It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
Because Brexit is more of a choice than a negotiation. The idea that you need to be "serious" about leaving to get "good" terms is just a delusion.
I'm really glad someone else has said this. A negotiation is about finding a common way forward, not a game of bluff and brinksmanship. Labour should be commended for not adopting a command-and-control attitude, instead offering the people the final say on what gets agreed.
It’s transparently untrue. It implies that the EU holds all the cards and there are only alternate terms that the EU will offer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It may have a considerably stronger position but the UK has cards of its own and how it plays them is relevant.
Of course, so far Britain has played its cards abysmally.
The strongest card the UK has now is "Give us a good deal or we'll stay".
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
Because Brexit is more of a choice than a negotiation. The idea that you need to be "se rious" about leaving to get "good" terms is just a delusion.
I'm really glad someone else has said this. A negotiation is about finding a common way forward, not a game of bluff and brinksmanship. Labour should be commended for not adopting a command-and-control attitude, instead offering the people the final say on what gets agreed.
It’s transparently untrue. It implies that the EU holds all the cards and there are only alternate terms that the EU will offer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It may have a considerably stronger position but the UK has cards of its own and how it plays them is relevant.
Of course, so far Britain has played its cards abysmally.
The strongest card the UK has now is "Give us a good deal or we'll stay".
Even that is not a strong hand. They will say it's up to the UK.
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
Because Brexit is more of a choice than a negotiation. The idea that you need to be "serious" about leaving to get "good" terms is just a delusion.
I'm really glad someone else has said this. A negotiation is about finding a common way forward, not a game of bluff and brinksmanship. Labour should be commended for not adopting a command-and-control attitude, instead offering the people the final say on what gets agreed.
It’s transparently untrue. It implies that the EU holds all the cards and there are only alternate terms that the EU will offer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It may have a considerably stronger position but the UK has cards of its own and how it plays them is relevant.
Of course, so far Britain has played its cards abysmally.
The strongest card the UK has now is "Give us a good deal or we'll stay".
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
I meant the Hodges tweet is infantile. PM Corbyn could stay neutral on Ref2. Why not?
As for the Deal, why would the EU not negotiate a closely aligned 'soft' Brexit with a Labour government? It will then be that or Remain, both of which outcomes are acceptable to them.
There IS a problem but it is something else entirely. Nothing to do with Labour policy being 'confused'. It is the fact that this Ref2 formulation - Soft Brexit vs Remain - steers heavily to Remain because it has no Hard Leave option. It is therefore open to the charge of 'Fix' and 'Undemocratic'.
But to pinch your mantra - there are no perfect solutions from here.
But there is no such thing as a Hard Leave option - it's utterly insane and leaves us having annoyed the EU trying to renegotiate back into things that we discover we shouldn't have left.
This needs to be plastered across every billboard in the country ; although a national mass hysteria such as seen in Brexit doesn't necessarily respond to it, at least not until faced with undeniable day-to-day reality too.
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
Because Brexit is more of a choice than a negotiation. The idea that you need to be "serious" about leaving to get "good" terms is just a delusion.
I'm really glad someone else has said this. A negotiation is about finding a common way forward, not a game of bluff and brinksmanship. Labour should be commended for not adopting a command-and-control attitude, instead offering the people the final say on what gets agreed.
It’s transparently untrue. It implies that the EU holds all the cards and there are only alternate terms that the EU will offer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It may have a considerably stronger position but the UK has cards of its own and how it plays them is relevant.
Of course, so far Britain has played its cards abysmally.
The strongest card the UK has now is "Give us a good deal or we'll stay".
That's why it doesn't work politically, not why it will guarantee an inferior deal to one that could be obtained if they said they would campaign in favour of it.
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
I meant the Hodges tweet is infantile. PM Corbyn could stay neutral on Ref2. Why not?
As for the Deal, why would the EU not negotiate a closely aligned 'soft' Brexit with a Labour government? It will then be that or Remain, both of which outcomes are acceptable to them.
There IS a problem but it is something else entirely. Nothing to do with Labour policy being 'confused'. It is the fact that this Ref2 formulation - Soft Brexit vs Remain - steers heavily to Remain because it has no Hard Leave option. It is therefore open to the charge of 'Fix' and 'Undemocratic'.
But to pinch your mantra - there are no perfect solutions from here.
What are Labour’s objectives going to be in any negotiation with the EU, how does it propose to secure concessions on sticking points and how tough is Labour willing to be with the EU when it gets to the crunchy bits? Anyone can have a nicey-nicey conversation but the idea of conducting a serious negotiation for an outcome you are going to campaign against is absurd.
Firstly, why is it about extracting concessions? Our interests are aligned for now. We need cross border trade and cooperation. The EU has a rule book, we can follow it for now and if it doesn't work after a few years we're in a better position to start to move away. Get those semi-mythical technological solutions built and tested and see if that changes the equation. Secondly, it's a good position to be in to be able to say "hey, it's not about what I want, it's about whether people will go for it". Any agreement that is made with the British public at the forefront of the imaginations of the negotiators is better than the alternative. The alternative being "it's not great but I think we can fudge it".
This is smart. I can't believe I'm saying it, but it is. Corbyn as the Good Cop, with the voting public as the Bad Cop.
The inspectorate is a tremendous waste of money and does not really impact on school improvement, as evidence by the number of schools that have been in a category for long periods of time. This money could be better spent working intensively with schools which are struggling.
Yes.
If it is harder to measure something than it is to improve the thing you are trying to measure, you should focus almost exclusively on the latter.
That the opposite tends to occur is a general flaw with target based regimes. See NHS too.
Also in the private sector for that matter. My own experience is that when someone starts talking 'targets' you need to nip it in the bud, otherwise bad things ensue.
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
I meant the Hodges tweet is infantile. PM Corbyn could stay neutral on Ref2. Why not?
As for the Deal, why would the EU not negotiate a closely aligned 'soft' Brexit with a Labour government? It will then be that or Remain, both of which outcomes are acceptable to them.
There IS a problem but it is something else entirely. Nothing to do with Labour policy being 'confused'. It is the fact that this Ref2 formulation - Soft Brexit vs Remain - steers heavily to Remain because it has no Hard Leave option. It is therefore open to the charge of 'Fix' and 'Undemocratic'.
But to pinch your mantra - there are no perfect solutions from here.
What are Labour’s objectives going to be in any negotiation with the EU, how does it propose to secure concessions on sticking points and how tough is Labour willing to be with the EU when it gets to the crunchy bits? Anyone can have a nicey-nicey conversation but the idea of conducting a serious negotiation for an outcome you are going to campaign against is absurd.
Firstly, why is it about extracting concessions? Our interests are aligned for now. We need cross border trade and cooperation. The EU has a rule book, we can follow it for now and if it doesn't work after a few years we're in a better position to start to move away. Get those semi-mythical technological solutions built and tested and see if that changes the equation. Secondly, it's a good position to be in to be able to say "hey, it's not about what I want, it's about whether people will go for it". Any agreement that is made with the British public at the forefront of the imaginations of the negotiators is better than the alternative. The alternative being "it's not great but I think we can fudge it".
