Glad that the government aren't bailing out Thomas Cook. It's a rubbish company that needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Very sad for the employees, but I'm sure they will land on their feet. The less said about the direction and strategic plays made by the board the better, I hope none of them ever find work again.
Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?
How has her derangement manifested itself?
Well, we could start with this bit:
Well I just ask you, conference: How can you lead a free world when you are locking toddlers in cages? How can you lead a free world when you’re trying to take away the freedom of women to control their own bodies? And how can you lead a free world when you are actively supporting the suppression and annexation of Palestine?
Donald Trump is not the leader of the free world. He is the role model, the guiding light, for all those ‘strongman’ politicians around the world who are trying to tear freedom apart.
And no-one has taken more inspiration from him than the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman.
It doesn't get better.
Where is she wrong, though? Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
It's utter garbage. Leaving aside the ludicrous hyperbole of the first paragraph I quoted, most of the 'strongman' politicians around the world were there, or their predecessors were, long before Trump, and not a single one of them has Trump as a role model or guiding light (most of them are too bright for that). And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
It will cost more to bring people home rather than just make RBS guarantee a loan, crazy.
No it won’t.
yes it will and if you then include all the unemployment , knock on to suppliers etc it will cost a fortune. Just a loan guarantee and then sale of airline and they would have weathered the storm. Would not be allowed to happen in other countries.
From another forum:
It's all very simple really.
Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks.
A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed; £4.2 billion current liabilities £2.1 billion in non-current liabilities £6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together) Net assets of just £291 million Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion. (Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)
What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.
Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
If I were another travel agent and had been paying into an industry funded scheme like ATOL on whom large liabilities are now being dumped I would have some serious questions to ask about this.
The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.
Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.
Yeah right get off the drugs David
Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?
The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
You were a 2017 Corbyn underestimator too weren't you.
Quite the opposite, wasn't Mr Herdson the canary in the mine who first alerted many of us to how Corbyn was doing?
Only on the last week before GE 2017 and then he hedged his bets a couple of days later from my memory anyway
Quite right Big John
The country is crying out for mental economic policies that would make a no deal Brexit seem like a nice stroll in the park.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
I can pay cheques into my Co-op account at the local post office, and draw cash out. I can pay cheques into a NatWest a/c at the same place for an organisation of which I'm treasurer. The nearest physical banks are at least 6 miles away.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
Because that would involve common-sense and imagination and they are woefully lacking in either?
I mean, this level of tactical thinking even by a large minority of voters will make predicting the outcome of any GE so difficult. I will vote LD, even though I don't really agree with them hugely, just because they can beat the Tory in my seat and Lab / Greens can't.
I do wonder if, for once, it looks like the left may come up with some grassroots tactical agreement, whilst BXP and Cons take chunks out of each other, especially if any GE is after Oct 31 and we've not left.
Is it even possible to have an election before Oct 31st, with only 5 weeks left?
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
That's really crass. CPOs are vital, but the key thing is there has to be a need for the property: usually for a development that is seen for the greater good. They are relatively rare, and are quite hard to get as well. It is a lengthy and understandably expensive procedure.
What is being talked about is chalk and cheese.
Greater good = shopping centre. Greater good not equal to... access to high quality and free education for all? Reducing inequality?
All private property is equal, but some are more equal than others?
(This was also the second tweet after commenting about how the Duke of Westminster inherited a load of land and has kicked people off it to build new luxury apartments)
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
That's already a rule. You can do business banking and all other sorts of banking in your local Post Office.
A lot of people don't realise just how much can be done in the Post Office.
Prediction: in ten years time, the Post Office will be the banking behemoth in this country.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Doesn't even a leased plane have value?
Carry value of aircraft £568 million, finance leasing commitments (primarily to aircraft) £216m, operating lease commitments to aircraft £1253m.
I'd guess the aircraft are going back to those that Thomas Cook has leased them from. So nothing for other creditors there. Still there is always brand name and goodwill for those with vouchers to tuck into.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
That's already a rule. You can do business banking and all other sorts of banking in your local Post Office.
A lot of people don't realise just how much can be done in the Post Office.
Thanks! I didnt realise that was already in place, sounds like you can get cash from card accounts and pay bills, but (as of 2018 at least) not open an account, use non card savings accounts or transfer money. Good progress but still more to do.
That's really crass. CPOs are vital, but the key thing is there has to be a need for the property: usually for a development that is seen for the greater good. They are relatively rare, and are quite hard to get as well. It is a lengthy and understandably expensive procedure.
What is being talked about is chalk and cheese.
Greater good = shopping centre. Greater good not equal to... access to high quality and free education for all? Reducing inequality?
All private property is equal, but some are more equal than others?
(This was also the second tweet after commenting about how the Duke of Westminster inherited a load of land and has kicked people off it to build new luxury apartments)
Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
He really didn't have a great summer with the bat.
Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?
How has her derangement manifested itself?
