The last 10 years have shown that predicting what will happen over the next decade is brave, to say the least. So much is going to depend on how Brexit does end up playing out. Whether we like it or not, it is going to dominate - politically and economically.
It is not. Two/Three years from now, it will be what was all the fuss about.
I think (tentatively) perhaps a middle option -- it will have had a significant (though hard to conclusively pin down and thus infinitely arguable) economic effect, but it won't be in the interests of either main party for it to remain the dominant political narrative, and so it won't feel like a major and ongoing argument.
Yep, I agree with that. My use of dominate was not that it would be the major source of conversation - though it will rear up dramatically from time to time - but that its consequences will largely dictate what kind of country we are politically and economically.
Buttler exposing Archer by taking single off first ball. Presumably he's given up. The only reason that Archer is as high as 9 is that Broad and Anderson are in the team.
And gone. Totally predictable.
That’s slightly unfair. Archer is a decent batsman with first class centuries to his credit.
Is anyone however going to say Buttler is making a good fist of this?
Archer's batting at international level has been below pathetic and so was that. Buttler needs to do a Stokes here and get them all. Unfortunately he doesn't have Leach to hang around at the other end.
Why did you have to say that?
As I say he gave up when Archer came in. A disappointing end to a good effort from the openers.
Nothing to with us Tories, guv, we had no power to exempt Scottish Police from VAT.
'Chancellor Philip Hammond revealed in the 2017 budget that the exemption would be extended to include SFRS and Police Scotland.'
It is embarrassing that you've decided to try and argue this one. And doing so on the basis of Phillip Hammond sparing the SNP's blushes by extending the exemption. No good deed goes unpunished.
It is mildly embarrassing to be spending time arguing with a few wee English reactionaries about what goes on in Scotland I admit, but it's that or the hoovering, so..
Hahah brilliant. I thought we were arguing about the UK Tory Government's evil plot to charge the Scottish police and fire services VAT.
But as you're the arbiter, be sure to inform us when we should pay attention to Scotland (because it's a significant modern European nation cruelly yoked to a British imperialist power), and when we shouldn't (because it's merely a region, of concern only to Scottish people who live there, nothing to see here, thanks). Bit like the Scottish Government wanting to be treated as a local council I suppose - just when it suits.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
On topic, I agree that Blair policies have contributed to the current political situation, but it was I believe a different Blair policy which has had the biggest effect. The conscious and quite deliberate decision to abandon the largest demographic - those who work in, or own, SME's - has finally cost Labour dear. While Mandelson was right at the time ("they have nowhere else to go") it was only a matter of time before somebody tapped in to this vast and decisive demographic. Johnson and Cummings have now done so twice - in the Brexit referendum and here. Add to this a labour leader whose policies would have been utterly catastrophic for anyone working in or owning an SME and the effect was pronounced. And the problem Labour has is that the notion that Johnson needs to do a lot to hold onto this demographic is fallacious - all he has to do is improve on the big fat zero that has been done for over 20 years.
I had an idea in 2003, pitched it to an SME with under 20 employees, they liked it, gave me a share in the business and 16 years later we have been through one exit worth £93 million, a subsequent merger and I am now part of the leadership that runs a company with over 350 employees, offices in three countries and an annual turnover just shy of £50 million. There were no government policies during any of that time that prevented us from doing what we wanted to do. Brexit won't either, to be fair - though it will mean we invest less in growing our UK operation and may lead us to open an office in the Single Market. I suspect a Corbyn government may have been different and affected us and many others very negatively, but by and large good management, good products and a bit of luck are what count. If you have those you can deal with pretty much anything.
I don't disagree with any of that, nor do I dispute that there are not many government policies that have actively harmed SMEs - but the point is, nor have there been any that have actively helped SMEs or those working within them (who form the vast bulk of the demographic I was speaking about). During the same time, there have been numerous policies that have benefited large companies (of which your organisation is now one - and sincere congratulations on your achievement), numerous policies that have benefited the public sector, the unemployed, every other sector. Plus there is the inescapable feeling that the EU is for the benefit of the multinationals and that industry is gradually moving away and towns are gradually getting hollowed out. Basically they have been ignored - until Johnson and Cummings showed them a bit of interest. While Labour devised policies that would be disastrous (as you yourself admit) while launching ad hominem attacks on them. This used to be the core constituency of Labour, and one that it desperately needs to win back.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Makes sense that the narrative is focused around the group that makes up 80%+ of the electorate, doesn't it?
I just mean, as far as I can tell, nobody ever asked what should the Conservatives do to make themselves more appealing to Brent Central. I remember the narrative being about town and suburban seats outside London that were indeed very much overwhelmingly white at the time. The assumption was simply that something would come up, but there was no fetishisation of one ethnic community over another in the way that non-WWC people's narrative fetishises WWC as a symbol of why Labour is bad.
But why would they focus their efforts on making themselves appealing to groups that combined are 10% or less of the electorate? Their chosen strategy appears to have been the winning one.
Older Northern WWC are also about 10% or less of the electorate. Again - who chooses the narrative and cui bono!
That seems very unlikely, do you have the maths for that?
Sure, it is a rough estimate. Taking the most generous definition of "Northern", North + Midlands + Wales, and omitting the major metro areas, is maybe one in three seats. Say half the population will be traditional working-class, 90% of whom will (edit: not!) be ethnic minority including Irish/Poles/etc., and most of whom are older (because traditional class maps to age).
So that's a no, then?
I really don't know what to say. Are you being intentionally impolite to avoid discussing your own beliefs in the matter? Because it's evident that the number is not going to be even 20%.
No, but you seem very certain about that figure, additionally it's not just the North, it's the Midlands, Wales and South East who all have similar demographic profiles of white working class people who have been ignored for 20+ years. You are the one concentrating on this narrow north vs urban bullshit, no one else is.
"about 10% or less" is far from "very certain", and I did include the Midlands and Wales. You must at least see why I infer your persistent non-reading as impoliteness.
OT Labour leadership -- after yesterday's flurry of excitement, Emily Thornberry is back out to 50s on Betfair.
As she should be. There are three proper contenders: Long Bailey, Rayner and Starmer. If Rayner runs she wins. My guess is that given the comoplete lack of enthusiasm for Long Bailey she is now giving it very serious consideration. In fact, I wonder if she might do some kind of deal with Starmer.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
Why do we have selectors? Seems off to me. Hire a manager and let him pick his team. Sack him if it doesn't work. The selectors thing is daft.
The answer to the why-no-swing-back question is that the Conservatives enjoyed 2 years of majority government, and that was barely, in the last 22 years Nothing to swing back from except in 2017.
It sometimes seems that more mental effort has been spent on 2 weeks of Labour white working-class losses than on 22 years of Conservative failure to win back urban seats John Major won, which makes you wonder who chooses the narrative, cui bono, and if white people matter more in it!
A large part of the 'Cameron Project' was about increasing Conservative support in urban areas.
As we know it failed.
Having found an alternative route to victory its not surprising the Conservatives are now planning to reinforce success rather than failure.
Now if anyone wants to know what the Conservatives need to do to increase support in urban areas then the answer is increased home ownership.
Constituencies with 'Terry and June' housing tenure turned into 'Men Behaving Badly' housing tenure and lost their Conservative voting habit.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
First Innings only Denly got a half century and only by the skin of his teeth. No batsman is covering himself in glory at the minute.
The last 10 years have shown that predicting what will happen over the next decade is brave, to say the least. So much is going to depend on how Brexit does end up playing out. Whether we like it or not, it is going to dominate - politically and economically.
It is not. Two/Three years from now, it will be what was all the fuss about.
I think (tentatively) perhaps a middle option -- it will have had a significant (though hard to conclusively pin down and thus infinitely arguable) economic effect, but it won't be in the interests of either main party for it to remain the dominant political narrative, and so it won't feel like a major and ongoing argument.
Yep, I agree with that. My use of dominate was not that it would be the major source of conversation - though it will rear up dramatically from time to time - but that its consequences will largely dictate what kind of country we are politically and economically.
Yes, I have never painted Brexit as an economic catastrophe. I think its effect will be more subtlety corrosive. Certain sectors may well have significant change, and indeed extinguishing change. Things move on and there will be sectors that prosper, mostly sectors that would have prospered in any event. My own sector will do well, but that is down to demographics rather than anything else.
Rejoin may well be viable in a decade or so, but not in the short term. By then the country will have changed quite a bit, and the EU too. Politically, I would vote for a party promoting EEA membership at the next election.
Nothing to with us Tories, guv, we had no power to exempt Scottish Police from VAT.
'Chancellor Philip Hammond revealed in the 2017 budget that the exemption would be extended to include SFRS and Police Scotland.'
It is embarrassing that you've decided to try and argue this one. And doing so on the basis of Phillip Hammond sparing the SNP's blushes by extending the exemption. No good deed goes unpunished.
It is mildly embarrassing to be spending time arguing with a few wee English reactionaries about what goes on in Scotland I admit, but it's that or the hoovering, so..
Hahah brilliant. I thought we were arguing about the UK Tory Government's evil plot to charge the Scottish police and fire services VAT.
But as you're the arbiter, be sure to inform us when we should pay attention to Scotland (because it's a significant modern European nation cruelly yoked to a British imperialist power), and when we shouldn't (because it's merely a region, of concern only to Scottish people who live there, nothing to see here, thanks). Bit like the Scottish Government wanting to be treated as a local council I suppose - just when it suits.
I don't believe I've ever said this backwater and its denizens should be required to pay attention to Scotland, why should I?
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
The new BA longhaul Biz product looks very good (and that's where they make their money!), but yes the European fleet looks very old and outdated now, and service level have probably dropped too far.
Easy are very good at what they do, and are probably equal to BA for direct flights - if the airports and timeslots are convenient.