This is smart. I can't believe I'm saying it, but it is. Corbyn as the Good Cop, with the voting public as the Bad Cop.
You’re missing my point. There will be points of detail where Britain’s and the EU’s interests are not aligned. Why should the EU concede on any of them when their counterparts are going to recommend to the people that they should junk the deal anyway?
The article says you can do political spread betting with IG Index.
However I can't see any political markets on their website. Can anyone provide a link?
In contrast, all of Sporting Index's GE markets are listed on one page which was linked in a thread header a few weeks ago.
Hello, @MikeL . I wrote the article: thank you for reading it. IG Index offers an index (which it calls "digital 100s") on election outcomes like "Conservative Election Seats"[1], but increased regulation means that such markets may now only be available to professional traders[2]
So they do offer markets, and have done so in the past[1], but in future they may not do so or - if they do - may not be available to all[2]
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
I meant the Hodges tweet is infantile. PM Corbyn could stay neutral on Ref2. Why not?
As for the Deal, why would the EU not negotiate a closely aligned 'soft' Brexit with a Labour government? It will then be that or Remain, both of which outcomes are acceptable to them.
There IS a problem but it is something else entirely. Nothing to do with Labour policy being 'confused'. It is the fact that this Ref2 formulation - Soft Brexit vs Remain - steers heavily to Remain because it has no Hard Leave option. It is therefore open to the charge of 'Fix' and 'Undemocratic'.
But to pinch your mantra - there are no perfect solutions from here.
What are Labour’s objectives going to be in any negotiation with the EU, how does it propose to secure concessions on sticking points and how tough is Labour willing to be with the EU when it gets to the crunchy bits? Anyone can have a nicey-nicey conversation but the idea of conducting a serious negotiation for an outcome you are going to campaign against is absurd.
Firstly, why is it about extracting concessions? Our interests are aligned for now. We need cross border trade and cooperation. The EU has a rule book, we can follow it for now and if it doesn't work after a few years we're in a better position to start to move away. Get those semi-mythical technological solutions built and tested and see if that changes the equation. Secondly, it's a good position to be in to be able to say "hey, it's not about what I want, it's about whether people will go for it". Any agreement that is made with the British public at the forefront of the imaginations of the negotiators is better than the alternative. The alternative being "it's not great but I think we can fudge it".
This is smart. I can't believe I'm saying it, but it is. Corbyn as the Good Cop, with the voting public as the Bad Cop.
You’re missing my point. There will be points of detail where Britain’s and the EU’s interests are not aligned. Why should the EU concede on any of them when their counterparts are going to recommend to the people that they should junk the deal anyway?
The public rightly see why this won’t fly.
You are assuming that the EU sees it as in its interests to perpetuate the UK's current carve-outs when it could park the UK indefinitely in its orbit outside. Why are you so sure the EU wants this?
The problem is that Junker's attitude and rhetoric is most likely to lead to what he says he doesn't want - no deal.
If his issue is with agricultural inspections, then let's agree that UK and RoI can station inspectors on the 'other' side of the border, checking shipments as they leave the originating farm.
The way the 'backstop' is designed, is to prevent the UK diverging in regulation *in anything* from the EU, preventing the UK signing trade deals with other countries and to allow the EU to have the upper hand in negotiations in the next stage, which they intend to drag on for as long as possible. Ireland, and the willing Varadkar, have been allowed to be used as pawns for the greater good of the EU Project, at considerable risk to their own economy. Junker is betting his life (and that of Varakdar) that the UK blinks first.
Broadly so, I think. Varadkar and the other EU27 states (through Juncker) have calculated this approach protects their interests the best. They own the system, which is run in the interests of the EU28, now the EU27 not including the UK. The UK can then decide if its own interest is best served through a close relationship with the EU and its member states or to struggle along outside of it.
Incidentally the UK will need to agree third country trade deals whether part of the EU system or not. Participation in that system should drive better agreements as the UK would be a more interesting trade partner in than out. Still a step down from what it had as a member state however.
It also shows that the border in Ireland is entirely an EU problem - it's not yet dawned on Junker and co that the UK doesn't care at all about having a perfectly policed border, as it doesn't at the moment with regard to duties and illegal goods crossing.
Borders are always a problem of both sides. Only the EU has substantially made them disappear thanks to close alignment between member states and a set of legally enforceable rules to back it up. The Northern Ireland border is uniquely a problem in the UK however because of its central place in the different and troublesome identities of the people living there.
I realise it makes for a good argument but I struggle to see why the EU would actually care that Corbyn campaigns for the deal, remain or stays neutral during a second referendum. Corbyn doesn't want to put the country through no deal so that isn't a realistic threat.
Are the EU seriously going to have a problem with a request and then Corbyn turns around and says he will campaign for the deal so they fall over themselves to do the thing they previously wouldn't?
I get the feeling the EU want it over and would like to avoid the complications around no deal, they aren't going to set up barriers to that that would suddenly not exist if Corbyn were to campaign for the deal, the things that are red lines like the Irish border will remain red lines, the things that they are happy to negotiate on they will remain happy to negotiate on.
I still think that the only way we end up with a mutually beneficial agreement (something like the Canada deal), is if we leave with no deal and negotiate immediately from there. My view on that hasn't changed since before the referendum. I'm still not sure the PM has the balls to deal with the short term disruption though, although there would also be plenty of disruption on the EU side, where they're already teetering on the brink of a recession.
Are we still talking from a position of strength ? Canada did not have to pay 39bn. The UK will have to pay that or its equivalent before trade talks even start. The EU has made that clear. Oh! I forgot. We hold all the cards.
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
Because Brexit is more of a choice than a negotiation. The idea that you need to be "serious" about leaving to get "good" terms is just a delusion.
Of course - it's part of the infectious insanity that's spread from Farage's loonies into the ERG and now the Tory leadership. The EU is portrayed as a bogeyman for political reasons. The negotiations are presented as plucky little Britain standing to the Evil Empire, rather than a group of concerned adults trying to prevent a disturbed child from running in front of the traffic.
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
Because Brexit is more of a choice than a negotiation. The idea that you need to be "serious" about leaving to get "good" terms is just a delusion.
I'm really glad someone else has said this. A negotiation is about finding a common way forward, not a game of bluff and brinksmanship. Labour should be commended for not adopting a command-and-control attitude, instead offering the people the final say on what gets agreed.
It’s transparently untrue. It implies that the EU holds all the cards and there are only alternate terms that the EU will offer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It may have a considerably stronger position but the UK has cards of its own and how it plays them is relevant.
Of course, so far Britain has played its cards abysmally.
The strongest card the UK has now is "Give us a good deal or we'll stay".
I think a highly skilled and persuasive leader could have followed Sandpit's strategy in 2016 and got traction with the population. We do not have any politicians, anywhere near that calibre though. Once May further divided the country into two fragile groupings it became way way harder.
