of my party and never will. Indeed on their election to office a good numbers of conservative mps, especially women, have said they will resign as they could not serve under them
+1 (apart from the 'my party' bit... and 'amaze' is probably stretching it, too, these days.)
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
It is a survey of Conservative Party members and ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership race spot on and on polls Mogg even topped a recent Yougov of Tory members as preference for next Tory leader
There are chickens and pigs that have good track records of predicting sporting and electoral results. That doesn't make them credible forecasters.
As you now say, it is a survey of a self-selected subset of a self-selected group of people. Please stop describing these as "polls"; PB'ers should know better!
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
It is a survey of Conservative Party members and ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership race spot on and on polls Mogg even topped a recent Yougov of Tory members as preference for next Tory leader
The current Finnish Government is a coalition of KESK (centrist), KOK (liberal-conservative) and SIN (conservative, having broken away from the True Finns in 2017 as we all know) - no sniggering in the cheap seats.
KESK are down six points but KOK and SIN are both up a couple. The big losers are the True Finns who polled 18% in the last election but have only 8% now (remind you of anyone?).
On the "gainers" side are the Social Democrats who have always been strong in Finland as in the rest of Scandinavia, the Greens and the Left Alliance. The next Finnish GE is on 14th April next year.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
The Chinese market has collapsed for them. My eldest son who is visiting us from his home in Vancouver has said that international trade is a complete nightmare. He is involved in trade and logistics largely dealing with China and the far east, but also the US.
He says the fluctuations in currencies makes trading very difficult but also the tariff wars are a complete chaotic mess. He has just been informed that one of the containers he is bringing in from China has had a tariff of 19% placed on it and he and his colleagues are at the end of their tether juggling complex algorithms day to day
In the 15 years he has been involved in trade it has never been at this level of complexity and confusion and he has no idea when things will stabilise. He said that Trumps 25% car tariff on the EU is all ready to go and he would not be surprised if Trump acted on it
What a time to be leaving the EU but some think all will be well on wto and Liam Fox will get all those wonderful trade deals !!!!!!!!
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
JLR have just had the same hard lesson as Aston-Martin: powertrain engineering outside one of the majors is now prohibitively expensive. From 2020 the F-Type and presumably whatever replaces the XJ are going to use the BMW S63 motor.
It's sometimes informative to look back over long-running markets. I've been very active in the past on the next Labour leader market on Betfair. It's noteworthy how contenders have risen and fallen.
At the turn of 2016/17 I laid Keir Starmer at 6.6 and 6.8 - he was last traded at 13.5. In February 2017 I laid Clive Lewis at 5.5 - he was last traded at 24. I laid Dan Jarvis in Feb/Mar 2016 at 7.4 - he was last traded at 75. I laid Hilary Benn at 9 in June 2016 - he was last traded at 650. (I'm leaving Owen Smith and Angela Eagle out of this account because of their special circumstances in the 2016 leadership election).
My point is not to boast about some good bets - well, a little perhaps - but to point out that some apparently serious contenders can fall by the wayside with remarkable speed. There's a reason why laying favourites is so often advised.
Smart stuff.
Wish I could say the same. My Labour market is a mess.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
There's anti-correlation between the two so it is lower, because the Republicans holding the Senate includes where they do really well and hold the House. What you mean is that the probability that the Democrats win both is higher than 0.85*0.15 as those two are correlated.
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
JLR have just had the same hard lesson as Aston-Martin: powertrain engineering outside one of the majors is now prohibitively expensive. From 2020 the F-Type and presumably whatever replaces the XJ are going to use the BMW S63 motor.
Does that mean we'll get fewer housewives living in terraced houses in Macclesfield popping down to Lidl in the Evoque?
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Or perhaps they did push hard and we just don't have a very good hand?
You may be right.
It's not a very good hand but it's a better hand than people think because the reality is that the City is an asset to the whole of the EU and panic in the financial markets if there is uncertainty or a lack of continuity in contracts etc will affect more than just the UK. But I doubt if there is anyone in government, other than possibly Hammond, who understands the City and who has been arguing for a sensible deal on it. I certainly don't think May or Raab or any of those involved have a real understanding of how it works, its importance, the consequences and don't think they have bothered to expend whatever political capital they have on it. Which is a pity for all of us given its current importance to Britain's economy.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
There's anti-correlation between the two so it is lower, because the Republicans holding the Senate includes where they do really well and hold the House. What you mean is that the probability that the Democrats win both is higher than 0.85*0.15 as those two are correlated.
