We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Similarly does anyone think that we need restrictions on free movement between London and the Cotswolds to prevent pretty villages getting swamped by millions of outsiders?
I'd be up for something like this as a compromise solution. If some people have a preference for towns without brown people or foreign accents, let them have Clacton or Frinton or wherever and run them with their own immigration policies. It kind of sucks to tell people there are places they can't go without permission from bureaucrats, but it's better to apply that to a few towns where most people don't really want to go anyway, rather than entire countries.
You probably don't need actual physical walls and border guards and things to achieve these effects, but if they want to built them and pay for them, whatever.
Portillo on This Week says the choice is now between May's Deal and up to a 2 year extension of Art 50 and the slow death of Brexit
As usual he is correct, me thinks.
ERG and DUP face a stark choice.
Yes, it looks like May might have played her cards right in the end after all
If we assume it was Theresa May's intention to cause billions of pounds' worth of damage to the British economy, then yes, she might have played her cards right.
Her calculation, or justification, would no doubt be that securing a deal, any deal, was so essential that the damage of her tactics and brinkmanship was unfortunate but unavoidable, and far preferred to the damage of the alternative.
Whether one buys that or not if she does get it through then she will unquestionably have pulled off a remarkable turnaround and played a bad hand very well given the outcome of the first meaningful vote was beyond even the worst estimates out there.
To be fair you get food and accommodation for that
Yes, but only servings of milk and honey, which doesn't seem like it will sustain people for a full march.
To be fair, getting the milk all the way to Sunderland is probably pretty expensive.
I really hate this march. The Jarrow march was about unemployment and the closure of industry in the NE.
The Farage March is about conning people into continuing to support (even vote) to be poorer and unemployed by leaving our main trading partners.
If the comments and reports I’ve seen are anything to go by they are not bothered one bit about being poorer, and They don’t need to be conned - they already think that. What is needed is a popular remain politician who they can believe and who can point out some of the negatives. Unfortunately your statement that they will be ‘poorer and unemployed’ is so vague as to be meaningless.
They will apparently be fifty quid poorer as a core marcher, unless this is fake news?
Well you can get 14 nights of accomodation, 14 breakfasts and 14 dinners out of that if you're prepared to walk 200 miles on the side of fast A roads. You might even see Nige driving past on the way !
That's a very interesting article. I'm unsure I agree with all of it, but it certainly is an explanation for how Labour got itself into this mess. It's so totally unnecessary; a self-dug hole they've dug themselves and thrown themselves in.
It'd be interesting to see BJO's of TheJezziah's take on this ...
That's an interesting read. It does show that anti-semitism on the far left is a very different kind of antisemitism to the type you get routinely from small c conservatives.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
This is, at least partially, intentional. They very last thing the tories want is for armed forces recruitment to work properly as they have implemented a stealth defence cut by deliberately running the forces significantly below their notional strength. The RN is about 4% below its liability (MoD term for its full headcount) and if it were resourced at 100% it would blow an even bigger hole in the already unfunded defence spending commitments.
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Similarly does anyone think that we need restrictions on free movement between London and the Cotswolds to prevent pretty villages getting swamped by millions of outsiders?
Certainly, policies have been implemented to discourage outsiders buying homes in the National Parks and in areas of outstanding beauty.
St Ives, parts of Cornwall & Devon, almost all of coastal Wales from Conwy, Clwyd, Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, and many parts of Welsh-speaking Wales have restrictions on who can buy homes, or charge multiple home owners double.
If the wording is right here, I potentially suspect this move might also start building a fair amount of public support, especially if optically presented as a "ratification" (perception, of course - like it or not - is everything).
Enjoyed the last podcast. Will give this a listen when I get an opportunity.
Last day of the second and final test today. Just a fortnight until the Australian Grand Prix kicks off (need to find out what unholy hour it begins. I suspect 5am).
I'll be keeping an eye out for the odds on a Leclerc podium and Williams points.
This is, at least partially, intentional. They very last thing the tories want is for armed forces recruitment to work properly as they have implemented a stealth defence cut by deliberately running the forces significantly below their notional strength. The RN is about 4% below its liability (MoD term for its full headcount) and if it were resourced at 100% it would blow an even bigger hole in the already unfunded defence spending commitments.
We get a similar phenomenon in the NHS. Skint Trusts bring in recruitment freezes as a way of balancing the books, meaning that rotas and staffing become impossible in high demand areas. The NHS would be seriously overspent if the 10% vacancy rate shrank too much, but it reall hits efficiency.
In other news, you cannot miss a target if you get rid of it:
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Similarly does anyone think that we need restrictions on free movement between London and the Cotswolds to prevent pretty villages getting swamped by millions of outsiders?
Certainly, policies have been implemented to discourage outsiders buying homes in the National Parks and in areas of outstanding beauty.
St Ives, parts of Cornwall & Devon, almost all of coastal Wales from Conwy, Clwyd, Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, and many parts of Welsh-speaking Wales have restrictions on who can buy homes, or charge multiple home owners double.
Probably the Cotswolds is next.
Those policies have zero to do with FoM and everything to do with stopping houses being used as second homes for a few weeks a year.
In the Dales any house with a Section 106 restrictions can be sold as a holiday let or can be bought by anyone working in the Dales or with family there. What it can't be bought for is as a weekend retreat that is never used.
And there is a reason for that 20 years ago when my wife first started working there every village of any size had a full time shop and post office. Now outside of Hawes and Leyburn the only post office is 3 hours on a Wednesday in Bainbridge and an awful lot of the shops have gone.
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Similarly does anyone think that we need restrictions on free movement between London and the Cotswolds to prevent pretty villages getting swamped by millions of outsiders?
Certainly, policies have been implemented to discourage outsiders buying homes in the National Parks and in areas of outstanding beauty.