The thing that makes me so angry is that May was in the perfect position to achieve this. As a remainer before the referendum, she only needed to have one red line: we are leaving. Instead she bought a pack of scarlet sharpies and went totally mad.
She destroyed the middle ground and left people like me -- defeated remainers -- no choice but to follow her into the hard brexit we had always feared, or to regroup and start to resist. When I first heard "Brexit means Brexit" I actually had a little bit of hope. That could have been the the starting whistle on a new process of compromise: let's get leavers and remainers to cobble together a compromise brexit. Turned out I was wrong and it was the start of a coordinated and long running gaslighting campaign.
We all know that Boris has had a pretty terrible start to his premiership. But if it ends tomorrow, history will not judge him to be worse. It'll be judged the baffling, comedy conclusion of what I maintain is likely to be seen as the most catastrophically mismanaged period of modern British history. Even though her personal qualities are probably finer than those of her successor, as a prime minister Theresa May will never be forgiven.
I broadly agree with the analysis but find it far easier to forgive misguided but determined hard work, than lazy lies and failed cunning wheezes.
What are Labour’s objectives going to be in any negotiation with the EU, how does it propose to secure concessions on sticking points and how tough is Labour willing to be with the EU when it gets to the crunchy bits? Anyone can have a nicey-nicey conversation but the idea of conducting a serious negotiation for an outcome you are going to campaign against is absurd.
Firstly, why is it about extracting concessions? Our interests are aligned for now. We need cross border trade and cooperation. The EU has a rule book, we can follow it for now and if it doesn't work after a few years we're in a better position to start to move away. Get those semi-mythical technological solutions built and tested and see if that changes the equation. Secondly, it's a good position to be in to be able to say "hey, it's not about what I want, it's about whether people will go for it". Any agreement that is made with the British public at the forefront of the imaginations of the negotiators is better than the alternative. The alternative being "it's not great but I think we can fudge it".
This is smart. I can't believe I'm saying it, but it is. Corbyn as the Good Cop, with the voting public as the Bad Cop.
You’re missing my point. There will be points of detail where Britain’s and the EU’s interests are not aligned. Why should the EU concede on any of them when their counterparts are going to recommend to the people that they should junk the deal anyway?
The public rightly see why this won’t fly.
You are assuming that the EU sees it as in its interests to perpetuate the UK's current carve-outs when it could park the UK indefinitely in its orbit outside. Why are you so sure the EU wants this?
I’m not assuming anything. Unless you are advocating that Britain provisionally agree whatever it is graciously offered by the EU, there will be points that Britain will want to secure concessions on, whatever the EU itself wants. Since in practice everyone knows that Labour will be practically obliged to campaign for Remain, the EU can tailor the deal to its own wants, safe in the knowledge that its opposite numbers have no ability to shape it.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
Hold you nose and vote Labour if the Lib Dems don't have a chance in your constituency hoping that the end result means it requires a coalition of Labour, LD (and probably) the SNP to form a government without Corbyn.
Then Corbyn leaves/ retires victorious and someone slightly saner takes over.
With respect to conversion costs you might want to look into Revolut.
Hi, @OblitusSumMe . Yes, you are correct. The article ended where it did because it reached a natural end, but a lot more detail could have been crammed in, of which the existence of things like "Revolut" was one. I eschew app-based things (I'm a chronic late-adopter) but others do not and may prefer Revolut. Apologies for the omission.
Labour can't be solely one or the other. Their MPs and members are heavily Remain but their voter base includes a chunk of Leave. Still a minority, but a significantly sized one. LD, BXP and (to a lesser but increasing extent) the Tories do not have this problem.
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
I meant the Hodges tweet is infantile. PM Corbyn could stay neutral on Ref2. Why not?
As for the Deal, why would the EU not negotiate a closely aligned 'soft' Brexit with a Labour government? It will then be that or Remain, both of which outcomes are acceptable to them.
There IS a problem but it is something else entirely. Nothing to do with Labour policy being 'confused'. It is the fact that this Ref2 formulation - Soft Brexit vs Remain - steers heavily to Remain because it has no Hard Leave option. It is therefore open to the charge of 'Fix' and 'Undemocratic'.
But to pinch your mantra - there are no perfect solutions from here.
What are Labour’s objectives going to be in any negotiation with the EU, how does it propose to secure concessions on sticking points and how tough is Labour willing to be with the EU when it gets to the crunchy bits? Anyone can have a nicey-nicey conversation but the idea of conducting a serious negotiation for an outcome you are going to campaign against is absurd.
Firstly, why is it about extracting concessions? Our interests are aligned for now. We need cross border trade and cooperation. The EU has a rule book, we can follow it for now and if it doesn't work after a few years we're in a better position to start to move away. Get those semi-mythical technological solutions built and tested and see if that changes the equation. Secondly, it's a good position to be in to be able to say "hey, it's not about what I want, it's about whether people will go for it". Any agreement that is made with the British public at the forefront of the imaginations of the negotiators is better than the alternative. The alternative being "it's not great but I think we can fudge it".
This is smart. I can't believe I'm saying it, but it is. Corbyn as the Good Cop, with the voting public as the Bad Cop.
You’re missing my point. There will be points of detail where Britain’s and the EU’s interests are not aligned. Why should the EU concede on any of them when their counterparts are going to recommend to the people that they should junk the deal anyway?
The public rightly see why this won’t fly.
No. It will be like 1975. Labour members will be free to choose Labour Deal or Remain. I will choose Remain. But Labour Party officially will not recommend to the people to junk the deal.
It’s one of the two absurdities with Labour policy. The other is the idea of negotiating a deal with the EU that everyone knows you are going to campaign against. What are you going to look for in those negotiations? And why should your counterparts offer good terms?
Less absurd than a referendum to leave the EU without the slightest idea how to do it.
I think it depends on how far down the line a Labour government goes before going to a referendum. Negotiating the options in outline and then asking people to choose is reasonable, I think.
Bear in mind May's Deal, and any Boris Deal if he's actually serious, are far from settled arrangements too. There's years of negotiations in the political declaration part.
This may have been suggested already but a currency hedged global ultra-short bond fund would give you a reasonable degree of protection both against sterling moves and, less relevantly, duration risk.
Labour can't be solely one or the other. Their MPs and members are heavily Remain but their voter base includes a chunk of Leave. Still a minority, but a significantly sized one. LD, BXP and (to a lesser but increasing extent) the Tories do not have this problem.
I am not convinced that there are large chunks of Labour Leave voters [ even in the heartlands ]. They have left for the BXP. Many will not vote Tory under any circumstances. Yes, about 20%-25% Labour voters are Leave but they are also spread out with a higher percentage in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire. But nowhere it is a majority. Why did they not vote Tory in 2017 ?
Labour can't be solely one or the other. Their MPs and members are heavily Remain but their voter base includes a chunk of Leave. Still a minority, but a significantly sized one. LD, BXP and (to a lesser but increasing extent) the Tories do not have this problem.