Ryanair - avoid like the plague, they treat their customers with utter contempt at every opportunity.
The answer to the why-no-swing-back question is that the Conservatives enjoyed 2 years of majority government, and that was barely, in the last 22 years Nothing to swing back from except in 2017.
It sometimes seems that more mental effort has been spent on 2 weeks of Labour white working-class losses than on 22 years of Conservative failure to win back urban seats John Major won, which makes you wonder who chooses the narrative, cui bono, and if white people matter more in it!
A large part of the 'Cameron Project' was about increasing Conservative support in urban areas.
As we know it failed.
Having found an alternative route to victory its not surprising the Conservatives are now planning to reinforce success rather than failure.
Now if anyone wants to know what the Conservatives need to do to increase support in urban areas then the answer is increased home ownership.
Constituencies with 'Terry and June' housing tenure turned into 'Men Behaving Badly' housing tenure and lost their Conservative voting habit.
And its worth noting that successful Tory policies like Help to Buy which have increased home ownership rates have been particularly successful in the Northern seats which have swung to the Tories. Helping people own their own home is the bedrock of success for the Tories and great for the people concerned - keeping people impoverished and relying upon the government is the bedrock of success for Labour.
Is there anything more humiliating for a test cricket captain than to choose to field first and then see the opponents get the highest innings of the match ?
Makes sense that the narrative is focused around the group that makes up 80%+ of the electorate, doesn't it?
I just mean, as far as I can tell, nobody ever asked what should the Conservatives do to make themselves more appealing to Brent Central. I remember the narrative being about town and suburban seats outside London that were indeed very much overwhelmingly white at the time. The assumption was simply that something would come up, but there was no fetishisation of one ethnic community over another in the way that non-WWC people's narrative fetishises WWC as a symbol of why Labour is bad.
But why would they focus their efforts on making themselves appealing to groups that combined are 10% or less of the electorate? Their chosen strategy appears to have been the winning one.
Older Northern WWC are also about 10% or less of the electorate. Again - who chooses the narrative and cui bono!
That seems very unlikely, do you have the maths for that?
Sure, it is a rough estimate. Taking the most generous definition of "Northern", North + Midlands + Wales, and omitting the major metro areas, is maybe one in three seats. Say half the population will be traditional working-class, 90% of whom will (edit: not!) be ethnic minority including Irish/Poles/etc., and most of whom are older (because traditional class maps to age).
So that's a no, then?
I really don't know what to say. Are you being intentionally impolite to avoid discussing your own beliefs in the matter? Because it's evident that the number is not going to be even 20%.
No, but you seem very certain about that figure, additionally it's not just the North, it's the Midlands, Wales and South East who all have similar demographic profiles of white working class people who have been ignored for 20+ years. You are the one concentrating on this narrow north vs urban bullshit, no one else is.
"about 10% or less" is far from "very certain", and I did include the Midlands and Wales. You must at least see why I infer your persistent non-reading as impoliteness.
No, it's your persistent bullshit that no one is buying. No party will win power by concentrating on urbanite ethnic minorities, I say that as an ethnic minority person living in pretty centralish London.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
Why do we have selectors? Seems off to me. Hire a manager and let him pick his team. Sack him if it doesn't work. The selectors thing is daft.
Jobs for the boys, mate, and a wish to avoid appearing to do things like those football oiks. It helps to have a large number of selectors too. You can obscure things so that nobody is entirely sure who is making the decisions. This is particularly valuable when blatant blunders are made, like picking an unfit Jimmy Anderson for the first Ashes Test, and giving caps to Dawson and Crane.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
On topic, I agree that Blair policies have contributed to the current political situation, but it was I believe a different Blair policy which has had the biggest effect. The conscious and quite deliberate decision to abandon the largest demographic - those who work in, or own, SME's - has finally cost Labour dear. While Mandelson was right at the time ("they have nowhere else to go") it was only a matter of time before somebody tapped in to this vast and decisive demographic. Johnson and Cummings have now done so twice - in the Brexit referendum and here. Add to this a labour leader whose policies would have been utterly catastrophic for anyone working in or owning an SME and the effect was pronounced. And the problem Labour has is that the notion that Johnson needs to do a lot to hold onto this demographic is fallacious - all he has to do is improve on the big fat zero that has been done for over 20 years.
I had apretty much anything.
I don't disagree with any of that, nor do I dispute that there are not many government policies that have actively harmed SMEs - but the point is, nor have there been any that have actively helped SMEs or those working within them (who form the vast bulk of the demographic I was speaking about). During the same time, there have been numerous policies that have benefited large companies (of which your organisation is now one - and sincere congratulations on your achievement), numerous policies that have benefited the public sector, the unemployed, every other sector. Plus there is the inescapable feeling that the EU is for the benefit of the multinationals and that industry is gradually moving away and towns are gradually getting hollowed out. Basically they have been ignored - until Johnson and Cummings showed them a bit of interest. While Labour devised policies that would be disastrous (as you yourself admit) while launching ad hominem attacks on them. This used to be the core constituency of Labour, and one that it desperately needs to win back.
Governments need to provide an infrastructure within which SMEs can grow and prosper - transport links, education, public health, etc - then get out of the way, IMO.
Does anyone what the average home ownership level in Conservative constituencies is compared to that of Labour constituencies ?
And what is the home ownership levels of the constituencies the Conservatives have gained since 2010 compared to those the Conservatives have lost.
Home ownership strongly correlates with age, breaking down a bit amongst DE, who were still more likely than most to vote Labour.
The problem for the Tories is that a policy that brings down house prices penalises existing home owners.
There is also the issue that in Brexit towns in the North, house prices are not the issue that they are in metropolitan cities. Building houses in the places where they are in demand may well hollow out the Brexit towns even more, by making internal migration easier.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
Why do we have selectors? Seems off to me. Hire a manager and let him pick his team. Sack him if it doesn't work. The selectors thing is daft.
Jobs for the boys, mate, and a wish to avoid appearing to do things like those football oiks. It helps to have a large number of selectors too. You can obscure things so that nobody is entirely sure who is making the decisions. This is particularly valuable when blatant blunders are made, like picking an unfit Jimmy Anderson for the first Ashes Test, and giving caps to Dawson and Crane.
I have no qualm with giving caps to people, let them try and keep others on their game. You never know who might take to the challenge of representing their country.
Better than keeping those who aren't performing in situ for months or years without challenge.
It does for the following reason. One of the selling points of Brexit was that it would liberate us from EU rules that are neither in our interest nor have democratic support here. Therefore if we use the freedom of leaving to either (i) enact lots of things which we were unable to do as members and/or (ii) repeal lots of things which were unpopular and damaging to us, it would provide compelling evidence that this particular potential advantage of Brexit had morphed into an actual advantage.
We'll do some pretty meaningless trade deals. Individuals and businesses will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do now. The executive will be a lot more powerful. We'll muddle through.
My view too. A little poorer, a little less influential, but nothing to write home about.
It does for the following reason. One of the selling points of Brexit was that it would liberate us from EU rules that are neither in our interest nor have democratic support here. Therefore if we use the freedom of leaving to either (i) enact lots of things which we were unable to do as members and/or (ii) repeal lots of things which were unpopular and damaging to us, it would provide compelling evidence that this particular potential advantage of Brexit had morphed into an actual advantage.
The primary argument for Brexit was that control would be enacted by our Parliament that we elect. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or doing the right thing for the right reasons are different. If we elect politicians who choose to do similar things to the EU that's our choice. If we elect politicians who choose to diverge its our choice. We have control either way - and our politicians have nowhere to hide either way. So in that alone Brexit will already be a success, it doesn't matter whether we diverge or not in practice.
An interesting thread header. It seems like Labour need to work out how to win English and Welsh seats again, as the SNP aren't going away any time soon. The problem for Labour is how they can regain their northern seats whilst not losing support to the Lib Dems in university / remain seats, and moving too far right to stop the SNP supporting them in a hung parliament. Labour really needs to pause and take a bigger picture view of who they're targetting and what their key messages are.
Someone else has already mentioned that there was no positive message from Labour that cut through this time and I think that's a key point - people like hearing how their lives are going to get better. They don't want to just hear that they have to vote Labour or the "evil Tories" will get in again. At least Boris had "get Brexit done", which many people saw as positive activity (whether or not you agree with it), as well as an enthusiasm for Britain that Corbyn has never had.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
American Airlines is the worst rated airline for long haul and while not great BA is also rated better than Ryanair for shorthaul flights too
On topic, I agree that Blair policies have contributed to the current political situation, but it was I believe a different Blair policy which has had the biggest effect. The conscious and quite deliberate decision to abandon the largest demographic - those who work in, or own, SME's - has finally cost Labour dear. While Mandelson was right at the time ("they have nowhere else to go") it was only a matter of time before somebody tapped in to this vast and decisive demographic. Johnson and Cummings have now done so twice - in the Brexit referendum and here. Add to this a labour leader whose policies would have been utterly catastrophic for anyone working in or owning an SME and the effect was pronounced. And the problem Labour has is that the notion that Johnson needs to do a lot to hold onto this demographic is fallacious - all he has to do is improve on the big fat zero that has been done for over 20 years.
I had apretty much anything.
I don't disagree with any of that, nor do I dispute that there are not many government policies that have actively harmed SMEs - but the point is, nor have there been any that have actively helped SMEs or those working within them (who form the vast bulk of the demographic I was speaking about). During the same time, there have been numerous policies that have benefited large companies (of which your organisation is now one - and sincere congratulations on your achievement), numerous policies that have benefited the public sector, the unemployed, every other sector. Plus there is the inescapable feeling that the EU is for the benefit of the multinationals and that industry is gradually moving away and towns are gradually getting hollowed out. Basically they have been ignored - until Johnson and Cummings showed them a bit of interest. While Labour devised policies that would be disastrous (as you yourself admit) while launching ad hominem attacks on them. This used to be the core constituency of Labour, and one that it desperately needs to win back.