St Ives, parts of Cornwall & Devon, almost all of coastal Wales from Conwy, Clwyd, Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, and many parts of Welsh-speaking Wales have restrictions on who can buy homes, or charge multiple home owners double.
Enjoyed the last podcast. Will give this a listen when I get an opportunity.
Last day of the second and final test today. Just a fortnight until the Australian Grand Prix kicks off (need to find out what unholy hour it begins. I suspect 5am).
I'll be keeping an eye out for the odds on a Leclerc podium and Williams points.
Yep, Aussie GP starts at 05:10GMT on 17th.
Betfair only have the 2019 overall markets up so far, the Aus ones should go up next week sometime.
Glad to see that the petitions system is working well. I think the government's plan for exiting the EU must be to get it all sorted out, however long it takes, and then hop into the time machine and actually exit on 29th March.
"Parliament is going to debate the petition you signed – “Revoke Art.50 if there is no Brexit plan by the 25 of February”.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
Mr. Sandpit, yeah, I wouldn't expect it up until the second test is finished.
*sighs*
We'll see if I wake up in time. It mattered less before it was so easy to stumble across results unintentionally. Is qualifying on at 6am, d'you happen to know?
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
Housing costs are extraordinary in Oz and NZ, considering they are countries with loads of space.
UK household debt was decreasing until 2016, but is now on a definite upward trend. Just as well that there are no economic problems on the horizon:
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Similarly does anyone think that we need restrictions on free movement between London and the Cotswolds to prevent pretty villages getting swamped by millions of outsiders?
Certainly, policies have been implemented to discourage outsiders buying homes in the National Parks and in areas of outstanding beauty.
St Ives, parts of Cornwall & Devon, almost all of coastal Wales from Conwy, Clwyd, Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, and many parts of Welsh-speaking Wales have restrictions on who can buy homes, or charge multiple home owners double.
Probably the Cotswolds is next.
Those policies have zero to do with FoM and everything to do with stopping houses being used as second homes for a few weeks a year.
In the Dales any house with a Section 106 restrictions can be sold as a holiday let or can be bought by anyone working in the Dales or with family there. What it can't be bought for is as a weekend retreat that is never used.
And there is a reason for that 20 years ago when my wife first started working there every village of any size had a full time shop and post office. Now outside of Hawes and Leyburn the only post office is 3 hours on a Wednesday in Bainbridge and an awful lot of the shops have gone.
Of course, I understand the reason for this.
WilliamGlenn asked whether "we need restrictions on free movement between London and the Cotswolds to prevent pretty villages getting swamped by millions of outsiders?"
If you ban outsiders from buying homes (as has happened in St Ives), it would seem to me to fall into exactly the category that WilliamGlenn mentions.
It is a restriction on outsiders freely moving in to the area.
WilliamGlenn's fictitious Cotswold village is indeed under threat from Londoners who can freely move and buy homes there. It needs restrictions.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
Noones done any research other than loading up Google maps for this exercise have they ?
From the images on their website, it looks like that's exactly what they've done.
Local councils and police are going to insist on a lot of route changes and/or precise timings if there's more than a couple of people actually walking. Some of those country A-roads are going to need a slow car covered in yellow lights to shield the walkers from traffic.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
Housing costs are extraordinary in Oz and NZ, considering they are countries with loads of space.
UK household debt was decreasing until 2016, but is now on a definite upward trend. Just as well that there are no economic problems on the horizon:
I remember the same visiting Canada at the height of the London property boom; we were out in Nova Scotia and the house prices were breathtaking even by London standards, despite all the space. Yet in the US you can buy a 3-bed house for £100k.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
Housing costs are extraordinary in Oz and NZ, considering they are countries with loads of space.
UK household debt was decreasing until 2016, but is now on a definite upward trend. Just as well that there are no economic problems on the horizon:
I remember the same visiting Canada at the height of the London property boom; we were out in Nova Scotia and the house prices were breathtaking even by London standards, despite all the space. Yet in the US you can buy a 3-bed house for £100k.
You can in Cannock as well. And it's a much nicer place to live than London.
If the wording is right here, I potentially suspect this move might also start building a fair amount of public support, especially if optically presented as a "ratification" (perception, of course - like it or not - is everything).
Why are the EU going to buy the uncertainty of us not ratifying May's Deal? They want this sorted, not punted off many months down the road.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
If the wording is right here, I potentially suspect this move might also start building a fair amount of public support, especially if optically presented as a "ratification" (perception, of course - like it or not - is everything).
Why are the EU going to buy the uncertainty of us not ratifying May's Deal? They want this sorted, not punted off many months down the road.
Mr. Sandpit, yeah, I wouldn't expect it up until the second test is finished.
*sighs*
We'll see if I wake up in time. It mattered less before it was so easy to stumble across results unintentionally. Is qualifying on at 6am, d'you happen to know?
The only way to really avoid the result is to record the broadcast on TV or radio, then whenever you wake up get a coffee and watch or listen to it - without turning on the computer or live TV or radio first!
This isn't what the leavers have been saying. It certainly shows why staying in the customs union ought to have been our number one objective in the negotiations with the EU.
Well, I think we all knew already that a US trade Deal is incompatible with an EU one over the issue of agricultural standards. We are signing up to be Trump's dockside hooker.
Are they serious? Christ, I wouldn't be surprised if she would be perfectly happy to announce her departure date the instant the deal is signed, staying on just long enough for a damn leadership election to take place.
But what a mockery it would make of claims the deal was the problem if this story were true.
A blood sacrifice is the traditional way of dealing with this sort of disagreement
If the wording is right here, I potentially suspect this move might also start building a fair amount of public support, especially if optically presented as a "ratification" (perception, of course - like it or not - is everything).
