The smart Brexiters know Brexit will succeed if the UK becomes a high-risk, high-reward, high-competition, do-or-die country, like the USA or Singapore, even though the necessary public messaging was that Brexit meant low-risk, more NHS, less competition from foreigners. Differences in risk tolerance may well explain why different demographic groups took different stances regarding this message, e.g. London v smaller cities. But Brexit may yet pay off for London better than smaller areas with lots of old, risk-averse people.
For now under Boris reducing immigration and spending more on the NHS is the priority, longer term we will likely return to the single market once Labour gets back in, neither the Tories nor Labour can get enough support to win a general election based purely on the Singapore model
I have not the slightest doubt that adopting a Singaporean extreme free market approach would have the same effect here that is has elsewhere and we could double our GDP per person in short order, however sadly short order is not instantaneous.
and yes wining an election on the policy without the results will be hard. and would probably result in labour winning and reversing any changes.
But lets not be too defeatist when Singapore became indipendante, it briefly tried command and control, high taxes and regulation, it failed abysmally and then, only then did they try free markets. The smaller a political unit the easier to identify good or bad polices and the quicker to make changes.
For anybody cureose about the Singapore in the north sea I can recommend this:
Singapore is also helped by being a city state, its model might work for London but less so the UK as a whole
Absolutely correct.
If you look at pretty much any country in the world, the wealthiest bits are... the cities.
Look at Germany: the Länder which are Cities (Hamburg and Bremen) are by far the wealthiest in Germany. Indeed, Hamburg's GDP per capita is about 40% higher than Singapore's. New York, San Francisco, LA, Chicago will all have GDP per capita that are well above the US's.
Countries which are basically just cities do well shocker.
Now that is a MASSIVELY better poll for Sanders than the earlier ones.
That would see - I would guess - him probably getting 40% of the delegates, with Warren getting 30%, and then about 15% for each of Biden and Buttigieg.
The only thing that gives me pause about that poll is that the combined Warren plus Sanders number is so high. The previous best that I've seen in any Iowa poll is 41% (with most in the high 30s), and that is eight above.
Countries which are basically just cities do well shocker.
Guys. We're confusing TWO things here. Of course Cities are wealthier in ABSOLUTE terms. But the chart is looking at GROWTH, which is a different thing.
It's harder for cities to grow when they have already developed all the land. And new investment has to be discounted as the previous use is counted against it.
By contrast, the immediately adjacent 'donut' districts alongside have lower tax bases but have a greater capacity to GROW in their greenfields and lack of workplace parking restrictions etc.
That's why the Core Cities analysis is flawed: It;s only looking at half the territory in a Functional Economic Geography.
Any there is a Political reason for that: Any inflation of the boundaries of the Core CIties is likely to incorporate Tory areas and, in extreme, to the extent that Labour will lose control.
The Queens Speech supporting papers talk about 'defragmentation' over 'Functioal Economic Geographies'. This is what's behind it.
The Singapore strategy and the EEA strategies are very different, but at least they make sense as a set of successful future outcomes for the UK. One could not say that the current government is pressing ahead for either. Dom may want to invest lots of money in Manchester mathematicians, but it is being spent on 19th century railways and 20th century hospitals.
I don't think Singapore does work. Firstly because it would only apply to London and would leave the rest of the country behind, which is the opposite of what we want to achieve. Secondly, Singapore positions itself as a bastion of stability in a fragmented part of the world. It serves Asia but is aloof from it. That doesn't apply to a detached UK towards a highly organised Europe.
I agree with the broad thrust of your two points, in so far as they highlight the perils of the strategy. However, they don't mean the strategy would fail to work, simply that it would have impacts not listed in the Vote Leave literature, but that Dominic Cummings, for instance, will surely have thought about in his studies on modern tech firm / 20th century engineering successes.
EDIT: Either way, surely we can agree that spending lots more cash on the NHS, and bailing out under-invested railway lines, is a short-term political economy strategy, rather than a new economic growth model?
Liverpool have won the title and deserve many plaudits in the way they have done It. A great manager and team but I remember our first premiership title (Man Utd) and the celebrations were fabulous but all too soon it moved onto the next season and retaining it.
Liverpool's next season success depends on them holding on to key players including Van Dijk, Mane and Salah, all of whom have been subject to press speculation in the last few days
Any there is a Political reason for that: Any inflation of the boundaries of the Core CIties is likely to incorporate Tory areas and, in extreme, to the extent that Labour will lose control.