It can't be any higher than 15%, bu it must be higher than 12.5%
Assuming complete negative dependence, the chart looks as follows:
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Socialism is a fantastic political system...if only someone would implement it properly...
Not my view really. I just think the idea that the Tories are patriots fighting for Britain has had a bloody great hole blown in it, by themselves. It's all very well them criticising Corbyn over his reluctance to criticise Russia but their current course of action risks doing considerable damage to the economic prospects of lots in Britain. What sort of patriotism is that?
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Or perhaps they did push hard and we just don't have a very good hand?
You may be right.
It's not a very good hand but it's a better hand than people think because the reality is that the City is an asset to the whole of the EU and panic in the financial markets if there is uncertainty or a lack of continuity in contracts etc will affect more than just the UK. But I doubt if there is anyone in government, other than possibly Hammond, who understands the City and who has been arguing for a sensible deal on it. I certainly don't think May or Raab or any of those involved have a real understanding of how it works, its importance, the consequences and don't think they have bothered to expend whatever political capital they have on it. Which is a pity for all of us given its current importance to Britain's economy.
or NI for that matter.
I mean there was a lot in the UK that ran itself pretty well with a bit of tinkering around the edges, which meant that no government really needed to understand the mechanics.
Now that we are having to (re)create all those institutions, norms, rules and relationships from scratch, it is absolutely necessary for the government (and its civil servants) to understand the mechanics. And they don't.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
There's anti-correlation between the two so it is lower, because the Republicans holding the Senate includes where they do really well and hold the House. What you mean is that the probability that the Democrats win both is higher than 0.85*0.15 as those two are correlated.
It can't be any higher than 15%, bu it must be higher than 12.5%
Assuming complete negative dependence, the chart looks as follows:
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
72.25% assumes independence between the variables though. It is close but can't quite be correct I think.
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Or perhaps they did push hard and we just don't have a very good hand?
You may be right.
It's not a very good hand but it's a better hand than people think because the reality is that the City is an asset to the whole of the EU and panic in the financial markets if there is uncertainty or a lack of continuity in contracts etc will affect more than just the UK. But I doubt if there is anyone in government, other than possibly Hammond, who understands the City and who has been arguing for a sensible deal on it. I certainly don't think May or Raab or any of those involved have a real understanding of how it works, its importance, the consequences and don't think they have bothered to expend whatever political capital they have on it. Which is a pity for all of us given its current importance to Britain's economy.
or NI for that matter.
I mean there was a lot in the UK that ran itself pretty well with a bit of tinkering around the edges, which meant that no government really needed to understand the mechanics.
Now that we are having to (re)create all those institutions, norms, rules and relationships from scratch, it is absolutely necessary for the government (and its civil servants) to understand the mechanics. And they don't.
I know. It's pathetic. What do they do with themselves all day?
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Socialism is a fantastic political system...if only someone would implement it properly...
Not my view really. I just think the idea that the Tories are patriots fighting for Britain has had a bloody great hole blown in it, by themselves. It's all very well them criticising Corbyn over his reluctance to criticise Russia but their current course of action risks doing considerable damage to the economic prospects of lots in Britain. What sort of patriotism is that?
Hey don't shout at me - tell Charles. He is the one saying that we've got it wrong in thinking that we are going to be in a manifestly inferior position vs. the status quo ante.
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Socialism is a fantastic political system...if only someone would implement it properly...
Not my view really. I just think the idea that the Tories are patriots fighting for Britain has had a bloody great hole blown in it, by themselves. It's all very well them criticising Corbyn over his reluctance to criticise Russia but their current course of action risks doing considerable damage to the economic prospects of lots in Britain. What sort of patriotism is that?
I think TM recognises the damage the ultra brexiteers would do if given the opportunity and is attempting to achieve the least worse option. No deal just cannot be allowed to happen and Parliament must stop it
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
That's an interesting discussion, and perhaps best considered separately from the merits of particular cases. David is right that the primary has given Wollaston a sense of having a separate base. Having lots of strong-minded independents is indeed a nightmare for policy-makers - at a local level, there was a wave of North Notts independent councillors a while back who took control of lots of councils but couldn't agree on much. On the other hand, an army of bots who will vote for anything is generally agreed to be undesirable. So what one wants is people who are mostly loyal but will draw the line somewhere.