The Tories do have a chunk of Remain voters. However those are Remain voters who are prepared to vote for an openly Leave party because they support the party for other reasons.
We've already seen Labour voters are less bothered by the EU than other parties. The chunk of Labour Leave voters might still prioritise Labour over Leave.
Labour can't be solely one or the other. Their MPs and members are heavily Remain but their voter base includes a chunk of Leave. Still a minority, but a significantly sized one. LD, BXP and (to a lesser but increasing extent) the Tories do not have this problem.
The Tories do have a chunk of Remain voters. However those are Remain voters who are prepared to vote for an openly Leave party because they support the party for other reasons.
We've already seen Labour voters are less bothered by the EU than other parties. The chunk of Labour Leave voters might still prioritise Labour over Leave.
I suspect that abolishing private schools would have only a marginal effect on that. They would be invested in only very particular parts of the ‘mainstream’. Which is not wildly different from the position now.
Not abolition - disincentivize to the extent that the 7% becomes a fraction of 1% - a choice for rich eccentrics only.
Accompany with measures such as (much) higher spend per pupil in disadvantaged areas and (more) positive discrimination on uni entry and funding.
This may have been suggested already but a currency hedged global ultra-short bond fund would give you a reasonable degree of protection both against sterling moves and, less relevantly, duration risk.
This may have been suggested already but a currency hedged global ultra-short bond fund would give you a reasonable degree of protection both against sterling moves and, less relevantly, duration risk.
Buy bitcoin.
For the benefit of those who may think you're being serious you might want to clarify you're joking.
Why should Lab voters vote LD if the Lab candidate stands for Remain?
Because the Labour party is led by a cabal of privately educated, bullying, Trotskyite antisemites. And at their head is a man who's never run anything in his life.
Nope. Society's "most affluent and influential people" will just send their kids to the best boarding schools abroad. What this would hit is the children of the middle classes, who currently attend day private schools that aren't Eton or Harrow - schools which would most likely take their staff and resources and set up in another country.
Those middle classes - the doctors, lawyers, pilots - would instead spend every penny they have available to continue and entrench the educational apartheid by house price that exists already in many parts of the country.
Special pleading masquerading as pragmatism.
File with "You can't raise taxes, the wealth creators will all do a runner."
And a question -
"Apartheid" - Would you also use that word for the segregation created by private schools?
Definitely not a good idea, it's given up on being used as money so at this point it's just a speculative hot potato game with no added value, so the expected return for the remaining players is:
+ amount put in - amount spent on mining (currently around $1.5 million per day) - profits already extracted by early adopters (cheers, guys) - exchange costs etc = probably not a positive number for you, unless you're exceptionally lucky
Why should Lab voters vote LD if the Lab candidate stands for Remain?
Because the Labour party is led by a cabal of privately educated, bullying, Trotskyite antisemites. And at their head is a man who's never run anything in his life.
Definitely not a good idea, it's given up on being used as money so at this point it's just a speculative hot potato game with no added value, so the expected return for the remaining players is:
+ amount put in - amount spent on mining (currently around $1.5 million per day) - profits already extracted by early adopters (cheers, guys) - exchange costs etc = probably not a positive number for you, unless you're exceptionally lucky
Couple of years ago a young relation was introduced to bitcoin, and seems to have done well enough out of it. Think he's called it a day on that front now, though.
What are Labour’s objectives going to be in any negotiation with the EU, how does it propose to secure concessions on sticking points and how tough is Labour willing to be with the EU when it gets to the crunchy bits? Anyone can have a nicey-nicey conversation but the idea of conducting a serious negotiation for an outcome you are going to campaign against is absurd.
I'm sorry, Alastair, but your use of 'absurd' to describe this is ... well, absurd.
The WA is done and the PD (which is not binding anyway) will be amended for CU and close SM alignment.
It's going to be, to steal a discredited phrase, the easiest negotiation on history.
But I do see the Ref formulation as a problem. No Hard Leave option leaves it open to mockery from that side of life - which as we know is (sadly) a big chunk of us, both politicians and public.
Think he's called it a day on that front now, though.
That would be wise. The "if you can't see the sucker" rule applies here. It's the same with betting, which is also a negative-sum game (money is shuffled around between punters, minus whatever it takes to keep shadsy in the style to which he's accustomed), but because so much money gets sucked out of the game in mining the negative sum is an exceedingly large negative number.
Why should Lab voters vote LD if the Lab candidate stands for Remain?
Because the Labour party is led by a cabal of privately educated, bullying, Trotskyite antisemites. And at their head is a man who's never run anything in his life.
And who is dead set against remaining.
His cunning ruse of repeatedly voting for a referendum with a remain option and now adopting it as party policy was the final straw for me as a remainer, Brexit party are the only ones I can vote for now who truly believe in remaining.
By following his 2016 approach of never turning up...
Sure, but the party want the official position to be to back remain, if starner and thornberry et al are right. If that becomes policy then even if corbyn softballs it he is implicitly saying what Hodges suggests.
Giving people free rein then softballing it himself looks little different in practical terms since 95 out of a hundred labour members will campaign for remain, but it makes the negotiation by Corbyn slightly less ridiculous.
I think the party worries a bit much. They want to be as remainy as they can, but no one is really going to think they are leave supporting when so many will stand up and say they are for remain.
Indeed. Why would it be so different to the 1975 Referendum when a significant number of Cabinet ministers campaigned against the renegotiated terms of Wilson's Government?
But there is no such thing as a Hard Leave option - it's utterly insane and leaves us having annoyed the EU trying to renegotiate back into things that we discover we shouldn't have left.
I know that, you know that, but nevertheless a 'clean' Brexit has gained traction and a Ref2 which excludes it will be called an undemocratic fix.
Definitely not a good idea, it's given up on being used as money so at this point it's just a speculative hot potato game with no added value, so the expected return for the remaining players is:
+ amount put in - amount spent on mining (currently around $1.5 million per day) - profits already extracted by early adopters (cheers, guys) - exchange costs etc = probably not a positive number for you, unless you're exceptionally lucky
Can you suggest a better currency that exists outside the control of a single state, cannot be confiscated and can easily be transported across borders?
There are plenty of places in the world with virtually no private sector education - places like Russia and Cuba and probably Venezuela. Yup - truly transformational indeed....
Why do you think the net impact of private schools is to improve state schools?
Nope. Society's "most affluent and influential people" will just send their kids to the best boarding schools abroad. What this would hit is the children of the middle classes, who currently attend day private schools that aren't Eton or Harrow - schools which would most likely take their staff and resources and set up in another country.
Those middle classes - the doctors, lawyers, pilots - would instead spend every penny they have available to continue and entrench the educational apartheid by house price that exists already in many parts of the country.
Special pleading masquerading as pragmatism.
File with "You can't raise taxes, the wealth creators will all do a runner."
And a question -
"Apartheid" - Would you also use that word for the segregation created by private schools?
People should be able to spend their own money on whatever they see fit. For many, educating their own children comes high up that list.
Why does Labour want to prevent people from educating their own children?