Why are the EU going to buy the uncertainty of us not ratifying May's Deal? They want this sorted, not punted off many months down the road.
Because we we don't we Remain.
If you think that resolves our relationship with the EU..... We wouldn't just be inside the tent, pissing in. We'd have explosive diarrhea and projectile vomiting too......
Noones done any research other than loading up Google maps for this exercise have they ?
From the images on their website, it looks like that's exactly what they've done.
Local councils and police are going to insist on a lot of route changes and/or precise timings if there's more than a couple of people actually walking. Some of those country A-roads are going to need a slow car covered in yellow lights to shield the walkers from traffic.
If you REALLY want to piss off the British public, try blocking their roads with an ambling obstruction travelling at 3 mph.....
That's a very interesting article. I'm unsure I agree with all of it, but it certainly is an explanation for how Labour got itself into this mess. It's so totally unnecessary; a self-dug hole they've dug themselves and thrown themselves in.
It'd be interesting to see BJO's of TheJezziah's take on this ...
It explains one strand of anti-semitism on the Far Left. But not all of it. There is another strand which views problems in capitalism as the fault of groups of individuals - capitalist oppressors, money men oppressing the poor. That very quickly takes on the tinge of traditional anti-semitic tropes: Jewish financiers etc. There were shades of this in some parts of the Occupy movement a few years back, in the references to Soros and Goldman Sachs and the Rothschilds etc and this too feeds into Far Left anti-semitism. And then there is the mistrust of Jews’ loyalty to the cause - which derives from a Soviet distrust of nationalism and those groups wanting their own nation state rather than fighting for Communism.
The latter two have echoes in far right anti-semitism but all three strands form the mix which has given rise to poisonous Far Left anti-semitism.
Well, I think we all knew already that a US trade Deal is incompatible with an EU one over the issue of agricultural standards. We are signing up to be Trump's dockside hooker.
There is no trade deal that would be acceptable to both Congress and Parliament.
They won't even be poorer, or unemployed. Their wages and living standards will rise in a non-FOM economy. They already have risen, as has employment. Brexit's a bugger for people running IO businesses in Dover and for civil servants, but they aren't on this march.
We don't know that.
It might improve their incomes. It might not.
If leaving FoM means that large employers leave, then it might mean lower levels of employment. If they don't leave, it may result in higher incomes.
If leaving FoM means a weaker currency, then they might have notionally higher incomes, but that essentials - like food and energy - are more expensive. But a weaker currency might also stimulate demand, leading to higher economic growth.
If leaving FoM means lower demand for housing, it might reduce rents and make it easier for people to own their own homes. But lower house prices may also mean that people compensate by increasing their savings rates.
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
(My bold). It would certainly raise wages in London, which is the net immigration centre in the experiment. As soon as the putative Fire All The Scousers Act 2019 comes into force, employers in the capital are looking round for tens of thousands of extra employees. A fair number of the people filling those positions will be able to demand a material salary hike. And yes, if the net migration flows are Liverpool to London and Estonia to Essex, the analogy is equally valid for intra- and international labour flows.
I think GDP per capita for net-immigration member states like the UK and for net-emigration states like certain of the A8 since 2004 back up my view.
Noones done any research other than loading up Google maps for this exercise have they ?
From the images on their website, it looks like that's exactly what they've done.
Local councils and police are going to insist on a lot of route changes and/or precise timings if there's more than a couple of people actually walking. Some of those country A-roads are going to need a slow car covered in yellow lights to shield the walkers from traffic.
Best thing for them is they cannot do it because deep state interference like permits.
This is, at least partially, intentional. They very last thing the tories want is for armed forces recruitment to work properly as they have implemented a stealth defence cut by deliberately running the forces significantly below their notional strength. The RN is about 4% below its liability (MoD term for its full headcount) and if it were resourced at 100% it would blow an even bigger hole in the already unfunded defence spending commitments.
We get a similar phenomenon in the NHS. Skint Trusts bring in recruitment freezes as a way of balancing the books, meaning that rotas and staffing become impossible in high demand areas. The NHS would be seriously overspent if the 10% vacancy rate shrank too much, but it reall hits efficiency.
In other news, you cannot miss a target if you get rid of it:
That column on the right about Lord Ahmed beautifully combines three toxic stories: Rotherham, Labour anti-semitism and the propensity of some (note “some” not all) Muslims to threaten violence to get their own way.
If the comments and reports I’ve seen are anything to go by they are not bothered one bit about being poorer, and They don’t need to be conned - they already think that. What is needed is a popular remain politician who they can believe and who can point out some of the negatives. Unfortunately your statement that they will be ‘poorer and unemployed’ is so vague as to be meaningless.
They won't even be poorer, or unemployed. Their wages and living standards will rise in a non-FOM economy. They already have risen, as has employment. Brexit's a bugger for people running IO businesses in Dover and for civil servants, but they aren't on this march.
We don't know that.
It might improve their incomes. It might not.
If leaving FoM means that large employers leave, then it might mean lower levels of employment. If they don't leave, it may result in higher incomes.
If leaving FoM means a weaker currency, then they might have notionally higher incomes, but that essentials - like food and energy - are more expensive. But a weaker currency might also stimulate demand, leading to higher economic growth.
If leaving FoM means lower demand for housing, it might reduce rents and make it easier for people to own their own homes. But lower house prices may also mean that people compensate by increasing their savings rates.
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Wouldn't lower house prices and a higher savings rate BOTH be good things ?
FoM is great for people in poor countries and great for rich people in rich countries.
But how does a town like Rotherham benefit from thousands of East European Roma having moved there ?
And its interesting that earnings are rising at the same time as non-UK workers has fallen as shown by the ONS and what I know anecdotally.
Well, I think we all knew already that a US trade Deal is incompatible with an EU one over the issue of agricultural standards. We are signing up to be Trump's dockside hooker.