Well, we could start with this bit:
Well I just ask you, conference: How can you lead a free world when you are locking toddlers in cages? How can you lead a free world when you’re trying to take away the freedom of women to control their own bodies? And how can you lead a free world when you are actively supporting the suppression and annexation of Palestine?
Donald Trump is not the leader of the free world. He is the role model, the guiding light, for all those ‘strongman’ politicians around the world who are trying to tear freedom apart.
And no-one has taken more inspiration from him than the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman.
It doesn't get better.
Where is she wrong, though? Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
It's utter garbage. Leaving aside the ludicrous hyperbole of the first paragraph I quoted, most of the 'strongman' politicians around the world were there, or their predecessors were, long before Trump, and not a single one of them has Trump as a role model or guiding light (most of them are too bright for that). And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
A better criticism to be made is that her criticisms of Trump are incoherent given Labour’s current world view. Trump is very explicitly not trying to be leader of the free world. It is all America First for him. He is moving away from the far-sighted outward-looking internationalism that other US Presidents aspired to (however woeful in practice they turned out to be). And is leaving a vacuum into which sinister authoritarian countries like China and Russia are marching.
Given that her party now hates the US and the role that the US has taken on for itself why should an isolationist US President worry Labour? Given the Corbynite view that the US is a force for evil rather than good, a US President not acting as the leader of the free world is surely a good thing? Emily has not thought this through - but then Labour speeches at conference are mostly emotional rants so it’ll probably go down well.
In a world where Leave/Remain identity is far stronger than party identity, these poll findings are wholly unsurprising.
The open question is whether the Lib Dems can persuade people that they are better placed than Labour to win in given seats.
The Tories should be trying to create as much ambiguity about their challengers as possible. Half their leaflets should say Labour are the threat, the other half LDs!
They pick up 9% of Lib Dems in Labour/Conservative marginals. They should pretend every seat has Labour as their strongest challenger (except in Scotland).
I mean, this level of tactical thinking even by a large minority of voters will make predicting the outcome of any GE so difficult. I will vote LD, even though I don't really agree with them hugely, just because they can beat the Tory in my seat and Lab / Greens can't.
I do wonder if, for once, it looks like the left may come up with some grassroots tactical agreement, whilst BXP and Cons take chunks out of each other, especially if any GE is after Oct 31 and we've not left.
Is it even possible to have an election before Oct 31st, with only 5 weeks left?
No, but why let that get in the way of a poll question.
The Tories should be trying to create as much ambiguity about their challengers as possible. Half their leaflets should say Labour are the threat, the other half LDs!
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Boeing used to do 120% funding for new low cost carriers, where you could borrow £120m for every £100m you spent on new planes.
Really? Presumably they’d list the planes at £120m and insist you insured them for that amount?
Probably a nervous aircraft lease company or two around today as well, plenty of bills not paid and aircraft impounded by authorities all over the place.
Defined benefit closed to accrual in 2011. The UK part looks fine, asset fair value of £1406m/p.v of funded obligations £(1122)m but the German pension has an unfunded obligation of £(397) million.
So I think if your pension is UK based it should be safe - most new staff will be on DC anyway which obviously by definition has a net zero asset/liability base.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
I can pay cheques into my Co-op account at the local post office, and draw cash out. I can pay cheques into a NatWest a/c at the same place for an organisation of which I'm treasurer. The nearest physical banks are at least 6 miles away.
I used to pay cheques in at the Post Office - it was pretty much the only thing I used the Post Office for. But Lloyds now let you pay cheques in through your phone: you take a picture of the cheque via their mobile app and it does the rest.
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.
The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.
But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
So what our National anthem was same when Britain was slaughtering people over the globe and closer to home. I did not say I liked the Nazis , I said I like the anthem/tune.
I did not claim that you like Nazis. I pointed out that you are using language which is both out of date and is today considered extreme right wing.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Boeing used to do 120% funding for new low cost carriers, where you could borrow £120m for every £100m you spent on new planes.
Really? Presumably they’d list the planes at £120m and insist you insured them for that amount?
Probably a nervous aircraft lease company or two around today as well, plenty of bills not paid and aircraft impounded by authorities all over the place.
Surely the leasing company would be the first secured creditor on the plane ?
Defined benefit closed to accrual in 2011. The UK part looks fine, asset fair value of £1406m/p.v of funded obligations £(1122)m but the German pension has an unfunded obligation of £(397) million.
So I think if your pension is UK based it should be safe - most new staff will be on DC anyway which obviously by definition has a net zero asset/liability base.
Are the defined contribution schemes protected too?
It will be superceded by reality in a decade or so when universal income becomes a necessity as employment dries up due to technological advancements
'UI' is also a Labour policy. Or at least bubbling under. I like these radical ideas. The world is changing fast. It's good to think up potential responses - even if many do not make it all the way.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Boeing used to do 120% funding for new low cost carriers, where you could borrow £120m for every £100m you spent on new planes.
Really? Presumably they’d list the planes at £120m and insist you insured them for that amount?