Why do Labour bigwigs always manage to end up living in the parts of London where the state schools are excellent? Name me one MP whose own child went to a school that was failing or under special measures in their constituency?
For added hypocrisy, the likes of Diane Abbot who sent her child to a £10k private school because “West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children”.
Entrenched privilege of their own, masquerading as concern for the average child.
What are Labour’s objectives going to be in any negotiation with the EU, how does it propose to secure concessions on sticking points and how tough is Labour willing to be with the EU when it gets to the crunchy bits? Anyone can have a nicey-nicey conversation but the idea of conducting a serious negotiation for an outcome you are going to campaign against is absurd.
Firstly, why is it about extracting concessions? Our interests are aligned for now. We need cross border trade and cooperation. The EU has a rule book, we can follow it for now and if it doesn't work after a few years we're in a better position to start to move away. Get those semi-mythical technological solutions built and tested and see if that changes the equation. Secondly, it's a good position to be in to be able to say "hey, it's not about what I want, it's about whether people will go for it". Any agreement that is made with the British public at the forefront of the imaginations of the negotiators is better than the alternative. The alternative being "it's not great but I think we can fudge it".
This is smart. I can't believe I'm saying it, but it is. Corbyn as the Good Cop, with the voting public as the Bad Cop.
You’re missing my point. There will be points of detail where Britain’s and the EU’s interests are not aligned. Why should the EU concede on any of them when their counterparts are going to recommend to the people that they should junk the deal anyway?
The public rightly see why this won’t fly.
You are assuming that the EU sees it as in its interests to perpetuate the UK's current carve-outs when it could park the UK indefinitely in its orbit outside. Why are you so sure the EU wants this?
I’m not assuming anything. Unless you are advocating that Britain provisionally agree whatever it is graciously offered by the EU, there will be points that Britain will want to secure concessions on, whatever the EU itself wants. Since in practice everyone knows that Labour will be practically obliged to campaign for Remain, the EU can tailor the deal to its own wants, safe in the knowledge that its opposite numbers have no ability to shape it.
At the point that a referendum happens, all that will be put to the people is May's WA and a broad-brush political declaration which is a function of the UK's red lines, so none of this will arise. It's only if people vote for it that the real negotiation on the future relationship that you describe above will begin.
Definitely not a good idea, it's given up on being used as money so at this point it's just a speculative hot potato game with no added value, so the expected return for the remaining players is:
+ amount put in - amount spent on mining (currently around $1.5 million per day) - profits already extracted by early adopters (cheers, guys) - exchange costs etc = probably not a positive number for you, unless you're exceptionally lucky
Can you suggest a better currency that exists outside the control of a single state, cannot be confiscated and can easily be transported across borders?
Why should Lab voters vote LD if the Lab candidate stands for Remain?
Because the Labour party is led by a cabal of privately educated, bullying, Trotskyite antisemites. And at their head is a man who's never run anything in his life.
And who is dead set against remaining.
His cunning ruse of repeatedly voting for a referendum with a remain option and now adopting it as party policy was the final straw for me as a remainer, Brexit party are the only ones I can vote for now who truly believe in remaining.
But apparently it was said by him today that with the right deal the UK could be better of than remaining. I’m not sure how and under what circumstances.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as a lifelong Labour voter living in a similar constituency, Ealing Central and Acton. The MP, Rupa Huq has impeccable Remain credentials and I like her personally. But I'm voting Lib Dem in the GE, because Jo Swinson would be an acceptable PM, whereas Johnson and Corbyn are not.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
At the point that a referendum happens, all that will be put to the people is May's WA and a broad-brush political declaration which is a function of the UK's red lines, so none of this will arise. It's only if people vote for it that the real negotiation on the future relationship that you describe above will begin.
Definitely not a good idea, it's given up on being used as money so at this point it's just a speculative hot potato game with no added value, so the expected return for the remaining players is:
+ amount put in - amount spent on mining (currently around $1.5 million per day) - profits already extracted by early adopters (cheers, guys) - exchange costs etc = probably not a positive number for you, unless you're exceptionally lucky
Can you suggest a better currency that exists outside the control of a single state, cannot be confiscated and can easily be transported across borders?
The Euro.
Lol. Haven't you seen the signs at customs demanding sums above 10k be declared?
I think that there are several problems with betting on currency exchanges to any material degree. Firstly, unless you are exceptionally liquid you are at best hedging your risks. So if I bought $10k in the expectation that the dollar was going to strengthen it would do no more than offset the fact that the balance of my money is in Sterling, eg my house. Looking at that $10k in isolation is more than somewhat artificial.
Secondly, currency movements are much more complicated than most of us have the time or ability to comprehend. So again using the $ as an example it has a safe haven status which means when things like the Saudi oil attacks occur it tends to strengthen. To assume that Sterling will move "because of Brexit" ignores many other factors that influence its rating every day. The Brexit effect may be large enough to overwhelm these other effects but it may not.
Thirdly, this is not an unrigged market. So again if no deal came to pass it is very likely that the BoE would intervene in a serious way. Whether it would be effective is hard to predict but an increase in interest rates, for example, may cause the market to move in unexpected ways. This is not a level playing field with a disinterested umpire.
Fourthly, the market can be counter-intuitive. I was at a loss to understand why we should welcome Farage's "wall of money" that is supposedly going to pour into the UK in the event of a no deal Brexit but if he is right then there is the possibility that crashing stock market and property values will make UK assets cheap enough for traders to buy for the medium term. This might cause Sterling to move in a different way from which those of us who know insufficient about these things might expect.
I am sure that there are many other factors, IANAE, but playing with foreign exchange looks somewhat pointless, risky and a game where you are the mug taking on professionals.
Hi @DavidL , I wrote the article: thank you for reading it. Yes, I agree with you and your points are correct. Unfortunately I don't know what to do about them... Here is my take.
The current situation is uncertain and could be bad. This is not news: the pope is Catholic, bears poo in the woods, life is hard. So the question becomes: what to do about it?
This series of articles is my way of coping with that situation. The approach is to examine the options, list their good and bad points, and then act. The previous article discussed fixed-odds betting to mitigate against loss and gave a real-life example. This present article discusses other modes to mitigate against loss and gave another real-life example. There may be more if Brexit permits.
So. If you know other ways to do this, please say. My time is heavily bookd over the coming year but if I have time I will investigate them too.
Definitely not a good idea, it's given up on being used as money so at this point it's just a speculative hot potato game with no added value, so the expected return for the remaining players is:
+ amount put in - amount spent on mining (currently around $1.5 million per day) - profits already extracted by early adopters (cheers, guys) - exchange costs etc = probably not a positive number for you, unless you're exceptionally lucky
Can you suggest a better currency that exists outside the control of a single state, cannot be confiscated and can easily be transported across borders?
There are plenty of places in the world with virtually no private sector education - places like Russia and Cuba and probably Venezuela. Yup - truly transformational indeed....
Why do you think the net impact of private schools is to improve state schools?
Can you suggest a better currency that exists outside the control of a single state, cannot be confiscated and can easily be transported across borders?