However, when anyone like that does draw a line, they tend to get a lot of flak from loyalists - self-serving prat, famous in their own living rooms, hungry for headlines, etc. There should be scope for disagreeing without insult. I'd apply that to non-Corbynite Labour MPs (and indeed Corbyn under Blair), Brexiteers, Remainers, whoever. We can all recognise a publicity addict when we see one, but someone who doesn't rebel for the fun of it is usually worth a hearing.
Can I respectfully suggest Nick that if the Labour party had been rather less tolerant of dissent they would not have such a disaster of a leader now.
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
JLR have just had the same hard lesson as Aston-Martin: powertrain engineering outside one of the majors is now prohibitively expensive. From 2020 the F-Type and presumably whatever replaces the XJ are going to use the BMW S63 motor.
Does that mean we'll get fewer housewives living in terraced houses in Macclesfield popping down to Lidl in the Evoque?
They'll probably be a bit more expensive after VE Day 2.0. Evoques use the Ingenium 4 pot motor which licences German VVT tech and will have to be paid for in Euros.
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Or perhaps they did push hard and we just don't have a very good hand?
You may be right.
It's not a very good hand but it's a better hand than people think because the reality is that the City is an asset to the whole of the EU and panic in the financial markets if there is uncertainty or a lack of continuity in contracts etc will affect more than just the UK. But I doubt if there is anyone in government, other than possibly Hammond, who understands the City and who has been arguing for a sensible deal on it. I certainly don't think May or Raab or any of those involved have a real understanding of how it works, its importance, the consequences and don't think they have bothered to expend whatever political capital they have on it. Which is a pity for all of us given its current importance to Britain's economy.
Hammond is one of the very few grown-ups on either front bench. I don't like his politics, but he is one of the very few front line politicians who seems to have any understanding of the real world.
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Or perhaps they did push hard and we just don't have a very good hand?
You may be right.
It's not a very good hand but it's a better hand than people think because the reality is that the City is an asset to the whole of the EU and panic in the financial markets if there is uncertainty or a lack of continuity in contracts etc will affect more than just the UK. But I doubt if there is anyone in government, other than possibly Hammond, who understands the City and who has been arguing for a sensible deal on it. I certainly don't think May or Raab or any of those involved have a real understanding of how it works, its importance, the consequences and don't think they have bothered to expend whatever political capital they have on it. Which is a pity for all of us given its current importance to Britain's economy.
or NI for that matter.
I mean there was a lot in the UK that ran itself pretty well with a bit of tinkering around the edges, which meant that no government really needed to understand the mechanics.
Now that we are having to (re)create all those institutions, norms, rules and relationships from scratch, it is absolutely necessary for the government (and its civil servants) to understand the mechanics. And they don't.
At least the financial services has a potential plan. In drugs and devices there is no plan so far. I am sitting here about to start a clinical evaluation report on the effectiveness of a device sold in the EU. We separate data for EU citizens out from the rest of the world. Do I include the UK on the basis we are still part of the EU with the risk I need to resubmit next year with the costs and time involved or do I take them out which is not in compliance with EU law. These are the day to day practical issues that the civil servants have no idea about.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
72.25% assumes independence between the variables though. It is close but can't quite be correct I think.
It is only close because this year we have the unusual situation where the Senate map is so unfavourable to the Democrats who are the party who don't currently hold either the House or the Senate.
This means that need a monster of a wave to take the Senate and yet only a modest wave to take the House.
If the probabilities were different for each of the two events to those given then it would make it a lot more complicated.
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
That rather blows a giant hole in the whole support for FPTP for general elections.
This means you surely want pure PR with the parties choosing their MPs.
I don't see the link myself. MPs who claim to have been elected on their own mandate, as opposed to their party's mandate are generally deluding themselves and assuming the vast majority of their electorate are paying more attention than they are. In recent times the only people I can think of who vindicated their position to any extent were Carswell and Reckless when they won their bye elections and they of course had their new party supporting them. Neither lasted long.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
72.25% assumes independence between the variables though. It is close but can't quite be correct I think.
Suppose the probabilities for the House and Senate were both 50-50. Would the probability for each party of winning both be closer to 0.25 or 0.5?
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Socialism is a fantastic political system...if only someone would implement it properly...