Probably a nervous aircraft lease company or two around today as well, plenty of bills not paid and aircraft impounded by authorities all over the place.
The 120% funding I believe comes not form Boeing itself, but form the 'Export Import Bank'
Which is a government funded and controlled, Supper Crony 'crony capitalist' agency designed to boost the profits of Big companys, mostly Boeing, that have a lot of lobbyists in Washington DC.
Emily Thornberry's speech seems to be completely deranged, judging by the Guardian summary. I presume this means she's on manoeuvres for a leadership bid?
Well, we could start with this bit:
Well I just ask you, conference: How can you lead a free world when you are locking toddlers in cages? And no-one has taken more inspiration from him than the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman.
It doesn't get better.
Where is she wrong, though? Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
A better criticism to be made is that her criticisms of Trump are incoherent given Labour’s current world view. Trump is very explicitly not trying to be leader of the free world. It is all America First for him. He is moving away from the far-sighted outward-looking internationalism that other US Presidents aspired to (however woeful in practice they turned out to be). And is leaving a vacuum into which sinister authoritarian countries like China and Russia are marching.
Given that her party now hates the US and the role that the US has taken on for itself why should an isolationist US President worry Labour? Given the Corbynite view that the US is a force for evil rather than good, a US President not acting as the leader of the free world is surely a good thing? Emily has not thought this through - but then Labour speeches at conference are mostly emotional rants so it’ll probably go down well.
Agree it makes no sense for Labour to demand an internationalist US president.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
Defined benefit closed to accrual in 2011. The UK part looks fine, asset fair value of £1406m/p.v of funded obligations £(1122)m but the German pension has an unfunded obligation of £(397) million.
So I think if your pension is UK based it should be safe - most new staff will be on DC anyway which obviously by definition has a net zero asset/liability base.
Are the defined contribution schemes protected too?
Unless Aegon/Blackrock are going bust they're a non issue, defined contribution is totally outside the company.
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.
The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.
But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
So what our National anthem was same when Britain was slaughtering people over the globe and closer to home. I did not say I liked the Nazis , I said I like the anthem/tune.
I did not claim that you like Nazis. I pointed out that you are using language which is both out of date and is today considered extreme right wing.
Have they changed the name of it
Its called the Deutschlandlied (song of Germany), only the third stanza is now recognized as the anthem
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.
The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.
But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
So what our National anthem was same when Britain was slaughtering people over the globe and closer to home. I did not say I liked the Nazis , I said I like the anthem/tune.
I did not claim that you like Nazis. I pointed out that you are using language which is both out of date and is today considered extreme right wing.
Have they changed the name of it
Its called the Deutschlandlied (song of Germany), only the third stanza is now recognized as the anthem
It will be superceded by reality in a decade or so when universal income becomes a necessity as employment dries up due to technological advancements
'UI' is also a Labour policy. Or at least bubbling under. I like these radical ideas. The world is changing fast. It's good to think up potential responses - even if many do not make it all the way.
UI appeals to libertarians too. It will be needed as there simply will not be jobs in many sectors in the not too distant future, AI will change everything
Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
He really didn't have a great summer with the bat.
Odd that there's no-one from the (almost certainly) Champion County, who also won the t20 competition. Admittedly our best spinner is in the process of qualifying for England, but it does seem odd.
"There is no ownership on the Brexit side – it is always somebody else fault that they can’t get the perfect Brexit they want" "There is immense sympathy for the Scots and indeed the millions of Remain English and Welsh. But provided NI is looked after a belief that Brexit may need to happen for England especially to grow up."
Can we have a vote on Ireland taking over the UK? Their population seems to be far more sensible and intelligent than the hordes of leaver morons that infect this island.
Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
A better criticism to be made is that her criticisms of Trump are incoherent given Labour’s current world view. Trump is very explicitly not trying to be leader of the free world. It is all America First for him. He is moving away from the far-sighted outward-looking internationalism that other US Presidents aspired to (however woeful in practice they turned out to be). And is leaving a vacuum into which sinister authoritarian countries like China and Russia are marching.
Given that her party now hates the US and the role that the US has taken on for itself why should an isolationist US President worry Labour? Given the Corbynite view that the US is a force for evil rather than good, a US President not acting as the leader of the free world is surely a good thing? Emily has not thought this through - but then Labour speeches at conference are mostly emotional rants so it’ll probably go down well.
Agree it makes no sense for Labour to demand an internationalist US president.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
The dynamics are going to be “liberal democratic societies” vs “authoritarian illiberal” ones. The fact that China and Russia think that tomorrow belongs to them (witness Putin’s recent attack on liberalism and what has come out today about China’s treatment of the Uighurs) is very troubling.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Boeing used to do 120% funding for new low cost carriers, where you could borrow £120m for every £100m you spent on new planes.
Really? Presumably they’d list the planes at £120m and insist you insured them for that amount?
Probably a nervous aircraft lease company or two around today as well, plenty of bills not paid and aircraft impounded by authorities all over the place.