There is no trade deal that would be acceptable to both Congress and Parliament.
There's never going to be a grand trade deal with the USA, far too many red lines on both sides. What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured goods, pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
That's a very interesting article. I'm unsure I agree with all of it, but it certainly is an explanation for how Labour got itself into this mess. It's so totally unnecessary; a self-dug hole they've dug themselves and thrown themselves in.
It'd be interesting to see BJO's of TheJezziah's take on this ...
I think there's a lot that is right about that article. One aspect that it misses is that being anti-Israel is part of being anti-US. During the Cold War one Trotskyist slogan was, "neither Washington or Moscow, but International Socialism". With the collapse of the USSR the practical application of the slogan often became simply "Not Washington" and therefore in the Middle East "Not Israel".
Noones done any research other than loading up Google maps for this exercise have they ?
From the images on their website, it looks like that's exactly what they've done.
Local councils and police are going to insist on a lot of route changes and/or precise timings if there's more than a couple of people actually walking. Some of those country A-roads are going to need a slow car covered in yellow lights to shield the walkers from traffic.
If you REALLY want to piss off the British public, try blocking their roads with an ambling obstruction travelling at 3 mph.....
All politicians at such a level probably hate the media and definitely all find it (or bits of it) a damned nuisance and inconvenience. All complain and whinge. And Corbyn has had a lot of negative press.
BUT that's because he has faced so many issues, and he adopts the moaning at the 'mainstream media' to the level of conspiracy theory, and is a lot more petty and brazen in his thoughts on the media than most, and indeed the parallels with Trump are I think rather difficult to protest.
So even trying to see his side I cannot get there.
Noones done any research other than loading up Google maps for this exercise have they ?
From the images on their website, it looks like that's exactly what they've done.
Local councils and police are going to insist on a lot of route changes and/or precise timings if there's more than a couple of people actually walking. Some of those country A-roads are going to need a slow car covered in yellow lights to shield the walkers from traffic.
Best thing for them is they cannot do it because deep state interference like permits.
LOL, of course that's exactly how they'd say it too. Damn bureaucrats getting in the way of their democratic right to block major A roads during the rush hour walk from one town to another.
They'd be the first to complain of course, if someone walking down a busy rural road was involved in an accident. Some of the roads highlighted on here would definitely need to be closed or rolling-roadblocked if a group of people are walking down them.
The article is right in some areas, but skates over some areas of Israeli history in others.
It makes relatively little of what might be an uncomfortable fact for both the right and the left - the most virulent and aggressive forms of modern anti-zionism are not rooted in postwar trotskyism in europe or the inheritance of stalinism, but for historical and postcolonial reasons in the middle east, from which they then travel back to the west.
It looks like the MEN is still allegedly trying to claim that the Momo Challenge is real when everyone else knows it's a hoax. These two reports are on its front page:
This is, at least partially, intentional. They very last thing the tories want is for armed forces recruitment to work properly as they have implemented a stealth defence cut by deliberately running the forces significantly below their notional strength. The RN is about 4% below its liability (MoD term for its full headcount) and if it were resourced at 100% it would blow an even bigger hole in the already unfunded defence spending commitments.
We get a similar phenomenon in the NHS. Skint Trusts bring in recruitment freezes as a way of balancing the books, meaning that rotas and staffing become impossible in high demand areas. The NHS would be seriously overspent if the 10% vacancy rate shrank too much, but it reall hits efficiency.
In other news, you cannot miss a target if you get rid of it:
That column on the right about Lord Ahmed beautifully combines three toxic stories: Rotherham, Labour anti-semitism and the propensity of some (note “some” not all) Muslims to threaten violence to get their own way.
That Lord Ahmed story is different to other recent accusations about him:
' A member of the House of Lords has been accused of exploiting his position to pursue sex with vulnerable women who asked him for help, Newsnight reveals.
One woman said Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham "took advantage" and began a sexual relationship with her after she approached him for assistance. '
Makes you wonder what else there is in the intervening decades.
It wouldn't be the first time he's been in court:
' The prominent Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham was jailed for 12 weeks today after admitting sending texts while driving shortly before his Jaguar ploughed into a stationary car on the M1, killing its driver. '
Good news: I have successfully completed my month abstaining from chocolate. Now for a month without cheese (Good Brie or otherwise).
I've had two months with no alcohol, and I tried February with no caffeine.
The lack of caffeine did f'all to help my sleep patterns, and all it did was make the days seem to drag on. I've had my first cup of coffee in four weeks this morning.
It looks like the MEN is still allegedly trying to claim that the Momo Challenge is real when everyone else knows it's a hoax. These two reports are on its front page:
I think I've finally crossed over into being old, since by the time I learned of this matter it was already known, apparently, to be a hoax. I never even got a chance to get worked up.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
Well, I think we all knew already that a US trade Deal is incompatible with an EU one over the issue of agricultural standards. We are signing up to be Trump's dockside hooker.
There is no trade deal that would be acceptable to both Congress and Parliament.
There's never going to be a grand trade deal with the USA, far too many red lines on both sides. What's much more likely in practice is a number of win-win sectoral agreements, such as on high-tech manufactured goods, pharmacuticals, financial services and a number of other areas where regulatory equivalence could possibly be made to work.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
Little steps forward is a better plan than some maximalist trade deal leap of faith.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
If the comments and reports I’ve seen are anything to go by they are not bothered one bit about being poorer, and They don’t need to be conned - they already think that. What is needed is a popular remain politician who they can believe and who can point out some of the negatives. Unfortunately your statement that they will be ‘poorer and unemployed’ is so vague as to be meaningless.