Not my view really. I just think the idea that the Tories are patriots fighting for Britain has had a bloody great hole blown in it, by themselves. It's all very well them criticising Corbyn over his reluctance to criticise Russia but their current course of action risks doing considerable damage to the economic prospects of lots in Britain. What sort of patriotism is that?
Hey don't shout at me - tell Charles. He is the one saying that we've got it wrong in thinking that we are going to be in a manifestly inferior position vs. the status quo ante.
Do I include the UK on the basis we are still part of the EU with the risk I need to resubmit next year with the costs and time involved or do I take them out which is not in compliance with EU law.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
72.25% assumes independence between the variables though. It is close but can't quite be correct I think.
Suppose the probabilities for the House and Senate were both 50-50. Would the probability for each party of winning both be closer to 0.25 or 0.5?
25% for each party winning both, so 50% that one party would win both?
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Socialism is a fantastic political system...if only someone would implement it properly...
Not my view really. I just think the idea that the Tories are patriots fighting for Britain has had a bloody great hole blown in it, by themselves. It's all very well them criticising Corbyn over his reluctance to criticise Russia but their current course of action risks doing considerable damage to the economic prospects of lots in Britain. What sort of patriotism is that?
Hey don't shout at me - tell Charles. He is the one saying that we've got it wrong in thinking that we are going to be in a manifestly inferior position vs. the status quo ante.
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Or perhaps they did push hard and we just don't have a very good hand?
You may be right.
It's not a very good hand but it's a better hand than people think because the reality is that the City is an asset to the whole of the EU and panic in the financial markets if there is uncertainty or a lack of continuity in contracts etc will affect more than just the UK. But I doubt if there is anyone in government, other than possibly Hammond, who understands the City and who has been arguing for a sensible deal on it. I certainly don't think May or Raab or any of those involved have a real understanding of how it works, its importance, the consequences and don't think they have bothered to expend whatever political capital they have on it. Which is a pity for all of us given its current importance to Britain's economy.
or NI for that matter.
I mean there was a lot in the UK that ran itself pretty well with a bit of tinkering around the edges, which meant that no government really needed to understand the mechanics.
Now that we are having to (re)create all those institutions, norms, rules and relationships from scratch, it is absolutely necessary for the government (and its civil servants) to understand the mechanics. And they don't.
At least the financial services has a potential plan. In drugs and devices there is no plan so far. I am sitting here about to start a clinical evaluation report on the effectiveness of a device sold in the EU. We separate data for EU citizens out from the rest of the world. Do I include the UK on the basis we are still part of the EU with the risk I need to resubmit next year with the costs and time involved or do I take them out which is not in compliance with EU law. These are the day to day practical issues that the civil servants have no idea about.
Why don't you email Peter Bone or Andrew Bridgen for guidance?
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
72.25% assumes independence between the variables though. It is close but can't quite be correct I think.
Suppose the probabilities for the House and Senate were both 50-50. Would the probability for each party of winning both be closer to 0.25 or 0.5?
25% for each party winning both, so 50% that one party would win both?
That's definitely wrong, we have two parties your probabilities sum to 150%.
As independent events we start with (0.25,0.25,0.25,0.25); at 100% correlation (0.5,0.5,0,0)
Interesting, May is running up the debt to limit Corbyn's room for manoeuvre when he wins the next election, so as to avoid a repeat of 97 when Labour inherited a golden economy and then took the credit for it.
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
JLR have just had the same hard lesson as Aston-Martin: powertrain engineering outside one of the majors is now prohibitively expensive. From 2020 the F-Type and presumably whatever replaces the XJ are going to use the BMW S63 motor.
Does that mean we'll get fewer housewives living in terraced houses in Macclesfield popping down to Lidl in the Evoque?
Why would one buy an Evoque when one can have a Subaru?
Hmm... I get that Brexit is bad for the economy overall, but a smaller financial sector definitely has upsides.
BoE gets a ton of liability off their books; that said, the logical conclusion of that way of thinking is for all UK banks to relocate so as to be under ECB jurisidiction.
It's not quite as simple as he makes out. Barclays does have a bit of a culture problem. See, for instance, the FCA's recent pathetic attempt to teach its CEO some important lessons about leadership and conflicts of interest.
Ireland gets a big bank. But it also gets the responsibilities of regulating and being responsible for a big bank. The last time they had that it didn't go well. For the Irish. Irish regulation is not the most brilliant I've seen. They wrote a report a few years ago where they managed to misspell "ethical" as "ethitical". And they have had a long history of turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour by their financial institutions, going back to at least the 1970's.