Surely the leasing company would be the first secured creditor on the plane ?
Yup. They’ll get their planes back eventually, but it could take weeks while the administrators deal with the situation, and they’ll probably be out a few million until they can get them serviced, painted and leased out again. The lease payments will be several hundred grand a month, per plane (work on 1% of value per month for a ballpark figure).
Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
A better criticism to be made is that her criticisms of Trump are incoherent given Labour’s current wg internationalism that other US Presidents aspired to (however woeful in practice they turned out to be). And is leaving a vacuum into which sinister authoritarian countries like China and Russia are marching.
Given that her party now hates the US and the role that the US has taken on for itself why should an isolationist US President worry Labour? Given the Corbynite view that the US is a force for evil rather than good, a US President not acting as the leader of the free world is surely a good thing? Emily has not thought this through - but then Labour speeches at conference are mostly emotional rants so it’ll probably go down well.
Agree it makes no sense for Labour to demand an internationalist US president.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
The dynamics are going to be “liberal democratic societies” vs “authoritarian illiberal” ones. The fact that China and Russia think that tomorrow belongs to them (witness Putin’s recent attack on liberalism and what has come out today about China’s treatment of the Uighurs) is very troubling.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
Western values were sold down the river for globalism and corporatism
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.
The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.
But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
So what our National anthem was same when Britain was slaughtering people over the globe and closer to home. I did not say I liked the Nazis , I said I like the anthem/tune.
I did not claim that you like Nazis. I pointed out that you are using language which is both out of date and is today considered extreme right wing.
Have they changed the name of it
Its called the Deutschlandlied (song of Germany), only the third stanza is now recognized as the anthem
I hate that music, reminds me of Michael Schumacher winning every damn boring race for a decade!
UI appeals to libertarians too. It will be needed as there simply will not be jobs in many sectors in the not too distant future, AI will change everything
Tend to agree. A big challenge for the Left. Inequality could rocket to levels that are usually only seen in dystopian fiction.
And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
A better criticism to be made is that her criticisms of Trump are incoherent given Labour’s current wg internationalism that other US Presidents aspired to (however woeful in practice they turned out to be). And is leaving a vacuum into which sinister authoritarian countries like China and Russia are marching.
Given that her party now hates the US and the role that the US has taken on for itself why should an isolationist US President worry Labour? Given the Corbynite view that the US is a force for evil rather than good, a US President not acting as the leader of the free world is surely a good thing? Emily has not thought this through - but then Labour speeches at conference are mostly emotional rants so it’ll probably go down well.
Agree it makes no sense for Labour to demand an internationalist US president.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
The dynamics are going to be “liberal democratic societies” vs “authoritarian illiberal” ones. The fact that China and Russia think that tomorrow belongs to them (witness Putin’s recent attack on liberalism and what has come out today about China’s treatment of the Uighurs) is very troubling.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
Western values were sold down the river for globalism and corporatism
Still a better world than one run by Russia and China. IMO.
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.
The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.
But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
So what our National anthem was same when Britain was slaughtering people over the globe and closer to home. I did not say I liked the Nazis , I said I like the anthem/tune.
I did not claim that you like Nazis. I pointed out that you are using language which is both out of date and is today considered extreme right wing.
Have they changed the name of it
Its called the Deutschlandlied (song of Germany), only the third stanza is now recognized as the anthem
I hate that music, reminds me of Michael Schumacher winning every damn boring race for a decade!
When it ends, I expect to hear the Italian anthem start.
And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
A better criticism to be made is that her criticisms of Trump are incoherent given Labour’s current wg internationalism that other US Presidents aspired to (however woeful in practice they turned out to be). And is leaving a vacuum into which sinister authoritarian countries like China and Russia are marching.
Given that g as the leader of the free world is surely a good thing? Emily has not thought this through - but then Labour speeches at conference are mostly emotional rants so it’ll probably go down well.
Agree it makes no sense for Labour to demand an internationalist US president.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
The dynamics are going to be “liberal democratic societies” vs “authoritarian illiberal” ones. The fact that China and Russia think that tomorrow belongs to them (witness Putin’s recent attack on liberalism and what has come out today about China’s treatment of the Uighurs) is very troubling.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
Western values were sold down the river for globalism and corporatism
Still a better world than one run by Russia and China. IMO.
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Please! That was the German national anthem when the Nazis were in power.
The first verse was abandoned just after the end of the second world war. If you sing those words in Germany today, people will think you are a Neo-nazi.
But the tune is good, and written by Haydn an Austrian!
So what our National anthem was same when Britain was slaughtering people over the globe and closer to home. I did not say I liked the Nazis , I said I like the anthem/tune.
I did not claim that you like Nazis. I pointed out that you are using language which is both out of date and is today considered extreme right wing.
Have they changed the name of it
Its called the Deutschlandlied (song of Germany), only the third stanza is now recognized as the anthem
I hate that music, reminds me of Michael Schumacher winning every damn boring race for a decade!
When it ends, I expect to hear the Italian anthem start.