They won't even be poorer, or unemployed. Their wages and living standards will rise in a non-FOM economy. They already have risen, as has employment. Brexit's a bugger for people running IO businesses in Dover and for civil servants, but they aren't on this march.
We don't know that.
It might improve their incomes. It might not.
If leaving FoM means that large employers leave, then it might mean lower levels of employment. If they don't leave, it may result in higher incomes.
If leaving FoM means a weaker currency, then they might have notionally higher incomes, but that essentials - like food and energy - are more expensive. But a weaker currency might also stimulate demand, leading to higher economic growth.
If leaving FoM means lower demand for housing, it might reduce rents and make it easier for people to own their own homes. But lower house prices may also mean that people compensate by increasing their savings rates.
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Wouldn't lower house prices and a higher savings rate BOTH be good things ?
FoM is great for people in poor countries and great for rich people in rich countries.
But how does a town like Rotherham benefit from thousands of East European Roma having moved there ?
And its interesting that earnings are rising at the same time as non-UK workers has fallen as shown by the ONS and what I know anecdotally.
A higher savings rate might be fine for an economy not so reliant on consumer expenditure as a proportion of GDP. That is not our economy.
If the comments and reports I’ve seen are anything to go by they are not bothered one bit about being poorer, and They don’t need to be conned - they already think that. What is needed is a popular remain politician who they can believe and who can point out some of the negatives. Unfortunately your statement that they will be ‘poorer and unemployed’ is so vague as to be meaningless.
They won't even be poorer, or unemployed. Their wages and living standards will rise in a non-FOM economy. They already have risen, as has employment. Brexit's a bugger for people running IO businesses in Dover and for civil servants, but they aren't on this march.
We don't know that.
It might improve their incomes. It might not.
If leaving FoM means that large employers leave, then it might mean lower levels of employment. If they don't leave, it may result in higher incomes.
If leaving FoM means a weaker currency, then they might have notionally higher incomes, but that essentials - like food and energy - are more expensive. But a weaker currency might also stimulate demand, leading to higher economic growth.
If leaving FoM means lower demand for housing, it might reduce rents and make it easier for people to own their own homes. But lower house prices may also mean that people compensate by increasing their savings rates.
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Wouldn't lower house prices and a higher savings rate BOTH be good things ?
FoM is great for people in poor countries and great for rich people in rich countries.
But how does a town like Rotherham benefit from thousands of East European Roma having moved there ?
And its interesting that earnings are rising at the same time as non-UK workers has fallen as shown by the ONS and what I know anecdotally.
A higher savings rate might be fine for an economy not so reliant on consumer expenditure as a proportion of GDP. That is not our economy.
Yet we can't permanently continue to consume more wealth than we create.
So we need to rebalance our economy by boosting our wealth creation while reducing our over consumption.
It looks like the MEN is still allegedly trying to claim that the Momo Challenge is real when everyone else knows it's a hoax. These two reports are on its front page:
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
There are a lot of skint people out there living beyond their means.
I have often pondered assembling a photo album of small, terraced houses with huge eff off range rovers parked outside them. Would be a large album.
Wouldn't half of it be of Chelsea ?
Well yes, there are a lot of £3m terraced houses in Chelsea, but I'm talking provincial towns, outer London suburbs, etc. There are plenty of small, say ex-council low value terraced houses in these places with huge shiny new 68 reg cars parked outside them. Once you notice it, you can't not notice it.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
I know they are showing different things, but I find it really hard to reconcile the first chart with the second chart. In 2017, more money was taken out in loans than was saved. That fits with households spending more than they earn. Back in 2004, households took out more than twice the amount in loans than they saved. And yet, back then households were spending less than they earned.
I don't know what it all means, but it does not feel good.
If the comments and reports I’ve seen are anything to go by they are not bothered one bit about being poorer, and They don’t need to be conned - they already think that. What is needed is a popular remain politician who they can believe and who can point out some of the negatives. Unfortunately your statement that they will be ‘poorer and unemployed’ is so vague as to be meaningless.
They won't even be poorer, or unemployed. Their wages and living standards will rise in a non-FOM economy. They already have risen, as has employment. Brexit's a bugger for people running IO businesses in Dover and for civil servants, but they aren't on this march.
We don't know that.
It might improve their incomes. It might not.
If leaving FoM means that large employers leave, then it might mean lower levels of employment. If they don't leave, it may result in higher incomes.
If leaving FoM means a weaker currency, then they might have notionally higher incomes, but that essentials - like food and energy - are more expensive. But a weaker currency might also stimulate demand, leading to higher economic growth.
If leaving FoM means lower demand for housing, it might reduce rents and make it easier for people to own their own homes. But lower house prices may also mean that people compensate by increasing their savings rates.
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Wouldn't lower house prices and a higher savings rate BOTH be good things ?
FoM is great for people in poor countries and great for rich people in rich countries.
But how does a town like Rotherham benefit from thousands of East European Roma having moved there ?
And its interesting that earnings are rising at the same time as non-UK workers has fallen as shown by the ONS and what I know anecdotally.
A higher savings rate might be fine for an economy not so reliant on consumer expenditure as a proportion of GDP. That is not our economy.
Yet we can't permanently continue to consume more wealth than we create.
So we need to rebalance our economy by boosting our wealth creation while reducing our over consumption.
I don't disagree but, as an economist might say, how do we get to there from here?
Mr. kle4, well, it's not great here. Or many other places. US - Trump France - Yellow Vest riots Sweden - Election 2: Elect Harder Germany - Das Lame Duck Canada - Corruption? Israel - Corruption?
It looks like the MEN is still allegedly trying to claim that the Momo Challenge is real when everyone else knows it's a hoax. These two reports are on its front page:
I think I've finally crossed over into being old, since by the time I learned of this matter it was already known, apparently, to be a hoax. I never even got a chance to get worked up.