Dealing with a bank which is not well regulated is a risk, for its customers and counterparts. The rules may be the same but it is the reality which matters i.e. do you have the quality of regulators who really understand what is going on, who can look beyond the spreadsheets, ask the right questions, not be put off by bullshit answers, be alert to the early warning signals, know when to act etc. This is not stuff you learn from a book or from reading the latest procedure. Plus they will have to co-operate with Britain's regulators as well. Where you get split responsibilities, both within the bank and the regulator, you need a very alert team to manage that effectively.
The Irish should have some of this experience from dealing with AIB and others. They should. Whether they do or not is another question.
Where they do have experience is in fund management which is why so many funds are based in Ireland. But they are a very different beast to big banks with an investment bank, a retail arm and an asset management arm, a big bank run by an American investment banker wanting to take risks. AIB and Bank of Ireland were minnows by comparison.
"My bank is bigger than yours" makes for a good tweet. But it is a pretty superficial analysis of what is a more complex issue, with the potential for creating some very difficult problems indeed for Ireland, Britain and the rest of the EU.
It's not quite as simple as he makes out. Barclays does have a bit of a culture problem. See, for instance, the FCA's recent pathetic attempt to teach its CEO some important lessons about leadership and conflicts of interest.
Ireland gets a big bank. But it also gets the responsibilities of regulating and being responsible for a big bank. The last time they had that it didn't go well. For the Irish. Irish regulation is not the most brilliant I've seen. They wrote a report a few years ago where they managed to misspell "ethical" as "ethitical". And they have had a long history of turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour by their financial institutions, going back to at least the 1970's.
Dealing with a bank which is not well regulated is a risk, for its customers and counterparts. The rules may be the same but it is the reality which matters i.e. do you have the quality of regulators who really understand what is going on, who can look beyond the spreadsheets, ask the right questions, not be put off by bullshit answers, be alert to the early warning signals, know when to act etc. This is not stuff you learn from a book or from reading the latest procedure. Plus they will have to co-operate with Britain's regulators as well. Where you get split responsibilities, both within the bank and the regulator, you need a very alert team to manage that effectively.
The Irish should have some of this experience from dealing with AIB and others. They should. Whether they do or not is another question.
Where they do have experience is in fund management which is why so many funds are based in Ireland. But they are a very different beast to big banks with an investment bank, a retail arm and an asset management arm, a big bank run by an American investment banker wanting to take risks. AIB and Bank of Ireland were minnows by comparison.
"My bank is bigger than yours" makes for a good tweet. But it is a pretty superficial analysis of what is a more complex issue, with the potential for creating some very difficult problems indeed for Ireland, Britain and the rest of the EU.
The bonus restrictions (de facto through confiscatory tax) will come as something of a shock to employees.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
72.25% assumes independence between the variables though. It is close but can't quite be correct I think.
Suppose the probabilities for the House and Senate were both 50-50. Would the probability for each party of winning both be closer to 0.25 or 0.5?
25% for each party winning both, so 50% that one party would win both?
That's definitely wrong, we have two parties your probabilities sum to 150%.
As independent events we start with (0.25,0.25,0.25,0.25); at 100% correlation (0.5,0.5,0,0)
No, you misunderstand me. If both house and Senate were 50-50: 25% that Dems win both, 25% Reps win both, so 50% chance that a party (Dems or Reps) win both.
Edit: But only assuming the two events were independent, which they are not of course.
It's not quite as simple as he makes out. Barclays does have a bit of a culture problem. See, for instance, the FCA's recent pathetic attempt to teach its CEO some important lessons about leadership and conflicts of interest.
Ireland gets a big bank. But it also gets the responsibilities of regulating and being responsible for a big bank. The last time they had that it didn't go well. For the Irish. Irish regulation is not the most brilliant I've seen. They wrote a report a few years ago where they managed to misspell "ethical" as "ethitical". And they have had a long history of turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour by their financial institutions, going back to at least the 1970's.
Dealing with a bank which is not well regulated is a risk, for its customers and counterparts. The rules may be the same but it is the reality which matters i.e. do you have the quality of regulators who really understand what is going on, who can look beyond the spreadsheets, ask the right questions, not be put off by bullshit answers, be alert to the early warning signals, know when to act etc. This is not stuff you learn from a book or from reading the latest procedure. Plus they will have to co-operate with Britain's regulators as well. Where you get split responsibilities, both within the bank and the regulator, you need a very alert team to manage that effectively.