Governments need to provide an infrastructure within which SMEs can grow and prosper - transport links, education, public health, etc - then get out of the way, IMO.
You are (of course) bang on.
I would add, getting the tinternet sorted. And keeping regulation easy. Don't forget overregulation is a huge benefit to big businesses who an afford legal, HR, compliance departments etc. it keeps upstarts out.
Does anyone what the average home ownership level in Conservative constituencies is compared to that of Labour constituencies ?
And what is the home ownership levels of the constituencies the Conservatives have gained since 2010 compared to those the Conservatives have lost.
Home ownership strongly correlates with age, breaking down a bit amongst DE, who were still more likely than most to vote Labour.
The problem for the Tories is that a policy that brings down house prices penalises existing home owners.
There is also the issue that in Brexit towns in the North, house prices are not the issue that they are in metropolitan cities. Building houses in the places where they are in demand may well hollow out the Brexit towns even more, by making internal migration easier.
But home ownership levels didn't use to correlate strongly with age.
Twenty years ago home ownership was much higher among the young and lower among the old.
There's no such thing as a Brexit town - all places are individual and Bassetlaw is a different place to Bury, Burnley and Blackpool.
And at least in the 'mining belt' there's no shortage of new housing having being built in recent years or going to be built in the next few.
It does for the following reason. One of the selling points of Brexit was that it would liberate us from EU rules that are neither in our interest nor have democratic support here. Therefore if we use the freedom of leaving to either (i) enact lots of things which we were unable to do as members and/or (ii) repeal lots of things which were unpopular and damaging to us, it would provide compelling evidence that this particular potential advantage of Brexit had morphed into an actual advantage.
The primary argument for Brexit was that control would be enacted by our Parliament that we elect. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or doing the right thing for the right reasons are different. If we elect politicians who choose to do similar things to the EU that's our choice. If we elect politicians who choose to diverge its our choice. We have control either way - and our politicians have nowhere to hide either way. So in that alone Brexit will already be a success, it doesn't matter whether we diverge or not in practice.
It may not happen that way. Politicians always have somewhere to hide. You see it in how they blame remainers in the civil service for things. That will continue and will be the 2020s version of Brexit. In countries like Norway and Switzerland, and further from home the USA, with no EU or SNP to worry about, they have the same modern lack-of-control narrative powering up similar movements to Brexit. That narrative is due to a few things like the switch from low-skill manufacturing to low-skill services and the growth of ethnic-minority, especially non-white, populations and representation.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
If Boris Johnson has a leadership contest between Lavery and Long Bailey to deal with, I will want to know the exact terms he has struck with Satan.
But I am dubious if they can get the necessary twenty votes each to both be nominated.
(Incidentally, one thought occurs - if Corbyn does not resign until February 1st or later that reduces by one the number of nominations required to be a candidate.)
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
American Airlines is the worst rated airline for long haul and while not great BA is also rated better than Ryanair for shorthaul flights too
As I said, maybe I just got lucky (and it was in Business class). I definitely wouldn't touch Ryanair again though, they've been poor every time I gave them another chance.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
American Airlines is the worst rated airline for long haul and while not great BA is also rated better than Ryanair for shorthaul flights too
As Mauve states maybe he got lucky in the same way I got lucky flying Delta earlier this year when my status overrode the bargain basement seats I purchased resulting us being placed us in their Premium economy.
Last year I flow just about every possible option from England to Sofia - the British Airways return was by far the worst but Heathrow was OK (better than both Manchester T1 and T2).
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
I thought BA were owned by the Spanish anyway?
IAG's Head office is in London and its registered office in Madrid
Does anyone what the average home ownership level in Conservative constituencies is compared to that of Labour constituencies ?
And what is the home ownership levels of the constituencies the Conservatives have gained since 2010 compared to those the Conservatives have lost.
Home ownership strongly correlates with age, breaking down a bit amongst DE, who were still more likely than most to vote Labour.
The problem for the Tories is that a policy that brings down house prices penalises existing home owners.
There is also the issue that in Brexit towns in the North, house prices are not the issue that they are in metropolitan cities. Building houses in the places where they are in demand may well hollow out the Brexit towns even more, by making internal migration easier.
But home ownership levels didn't use to correlate strongly with age.
Twenty years ago home ownership was much higher among the young and lower among the old.
There's no such thing as a Brexit town - all places are individual and Bassetlaw is a different place to Bury, Burnley and Blackpool.
And at least in the 'mining belt' there's no shortage of new housing having being built in recent years or going to be built in the next few.
Redcar might be different.
That's been my point for a while. Home ownership rates across the country are rising once more rather than falling and a part of that is because of policies like Help to Buy which are encouraging house building in the highest rate in decades and encouraging those new homes to be sold to owner-occupiers rather than landlords. Across Northern towns house building is quite strong at the minute with the homes going to owner-occupiers increasing ownership rates, while keeping house prices steady so that while house prices are rising slowly (thus avoiding negative equity) the house price to wages ratios are falling.
And towns which previously had rather lower home ownership rates are now having higher home ownership rates and voting Tory. Shouldn't be a surprise.
The next 4 years ensuring the home ownership rate continues to improve like it is at the minute should be the government's number one priority don't you agree?
Given that in 2010 David Miliband was assumed to be a certainty to be next Labour leader, and in 2015 a 1000/1 shot won, isn't it a bit lazy to assume the front two in the betting at this stage are going to be the ones fighting it out at the finish?
If Boris Johnson has a leadership contest between Lavery and Long Bailey to deal with, I will want to know the exact terms he has struck with Satan.
But I am dubious if they can get the necessary twenty votes each to both be nominated.
(Incidentally, one thought occurs - if Corbyn does not resign until February 1st or later that reduces by one the number of nominations required to be a candidate.)
It also removes the MEPs who can nominate though. How left/moderate friendly are the MEPs?
An interesting thread header. It seems like Labour need to work out how to win English and Welsh seats again, as the SNP aren't going away any time soon. The problem for Labour is how they can regain their northern seats whilst not losing support to the Lib Dems in university / remain seats, and moving too far right to stop the SNP supporting them in a hung parliament. Labour really needs to pause and take a bigger picture view of who they're targetting and what their key messages are.
In 2109, there needed to be two parties on the left, one appealing to the metropolitan liberals, one appealing to the northern/midland/Welsh social conservatives.
What we had in 2019 is two parties on the left both appealing to the same metropolitan liberal demographic.
If that happens again, there is only one result. Tory win.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
I thought BA were owned by the Spanish anyway?
I think its the other way round. BA were the best airline in the world under, IIRC, Lord King. after than its just got worse and worse. I would not fly BA unless there was no other alternative.
If Boris Johnson has a leadership contest between Lavery and Long Bailey to deal with, I will want to know the exact terms he has struck with Satan.
But I am dubious if they can get the necessary twenty votes each to both be nominated.
(Incidentally, one thought occurs - if Corbyn does not resign until February 1st or later that reduces by one the number of nominations required to be a candidate.)
I doubt they will both get through, it is the battle to be the flagbearer of the left but of course if they do they will both likely benefit from transfers from the other.
Long Bailey and Lavery look to be the IDS and David Davis of this leadership race with Starmer the Portillo figure and Jess Phillips the Ken Clarke ie more popular with the public than the membership
OT Tony Blair looks very old these days. On entering Downing Street, Blair looked younger than his years but now the reverse is true and he could easily be taken for mid-70s or older.
If Boris Johnson has a leadership contest between Lavery and Long Bailey to deal with, I will want to know the exact terms he has struck with Satan.
But I am dubious if they can get the necessary twenty votes each to both be nominated.
(Incidentally, one thought occurs - if Corbyn does not resign until February 1st or later that reduces by one the number of nominations required to be a candidate.)
It also removes the MEPs who can nominate though. How left/moderate friendly are the MEPs?
They’re not lefties. That’s why that might be helpful if the hard left is split.
The primary argument for Brexit was that control would be enacted by our Parliament that we elect. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or doing the right thing for the right reasons are different. If we elect politicians who choose to do similar things to the EU that's our choice. If we elect politicians who choose to diverge its our choice. We have control either way - and our politicians have nowhere to hide either way. So in that alone Brexit will already be a success, it doesn't matter whether we diverge or not in practice.
This is a metric that will supply evidence (or not) to support the proposition, "Free of the EU, the UK will be able to unleash its potential."
This was a key message. It should be kept in the spotlight.
An interesting thread header. It seems like Labour need to work out how to win English and Welsh seats again, as the SNP aren't going away any time soon. The problem for Labour is how they can regain their northern seats whilst not losing support to the Lib Dems in university / remain seats, and moving too far right to stop the SNP supporting them in a hung parliament. Labour really needs to pause and take a bigger picture view of who they're targetting and what their key messages are.
In 2109
Either that’s one hell of an unfortunate typo, or you really do think Labour are spectacularly screwed.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
American Airlines is the worst rated airline for long haul and while not great BA is also rated better than Ryanair for shorthaul flights too
All US airlines are crap in my experience. I think BA's big problem is how much it has removed from its offering over recent years, while not reflecting that in the pricing. There have also been the strikes and the IT disasters. It's a very typical UK company in which the management focuses on cost-cutting rather than the product.
An interesting thread header. It seems like Labour need to work out how to win English and Welsh seats again, as the SNP aren't going away any time soon. The problem for Labour is how they can regain their northern seats whilst not losing support to the Lib Dems in university / remain seats, and moving too far right to stop the SNP supporting them in a hung parliament. Labour really needs to pause and take a bigger picture view of who they're targetting and what their key messages are.