If the comments and reports I’ve seen are anything to go by they are not bothered one bit about being poorer, and They don’t need to be conned - they already think that. What is needed is a popular remain politician who they can believe and who can point out some of the negatives. Unfortunately your statement that they will be ‘poorer and unemployed’ is so vague as to be meaningless.
They won't even be poorer, or unemployed. Their wages and living standards will rise in a non-FOM economy. They already have risen, as has employment. Brexit's a bugger for people running IO businesses in Dover and for civil servants, but they aren't on this march.
We don't know that.
It might improve their incomes. It might not.
If leaving FoM means that large employers leave, then it might mean lower levels of employment. If they don't leave, it may result in higher incomes.
If leaving FoM means a weaker currency, then they might have notionally higher incomes, but that essentials - like food and energy - are more expensive. But a weaker currency might also stimulate demand, leading to higher economic growth.
If leaving FoM means lower demand for housing, it might reduce rents and make it easier for people to own their own homes. But lower house prices may also mean that people compensate by increasing their savings rates.
We don't know the impacts of leaving the EU / FoM. My personal view is that FoM is the one thing that I will miss from the EU. Having more freedom of who to hire, and who to work for, and where to live, is a good thing. A thought experiment: do you really think that banning Liverpudlians from working in London (and vice-versa) would raise incomes? And if not, then why would that be any different from banning Estonians from working in Essex?
Wouldn't lower house prices and a higher savings rate BOTH be good things ?
FoM is great for people in poor countries and great for rich people in rich countries.
But how does a town like Rotherham benefit from thousands of East European Roma having moved there ?
And its interesting that earnings are rising at the same time as non-UK workers has fallen as shown by the ONS and what I know anecdotally.
A higher savings rate might be fine for an economy not so reliant on consumer expenditure as a proportion of GDP. That is not our economy.
If we want to become more prosperous in the long term, the savings rate needs to increase. Selling our companies and housing stock to foreign investors to pay for imported BMWs is not a long-term strategy.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
There are a lot of skint people out there living beyond their means.
I have often pondered assembling a photo album of small, terraced houses with huge eff off range rovers parked outside them. Would be a large album.
Wouldn't half of it be of Chelsea ?
Well yes, there are a lot of £3m terraced houses in Chelsea, but I'm talking provincial towns, outer London suburbs, etc. There are plenty of small, say ex-council low value terraced houses in these places with huge shiny new 68 reg cars parked outside them. Once you notice it, you can't not notice it.
I lived for 15 years in what I now know is the most deprived area of my leafy shire county. It was a long-standing source of amusement for us to note just how nice so many cars were in the area, so I can well believe it .
Cars are one of those things I hate spending money on though. If I was a millionaire maybe.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
There are a lot of skint people out there living beyond their means.
I have often pondered assembling a photo album of small, terraced houses with huge eff off range rovers parked outside them. Would be a large album.
Wouldn't half of it be of Chelsea ?
Well yes, there are a lot of £3m terraced houses in Chelsea, but I'm talking provincial towns, outer London suburbs, etc. There are plenty of small, say ex-council low value terraced houses in these places with huge shiny new 68 reg cars parked outside them. Once you notice it, you can't not notice it.
I lived for 15 years in what I now know is the most deprived area of my leafy shire county. It was a long-standing source of amusement for us to note just how nice so many cars were in the area, so I can well believe it .
Cars are one of those things I hate spending money on though. If I was a millionaire maybe.
PCP makes it (appear) so much easier. And is a key explanation why private debt has risen again - we probably have a lid on housing debt but the debt bubble has reappeared somewhere else.
This isn't what the leavers have been saying. It certainly shows why staying in the customs union ought to have been our number one objective in the negotiations with the EU.
Given that the EU does not have, and is very unlikely to have, a FTA with either the US or China in the foreseeable future, staying in the Customs Union (which is impossible anyway)would have made no difference at all.
A caller just phoned into Radio 4's BREXIT EXPERT to 'ask' in the smug tone of a Brexiteer if it's true that we pay into the EU £14 billion a year?
'Yes' said the expert 'but when you take out rebates to farmers etc it amounts to £9 billion and that can be reduced by a further billi.....'
'Yes but it is true so if we left we'd be much better off than we are now wouldn't we?'
'....but if the Treasury forcast is correct that in twenty five years we'll be 3% worse off than we would have been then the annual cost to us will be £87 billion....'
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
There are a lot of skint people out there living beyond their means.
I have often pondered assembling a photo album of small, terraced houses with huge eff off range rovers parked outside them. Would be a large album.
Wouldn't half of it be of Chelsea ?
Well yes, there are a lot of £3m terraced houses in Chelsea, but I'm talking provincial towns, outer London suburbs, etc. There are plenty of small, say ex-council low value terraced houses in these places with huge shiny new 68 reg cars parked outside them. Once you notice it, you can't not notice it.
Can't such a house cost £500k in some of London's outer suburbs ?
If so then the car wouldn't be proportionally expensive.
The only way I'd say that would happen in the North is among some tightly knit Asian communities who remain in the same few streets but for whom a flash car would be a status symbol.
A caller just phoned into Radio 4's BREXIT EXPERT to 'ask' in the smug tone of a Brexiteer if it's true that we pay into the EU £14 billion a year?
'Yes' said the expert 'but when you take out rebates to farmers etc it amounts to £9 billion and that can be reduced by a further billi.....'
'Yes but it is true so if we left we'd be much better off than we are now wouldn't we?'
'....but if the Treasury forcast is correct that in twenty five years we'll be 3% worse off than we would have been then the annual cost to us will be £87 billion....'
As the Treasury was unable to forecast competently what would happen three months after a Leave vote why should anyone pay any attention to a twenty five year forecast ?
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
There are a lot of skint people out there living beyond their means.