If you're really worried about confiscation and you want something you can manage with cryptographic keys, which is a possible situation you may be in although I suspect not very common in the developed world, you want one that actually creates value and doesn't rely on some other generous person showing up later to take your bag off your hands.
I would suggest something like ETH (Ethereum), which will return a yield once proof-of-stake is done (assuming that part actually ships), because fees for using the network, which is useful for things other than swapping its own token around between players, will go to people who have the token, rather than getting burned to pay for mining. Another one that has a proper model for creating value and giving it to holders of the (crypto) asset is REP (for the Augur system that I mentioned upthread), which turns its token holders into Shadsy.
But I'm reluctant to recommend any of the current cybercoins to people as I have no idea if they're currently priced fairly. The only part I'm sure about is if they don't have any plausible way of producing a return, they're not priced fairly.
Nope. Society's "most affluent and influential people" will just send their kids to the best boarding schools abroad. What this would hit is the children of the middle classes, who currently attend day private schools that aren't Eton or Harrow - schools which would most likely take their staff and resources and set up in another country.
Those middle classes - the doctors, lawyers, pilots - would instead spend every penny they have available to continue and entrench the educational apartheid by house price that exists already in many parts of the country.
Special pleading masquerading as pragmatism.
File with "You can't raise taxes, the wealth creators will all do a runner."
And a question -
"Apartheid" - Would you also use that word for the segregation created by private schools?
Plenty of top state grammar schools, even a few Oustanding comprehensives, academies or free schools get better results than some private schools.
Think he's called it a day on that front now, though.
That would be wise. The "if you can't see the sucker" rule applies here. It's the same with betting, which is also a negative-sum game (money is shuffled around between punters, minus whatever it takes to keep shadsy in the style to which he's accustomed), but because so much money gets sucked out of the game in mining the negative sum is an exceedingly large negative number.
My thoughts exactly. I've expressed my opinion on the matter, but it's to a great-nephew, so there are several people in front of me as donors of 'acceptable advice'. Fortunately none of them are gamblers.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as a lifelong Labour voter living in a similar constituency, Ealing Central and Acton. The MP, Rupa Huq has impeccable Remain credentials and I like her personally. But I'm voting Lib Dem in the GE, because Jo Swinson would be an acceptable PM, whereas Johnson and Corbyn are not.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
Did you find Corbyn to be an acceptable PM in 2017?
People should be able to spend their own money on whatever they see fit. For many, educating their own children comes high up that list.
Why does Labour want to prevent people from educating their own children?
Why do Labour bigwigs always manage to end up living in the parts of London where the state schools are excellent? Name me one MP whose own child went to a school that was failing or under special measures in their constituency?
For added hypocrisy, the likes of Diane Abbot who sent her child to a £10k private school because “West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children”.
Entrenched privilege of their own, masquerading as concern for the average child.
I agree with 1st para. Abolition of private schools is too illiberal. I support disincentives. Don't understand the 2nd. Labour do not want to do that. The objective is to reduce the extent to which money can buy educational privilege.
Hypocrisy to want to reduce privilege but use it yourself to the benefit of your own child? Not really. That is just placing your children's interests over your politics. I'm sure if a politician deliberately sent their child to a sink school to prove their virtue to the world you would be all over them.
And you didn't answer my question -
Is 'apartheid' the right word to describe the segregation caused by private schools?
Political slogans that crush your opponent often are. Little Ed Miliband peering out of Salmond's pocket, anyone?
I doubt anyone is going to forget that image of Johnson stuck on a wire waving his union jack. It just about sums up everything about where we are right now. The beauty of it is is that it is for real, nobody even had to make it up!
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as a lifelong Labour voter living in a similar constituency, Ealing Central and Acton. The MP, Rupa Huq has impeccable Remain credentials and I like her personally. But I'm voting Lib Dem in the GE, because Jo Swinson would be an acceptable PM, whereas Johnson and Corbyn are not.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
Did you find Corbyn to be an acceptable PM in 2017?
In the end I voted Labour after much agonising. The LD candidate was a re-tread, who while a local councillor was convicted of failing to pay his own council tax. Fortunately, they have a much better candidate in place this time round.
Don't think you guys yet appreciate how bad it's going to be for Labour in London.
Can you suggest a better currency that exists outside the control of a single state, cannot be confiscated and can easily be transported across borders?
If you're really worried about confiscation and you want something you can manage with cryptographic keys, which is a possible situation you may be in although I suspect not very common in the developed world, you want one that actually creates value and doesn't rely on some other generous person showing up later to take your bag off your hands.
I would suggest something like ETH (Ethereum), which will return a yield once proof-of-stake is done (assuming that part actually ships), because fees for using the network, which is useful for things other than swapping its own token around between players, will go to people who have the token, rather than getting burned to pay for mining. Another one that has a proper model for creating value and giving it to holders of the (crypto) asset is REP (for the Augur system that I mentioned upthread), which turns its token holders into Shadsy.
But I'm reluctant to recommend any of the current cybercoins to people as I have no idea if they're currently priced fairly. The only part I'm sure about is if they don't have any plausible way of producing a return, they're not priced fairly.
Does sterling have a plausible way of producing a return? Is it priced fairly? Surely its value is what the market is willing to pay.
Eth can't be trusted as it is both inflationary and has already been hard forked to "correct" a hack. Hence proving it can be confiscated.
What I'm saying is bitcoin has a value due to its essential properties of decentralisation, fungibilityy and scarcity. In my view it remains undervalued and has demonstrated its use case for almost a decade now... But I forget pb is pretty much boomer central...
The article ended where it did because it reached a natural end, but I did consider a conclusion in which I would point out that Gambling Commission betting (fixed-odds and exchange betting) does occupy quite a nice niche between the high-risk/high-reward spread betting and low-risk/low-reward currency conversion.
GC betting also has the advantage that it is "fire-and-forget": once the bet is placed, no further work is required. Wheras currency conversion requires a watching brief and a further decision on when to trade out, hence greater stress.
I think that there are several problems with betting on currency exchanges to any material degree. Firstly, unless you are exceptionally liquid you are at best hedging your risks. So if I bought $10k in the expectation that the dollar was going to strengthen it would do no more than offset the fact that the balance of my money is in Sterling, eg my house. Looking at that $10k in isolation is more than somewhat artificial.
Secondly, currency movements are much more complicated than most of us have the time or ability to comprehend. So again using the $ as an example it has a safe haven status which means when things like the Saudi oil attacks occur it tends to strengthen. To assume that Sterling will move "because of Brexit" ignores many other factors that influence its rating every day. The Brexit effect may be large enough to overwhelm these other effects but it may not.
Thirdly, this is not an unrigged market. So again if no deal came to pass it is very likely that the BoE would intervene in a serious way. Whether it would be effective is hard to predict but an increase in interest rates, for example, may cause the market to move in unexpected ways. This is not a level playing field with a disinterested umpire.