The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.
Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.
Yeah right get off the drugs David
Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?
The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
You were a 2017 Corbyn underestimator too weren't you.
In April, yes. In June, no.
But then the nature of the 2017 campaign played perfectly for Corbyn. He would be foolish to assume an exceptional set of circumstances was a natural law of politics.
1. Corbyn got a second hearing from the public; there's no reason to assume he'll get a third.
2. Corbyn and Labour's polling is now worse than it was in April 2017 (though granted that the Tory / Johnson figures are also worse than the equivalent ones).
3. Nick Timothy was a policy wonk with a tin ear for public opinion; Dominic Cummings, for all his faults as a political practitioner, is a highly capable campaigner.
4. Theresa May's natural instinct was to hide from the public; Boris Johnson's is not. That might bring risks but the balance favours Johnson.
5. The Tory manifesto in 2017 was a disaster for the party; the 2019 one, going by policy changes so far, has been properly prepared for in terms of political campaigning (which is not the same as being entirely responsible).
6. Brexit in 2017 was a distant concept: there was plenty of time to think about other things. It will be far harder for Labour (or anyone) to shift the focus of the election in 2019.
7. Labour has no credible Brexit policy: a fact which is likely to dog them throughout the campaign.
8. The Lib Dems wasted 2017 arguing about gay sex. They will not waste 2019, having a clear and distinctive Brexit policy that they can explain in 2 seconds, and which is aimed at Lab supporters.
9. Labour is unveiling a lot of very expensive policies. Who is going to explain where the money is going to come from to pay for them? Diane Abbott?
10. Things could indeed get better for Labour in an election campaign: they could also get worse with public exposure.
The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.
Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.
Yeah right get off the drugs David
Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?
The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
You were a 2017 Corbyn underestimator too weren't you.
Quite the opposite, wasn't Mr Herdson the canary in the mine who first alerted many of us to how Corbyn was doing?
Only on the last week before GE 2017 and then he hedged his bets a couple of days later from my memory anyway
It was the night before the election. From memory, I initially predicted a Con total of 300 and then upped it later the same evening to (I think) 315, which was still way below what most people thought the total would be. The following day, I said that the feeling on the doorstep had been better than the day before but IIRC I didn't revise any specific prediction.
It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
I thought you bankers were all for Mcdonnell ?
He seems such a reasonable bloke.
He looks and speaks like one of those corrupt Met detectives from the 1970’s: superficially charming, utterly untrustworthy and quite willing to have violence used to get his way.
And Trump hasn't had his henchmen kidnap or murder inconvenient journalists. OK, she doesn't like Trump - nor do I for that matter - but, really, an aspiring Foreign Secretary really should at least try to keep a vaguely sane view of the world.
A better criticism to be made is that her criticisms of Trump are incoherent given Labour’s current wg internationalism that other US Presidents aspired to (however woeful in practice they turned out to be). And is leaving a vacuum into which sinister authoritarian countries like China and Russia are marching.
Given that g as the leader of the free world is surely a good thing? Emily has not thought this through - but then Labour speeches at conference are mostly emotional rants so it’ll probably go down well.
Agree it makes no sense for Labour to demand an internationalist US president.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
The dynamics are going to be “liberal democratic societies” vs “authoritarian illiberal” ones. The fact that China and Russia think that tomorrow belongs to them (witness Putin’s recent attack on liberalism and what has come out today about China’s treatment of the Uighurs) is very troubling.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
Western values were sold down the river for globalism and corporatism
Still a better world than one run by Russia and China. IMO.
Depends on the ultimate agenda
“To live a life constrained by law but not constrained by tyranny” as the Greek philosopher quoted by Lord Sumption at the start of his Reith lectures put it.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
I can pay cheques into my Co-op account at the local post office, and draw cash out. I can pay cheques into a NatWest a/c at the same place for an organisation of which I'm treasurer. The nearest physical banks are at least 6 miles away.
It's nearly the end of September and i am fairly sure i have not set foot into a physical bank branch all year. Even my old mum's 20th century physical cheque for the children's birthday present can be paid in via my Halifax smartphone App.
Might not be too many years when even a cashpoint is not necessary with contactless technology everywhere.
Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
He really didn't have a great summer with the bat.
Odd that there's no-one from the (almost certainly) Champion County, who also won the t20 competition. Admittedly our best spinner is in the process of qualifying for England, but it does seem odd.
To be fair, there isn't an stand out England candidate in the Essex team - Lawrence perhaps, but he's only just back to his best; likewise Westley; Jamie Porter is probably not quite quick enough for England's needs; Browne has missed the boat, and Ravi Bopara falls foul of the 'failed before' criterion (although that is highly variable in its application).
Do you know what the latest position is on Harmer? I thought he automatically qualified next year but I read recently the decision is wholly in the hands of the ECB. Obviously he'd be an automatic pick, which would be tough on Jack Leach, who I like a lot, but I just can't see any spinner being picked ahead of him when eligible.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
I can pay cheques into my Co-op account at the local post office, and draw cash out. I can pay cheques into a NatWest a/c at the same place for an organisation of which I'm treasurer. The nearest physical banks are at least 6 miles away.