The Irish should have some of this experience from dealing with AIB and others. They should. Whether they do or not is another question.
Where they do have experience is in fund management which is why so many funds are based in Ireland. But they are a very different beast to big banks with an investment bank, a retail arm and an asset management arm, a big bank run by an American investment banker wanting to take risks. AIB and Bank of Ireland were minnows by comparison.
"My bank is bigger than yours" makes for a good tweet. But it is a pretty superficial analysis of what is a more complex issue, with the potential for creating some very difficult problems indeed for Ireland, Britain and the rest of the EU.
The bonus restrictions (de facto through confiscatory tax) will come as something of a shock to employees.
The bank has moved assets. How many actual employees it is moving is another question entirely. It will already have a presence in Ireland.
It's not quite as simple as he makes out. Barclays does have a bit of a culture problem. See, for instance, the FCA's recent pathetic attempt to teach its CEO some important lessons about leadership and conflicts of interest.
Ireland gets a big bank. But it also gets the responsibilities of regulating and being responsible for a big bank. The last time they had that it didn't go well. For the Irish. Irish regulation is not the most brilliant I've seen. They wrote a report a few years ago where they managed to misspell "ethical" as "ethitical". And they have had a long history of turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour by their financial institutions, going back to at least the 1970's.
Dealing with a bank which is not well regulated is a risk, for its customers and counterparts. The rules may be the same but it is the reality which matters i.e. do you have the quality of regulators who really understand what is going on, who can look beyond the spreadsheets, ask the right questions, not be put off by bullshit answers, be alert to the early warning signals, know when to act etc. This is not stuff you learn from a book or from reading the latest procedure. Plus they will have to co-operate with Britain's regulators as well. Where you get split responsibilities, both within the bank and the regulator, you need a very alert team to manage that effectively.
The Irish should have some of this experience from dealing with AIB and others. They should. Whether they do or not is another question.
Where they do have experience is in fund management which is why so many funds are based in Ireland. But they are a very different beast to big banks with an investment bank, a retail arm and an asset management arm, a big bank run by an American investment banker wanting to take risks. AIB and Bank of Ireland were minnows by comparison.
"My bank is bigger than yours" makes for a good tweet. But it is a pretty superficial analysis of what is a more complex issue, with the potential for creating some very difficult problems indeed for Ireland, Britain and the rest of the EU.
The bonus restrictions (de facto through confiscatory tax) will come as something of a shock to employees.
The bank has moved assets. How many actual employees it is moving is another question entirely. It will already have a presence in Ireland.
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
JLR have just had the same hard lesson as Aston-Martin: powertrain engineering outside one of the majors is now prohibitively expensive. From 2020 the F-Type and presumably whatever replaces the XJ are going to use the BMW S63 motor.
Does that mean we'll get fewer housewives living in terraced houses in Macclesfield popping down to Lidl in the Evoque?
Why would one buy an Evoque when one can have a Subaru?
Who wouldn't want a car where you have to take the engine off its mounts and jack it up to do the passenger side plugs?
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
JLR have just had the same hard lesson as Aston-Martin: powertrain engineering outside one of the majors is now prohibitively expensive. From 2020 the F-Type and presumably whatever replaces the XJ are going to use the BMW S63 motor.
Does that mean we'll get fewer housewives living in terraced houses in Macclesfield popping down to Lidl in the Evoque?
Why would one buy an Evoque when one can have a Subaru?
As with most luxury goods it's what it signifies for you as the purchaser that's important. That's why some people will only every buy BMW, for example, and others would never buy one.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
72.25% assumes independence between the variables though. It is close but can't quite be correct I think.
Suppose the probabilities for the House and Senate were both 50-50. Would the probability for each party of winning both be closer to 0.25 or 0.5?
25% for each party winning both, so 50% that one party would win both?
That's definitely wrong, we have two parties your probabilities sum to 150%.
As independent events we start with (0.25,0.25,0.25,0.25); at 100% correlation (0.5,0.5,0,0)
No, you misunderstand me. If both house and Senate were 50-50: 25% that Dems win both, 25% Reps win both, so 50% chance that a party (Dems or Reps) win both.
Edit: But only assuming the two events were independent, which they are not of course.