Fourthly, the market can be counter-intuitive. I was at a loss to understand why we should welcome Farage's "wall of money" that is supposedly going to pour into the UK in the event of a no deal Brexit but if he is right then there is the possibility that crashing stock market and property values will make UK assets cheap enough for traders to buy for the medium term. This might cause Sterling to move in a different way from which those of us who know insufficient about these things might expect.
I am sure that there are many other factors, IANAE, but playing with foreign exchange looks somewhat pointless, risky and a game where you are the mug taking on professionals.
I largely agree. If Brexit does happen, I would expect a similar effect on markets as in June 2016, with Sterling and equities dropping, but then mostly recovering.
I manage my own 6 figure equity savings, and moved my portfolio into cash, defensive stocks, and those earning in forex in the spring of 2016. I bought some bargains back in the summer at a 15-20% off their pre-vote prices. I made 5 figure nominal profits.
I am following the same strategy now, wary too of the worldwide risks of recession. There aren't many bargains about any longer, as clearly I am not the only one thinking like this. I think the risk is now priced in, though there will be movement if the risk becomes manifest.
I would caution anyone not to take investment advice off an anonymous physician on t'internet!
I am an anonymous statistician on the internet. Please be reassured I am keenly interested in what you may say on the matter...
People should be able to spend their own money on whatever they see fit. For many, educating their own children comes high up that list.
Why does Labour want to prevent people from educating their own children?
Why do Labour bigwigs always manage to end up living in the parts of London where the state schools are excellent? Name me one MP whose own child went to a school that was failing or under special measures in their constituency?
For added hypocrisy, the likes of Diane Abbot who sent her child to a £10k private school because “West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children”.
Entrenched privilege of their own, masquerading as concern for the average child.
I agree with 1st para. Abolition of private schools is too illiberal. I support disincentives. Don't understand the 2nd. Labour do not want to do that. The objective is to reduce the extent to which money can buy educational privilege.
Hypocrisy to want to reduce privilege but use it yourself to the benefit of your own child? Not really. That is just placing your children's interests over your politics. I'm sure if a politician deliberately sent their child to a sink school to prove their virtue to the world you would be all over them.
And you didn't answer my question -
Is 'apartheid' the right word to describe the segregation caused by private schools?
Placing your own child at a private school, while advocating their abolition for everyone else is almost the definition of hypocrisy.
My use of the word “apartheid” wasn’t related to private schools, but rather the way in which selection by house price dominates the best state schools. Those who have £1m to spend on a house, can send their kids to the local “state” school along with all the other parents who can afford to live in the local £1m houses. This is a million times removed from the average parent and the average “bog standard comprehensive” that is the only place their kids can go to school.
Education requires competition, and for parents to be able to choose schools, rather than schools choosing parents.
Does sterling have a plausible way of producing a return? Is it priced fairly? Surely its value is what the market is willing to pay.
Eth can't be trusted as it is both inflationary and has already been hard forked to "correct" a hack. Hence proving it can be confiscated.
What I'm saying is bitcoin has a value due to its essential properties of decentralisation, fungibilityy and scarcity. In my view it remains undervalued and has demonstrated its use case for almost a decade now... But I forget pb is pretty much boomer central...
Sterling is used as money. If the UK adopts a different currency without redeeming the old one and nobody buys or sells anything with it any more, and it's just traded among people who know other people currently think it's valuable, you should definitely get rid of it yours while people are still exchanging usable money for them.
This was originally the idea for bitcoin, but its inner pyramid scheme ended up taking over, and there's now minimal effort towards making it happen, so try to avoid being left holding the hot potato.
Plenty of top state grammar schools, even a few Oustanding comprehensives, academies or free schools get better results than some private schools.
Yes indeed.
When you adjust for funding and intake advantage, most private schools are not adding value.
What they are is the educational equivalent of a gated community. The social segregation aspect - the 'apartheid' if we wish to be frothy - which many like me find objectionable is the exact thing that parents are paying for.
If the Labour and Tory leaders are both unfit to be Prime Minister, what should one do?
My own answer to that question as a lifelong Labour voter living in a similar constituency, Ealing Central and Acton. The MP, Rupa Huq has impeccable Remain credentials and I like her personally. But I'm voting Lib Dem in the GE, because Jo Swinson would be an acceptable PM, whereas Johnson and Corbyn are not.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
Did you find Corbyn to be an acceptable PM in 2017?
2015 'Stability with me (Cameron) or chaos with Ed Miliband!' Can hardly say that worked out well!!
'Strong and Stable' was the Tory slogan is 2017 and that was much more honoured in the breach than in the fact.
I've been listening to Ed Miliband's 'Reasons to be Cheerful' podcasts and quite frankly he comes across as a much more likeable human being than May or Corbyn. Cameron comes across as a likeable human being who might be a decent golf club secretary or accountant.
Except stacked - since one team has both a funding and a pupil intake advantage.
In fact you put your finger on yet another negative of private schools.
They set a false benchmark. Provide a stick to (unfairly) beat the state sector with.
As I said many top grammar schools nonetheless manage to beat some private schools in the rankings as indeed do a few outstanding comprehensive, academies and free schools
Plenty of top state grammar schools, even a few Oustanding comprehensives, academies or free schools get better results than some private schools.
Yes indeed.
When you adjust for funding and intake advantage, most private schools are not adding value.
What they are is the educational equivalent of a gated community. The social segregation aspect - the 'apartheid' if we wish to be frothy - which many like me find objectionable is the exact thing that parents are paying for.
Hard left rubbish, most private schools now provide plenty of scholarships and bursaries and share facilities with the local community and local state schools
Are Labour really saying they could seize it if they got into power?
Been there, Floater. What are you going to do? I'm sorry to say it's highly unlikely your father will ever 'go home'! TBH, there's little point, at this stage in hanging on to it, and hoping. Unless your Mother's in some sort of care and might need it. Fair better to sell it and move on. As I say, been there. It can be hard.
Comments
Secondly, it's a good position to be in to be able to say "hey, it's not about what I want, it's about whether people will go for it". Any agreement that is made with the British public at the forefront of the imaginations of the negotiators is better than the alternative. The alternative being "it's not great but I think we can fudge it".
This is smart. I can't believe I'm saying it, but it is. Corbyn as the Good Cop, with the voting public as the Bad Cop.
At a guess, I’d say it’s something like double.
If it is harder to measure something than it is to improve the thing you are trying to measure, you should focus almost exclusively on the latter.
That the opposite tends to occur is a general flaw with target based regimes. See NHS too.
Also in the private sector for that matter. My own experience is that when someone starts talking 'targets' you need to nip it in the bud, otherwise bad things ensue.
The public rightly see why this won’t fly.
So they do offer markets, and have done so in the past[1], but in future they may not do so or - if they do - may not be available to all[2]
[1] See https://www.ig.com/uk/general-election-2017 , which is no longer available but is archived at http://archive.is/6F966
[2] https://www.ig.com/uk/digital-100s-trading
Incidentally the UK will need to agree third country trade deals whether part of the EU system or not. Participation in that system should drive better agreements as the UK would be a more interesting trade partner in than out. Still a step down from what it had as a member state however. Borders are always a problem of both sides. Only the EU has substantially made them disappear thanks to close alignment between member states and a set of legally enforceable rules to back it up. The Northern Ireland border is uniquely a problem in the UK however because of its central place in the different and troublesome identities of the people living there.