It's nearly the end of September and i am fairly sure i have not set foot into a physical bank branch all year. Even my old mum's 20th century physical cheque for the children's birthday present can be paid in via my Halifax smartphone App.
Might not be too many years when even a cashpoint is not necessary with contactless technology everywhere.
I've just audited a set of accounts for a local charity with dozens of cheques paid out. They do now use internet banking for everything else, though.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Royal Bank of Scotland has closed so many branches my nearest is now 28 miles away.
These "efficiency savings" massively annoy their customers, but they do allow them to, er, piss those savings up a wall backing the Thomas Cook management.
There are surely better solutions available with technology, if not ready to be rolled out now, within a couple of years.
Set up a rule that if you have 1m plus banking customers you need to integrate your basic banking services with the local post office if you dont have a branch within 5 miles. So customers can access RBS, Barclays, Santander etc from a local post office (that in turn is more likely to be economically viable) rather than travelling 28 miles. Why are none of the parties even thinking about new solutions beyond taxing, restricting and banning?
I can pay cheques into my Co-op account at the local post office, and draw cash out. I can pay cheques into a NatWest a/c at the same place for an organisation of which I'm treasurer. The nearest physical banks are at least 6 miles away.
It's nearly the end of September and i am fairly sure i have not set foot into a physical bank branch all year. Even my old mum's 20th century physical cheque for the children's birthday present can be paid in via my Halifax smartphone App.
Might not be too many years when even a cashpoint is not necessary with contactless technology everywhere.
A lot of cashpoints charge now, which is presumably a first step towards phasing them out.
The dynamics are going to be “liberal democratic societies” vs “authoritarian illiberal” ones. The fact that China and Russia think that tomorrow belongs to them (witness Putin’s recent attack on liberalism and what has come out today about China’s treatment of the Uighurs) is very troubling.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
Two high-profile western politicians to correctly identify the strategic challenge posed by Russia have been Mitt Romney and Angela Merkel. It could never have imagined me saying this seven years ago, but if Romney had won in 2012, we'd be in a much better position. I like Obama, but he really dropped the ball on Russia.
Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
He really didn't have a great summer with the bat.
Odd that there's no-one from the (almost certainly) Champion County, who also won the t20 competition. Admittedly our best spinner is in the process of qualifying for England, but it does seem odd.
To be fair, there isn't an stand out England candidate in the Essex team - Lawrence perhaps, but he's only just back to his best; likewise Westley; Jamie Porter is probably not quite quick enough for England's needs; Browne has missed the boat, and Ravi Bopara falls foul of the 'failed before' criterion (although that is highly variable in its application).
Do you know what the latest position is on Harmer? I thought he automatically qualified next year but I read recently the decision is wholly in the hands of the ECB. Obviously he'd be an automatic pick, which would be tough on Jack Leach, who I like a lot, but I just can't see any spinner being picked ahead of him when eligible.
Agree about the reasons and with your categorisations; a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.Slightly surprised that Sam Cook hasn't been picked, though.
Think you're right about Harmer. TBH we in Essex would rather he didn't get picked, but equally we wouldn't want to stand in his way.
Would be interesting to see the equivalent with BREXIT party and Con Voters
Yes, I had the same thought.
Does anyone know where to find a link to the the source YouGov table - there may be more there for all we know?
YouGov are getting quite annoying as of late. The full results for their latest VI poll are still not up - all we know two days after it was mentioned in the Times is still Con 30, Lab 23, Lib 22 and nothing about the other parties and no data tables whatsoever.
Summary: - The EU are nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - Ireland is nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - The Brits are thick, immoral colonialists - Ireland's position is the only possible acceptable deal and the other side needs to give in entirely
At one point it even blames the British for the Irish not opposing Hitler! Yet the writer complains about "no ownership" on the other side.
It constantly amazed me how all sides in this constantly complain about how zealous and uncompromising the other side is, without willing to budge an inch themselves. Leavers, Remainers, Britain, Ireland, the EU. All are guilty.
Really good article. Although I'll say now that I have never heard her speak, I know next to nothing about her. All I've seen is a lot of right wing nutjobs getting really animated about her very existence, as descibed in the article. That's led me to the assumption that she is Doing Something Right. But it's only an assumption.
The big takeaway from this is how soft the Labour vote is. Despite polling in the low 20s, half of what remains would defect to the Lib Dems if they thought that a better way to stop the Tories.
Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if the Lib Dems looked like a more credible opposition *nationally*. It's far from unreasonable to think that the Labour share might slump to 10% or so.
Yeah right get off the drugs David
Would that be the same complacency that Scottish Labour showed? How are they doing these days?
The figures are there for you to see. It's not my fault if you deliberately ignore them.
You were a 2017 Corbyn underestimator too weren't you.