Which was the point of the question. In that scenario the probability for each party to win both will be a lot higher than 0.25 and I'd argue closer to 0.5
As a rough guess I would think 0.4 as a lower bound.
That using the assumption of independence is close to the correct answer in the current situation is pure chance due to the figures being used, but very bad maths.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
Quite. Teasing out the correlation/anti-correlation is a pretty impossible task; I was just pointing out that given an overlap in the two elections, the two probabilities cannot be independent of each other.
Britain’s largest automotive group has launched a £2.5 billion turnaround plan involving cost-cutting and reductions in planned investment after losing millions of pounds a day in recent months.
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
JLR have just had the same hard lesson as Aston-Martin: powertrain engineering outside one of the majors is now prohibitively expensive. From 2020 the F-Type and presumably whatever replaces the XJ are going to use the BMW S63 motor.
Does that mean we'll get fewer housewives living in terraced houses in Macclesfield popping down to Lidl in the Evoque?
Why would one buy an Evoque when one can have a Subaru?
Who wouldn't want a car where you have to take the engine off its mounts and jack it up to do the passenger side plugs?
How many of their customers are ever going to do that themselves?
It will be a fact little known on here that in advertising and allied services the UK punches well above its weight. Such is the reputation of the industry that it 's fair to say the sun never sets where British technicians and creatives aren't working. I myself have shot for over 30 countries. Reputations count for a lot and hailing from the the first 'go to' country when a client is looking to shoot an ad is a huge advantage.
I heard this week that a large Japanese agency who were about to buy a small creative hot shop in the UK have pulled out. The reason they gave was that they were worried the UK might lose some of its potential pan European advertising.
In 1982 Colin Welland when picking up the Oscar for Chariots of Fire famously (and presciently)) said "The British are Coming". Well thanks to the morons in Hartlepool it looks like they're now going.
Comments
Jaguar Land Rover wants to cut costs by £1 billion in the next 18 months, reduce investment in new models and technologies by £500 million to £4 billion in this financial year and next, and trim inventory and working capital by £500 million.
JLR workers are already suffering from 1,000 job cuts in the West Midlands this year, an unscheduled shutdown this autumn of the Solihull plant and the Castle Bromwich factory going on a three-day week until Christmas.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/jaguar-driven-to-cut-costs-in-2-5bn-turnaround-bid-fgk2hdswh
The demonization of Diesel at this time may be environmentally correct but was a bit of an economic own goal.
If they were independent then it would be 0.85*0.85=0.7225
If we were to simplify matters by assuming that the probability of the Democrats winning the Senate, but not the House, was zero then it is simply 0.85-(1-0.85)=0.7
Edit: Explaining above. P(D-House&R-Senate) = P(D-House) - P(D-Senate)
As you now say, it is a survey of a self-selected subset of a self-selected group of people. Please stop describing these as "polls"; PB'ers should know better!
There is a 2.25% probability going by TSE's logic
So 538 make it an 15% chance that the GOP win the House and an 15% chance the Dem win the senate.
.7225 GOP-S, Dem-H
.0225 Dem-S, GOP-H
0.125 GOP-S, GOP-H
0.125 Dem-S, Dem-H
The issue is though, the House and senate are not independant variables...
So the above chart MUST be wrong.
He says the fluctuations in currencies makes trading very difficult but also the tariff wars are a complete chaotic mess. He has just been informed that one of the containers he is bringing in from China has had a tariff of 19% placed on it and he and his colleagues are at the end of their tether juggling complex algorithms day to day
In the 15 years he has been involved in trade it has never been at this level of complexity and confusion and he has no idea when things will stabilise. He said that Trumps 25% car tariff on the EU is all ready to go and he would not be surprised if Trump acted on it
What a time to be leaving the EU but some think all will be well on wto and Liam Fox will get all those wonderful trade deals !!!!!!!!
Wish I could say the same. My Labour market is a mess.
It's not a very good hand but it's a better hand than people think because the reality is that the City is an asset to the whole of the EU and panic in the financial markets if there is uncertainty or a lack of continuity in contracts etc will affect more than just the UK. But I doubt if there is anyone in government, other than possibly Hammond, who understands the City and who has been arguing for a sensible deal on it. I certainly don't think May or Raab or any of those involved have a real understanding of how it works, its importance, the consequences and don't think they have bothered to expend whatever political capital they have on it. Which is a pity for all of us given its current importance to Britain's economy.