In 2109, there needed to be two parties on the left, one appealing to the metropolitan liberals, one appealing to the northern/midland/Welsh social conservatives.
What we had in 2019 is two parties on the left both appealing to the same metropolitan liberal demographic.
If that happens again, there is only one result. Tory win.
Maybe we can begin to work out what this signifies by defining social conservatives. There aren't many voices calling for rollback of gay marriage or keeping children in their parents' social positions, in any major party. So what is the offer of the Conservative Party that we talk about when we talk about social conservatism?
You mean like Norway , where they are stuck with a trillion they don't know what to spend it on. How lucky were we to be looked after by the Tories.
I tend to agree with Malc that more could have been spent locally. It is curious to me visiting Aberdeen - which don't get me wrong, is a fine, well-kept city, why it isn't the Dubai of the North. I do not pretend to understand the economics of it though.
Been away watching the football, the real gripe is they just pissed all that money up the wall and it was done deliberately , chancers. Only place to benefit is London.
An interesting thread header. It seems like Labour need to work out how to win English and Welsh seats again, as the SNP aren't going away any time soon. The problem for Labour is how they can regain their northern seats whilst not losing support to the Lib Dems in university / remain seats, and moving too far right to stop the SNP supporting them in a hung parliament. Labour really needs to pause and take a bigger picture view of who they're targetting and what their key messages are.
In 2109, there needed to be two parties on the left, one appealing to the metropolitan liberals, one appealing to the northern/midland/Welsh social conservatives.
What we had in 2019 is two parties on the left both appealing to the same metropolitan liberal demographic.
If that happens again, there is only one result. Tory win.
Maybe we can begin to work out what this signifies by defining social conservatives. There aren't many voices calling for rollback of gay marriage or keeping children in their parents' social positions, in any major party. So what is the offer of the Conservative Party that we talk about when we talk about social conservatism?
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
I thought BA were owned by the Spanish anyway?
I think its the other way round. BA were the best airline in the world under, IIRC, Lord King. after than its just got worse and worse. I would not fly BA unless there was no other alternative.
Though BA has lower costs than under Lord King and on some measures higher profits too.
Willie Walsh sacrificed some of BA's quality in order to cut costs, to some extent rightly, no point being the highest quality airline if you go bust as you have massive debts and costs to pay for it
It does for the following reason. One of the selling points of Brexit was that it would liberate us from EU rules that are neither in our interest nor have democratic support here. Therefore if we use the freedom of leaving to either (i) enact lots of things which we were unable to do as members and/or (ii) repeal lots of things which were unpopular and damaging to us, it would provide compelling evidence that this particular potential advantage of Brexit had morphed into an actual advantage.
The primary argument for Brexit was that control would be enacted by our Parliament that we elect. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or doing the right thing for the right reasons are different. If we elect politicians who choose to do similar things to the EU that's our choice. If we elect politicians who choose to diverge its our choice. We have control either way - and our politicians have nowhere to hide either way. So in that alone Brexit will already be a success, it doesn't matter whether we diverge or not in practice.
It's not "our" choice. It's the choice of the minority that ends up voting for the government we get.
Yes, I have never painted Brexit as an economic catastrophe. I think its effect will be more subtlety corrosive. Certain sectors may well have significant change, and indeed extinguishing change. Things move on and there will be sectors that prosper, mostly sectors that would have prospered in any event. My own sector will do well, but that is down to demographics rather than anything else.
Rejoin may well be viable in a decade or so, but not in the short term. By then the country will have changed quite a bit, and the EU too. Politically, I would vote for a party promoting EEA membership at the next election.
One point that IMO is not made often enough -
The EU provided a bulwark against political extremism since many radical policies of both Left and Right are verboten.
Of course this can be spun as a negative too. Since it means that even if the British people wanted to veer to the extreme - as in voted for it - our EU membership would have been an obstacle.
OT Labour leadership -- after yesterday's flurry of excitement, Emily Thornberry is back out to 50s on Betfair.
As she should be. There are three proper contenders: Long Bailey, Rayner and Starmer. If Rayner runs she wins. My guess is that given the comoplete lack of enthusiasm for Long Bailey she is now giving it very serious consideration. In fact, I wonder if she might do some kind of deal with Starmer.
I would have thought a revised deal with Long-Bailey is much more likely.
Perhaps it can be presented along the lines that Rayner and Long-Bailey job-share the Leadership.
It can be presented as seeking new working relationships in politics that balance life and work -- familiar to many working women (and men).
An interesting thread header. It seems like Labour need to work out how to win English and Welsh seats again, as the SNP aren't going away any time soon. The problem for Labour is how they can regain their northern seats whilst not losing support to the Lib Dems in university / remain seats, and moving too far right to stop the SNP supporting them in a hung parliament. Labour really needs to pause and take a bigger picture view of who they're targetting and what their key messages are.
In 2109, there needed to be two parties on the left, one appealing to the metropolitan liberals, one appealing to the northern/midland/Welsh social conservatives.
What we had in 2019 is two parties on the left both appealing to the same metropolitan liberal demographic.
If that happens again, there is only one result. Tory win.
Maybe we can begin to work out what this signifies by defining social conservatives. There aren't many voices calling for rollback of gay marriage or keeping children in their parents' social positions, in any major party. So what is the offer of the Conservative Party that we talk about when we talk about social conservatism?
Laura Norder.
But I don't think that was a very big issue this time either! Or terrorism! Some of the Conservative side tried to make a go of it, but it did not gain much traction as an attack line on Labour, which is the acid test of cut-through. Compare to how often one heard about Brexit and it seems like it was a really Brexit-heavy election. I don't want to jump to the assumption that migration, race and ethnicity are all that is signified by "social conservatism". But I am struggling to add to the tally. Like, I don't think normal people out there in England care about transsexuality as much as people writing on the Internet.
Given that in 2010 David Miliband was assumed to be a certainty to be next Labour leader, and in 2015 a 1000/1 shot won, isn't it a bit lazy to assume the front two in the betting at this stage are going to be the ones fighting it out at the finish?
Or maybe the lazy thinking is mine to base that opinion on a very small sample
Does anyone what the average home ownership level in Conservative constituencies is compared to that of Labour constituencies ?
And what is the home ownership levels of the constituencies the Conservatives have gained since 2010 compared to those the Conservatives have lost.
Home ownership strongly correlates with age, breaking down a bit amongst DE, who were still more likely than most to vote Labour.
The problem for the Tories is that a policy that brings down house prices penalises existing home owners.
There is also the issue that in Brexit towns in the North, house prices are not the issue that they are in metropolitan cities. Building houses in the places where they are in demand may well hollow out the Brexit towns even more, by making internal migration easier.
But home ownership levels didn't use to correlate strongly with age.
Twenty years ago home ownership was much higher among the young and lower among the old.
There's no such thing as a Brexit town - all places are individual and Bassetlaw is a different place to Bury, Burnley and Blackpool.
And at least in the 'mining belt' there's no shortage of new housing having being built in recent years or going to be built in the next few.
Redcar might be different.
Over 65s have always had and still have higher home ownership rates than 16 to 24 year olds, it is 24 to 34 year olds over 65s have overtaken for home ownership rates in the last 2 decades.
Hence the age at which you start voting Tory has moved from mid to late 20s if the Tories win to mid to late 30s while over 65s are now much more Tory than they used to be, Blair even won the pensioner vote in 1997
Given that in 2010 David Miliband was assumed to be a certainty to be next Labour leader, and in 2015 a 1000/1 shot won, isn't it a bit lazy to assume the front two in the betting at this stage are going to be the ones fighting it out at the finish?
Very different criteria for getting on the ballot this time. You have to ask yourself who is going to get the MP nominations, plus the union or CLP ones. It means a race with more than three candidates is pretty unlikely. It's quite possible there will be just two to choose from - maybe even only one.
It does for the following reason. One of the selling points of Brexit was that it would liberate us from EU rules that are neither in our interest nor have democratic support here. Therefore if we use the freedom of leaving to either (i) enact lots of things which we were unable to do as members and/or (ii) repeal lots of things which were unpopular and damaging to us, it would provide compelling evidence that this particular potential advantage of Brexit had morphed into an actual advantage.
The primary argument for Brexit was that control would be enacted by our Parliament that we elect. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or doing the right thing for the right reasons are different. If we elect politicians who choose to do similar things to the EU that's our choice. If we elect politicians who choose to diverge its our choice. We have control either way - and our politicians have nowhere to hide either way. So in that alone Brexit will already be a success, it doesn't matter whether we diverge or not in practice.
It's not "our" choice. It's the choice of the minority that ends up voting for the government we get.
Our means collectively and yes collectively we made a choice.
If there was a majority behind an alternative government they'd be the government. You can't unify all voters for disparate "others" and suggest they're some united alternative. The government got more than 3.5 million votes more than any other party, more votes than Labour and the SNP combined - about as many votes as Labour and the Lib Dems combined - so yes it was our choice.
Just as when Labour last won an election with a minority that was collectively our choice too.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
American Airlines is the worst rated airline for long haul and while not great BA is also rated better than Ryanair for shorthaul flights too
All US airlines are crap in my experience. I think BA's big problem is how much it has removed from its offering over recent years, while not reflecting that in the pricing. There have also been the strikes and the IT disasters. It's a very typical UK company in which the management focuses on cost-cutting rather than the product.
BA did need to cut costs however it has probably gone too far and needs to reinvest, particularly in IT
An interesting thread header. It seems like Labour need to work out how to win English and Welsh seats again, as the SNP aren't going away any time soon. The problem for Labour is how they can regain their northern seats whilst not losing support to the Lib Dems in university / remain seats, and moving too far right to stop the SNP supporting them in a hung parliament. Labour really needs to pause and take a bigger picture view of who they're targetting and what their key messages are.