Are the EU seriously going to have a problem with a request and then Corbyn turns around and says he will campaign for the deal so they fall over themselves to do the thing they previously wouldn't?
I get the feeling the EU want it over and would like to avoid the complications around no deal, they aren't going to set up barriers to that that would suddenly not exist if Corbyn were to campaign for the deal, the things that are red lines like the Irish border will remain red lines, the things that they are happy to negotiate on they will remain happy to negotiate on.
Also in fairness Mike may not have a completely neutral view on the subject...
'Director
@LabPublicVote
&
@Remain_Reform'
But it was just a quick google.
Then Corbyn leaves/ retires victorious and someone slightly saner takes over.
I think it depends on how far down the line a Labour government goes before going to a referendum. Negotiating the options in outline and then asking people to choose is reasonable, I think.
Bear in mind May's Deal, and any Boris Deal if he's actually serious, are far from settled arrangements too. There's years of negotiations in the political declaration part.
https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/1175496201015308290?s=21
We've already seen Labour voters are less bothered by the EU than other parties. The chunk of Labour Leave voters might still prioritise Labour over Leave.
Accompany with measures such as (much) higher spend per pupil in disadvantaged areas and (more) positive discrimination on uni entry and funding.
File with "You can't raise taxes, the wealth creators will all do a runner."
And a question -
"Apartheid" - Would you also use that word for the segregation created by private schools?
+ amount put in
- amount spent on mining (currently around $1.5 million per day)
- profits already extracted by early adopters (cheers, guys)
- exchange costs etc
= probably not a positive number for you, unless you're exceptionally lucky
The WA is done and the PD (which is not binding anyway) will be amended for CU and close SM alignment.
It's going to be, to steal a discredited phrase, the easiest negotiation on history.
But I do see the Ref formulation as a problem. No Hard Leave option leaves it open to mockery from that side of life - which as we know is (sadly) a big chunk of us, both politicians and public.
Why does Labour want to prevent people from educating their own children?
Why do Labour bigwigs always manage to end up living in the parts of London where the state schools are excellent? Name me one MP whose own child went to a school that was failing or under special measures in their constituency?
For added hypocrisy, the likes of Diane Abbot who sent her child to a £10k private school because “West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children”.
Entrenched privilege of their own, masquerading as concern for the average child.
Incidentally, I'll be voting for Sadiq Khan, and not Siobhan Benita, in the mayoral election
Leave = the WA. Then the talks start.
PD is mood music.
The current situation is uncertain and could be bad. This is not news: the pope is Catholic, bears poo in the woods, life is hard. So the question becomes: what to do about it?
This series of articles is my way of coping with that situation. The approach is to examine the options, list their good and bad points, and then act. The previous article discussed fixed-odds betting to mitigate against loss and gave a real-life example. This present article discusses other modes to mitigate against loss and gave another real-life example. There may be more if Brexit permits.
So. If you know other ways to do this, please say. My time is heavily bookd over the coming year but if I have time I will investigate them too.
I would suggest something like ETH (Ethereum), which will return a yield once proof-of-stake is done (assuming that part actually ships), because fees for using the network, which is useful for things other than swapping its own token around between players, will go to people who have the token, rather than getting burned to pay for mining. Another one that has a proper model for creating value and giving it to holders of the (crypto) asset is REP (for the Augur system that I mentioned upthread), which turns its token holders into Shadsy.
But I'm reluctant to recommend any of the current cybercoins to people as I have no idea if they're currently priced fairly. The only part I'm sure about is if they don't have any plausible way of producing a return, they're not priced fairly.
Fortunately none of them are gamblers.
Hypocrisy to want to reduce privilege but use it yourself to the benefit of your own child? Not really. That is just placing your children's interests over your politics. I'm sure if a politician deliberately sent their child to a sink school to prove their virtue to the world you would be all over them.
And you didn't answer my question -
Is 'apartheid' the right word to describe the segregation caused by private schools?
Finland was only 4th for reading behind Singapore, Hong Kong and Canada and not even in the top 12 for Maths in the last rankings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38212070
Don't think you guys yet appreciate how bad it's going to be for Labour in London.
Eth can't be trusted as it is both inflationary and has already been hard forked to "correct" a hack. Hence proving it can be confiscated.
What I'm saying is bitcoin has a value due to its essential properties of decentralisation, fungibilityy and scarcity. In my view it remains undervalued and has demonstrated its use case for almost a decade now... But I forget pb is pretty much boomer central...
The article ended where it did because it reached a natural end, but I did consider a conclusion in which I would point out that Gambling Commission betting (fixed-odds and exchange betting) does occupy quite a nice niche between the high-risk/high-reward spread betting and low-risk/low-reward currency conversion.
GC betting also has the advantage that it is "fire-and-forget": once the bet is placed, no further work is required. Wheras currency conversion requires a watching brief and a further decision on when to trade out, hence greater stress.
We would swap our standards for theirs.
My use of the word “apartheid” wasn’t related to private schools, but rather the way in which selection by house price dominates the best state schools. Those who have £1m to spend on a house, can send their kids to the local “state” school along with all the other parents who can afford to live in the local £1m houses. This is a million times removed from the average parent and the average “bog standard comprehensive” that is the only place their kids can go to school.
Education requires competition, and for parents to be able to choose schools, rather than schools choosing parents.
This was originally the idea for bitcoin, but its inner pyramid scheme ended up taking over, and there's now minimal effort towards making it happen, so try to avoid being left holding the hot potato.
When you adjust for funding and intake advantage, most private schools are not adding value.
What they are is the educational equivalent of a gated community. The social segregation aspect - the 'apartheid' if we wish to be frothy - which many like me find objectionable is the exact thing that parents are paying for.
'Strong and Stable' was the Tory slogan is 2017 and that was much more honoured in the breach than in the fact.
I've been listening to Ed Miliband's 'Reasons to be Cheerful' podcasts and quite frankly he comes across as a much more likeable human being than May or Corbyn. Cameron comes across as a likeable human being who might be a decent golf club secretary or accountant.
But your guy is shit scared of one.
His house has been empty for about 4 months now
Are Labour really saying they could seize it if they got into power?
In fact you put your finger on yet another negative of private schools.
They set a false benchmark. Provide a stick to (unfairly) beat the state sector with.
Trouble is boiling over.
Well, not Ireland, obvs.
https://twitter.com/EnglandRugby/status/1175689438204170240?s=20
What are you going to do? I'm sorry to say it's highly unlikely your father will ever 'go home'! TBH, there's little point, at this stage in hanging on to it, and hoping. Unless your Mother's in some sort of care and might need it.
Fair better to sell it and move on.
As I say, been there. It can be hard.