I have often pondered assembling a photo album of small, terraced houses with huge eff off range rovers parked outside them. Would be a large album.
Wouldn't half of it be of Chelsea ?
Well yes, there are a lot of £3m terraced houses in Chelsea, but I'm talking provincial towns, outer London suburbs, etc. There are plenty of small, say ex-council low value terraced houses in these places with huge shiny new 68 reg cars parked outside them. Once you notice it, you can't not notice it.
It's because it's now much easier to get a lease on a new car, that works out cheaper per month than a standard loan on a used one.
From a monthly budget financial point of view, people are incentivised to either buy a new car or an old and cheap one, not a 3 or 4 year old car which makes the most sense in reality but leads to higher monthly payments (mostly because at the end of the loan you end up with an asset).
I've got a spreadsheet on this somewhere I'll try and drag up.
A caller just phoned into Radio 4's BREXIT EXPERT to 'ask' in the smug tone of a Brexiteer if it's true that we pay into the EU £14 billion a year?
'Yes' said the expert 'but when you take out rebates to farmers etc it amounts to £9 billion and that can be reduced by a further billi.....'
'Yes but it is true so if we left we'd be much better off than we are now wouldn't we?'
'....but if the Treasury forcast is correct that in twenty five years we'll be 3% worse off than we would have been then the annual cost to us will be £87 billion....'
As the Treasury was unable to forecast competently what would happen three months after a Leave vote why should anyone pay any attention to a twenty five year forecast ?
That's not the point, though, is it? The point is that the "let's stop spending this money on the EU" and give it to the NHS was simplistic and misleading, since even a small hit to the economy and we'd be worse off overall, and the 'extra' money would disappear.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
There are a lot of skint people out there living beyond their means.
I have often pondered assembling a photo album of small, terraced houses with huge eff off range rovers parked outside them. Would be a large album.
Wouldn't half of it be of Chelsea ?
Well yes, there are a lot of £3m terraced houses in Chelsea, but I'm talking provincial towns, outer London suburbs, etc. There are plenty of small, say ex-council low value terraced houses in these places with huge shiny new 68 reg cars parked outside them. Once you notice it, you can't not notice it.
Can't such a house cost £500k in some of London's outer suburbs ?
If so then the car wouldn't be proportionally expensive.
The only way I'd say that would happen in the North is among some tightly knit Asian communities who remain in the same few streets but for whom a flash car would be a status symbol.
I'm not going to scour the country a la googlemaps illustrating what I mean. Suffice to say there are plenty of flash new cars outside modest homes where the disconnect is marked. Take a look next time you're out and about.
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
So basically take away those countries likely to be lending into larger economies adjacent, and the Uk is right at the upper end. Although Australia appears to have a big problem?
They have extremely low public debt though - less than 20% of GDP (and even that's a steep rise from the Howard years where for a time they had net credit).
There are a lot of skint people out there living beyond their means.
I have often pondered assembling a photo album of small, terraced houses with huge eff off range rovers parked outside them. Would be a large album.
The desire to feel ourselves better than other people is universal. Some achieve it by buying flash motors they can't afford. Others achieve it by looking down their noses at people who buy flash motors they can't afford. And the third and most exclusive group prefers to stand aside and shake their heads wryly at the behaviour of both of the first two groups.
Comments
You probably don't need actual physical walls and border guards and things to achieve these effects, but if they want to built them and pay for them, whatever.
Whether one buys that or not if she does get it through then she will unquestionably have pulled off a remarkable turnaround and played a bad hand very well given the outcome of the first meaningful vote was beyond even the worst estimates out there.
https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2019-02-27/labours-antisemitism-crisis-open-letter-jeremy-corbyn
It'd be interesting to see BJO's of TheJezziah's take on this ...
One for @rcs1000 . Does this ring true?
It measures debt held by national banks vs income in those countries.
Sensible enough?
No. Because it means that if a Norwegian bank lends to a German, it gets added to the Norwegian debt to income number, rather than the German.
The consequence of this is that a few very international banks in small countries, like SEB in Sweden and Nordbank in Norway, completely distort the figures.
(That being said, Denmark has a scary mortgage debt problem.)
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1101277939109380096?s=19
How the Tories spend our money and wreck essential services, while obsessed with Brexitology.
St Ives, parts of Cornwall & Devon, almost all of coastal Wales from Conwy, Clwyd, Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, and many parts of Welsh-speaking Wales have restrictions on who can buy homes, or charge multiple home owners double.
Probably the Cotswolds is next.
Enjoyed the last podcast. Will give this a listen when I get an opportunity.
Last day of the second and final test today. Just a fortnight until the Australian Grand Prix kicks off (need to find out what unholy hour it begins. I suspect 5am).
I'll be keeping an eye out for the odds on a Leclerc podium and Williams points.
In other news, you cannot miss a target if you get rid of it:
https://twitter.com/fourhourtarget/status/1101262012863123457?s=19
In the Dales any house with a Section 106 restrictions can be sold as a holiday let or can be bought by anyone working in the Dales or with family there. What it can't be bought for is as a weekend retreat that is never used.
And there is a reason for that 20 years ago when my wife first started working there every village of any size had a full time shop and post office. Now outside of Hawes and Leyburn the only post office is 3 hours on a Wednesday in Bainbridge and an awful lot of the shops have gone.
Should be the 'Cotswolds ARE next.'
Betfair only have the 2019 overall markets up so far, the Aus ones should go up next week sometime.
"Parliament is going to debate the petition you signed – “Revoke Art.50 if there is no Brexit plan by the 25 of February”.
The debate is scheduled for 11 March 2019."
*sighs*
We'll see if I wake up in time. It mattered less before it was so easy to stumble across results unintentionally. Is qualifying on at 6am, d'you happen to know?