In 2109, there needed to be two parties on the left, one appealing to the metropolitan liberals, one appealing to the northern/midland/Welsh social conservatives.
What we had in 2019 is two parties on the left both appealing to the same metropolitan liberal demographic.
If that happens again, there is only one result. Tory win.
Maybe we can begin to work out what this signifies by defining social conservatives. There aren't many voices calling for rollback of gay marriage or keeping children in their parents' social positions, in any major party. So what is the offer of the Conservative Party that we talk about when we talk about social conservatism?
Laura Norder.
But I don't think that was a very big issue this time either! Or terrorism! Some of the Conservative side tried to make a go of it, but it did not gain much traction as an attack line on Labour, which is the acid test of cut-through. Compare to how often one heard about Brexit and it seems like it was a really Brexit-heavy election. I don't want to jump to the assumption that migration, race and ethnicity are all that is signified by "social conservatism". But I am struggling to add to the tally. Like, I don't think normal people out there in England care about transsexuality as much as people writing on the Internet.
Longer sentences for the worst offenders, and making people serve out their sentences, was a key Conservative policy this time.
I couldn't give a flying fig about transsexuality and don't want the government discriminating against others. You can be conservative on issues like ensuring criminals spend longer in jail, without criminalising people for who they are or what they do in the bedroom etc
Another thing which may be interesting is how the buyers of new housing vary from place to place.
In some places it might be dominated by people buying to live in that actual house whereas in others, London especially, it might be being bought as investments and then rented out.
The first type boosts the Conservatives the second doesn't.
It does for the following reason. One of the selling points of Brexit was that it would liberate us from EU rules that are neither in our interest nor have democratic support here. Therefore if we use the freedom of leaving to either (i) enact lots of things which we were unable to do as members and/or (ii) repeal lots of things which were unpopular and damaging to us, it would provide compelling evidence that this particular potential advantage of Brexit had morphed into an actual advantage.
The primary argument for Brexit was that control would be enacted by our Parliament that we elect. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or doing the right thing for the right reasons are different. If we elect politicians who choose to do similar things to the EU that's our choice. If we elect politicians who choose to diverge its our choice. We have control either way - and our politicians have nowhere to hide either way. So in that alone Brexit will already be a success, it doesn't matter whether we diverge or not in practice.
It's not "our" choice. It's the choice of the minority that ends up voting for the government we get.
Our means collectively and yes collectively we made a choice.
If there was a majority behind an alternative government they'd be the government. You can't unify all voters for disparate "others" and suggest they're some united alternative. The government got more than 3.5 million votes more than any other party, more votes than Labour and the SNP combined - about as many votes as Labour and the Lib Dems combined - so yes it was our choice.
Just as when Labour last won an election with a minority that was collectively our choice too.
There is no amount of sophistry that can turn 43% of the vote into a majority of the vote. We get the governments our electoral system creates, but they are not "our" choice. They are the choice of the minority who vote for them. The only time that has not applied in my lifetime is the period 2010 to 2015.
Yes, I have never painted Brexit as an economic catastrophe. I think its effect will be more subtlety corrosive. Certain sectors may well have significant change, and indeed extinguishing change. Things move on and there will be sectors that prosper, mostly sectors that would have prospered in any event. My own sector will do well, but that is down to demographics rather than anything else.
Rejoin may well be viable in a decade or so, but not in the short term. By then the country will have changed quite a bit, and the EU too. Politically, I would vote for a party promoting EEA membership at the next election.
One point that IMO is not made often enough -
The EU provided a bulwark against political extremism since many radical policies of both Left and Right are verboten.
Of course this can be spun as a negative too. Since it means that even if the British people wanted to veer to the extreme - as in voted for it - our EU membership would have been an obstacle.
Don’t worry, the British people can be relied upon to reject extremism as demonstrated on 12 December.
OT Labour leadership -- after yesterday's flurry of excitement, Emily Thornberry is back out to 50s on Betfair.
As she should be. There are three proper contenders: Long Bailey, Rayner and Starmer. If Rayner runs she wins. My guess is that given the comoplete lack of enthusiasm for Long Bailey she is now giving it very serious consideration. In fact, I wonder if she might do some kind of deal with Starmer.
Angela Rayner could well have problems with this tweet if IDS wishes to play games
Given that in 2010 David Miliband was assumed to be a certainty to be next Labour leader, and in 2015 a 1000/1 shot won, isn't it a bit lazy to assume the front two in the betting at this stage are going to be the ones fighting it out at the finish?
Very different criteria for getting on the ballot this time. You have to ask yourself who is going to get the MP nominations, plus the union or CLP ones. It means a race with more than three candidates is pretty unlikely. It's quite possible there will be just two to choose from - maybe even only one.
OT Labour leadership -- after yesterday's flurry of excitement, Emily Thornberry is back out to 50s on Betfair.
As she should be. There are three proper contenders: Long Bailey, Rayner and Starmer. If Rayner runs she wins. My guess is that given the comoplete lack of enthusiasm for Long Bailey she is now giving it very serious consideration. In fact, I wonder if she might do some kind of deal with Starmer.
Angela Rayner could well have problems with this tweet if IDS wishes to play games
OT Labour leadership -- after yesterday's flurry of excitement, Emily Thornberry is back out to 50s on Betfair.
As she should be. There are three proper contenders: Long Bailey, Rayner and Starmer. If Rayner runs she wins. My guess is that given the comoplete lack of enthusiasm for Long Bailey she is now giving it very serious consideration. In fact, I wonder if she might do some kind of deal with Starmer.
Rayner needs to avoid the Michael Gove trap if she is to run against RLB. She might need RLB to agree to flip the ticket.
OT Labour leadership -- after yesterday's flurry of excitement, Emily Thornberry is back out to 50s on Betfair.
As she should be. There are three proper contenders: Long Bailey, Rayner and Starmer. If Rayner runs she wins. My guess is that given the comoplete lack of enthusiasm for Long Bailey she is now giving it very serious consideration. In fact, I wonder if she might do some kind of deal with Starmer.
Angela Rayner could well have problems with this tweet if IDS wishes to play games
We'll do some pretty meaningless trade deals. Individuals and businesses will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do now. The executive will be a lot more powerful. We'll muddle through.
My view too. A little poorer, a little less influential, but nothing to write home about.
Thanks, fellow Pb-ers for the comments stimulated by discussions over the effects of Leaving. My view is that one of my two children will, since he's domiciled elsewhere, be less affected, although the products he sells are sourced from across the world, although the final products are British and US. What will happen there neither he nor I know; may well turn out, he feels, that it'll be solely American. Possibly European, although AFAIK the only part of the operation which is in the EU is in UK. Bad result for a couple of factories in S England. Elder son suspects he may well find his Head Office operation is moved out of UK to somewhere in the EU. He thinks he'll be OK; his wife, who works in a different division won't be. Eldest Grandson and his wife are both teachers, so shouldn't be directly affected, although promised resource improvement may well not come to pass. Eldest Granddaughter could be affected by the same resource improvement. Or not! Her partner, who sells primarily in the UK, but also to near EU may well find he either has to to travel further or not at all. One set of grandchildren will probably write off the UK as a place to first study and then work, especially as here they will appear BAME. One of the others doesn't know; the other, who is studying Drama and has an excellent singing voice will, we are certain find her 'local;' options severely limited unless the US and other Anglophone countries become more open. Mrs C and I will, we expect, find it more difficult and more expensive, to travel to Western Europe on holiday.
So overall I'm sure Leaving will be BAD for me and mine.
An interesting thread header. It seems like Labour need to work out how to win English and Welsh seats again, as the SNP aren't going away any time soon. The problem for Labour is how they can regain their northern seats whilst not losing support to the Lib Dems in university / remain seats, and moving too far right to stop the SNP supporting them in a hung parliament. Labour really needs to pause and take a bigger picture view of who they're targetting and what their key messages are.
In 2109, there needed to be two parties on the left, one appealing to the metropolitan liberals, one appealing to the northern/midland/Welsh social conservatives.
What we had in 2019 is two parties on the left both appealing to the same metropolitan liberal demographic.
If that happens again, there is only one result. Tory win.
Maybe we can begin to work out what this signifies by defining social conservatives. There aren't many voices calling for rollback of gay marriage or keeping children in their parents' social positions, in any major party. So what is the offer of the Conservative Party that we talk about when we talk about social conservatism?
Laura Norder.
But I don't think that was a very big issue this time either! Or terrorism! Some of the Conservative side tried to make a go of it, but it did not gain much traction as an attack line on Labour, which is the acid test of cut-through. Compare to how often one heard about Brexit and it seems like it was a really Brexit-heavy election. I don't want to jump to the assumption that migration, race and ethnicity are all that is signified by "social conservatism". But I am struggling to add to the tally. Like, I don't think normal people out there in England care about transsexuality as much as people writing on the Internet.
Longer sentences for the worst offenders, and making people serve out their sentences, was a key Conservative policy this time.
I couldn't give a flying fig about transsexuality and don't want the government discriminating against others. You can be conservative on issues like ensuring criminals spend longer in jail, without criminalising people for who they are or what they do in the bedroom etc
As predicted on pb, this was a good issue for the Conservatives, especially with attacks fresh in voters' memories, but of course this was another example of Boris running not against Labour but against the previous Conservative government.
OT Labour leadership -- after yesterday's flurry of excitement, Emily Thornberry is back out to 50s on Betfair.
As she should be. There are three proper contenders: Long Bailey, Rayner and Starmer. If Rayner runs she wins. My guess is that given the comoplete lack of enthusiasm for Long Bailey she is now giving it very serious consideration. In fact, I wonder if she might do some kind of deal with Starmer.
Angela Rayner could well have problems with this tweet if IDS wishes to play games
IDS quit over Osbourne's cuts to the welfare budget that destroyed universal credit.