Assuming complete negative dependence, the chart looks as follows:
0.00 Dem-S, GOP-H
0.15 GOP-S, GOP-H
0.15 Dem-S, Dem-H
Thus by calculation
.70 GOP-S, Dem-H.
Not my view really. I just think the idea that the Tories are patriots fighting for Britain has had a bloody great hole blown in it, by themselves. It's all very well them criticising Corbyn over his reluctance to criticise Russia but their current course of action risks doing considerable damage to the economic prospects of lots in Britain. What sort of patriotism is that?
I mean there was a lot in the UK that ran itself pretty well with a bit of tinkering around the edges, which meant that no government really needed to understand the mechanics.
Now that we are having to (re)create all those institutions, norms, rules and relationships from scratch, it is absolutely necessary for the government (and its civil servants) to understand the mechanics. And they don't.
Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2018/11/01/the-tragi-comic-end-of-wreathgate-is-a-timely-reminder-of-how-far-british-politics-has-fallen/
At least the financial services has a potential plan. In drugs and devices there is no plan so far. I am sitting here about to start a clinical evaluation report on the effectiveness of a device sold in the EU. We separate data for EU citizens out from the rest of the world. Do I include the UK on the basis we are still part of the EU with the risk I need to resubmit next year with the costs and time involved or do I take them out which is not in compliance with EU law. These are the day to day practical issues that the civil servants have no idea about.
This means that need a monster of a wave to take the Senate and yet only a modest wave to take the House.
If the probabilities were different for each of the two events to those given then it would make it a lot more complicated.
As independent events we start with (0.25,0.25,0.25,0.25); at 100% correlation (0.5,0.5,0,0)
Interesting, May is running up the debt to limit Corbyn's room for manoeuvre when he wins the next election, so as to avoid a repeat of 97 when Labour inherited a golden economy and then took the credit for it.
Ireland gets a big bank. But it also gets the responsibilities of regulating and being responsible for a big bank. The last time they had that it didn't go well. For the Irish. Irish regulation is not the most brilliant I've seen. They wrote a report a few years ago where they managed to misspell "ethical" as "ethitical". And they have had a long history of turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour by their financial institutions, going back to at least the 1970's.
Dealing with a bank which is not well regulated is a risk, for its customers and counterparts. The rules may be the same but it is the reality which matters i.e. do you have the quality of regulators who really understand what is going on, who can look beyond the spreadsheets, ask the right questions, not be put off by bullshit answers, be alert to the early warning signals, know when to act etc. This is not stuff you learn from a book or from reading the latest procedure. Plus they will have to co-operate with Britain's regulators as well. Where you get split responsibilities, both within the bank and the regulator, you need a very alert team to manage that effectively.
The Irish should have some of this experience from dealing with AIB and others. They should. Whether they do or not is another question.
Where they do have experience is in fund management which is why so many funds are based in Ireland. But they are a very different beast to big banks with an investment bank, a retail arm and an asset management arm, a big bank run by an American investment banker wanting to take risks. AIB and Bank of Ireland were minnows by comparison.
"My bank is bigger than yours" makes for a good tweet. But it is a pretty superficial analysis of what is a more complex issue, with the potential for creating some very difficult problems indeed for Ireland, Britain and the rest of the EU.
Edit: But only assuming the two events were independent, which they are not of course.
NEW THREAD
As a rough guess I would think 0.4 as a lower bound.
That using the assumption of independence is close to the correct answer in the current situation is pure chance due to the figures being used, but very bad maths.
Teasing out the correlation/anti-correlation is a pretty impossible task; I was just pointing out that given an overlap in the two elections, the two probabilities cannot be independent of each other.
It will be a fact little known on here that in advertising and allied services the UK punches well above its weight. Such is the reputation of the industry that it 's fair to say the sun never sets where British technicians and creatives aren't working. I myself have shot for over 30 countries. Reputations count for a lot and hailing from the the first 'go to' country when a client is looking to shoot an ad is a huge advantage.
I heard this week that a large Japanese agency who were about to buy a small creative hot shop in the UK have pulled out. The reason they gave was that they were worried the UK might lose some of its potential pan European advertising.
In 1982 Colin Welland when picking up the Oscar for Chariots of Fire famously (and presciently)) said "The British are Coming". Well thanks to the morons in Hartlepool it looks like they're now going.