UK household debt was decreasing until 2016, but is now on a definite upward trend. Just as well that there are no economic problems on the horizon:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45343236
WilliamGlenn asked whether "we need restrictions on free movement between London and the Cotswolds to prevent pretty villages getting swamped by millions of outsiders?"
If you ban outsiders from buying homes (as has happened in St Ives), it would seem to me to fall into exactly the category that WilliamGlenn mentions.
It is a restriction on outsiders freely moving in to the area.
WilliamGlenn's fictitious Cotswold village is indeed under threat from Londoners who can freely move and buy homes there. It needs restrictions.
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-australias-net-debt-doubled-under-the-current-government-100819
Edit - and don't forget we have a fair number of international banks as well, although I fully agree we are over-leveraged as an economy.
Local councils and police are going to insist on a lot of route changes and/or precise timings if there's more than a couple of people actually walking. Some of those country A-roads are going to need a slow car covered in yellow lights to shield the walkers from traffic.
Just saying...
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1101388088197169152?s=19
There are a lot of skint people out there living beyond their means.
Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/racing/2019/Australia.html
The only way to really avoid the result is to record the broadcast on TV or radio, then whenever you wake up get a coffee and watch or listen to it - without turning on the computer or live TV or radio first!
The latter two have echoes in far right anti-semitism but all three strands form the mix which has given rise to poisonous Far Left anti-semitism.
I think GDP per capita for net-immigration member states like the UK and for net-emigration states like certain of the A8 since 2004 back up my view.
edit: wages, not GDP per capita, obvs
FoM is great for people in poor countries and great for rich people in rich countries.
But how does a town like Rotherham benefit from thousands of East European Roma having moved there ?
And its interesting that earnings are rising at the same time as non-UK workers has fallen as shown by the ONS and what I know anecdotally.
On agriculture we could remove tariffs but insist on standards, so to allow e.g. USDA beef to be imported but not the mass-market GM crap they feed themselves on.
The USA also have a habit of insisting on one-sided dispute resolution systems, which we're never going to agree to either.
In the short term, being out of the EU (and out of Trump's trade war with them) could be almost the equivalent of a good trade deal.
BUT that's because he has faced so many issues, and he adopts the moaning at the 'mainstream media' to the level of conspiracy theory, and is a lot more petty and brazen in his thoughts on the media than most, and indeed the parallels with Trump are I think rather difficult to protest.
So even trying to see his side I cannot get there.
Newport West by election could be close on those numbers
They'd be the first to complain of course, if someone walking down a busy rural road was involved in an accident. Some of the roads highlighted on here would definitely need to be closed or rolling-roadblocked if a group of people are walking down them.
It makes relatively little of what might be an uncomfortable fact for both the right and the left - the most virulent and aggressive forms of modern anti-zionism are not rooted in postwar trotskyism in europe or the inheritance of stalinism, but for historical and postcolonial reasons in the middle east, from which they then travel back to the west.
One shudders to think of the sin that requires such penance.
It looks like the MEN is still allegedly trying to claim that the Momo Challenge is real when everyone else knows it's a hoax. These two reports are on its front page:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/momo-challenge-real-hoax-warning-15904004
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/holly-willoughby-momo-challenge-son-15901061
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
' A member of the House of Lords has been accused of exploiting his position to pursue sex with vulnerable women who asked him for help, Newsnight reveals.
One woman said Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham "took advantage" and began a sexual relationship with her after she approached him for assistance. '
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47245797
Makes you wonder what else there is in the intervening decades.
It wouldn't be the first time he's been in court:
' The prominent Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham was jailed for 12 weeks today after admitting sending texts while driving shortly before his Jaguar ploughed into a stationary car on the M1, killing its driver. '
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/25/lord-ahmed-dangerous-driving
The lack of caffeine did f'all to help my sleep patterns, and all it did was make the days seem to drag on. I've had my first cup of coffee in four weeks this morning.
Do you have the whole year planned ?
I'm certainly coveting the politics of some other places right now
Probably think it increases their Short money as well. This also explains Labour's otherwise baffling continued promotion of Clare, of that ilk.
Dry January
DeChox February
No cheese March
Crisp-free April
still thinking about the rest of the year.
So we need to rebalance our economy by boosting our wealth creation while reducing our over consumption.
IIRC MEN is Mirror Group these days not Grauniad.
http://tinyurl.com/ybcxhpf3
I know they are showing different things, but I find it really hard to reconcile the first chart with the second chart. In 2017, more money was taken out in loans than was saved. That fits with households spending more than they earn. Back in 2004, households took out more than twice the amount in loans than they saved. And yet, back then households were spending less than they earned.
I don't know what it all means, but it does not feel good.
US - Trump
France - Yellow Vest riots
Sweden - Election 2: Elect Harder
Germany - Das Lame Duck
Canada - Corruption?
Israel - Corruption?
Auto-enrolment is very positive in this regard.
Cars are one of those things I hate spending money on though. If I was a millionaire maybe.
'Yes' said the expert 'but when you take out rebates to farmers etc it amounts to £9 billion and that can be reduced by a further billi.....'
'Yes but it is true so if we left we'd be much better off than we are now wouldn't we?'
'....but if the Treasury forcast is correct that in twenty five years we'll be 3% worse off than we would have been then the annual cost to us will be £87 billion....'
If so then the car wouldn't be proportionally expensive.
The only way I'd say that would happen in the North is among some tightly knit Asian communities who remain in the same few streets but for whom a flash car would be a status symbol.
From a monthly budget financial point of view, people are incentivised to either buy a new car or an old and cheap one, not a 3 or 4 year old car which makes the most sense in reality but leads to higher monthly payments (mostly because at the end of the loan you end up with an asset).
I've got a spreadsheet on this somewhere I'll try and drag up.