I doubt it will be a big issue for either Labour members or the electorate as a whole.
You can't be an MP if bankrupt...
You can be for six months if already elected while you try to discharge the debts.
My guess is that under such circumstances a crowd fund would assemble the cash very quickly.
But I would be surprised if she lost. He probably did laugh, so she could plead fair comment. It’s just he was pleased at getting through a bill he believed would have the opposite effect to the one it has had.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
American Airlines is the worst rated airline for long haul and while not great BA is also rated better than Ryanair for shorthaul flights too
All US airlines are crap in my experience. I think BA's big problem is how much it has removed from its offering over recent years, while not reflecting that in the pricing. There have also been the strikes and the IT disasters. It's a very typical UK company in which the management focuses on cost-cutting rather than the product.
That's a very typical problem with companies in which accountants wield excessive influence (i.e. most large British companies.) They invariably see cost-cutting as the way to improve 'the bottom-line'. Non-accountants can easily see the flaw in this approach, but in many companies accountants have a god-like status so it is difficult to argue against.
In the US, I often found lawyers played a similar role and were likewise held in awe for no good commercial reason.
The best businessmen in my experience are businessmen without any special professional qualifications.
OT Labour leadership -- after yesterday's flurry of excitement, Emily Thornberry is back out to 50s on Betfair.
As she should be. There are three proper contenders: Long Bailey, Rayner and Starmer. If Rayner runs she wins. My guess is that given the comoplete lack of enthusiasm for Long Bailey she is now giving it very serious consideration. In fact, I wonder if she might do some kind of deal with Starmer.
Angela Rayner could well have problems with this tweet if IDS wishes to play games
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
American Airlines is the worst rated airline for long haul and while not great BA is also rated better than Ryanair for shorthaul flights too
All US airlines are crap in my experience. I think BA's big problem is how much it has removed from its offering over recent years, while not reflecting that in the pricing. There have also been the strikes and the IT disasters. It's a very typical UK company in which the management focuses on cost-cutting rather than the product.
That's a very typical problem with companies in which accountants wield excessive influence (i.e. most large British companies.) They invariably see cost-cutting as the way to improve 'the bottom-line'. Non-accountants can easily see the flaw in this approach, but in many companies accountants have a god-like status so it is difficult to argue against.
In the US, I often found lawyers played a similar role and were likewise held in awe for no good commercial reason.
The best businessmen in my experience are businessmen without any special professional qualifications.
Given that in 2010 David Miliband was assumed to be a certainty to be next Labour leader, and in 2015 a 1000/1 shot won, isn't it a bit lazy to assume the front two in the betting at this stage are going to be the ones fighting it out at the finish?
Or maybe the lazy thinking is mine to base that opinion on a very small sample
It might be safest to wait a couple of weeks until we know the timetable, the procedure and finally the candidates.
We'll do some pretty meaningless trade deals. Individuals and businesses will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do now. The executive will be a lot more powerful. We'll muddle through.
My view too. A little poorer, a little less influential, but nothing to write home about.
Thanks, fellow Pb-ers for the comments stimulated by discussions over the effects of Leaving. My view is that one of my two children will, since he's domiciled elsewhere, be less affected, although the products he sells are sourced from across the world, although the final products are British and US. What will happen there neither he nor I know; may well turn out, he feels, that it'll be solely American. Possibly European, although AFAIK the only part of the operation which is in the EU is in UK. Bad result for a couple of factories in S England. Elder son suspects he may well find his Head Office operation is moved out of UK to somewhere in the EU. He thinks he'll be OK; his wife, who works in a different division won't be. Eldest Grandson and his wife are both teachers, so shouldn't be directly affected, although promised resource improvement may well not come to pass. Eldest Granddaughter could be affected by the same resource improvement. Or not! Her partner, who sells primarily in the UK, but also to near EU may well find he either has to to travel further or not at all. One set of grandchildren will probably write off the UK as a place to first study and then work, especially as here they will appear BAME. One of the others doesn't know; the other, who is studying Drama and has an excellent singing voice will, we are certain find her 'local;' options severely limited unless the US and other Anglophone countries become more open. Mrs C and I will, we expect, find it more difficult and more expensive, to travel to Western Europe on holiday.
So overall I'm sure Leaving will be BAD for me and mine.
It can work out in curious ways.
Son has been working a day a week freelancing for a Stockholm outfit. He has just told me they want to put him on the payroll ahead of any Brexit complication so that they can can snaffle him up full-time if we exit No Deal or in a way which would block the contract.
So he personally is laughing kitbags, although the loss to the UK of a highly qualified horticulturalist is a small but real hit.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
American Airlines is the worst rated airline for long haul and while not great BA is also rated better than Ryanair for shorthaul flights too
All US airlines are crap in my experience. I think BA's big problem is how much it has removed from its offering over recent years, while not reflecting that in the pricing. There have also been the strikes and the IT disasters. It's a very typical UK company in which the management focuses on cost-cutting rather than the product.
BA did need to cut costs however it has probably gone too far and needs to reinvest, particularly in IT
BA's IT problems are that the infrastructure is well out of date, the applications are a hodge-podge of stuff developed over the decades and not originally designed to interface with each other, and that the whole damn thing is outsourced to Tata Services, with most of the staff in India.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
I thought BA were owned by the Spanish anyway?
I think its the other way round. BA were the best airline in the world under, IIRC, Lord King. after than its just got worse and worse. I would not fly BA unless there was no other alternative.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
Why do we have selectors? Seems off to me. Hire a manager and let him pick his team. Sack him if it doesn't work. The selectors thing is daft.
Jobs for the boys, mate, and a wish to avoid appearing to do things like those football oiks. It helps to have a large number of selectors too. You can obscure things so that nobody is entirely sure who is making the decisions. This is particularly valuable when blatant blunders are made, like picking an unfit Jimmy Anderson for the first Ashes Test, and giving caps to Dawson and Crane.
I have no qualm with giving caps to people, let them try and keep others on their game. You never know who might take to the challenge of representing their country.
Better than keeping those who aren't performing in situ for months or years without challenge.
The fundamental problem is the muddled selection structure and process.
It is actually very difficult to establish who exactly is picking the side. It seems to be a committee of which Ed Smith is nominally the head. Public announcements however are rare and little attempt is made to explain strategy or decisions. When palpable errors are made (e.g. the Anderson fiasco) nobody steps forward to explain or accept responsibility.
There is a strong suspicion that some ex-players (e.g. Kevin Pieterson) exercise unofficial influence and not in a good way. This may be the explanation for, say, selections such as Dawson and Crane which defied all logic and, again, were never officially explained. Gus Fraser is another who, for some reason seems to have a say in selection.
Nobody has ever troubled to explain why we don't just have a manager who picks a side with the help and cooperation of the captain and keeps the position as long as results justify it. It would cut the salary bill as well as giving us a structure we could all understand.
If anyone thinks I am being excessively critical, try reading Vic Marks' book Original Spin for a taste of the kind of larks involved in modern 'professional' cricket. For example, when he was made captain of Somerset, he was advised to pick his friends, '...because they will support you when things go wrong'. It is easy to believe that a similar approach exists within England cricket circles.
Is anyone still going to say Jonny Bairstow’s worth his place right now?
His selection looks to me like an example of the 'mates network'. No way can his place on the tour be justified on form. His game is now totally oriented towards the 'short-form' and is completely unsuited for Test cricket.
It's not as if we are short of Test standard wicketkeeper-batsmen.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
It sounds like BA are harking back to 30 years or so ago when they were apparently a good airline. I'm too young to know if that's true or not, but I will agree with you on Easyjet being better for short-haul (and my preferred choice for short flights). I only use BA now if there are no other direct flight options, or someone at work insists on using them because they need more Avios.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
I thought BA were owned by the Spanish anyway?
I think its the other way round. BA were the best airline in the world under, IIRC, Lord King. after than its just got worse and worse. I would not fly BA unless there was no other alternative.
The Spanish are owned by BA?
No luckyguy, pay attention - they're owned by the Portugese. The Portugese National economy's main asset now is accumulated air-miles.
We've got out of this anyway. We're owned by the banks.
The main issue with air travel now is that the cabin attendants have aged.
BA's IT problems are that the infrastructure is well out of date, the applications are a hodge-podge of stuff developed over the decades and not originally designed to interface with each other, and that the whole damn thing is outsourced to Tata Services, with most of the staff in India.
Outsourcing, and otherwise failing to comprehend the importance of IT to the business and what that implies for how it needs to be resourced and how vital continuity of knowledge of the systems is, is a scarily widespread phenomenon. The recent independent report on the TSB IT mess was a compilation of shocking lack of understanding and oversight on the part of the TSB board. Most of the board had no idea how much software was being written for them, and they just kind of took most of it on trust. Meanwhile the CIO was massaging the status reports, upgrading things from 'red' to 'amber' or even 'green', thus feeding the board with an overly-rosy view of things. The entire project was practically doomed from the start because they started with a "we want to finish on date X" and produced a plan to fit, without ever going back to ask whether that resulted in realistic timescales, even as progress slipped further and further behind the plan. The natural result was that the board eventually approved a go-live when the project was not ready for it, and the bank's IT facilities just fell apart as customers tried to use them.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
Why do we have selectors? Seems off to me. Hire a manager and let him pick his team. Sack him if it doesn't work. The selectors thing is daft.
Jobs for the boys, mate, and a wish to avoid appearing to do things like those football oiks. It helps to have a large number of selectors too. You can obscure things so that nobody is entirely sure who is making the decisions. This is particularly valuable when blatant blunders are made, like picking an unfit Jimmy Anderson for the first Ashes Test, and giving caps to Dawson and Crane.
Better than keeping those who aren't performing in situ for months or years without challenge.