Quite the opposite, wasn't Mr Herdson the canary in the mine who first alerted many of us to how Corbyn was doing?
Only on the last week before GE 2017 and then he hedged his bets a couple of days later from my memory anyway
It was the night before the election. From memory, I initially predicted a Con total of 300 and then upped it later the same evening to (I think) 315, which was still way below what most people thought the total would be. The following day, I said that the feeling on the doorstep had been better than the day before but IIRC I didn't revise any specific prediction.
That's exactly my recollection, David. My betting account recalls the same.
That's really crass. CPOs are vital, but the key thing is there has to be a need for the property: usually for a development that is seen for the greater good. They are relatively rare, and are quite hard to get as well. It is a lengthy and understandably expensive procedure.
What is being talked about is chalk and cheese.
Greater good = shopping centre. Greater good not equal to... access to high quality and free education for all? Reducing inequality?
All private property is equal, but some are more equal than others?
(This was also the second tweet after commenting about how the Duke of Westminster inherited a load of land and has kicked people off it to build new luxury apartments)
(I will caveat the below with the fact IANAE, and my knowledge about CPOs might be rather outdated.)
A shopping centre - or any development - needs to go through a rigorous and time-consuming planning process, during which it will be decided if it is needed or good for the area - and it's not as if they get nodded through. AIUI only then can a council / government department- not a developer - CPO for any land the developer has not been able to purchase through the usual means. Developers tend to want to avoid CPOs, as they are *very* time consuming, complex and legally expensive. I believe CPO requests can be rejected even if the developer has planning permission.
There is also generally a direct connection between a CPO and the requirement for the land. There is not a direct connection between CPO of a land and 'reducing inequality' or 'high quality and free education." - the land has to provide some form of income for that.
CPOs are relatively rare; what you are talking about is a policy of vast land and grabs - the sort of thing that can only be done (and spent) once.
(I should mention that AIUI there is another use of CPOs, for things like listed buildings that an owner refuses to maintain.)
I cannot comment on the Duke of Westminster tweet; although I daresay it might be a bit different from that. Do you have further details?
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Summary: - The EU are nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - Ireland is nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - The Brits are thick, immoral colonialists - Ireland's position is the only possible acceptable deal and the other side needs to give in entirely
At one point it even blames the British for the Irish not opposing Hitler! Yet the writer complains about "no ownership" on the other side.
It constantly amazed me how all sides in this constantly complain about how zealous and uncompromising the other side is, without willing to budge an inch themselves. Leavers, Remainers, Britain, Ireland, the EU. All are guilty.
Summary: You haven't understood the article at all. Or you just don't want to.
Summary: - The EU are nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - Ireland is nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - The Brits are thick, immoral colonialists - Ireland's position is the only possible acceptable deal and the other side needs to give in entirely
At one point it even blames the British for the Irish not opposing Hitler! Yet the writer complains about "no ownership" on the other side.
It constantly amazed me how all sides in this constantly complain about how zealous and uncompromising the other side is, without willing to budge an inch themselves. Leavers, Remainers, Britain, Ireland, the EU. All are guilty.
Summary: You haven't understood the article at all. Or you just don't want to.
Summary: - The EU are nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - Ireland is nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - The Brits are thick, immoral colonialists - Ireland's position is the only possible acceptable deal and the other side needs to give in entirely
At one point it even blames the British for the Irish not opposing Hitler! Yet the writer complains about "no ownership" on the other side.
It constantly amazed me how all sides in this constantly complain about how zealous and uncompromising the other side is, without willing to budge an inch themselves. Leavers, Remainers, Britain, Ireland, the EU. All are guilty.
Summary: You haven't understood the article at all. Or you just don't want to.
Comments
If I were another travel agent and had been paying into an industry funded scheme like ATOL on whom large liabilities are now being dumped I would have some serious questions to ask about this.
The country is crying out for mental economic policies that would make a no deal Brexit seem like a nice stroll in the park.
The nearest physical banks are at least 6 miles away.
Interesting Irish pov on Brexit.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-s-25tn-in-mobile-payments-transform-nation-s-services
All private property is equal, but some are more equal than others?
(This was also the second tweet after commenting about how the Duke of Westminster inherited a load of land and has kicked people off it to build new luxury apartments)
I'd guess the aircraft are going back to those that Thomas Cook has leased them from. So nothing for other creditors there. Still there is always brand name and goodwill for those with vouchers to tuck into.
https://www.mototok.com/blog/top-10-aircraft-leasing-companies
Given that her party now hates the US and the role that the US has taken on for itself why should an isolationist US President worry Labour? Given the Corbynite view that the US is a force for evil rather than good, a US President not acting as the leader of the free world is surely a good thing? Emily has not thought this through - but then Labour speeches at conference are mostly emotional rants so it’ll probably go down well.
Utterly, utterly mad.
They already have Cummings and Crosby.