The fundamental problem is the muddled selection structure and process.
There is a strong suspicion that some ex-players (e.g. Kevin Pieterson) exercise unofficial influence and not in a good way. This may be the explanation for, say, selections such as Dawson and Crane which defied all logic and, again, were never officially explained. Gus Fraser is another who, for some reason seems to have a say in selection.
Nobody has ever troubled to explain why we don't just have a manager who picks a side with the help and cooperation of the captain and keeps the position as long as results justify it. It would cut the salary bill as well as giving us a structure we could all understand.
If anyone thinks I am being excessively critical, try reading Vic Marks' book Original Spin for a taste of the kind of larks involved in modern 'professional' cricket. For example, when he was made captain of Somerset, he was advised to pick his friends, '...because they will support you when things go wrong'. It is easy to believe that a similar approach exists within England cricket circles.
There used to be a similar muddled structure in Essex County Cricket. We had the extraordinary situation of the Chairman of the club asking a members meeting if any of them were prepared to tell the long-standing captain he wasn't up to it any more. Then there was a palace revolution and a new Chairman who gave the manager a lot more power and support. The following season we were promoted from Div II and in the three years since then we've won the County Championship twice and been runner up once.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
Why do we have selectors? Seems off to me. Hire a manager and let him pick his team. Sack him if it doesn't work. The selectors thing is daft.
Jobs for the boys, mate, and a wish to avoid appearing to do things like those football oiks. It helps to have a large number of selectors too. You can obscure things so that nobody is entirely sure who is making the decisions. This is particularly valuable when blatant blunders are made, like picking an unfit Jimmy Anderson for the first Ashes Test, and giving caps to Dawson and Crane.
Better than keeping those who aren't performing in situ for months or years without challenge.
The fundamental problem is the muddled selection structure and process.
There is a strong suspicion that some ex-players (e.g. Kevin Pieterson) exercise unofficial influence and not in a good way. This may be the explanation for, say, selections such as Ds well as giving us a structure we could all understand.
If anyone thinks I am being excessively critical, try reading Vic Marks' book Original Spin for a taste of the kind of larks involved in modern 'professional' cricket. For example, when he was made captain of Somerset, he was advised to pick his friends, '...because they will support you when things go wrong'. It is easy to believe that a similar approach exists within England cricket circles.
There used to be a similar muddled structure in Essex County Cricket. We had the extraordinary situation of the Chairman of the club asking a members meeting if any of them were prepared to tell the long-standing captain he wasn't up to it any more. Then there was a palace revolution and a new Chairman who gave the manager a lot more power and support. The following season we were promoted from Div II and in the three years since then we've won the County Championship twice and been runner up once.
I know. And as an Essex man you will be aware that the England Selectors (whoever they may be) seem to be oblivious of the County's recent success.
I have no qualm with giving caps to people, let them try and keep others on their game. You never know who might take to the challenge of representing their country.
Better than keeping those who aren't performing in situ for months or years without challenge.
The fundamental problem is the muddled selection structure and process.
It is actually very difficult to establish who exactly is picking the side. It seems to be a committee of which Ed Smith is nominally the head. Public announcements however are rare and little attempt is made to explain strategy or decisions. When palpable errors are made (e.g. the Anderson fiasco) nobody steps forward to explain or accept responsibility.
There is a strong suspicion that some ex-players (e.g. Kevin Pieterson) exercise unofficial influence and not in a good way. This may be the explanation for, say, selections such as Dawson and Crane which defied all logic and, again, were never officially explained. Gus Fraser is another who, for some reason seems to have a say in selection.
Nobody has ever troubled to explain why we don't just have a manager who picks a side with the help and cooperation of the captain and keeps the position as long as results justify it. It would cut the salary bill as well as giving us a structure we could all understand.
If anyone thinks I am being excessively critical, try reading Vic Marks' book Original Spin for a taste of the kind of larks involved in modern 'professional' cricket. For example, when he was made captain of Somerset, he was advised to pick his friends, '...because they will support you when things go wrong'. It is easy to believe that a similar approach exists within England cricket circles.
Yes, it's the lack of accountability that does it. The ECB should appoint and pay well a Test-match Team Manager and a Short-game Team Manager, allow them to appoint experts to advise them - but with a clear person in charge who's accountable for the results. Cricket is unique among the major team sports for the structure by which national teams are organised. Football and rugby both do it better.
The current match was lost yesterday evening with the ball - we let them have 95 runs for their last three wickets. If we'd have had 280 as a target rather than 365, well, we just saw how close it could have been.
BA's IT problems are that the infrastructure is well out of date, the applications are a hodge-podge of stuff developed over the decades and not originally designed to interface with each other, and that the whole damn thing is outsourced to Tata Services, with most of the staff in India.
Outsourcing, and otherwise failing to comprehend the importance of IT to the business and what that implies for how it needs to be resourced and how vital continuity of knowledge of the systems is, is a scarily widespread phenomenon. The recent independent report on the TSB IT mess was a compilation of shocking lack of understanding and oversight on the part of the TSB board. Most of the board had no idea how much software was being written for them, and they just kind of took most of it on trust. Meanwhile the CIO was massaging the status reports, upgrading things from 'red' to 'amber' or even 'green', thus feeding the board with an overly-rosy view of things. The entire project was practically doomed from the start because they started with a "we want to finish on date X" and produced a plan to fit, without ever going back to ask whether that resulted in realistic timescales, even as progress slipped further and further behind the plan. The natural result was that the board eventually approved a go-live when the project was not ready for it, and the bank's IT facilities just fell apart as customers tried to use them.
Agree 100% - but I work as an interim IT director!
Most companies don't understand the importance of technology to their core business - and even those who do often see it as primarily as a cost centre to be minimised, not as an opportunity for differentiation and efficiency elsewhere in the business.
BA's IT problems are that the infrastructure is well out of date, the applications are a hodge-podge of stuff developed over the decades and not originally designed to interface with each other, and that the whole damn thing is outsourced to Tata Services, with most of the staff in India.
Outsourcing, and otherwise failing to comprehend the importance of IT to the business and what that implies for how it needs to be resourced and how vital continuity of knowledge of the systems is, is a scarily widespread phenomenon. The recent independent report on the TSB IT mess was a compilation of shocking lack of understanding and oversight on the part of the TSB board. Most of the board had no idea how much software was being written for them, and they just kind of took most of it on trust. Meanwhile the CIO was massaging the status reports, upgrading things from 'red' to 'amber' or even 'green', thus feeding the board with an overly-rosy view of things. The entire project was practically doomed from the start because they started with a "we want to finish on date X" and produced a plan to fit, without ever going back to ask whether that resulted in realistic timescales, even as progress slipped further and further behind the plan. The natural result was that the board eventually approved a go-live when the project was not ready for it, and the bank's IT facilities just fell apart as customers tried to use them.
Can refer you to the excellent work of the late Professor Parkinson, his book Parkinson's Law and in particular his chapter on High Finance.
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
Why do we have selectors? Seems off to me. Hire a manager and let him pick his team. Sack him if it doesn't work. The selectors thing is daft.
and giving caps to Dawson and Crane.
I have no qualm with giving caps to people, let them try and keep others on their game. You never know who might take to the challenge of representing their country.
Better than keeping those who aren't performing in situ for months or years without challenge.
The fundamental problem is the muddled selection structure and process.
It is actually very difficult to establish who exactly is picking the side. It seems to be a committee of which Ed Smith is nominally the head. Public announcements however are rare and little attempt is made to explain strategy or decisions. When palpable errors are made (e.g. the Anderson fiasco) nobody steps forward to explain or accept responsibility.
There is a strong suspicion that some ex-players (e.g. Kevin Pieterson) exercise unofficial influence and not in a good way. This may be the explanation for, say, selections such as Dawson and Crane which defied all logic and, again, were never officially explained. Gus Fraser is another who, for some reason seems to have a say in selection.
Nobody has ever troubled to explain why we don't just have a manager who picks a side with the help and cooperation of the captain and keeps the position as long as results justify it. It would cut the salary bill as well as giving us a structure we could all understand.
If anyone thinks I am being excessively critical, try reading Vic Marks' book Original Spin for a taste of the kind of larks involved in modern 'professional' cricket. For example, when he was made captain of Somerset, he was advised to pick his friends, '...because they will support you when things go wrong'. It is easy to believe that a similar approach exists within England cricket circles.
You think Pieterson wielded undue influence over those selections made whilst Strauss was Director of Cricket... 9/11 was an inside job too...
England’s last seven wickets were lost for 64 runs. Again.
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
Why do we have selectors? Seems off to me. Hire a manager and let him pick his team. Sack him if it doesn't work. The selectors thing is daft.
Jobs for the boys, mate, and a wish to avoid appearing to do things like those football oiks. It helps to have a large number of selectors too. You can obscure things so that nobody is entirely sure who is making the decisions. This is particularly valuable when blatant blunders are made, like picking an unfit Jimmy Anderson for the first Ashes Test, and giving caps to Dawson and Crane.
Better than keeping those who aren't performing in situ for months or years without challenge.
The fundamental problem is the muddled selection structure and process.
If anyone thinks I am being excessively critical, try reading Vic Marks' book Original Spin for a taste of the kind of larks involved in modern 'professional' cricket. For example, when he was made captain of Somerset, he was advised to pick his friends, '...because they will support you when things go wrong'. It is easy to believe that a similar approach exists within England cricket circles.
There used to be a similar muddled structure in Essex County Cricket. We had the extraordinary situation of the Chairman of the club asking a members meeting if any of them were prepared to tell the long-standing captain he wasn't up to it any more. Then there was a palace revolution and a new Chairman who gave the manager a lot more power and support. The following season we were promoted from Div II and in the three years since then we've won the County Championship twice and been runner up once.
I know. And as an Essex man you will be aware that the England Selectors (whoever they may be) seem to be oblivious of the County's recent success.
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It was also widely believed that James Foster, until recently our very successful and much admired wicket-keeper had on one occasion been 'plain-spoken' to one of England's great and good, and consequently was never considered for England again.
Is anyone still going to say Jonny Bairstow’s worth his place right now?
His selection looks to me like an example of the 'mates network'. No way can his place on the tour be justified on form. His game is now totally oriented towards the 'short-form' and is completely unsuited for Test cricket.
It's not as if we are short of Test standard wicketkeeper-batsmen.
Comments
But as you're the arbiter, be sure to inform us when we should pay attention to Scotland (because it's a significant modern European nation cruelly yoked to a British imperialist power), and when we shouldn't (because it's merely a region, of concern only to Scottish people who live there, nothing to see here, thanks). Bit like the Scottish Government wanting to be treated as a local council I suppose - just when it suits.
Has anyone seen the new British Airways strapline - "Made in Britain".
Given how poor quality the European flight experience is (Easyjet is a better option and I suspect Ryanair is as well) would it be possible for the Government to sue BA for libel?
If Sibley can refrain from brain fades it looks as though the top four are getting somewhere at last. But what the hell is going on with 6 and 7? They’re not worth their place in first class cricket, why would they be in Tests?
Time for some radical surgery.
As we know it failed.
Having found an alternative route to victory its not surprising the Conservatives are now planning to reinforce success rather than failure.
Now if anyone wants to know what the Conservatives need to do to increase support in urban areas then the answer is increased home ownership.
Constituencies with 'Terry and June' housing tenure turned into 'Men Behaving Badly' housing tenure and lost their Conservative voting habit.
Rejoin may well be viable in a decade or so, but not in the short term. By then the country will have changed quite a bit, and the EU too. Politically, I would vote for a party promoting EEA membership at the next election.
And what is the home ownership levels of the constituencies the Conservatives have gained since 2010 compared to those the Conservatives have lost.
Easy are very good at what they do, and are probably equal to BA for direct flights - if the airports and timeslots are convenient.
Ryanair - avoid like the plague, they treat their customers with utter contempt at every opportunity.
I'm not a fan of BA's long-haul offering either. The real eye opener for me was seeing how good American Airlines was. Maybe I got lucky, but the planes seemed modern, the flights were on time, the food was good, and the seats were comfortable.
The problem for the Tories is that a policy that brings down house prices penalises existing home owners.
There is also the issue that in Brexit towns in the North, house prices are not the issue that they are in metropolitan cities. Building houses in the places where they are in demand may well hollow out the Brexit towns even more, by making internal migration easier.
Better than keeping those who aren't performing in situ for months or years without challenge.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/corbyn-allies-cast-doubt-on-frontrunner-bailey-to-lead-labour-7ss8s06fp?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0pQ2mR9ZItcYZlRUUAMGX_mXj2uJzQoDqzxF2Kxq76Ok--4o9lew54vgo#Echobox=1577611666
Someone else has already mentioned that there was no positive message from Labour that cut through this time and I think that's a key point - people like hearing how their lives are going to get better. They don't want to just hear that they have to vote Labour or the "evil Tories" will get in again. At least Boris had "get Brexit done", which many people saw as positive activity (whether or not you agree with it), as well as an enthusiasm for Britain that Corbyn has never had.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/12/passengers-rate-ryanair-worst-airline-with-british-airways-not-far-behind/
I would add, getting the tinternet sorted. And keeping regulation easy. Don't forget overregulation is a huge benefit to big businesses who an afford legal, HR, compliance departments etc. it keeps upstarts out.
Twenty years ago home ownership was much higher among the young and lower among the old.
There's no such thing as a Brexit town - all places are individual and Bassetlaw is a different place to Bury, Burnley and Blackpool.
And at least in the 'mining belt' there's no shortage of new housing having being built in recent years or going to be built in the next few.
Redcar might be different.
But I am dubious if they can get the necessary twenty votes each to both be nominated.
(Incidentally, one thought occurs - if Corbyn does not resign until February 1st or later that reduces by one the number of nominations required to be a candidate.)
Last year I flow just about every possible option from England to Sofia - the British Airways return was by far the worst but Heathrow was OK (better than both Manchester T1 and T2).
And towns which previously had rather lower home ownership rates are now having higher home ownership rates and voting Tory. Shouldn't be a surprise.
The next 4 years ensuring the home ownership rate continues to improve like it is at the minute should be the government's number one priority don't you agree?
What we had in 2019 is two parties on the left both appealing to the same metropolitan liberal demographic.
If that happens again, there is only one result. Tory win.
Long Bailey and Lavery look to be the IDS and David Davis of this leadership race with Starmer the Portillo figure and Jess Phillips the Ken Clarke ie more popular with the public than the membership
This was a key message. It should be kept in the spotlight.
Willie Walsh sacrificed some of BA's quality in order to cut costs, to some extent rightly, no point being the highest quality airline if you go bust as you have massive debts and costs to pay for it
The EU provided a bulwark against political extremism since many radical policies of both Left and Right are verboten.
Of course this can be spun as a negative too. Since it means that even if the British people wanted to veer to the extreme - as in voted for it - our EU membership would have been an obstacle.
Perhaps it can be presented along the lines that Rayner and Long-Bailey job-share the Leadership.
It can be presented as seeking new working relationships in politics that balance life and work -- familiar to many working women (and men).
Hence the age at which you start voting Tory has moved from mid to late 20s if the Tories win to mid to late 30s while over 65s are now much more Tory than they used to be, Blair even won the pensioner vote in 1997
If there was a majority behind an alternative government they'd be the government. You can't unify all voters for disparate "others" and suggest they're some united alternative. The government got more than 3.5 million votes more than any other party, more votes than Labour and the SNP combined - about as many votes as Labour and the Lib Dems combined - so yes it was our choice.
Just as when Labour last won an election with a minority that was collectively our choice too.
I couldn't give a flying fig about transsexuality and don't want the government discriminating against others. You can be conservative on issues like ensuring criminals spend longer in jail, without criminalising people for who they are or what they do in the bedroom etc
In some places it might be dominated by people buying to live in that actual house whereas in others, London especially, it might be being bought as investments and then rented out.
The first type boosts the Conservatives the second doesn't.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50936655
So did Cooper show some humility and readiness to change in the Brexit vote after the election ?
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1210691973163765761
IDS quit over Osbourne's cuts to the welfare budget that destroyed universal credit.
Bad result for a couple of factories in S England.
Elder son suspects he may well find his Head Office operation is moved out of UK to somewhere in the EU. He thinks he'll be OK; his wife, who works in a different division won't be.
Eldest Grandson and his wife are both teachers, so shouldn't be directly affected, although promised resource improvement may well not come to pass. Eldest Granddaughter could be affected by the same resource improvement. Or not! Her partner, who sells primarily in the UK, but also to near EU may well find he either has to to travel further or not at all.
One set of grandchildren will probably write off the UK as a place to first study and then work, especially as here they will appear BAME.
One of the others doesn't know; the other, who is studying Drama and has an excellent singing voice will, we are certain find her 'local;' options severely limited unless the US and other Anglophone countries become more open.
Mrs C and I will, we expect, find it more difficult and more expensive, to travel to Western Europe on holiday.
So overall I'm sure Leaving will be BAD for me and mine.
My guess is that under such circumstances a crowd fund would assemble the cash very quickly.
But I would be surprised if she lost. He probably did laugh, so she could plead fair comment. It’s just he was pleased at getting through a bill he believed would have the opposite effect to the one it has had.
In the US, I often found lawyers played a similar role and were likewise held in awe for no good commercial reason.
The best businessmen in my experience are businessmen without any special professional qualifications.
Son has been working a day a week freelancing for a Stockholm outfit. He has just told me they want to put him on the payroll ahead of any Brexit complication so that they can can snaffle him up full-time if we exit No Deal or in a way which would block the contract.
So he personally is laughing kitbags, although the loss to the UK of a highly qualified horticulturalist is a small but real hit.
It is actually very difficult to establish who exactly is picking the side. It seems to be a committee of which Ed Smith is nominally the head. Public announcements however are rare and little attempt is made to explain strategy or decisions. When palpable errors are made (e.g. the Anderson fiasco) nobody steps forward to explain or accept responsibility.
There is a strong suspicion that some ex-players (e.g. Kevin Pieterson) exercise unofficial influence and not in a good way. This may be the explanation for, say, selections such as Dawson and Crane which defied all logic and, again, were never officially explained. Gus Fraser is another who, for some reason seems to have a say in selection.
Nobody has ever troubled to explain why we don't just have a manager who picks a side with the help and cooperation of the captain and keeps the position as long as results justify it. It would cut the salary bill as well as giving us a structure we could all understand.
If anyone thinks I am being excessively critical, try reading Vic Marks' book Original Spin for a taste of the kind of larks involved in modern 'professional' cricket. For example, when he was made captain of Somerset, he was advised to pick his friends, '...because they will support you when things go wrong'. It is easy to believe that a similar approach exists within England cricket circles.
It's not as if we are short of Test standard wicketkeeper-batsmen.
We've got out of this anyway. We're owned by the banks.
The main issue with air travel now is that the cabin attendants have aged.
Then there was a palace revolution and a new Chairman who gave the manager a lot more power and support. The following season we were promoted from Div II and in the three years since then we've won the County Championship twice and been runner up once.
The current match was lost yesterday evening with the ball - we let them have 95 runs for their last three wickets. If we'd have had 280 as a target rather than 365, well, we just saw how close it could have been.
Most companies don't understand the importance of technology to their core business - and even those who do often see it as primarily as a cost centre to be minimised, not as an opportunity for differentiation and efficiency elsewhere in the business.