Probably a nervous aircraft lease company or two around today as well, plenty of bills not paid and aircraft impounded by authorities all over the place.
https://twitter.com/PPF/status/1176033782572429312
So I think if your pension is UK based it should be safe - most new staff will be on DC anyway which obviously by definition has a net zero asset/liability base.
Which is a government funded and controlled, Supper Crony 'crony capitalist' agency designed to boost the profits of Big companys, mostly Boeing, that have a lot of lobbyists in Washington DC.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
No, but debenhams right?
"There is immense sympathy for the Scots and indeed the millions of Remain English and Welsh. But provided NI is looked after a belief that Brexit may need to happen for England especially to grow up."
Can we have a vote on Ireland taking over the UK? Their population seems to be far more sensible and intelligent than the hordes of leaver morons that infect this island.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
yet gets applauded !
But then the nature of the 2017 campaign played perfectly for Corbyn. He would be foolish to assume an exceptional set of circumstances was a natural law of politics.
1. Corbyn got a second hearing from the public; there's no reason to assume he'll get a third.
2. Corbyn and Labour's polling is now worse than it was in April 2017 (though granted that the Tory / Johnson figures are also worse than the equivalent ones).
3. Nick Timothy was a policy wonk with a tin ear for public opinion; Dominic Cummings, for all his faults as a political practitioner, is a highly capable campaigner.
4. Theresa May's natural instinct was to hide from the public; Boris Johnson's is not. That might bring risks but the balance favours Johnson.
5. The Tory manifesto in 2017 was a disaster for the party; the 2019 one, going by policy changes so far, has been properly prepared for in terms of political campaigning (which is not the same as being entirely responsible).
6. Brexit in 2017 was a distant concept: there was plenty of time to think about other things. It will be far harder for Labour (or anyone) to shift the focus of the election in 2019.
7. Labour has no credible Brexit policy: a fact which is likely to dog them throughout the campaign.
8. The Lib Dems wasted 2017 arguing about gay sex. They will not waste 2019, having a clear and distinctive Brexit policy that they can explain in 2 seconds, and which is aimed at Lab supporters.
9. Labour is unveiling a lot of very expensive policies. Who is going to explain where the money is going to come from to pay for them? Diane Abbott?
10. Things could indeed get better for Labour in an election campaign: they could also get worse with public exposure.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/taoiseach-says-government-to-phase-out-oil-exploration-off-irish-coast-1.4027671
for the children's birthday present can be paid in via my Halifax smartphone App.
Might not be too many years when even a cashpoint is not necessary with contactless technology everywhere.
Do you know what the latest position is on Harmer? I thought he automatically qualified next year but I read recently the decision is wholly in the hands of the ECB. Obviously he'd be an automatic pick, which would be tough on Jack Leach, who I like a lot, but I just can't see any spinner being picked ahead of him when eligible.
It could never have imagined me saying this seven years ago, but if Romney had won in 2012, we'd be in a much better position. I like Obama, but he really dropped the ball on Russia.
Doesnt mean articulate young people cannot be right of course, they certainly can.
Think you're right about Harmer. TBH we in Essex would rather he didn't get picked, but equally we wouldn't want to stand in his way.
Does anyone know where to find a link to the the source YouGov table - there may be more there for all we know?
YouGov are getting quite annoying as of late. The full results for their latest VI poll are still not up - all we know two days after it was mentioned in the Times is still Con 30, Lab 23, Lib 22 and nothing about the other parties and no data tables whatsoever.
- The EU are nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous
- Ireland is nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous
- The Brits are thick, immoral colonialists
- Ireland's position is the only possible acceptable deal and the other side needs to give in entirely
At one point it even blames the British for the Irish not opposing Hitler! Yet the writer complains about "no ownership" on the other side.
It constantly amazed me how all sides in this constantly complain about how zealous and uncompromising the other side is, without willing to budge an inch themselves. Leavers, Remainers, Britain, Ireland, the EU. All are guilty.
A shopping centre - or any development - needs to go through a rigorous and time-consuming planning process, during which it will be decided if it is needed or good for the area - and it's not as if they get nodded through. AIUI only then can a council / government department- not a developer - CPO for any land the developer has not been able to purchase through the usual means. Developers tend to want to avoid CPOs, as they are *very* time consuming, complex and legally expensive. I believe CPO requests can be rejected even if the developer has planning permission.
There is also generally a direct connection between a CPO and the requirement for the land. There is not a direct connection between CPO of a land and 'reducing inequality' or 'high quality and free education." - the land has to provide some form of income for that.
CPOs are relatively rare; what you are talking about is a policy of vast land and grabs - the sort of thing that can only be done (and spent) once.
(I should mention that AIUI there is another use of CPOs, for things like listed buildings that an owner refuses to maintain.)
I cannot comment on the Duke of Westminster tweet; although I daresay it might be a bit different from that. Do you have further details?
You haven't understood the article at all. Or you just don't want to.
Our local Smiths now has a M&S Food and the post office inside it - there is almost no space left for magazines / cut priced chocolate and books.
Try to flog you a giant Toblerone with everything.
😕