I doubt this part is true because we are mainly talking about councils like Manchester (93-3 to Labour), Nottingham (50-5), Liverpool (72-18), Birmingham (67-34) and Sheffield (49-35, none of whom are Tories). There is very little chance these would be lost by Labour to Conservatives. Birmingham might be, depending on who was in or out, e.g. Andy Street.
Any there is a Political reason for that: Any inflation of the boundaries of the Core CIties is likely to incorporate Tory areas and, in extreme, to the extent that Labour will lose control.
I doubt this part is true because we are mainly talking about councils like Manchester (93-3 to Labour), Nottingham (50-5), Liverpool (72-18), Birmingham (67-34) and Sheffield (49-35, none of whom are Tories). There is very little chance these would be lost by Labour to Conservatives. Birmingham might be, depending on who was in or out, e.g. Andy Street.
Indeed, in some of these areas, the major beneficiary would be the City Council which would gain additional tax revenues without significant extra expenses. So, you'd think the Cities would want to expand their boundaries to include suburbia.
The official boundaries of the City of Manchester and the City of Nottingham are absurd. In both cases you can walk a mile from the centre of town and be officially outside the city. Expansion is decades overdue.
The official boundaries of the City of Manchester and the City of Nottingham are absurd. In both cases you can walk a mile from the centre of town and be officially outside the city. Expansion is decades overdue.
According to Google maps, the railway station which is the closest by walking distance to Manchester Town Hall is Salford Central.
Any there is a Political reason for that: Any inflation of the boundaries of the Core CIties is likely to incorporate Tory areas and, in extreme, to the extent that Labour will lose control.
Nottingham: Add Rushcliffe, Broxtowe & Newark in a functional economic groegraphy. Gedling isn't enough to save them.
Nomination from Tonbridge and Malling CLP puts Butler on the ballot. She has now the 33 CLPs needed
Battersea Bexhill and Battle Birmingham, Erdington Brent Central Broxtowe Central Devon Chatham and Aylesford Chesham and Amersham Dulwich and West Norwood Ealing Central and Acton Erith and Thamesmead Esher and Walton Guildford Hastings and Rye Horsham Lancaster and Fleetwood Mid Dorset and North Poole Mid Worcestershire Newark North East Hampshire Romford Rushcliffe Sevenoaks South Derbyshire Spelthorne Stoke Central Streatham Tonbridge and Malling Totnes Wantage West Dorset Windsor Wirral West
The official boundaries of the City of Manchester and the City of Nottingham are absurd. In both cases you can walk a mile from the centre of town and be officially outside the city. Expansion is decades overdue.
Across the road from Manchester Cathedral is the City of Salford.
As Salford is many centuries older than Manchester I think it should have first dibs on expansion...
The official boundaries of the City of Manchester and the City of Nottingham are absurd. In both cases you can walk a mile from the centre of town and be officially outside the city. Expansion is decades overdue.
What real difference would messing around with boundaries make?
The official boundaries of the City of Manchester and the City of Nottingham are absurd. In both cases you can walk a mile from the centre of town and be officially outside the city. Expansion is decades overdue.
What real difference would messing around with boundaries make?
It would make a big difference to “Greater Newcastle” where the small-minded local councils hold the whole region back.
The Singapore strategy and the EEA strategies are very different, but at least they make sense as a set of successful future outcomes for the UK. One could not say that the current government is pressing ahead for either. Dom may want to invest lots of money in Manchester mathematicians, but it is being spent on 19th century railways and 20th century hospitals.
I don't think Singapore does work. Firstly because it would only apply to London and would leave the rest of the country behind, which is the opposite of what we want to achieve. Secondly, Singapore positions itself as a bastion of stability in a fragmented part of the world. It serves Asia but is aloof from it. That doesn't apply to a detached UK towards a highly organised Europe.
I agree with the broad thrust of your two points, in so far as they highlight the perils of the strategy. However, they don't mean the strategy would fail to work, simply that it would have impacts not listed in the Vote Leave literature, but that Dominic Cummings, for instance, will surely have thought about in his studies on modern tech firm / 20th century engineering successes.
EDIT: Either way, surely we can agree that spending lots more cash on the NHS, and bailing out under-invested railway lines, is a short-term political economy strategy, rather than a new economic growth model?
The trains could have a real effect by allowing commuting over longer distances. The ease of commuting to London from even 200 miles away is surely a factor in its prosperity. Up north, even a couple of inches on the map can be well-nigh impossible without a car.
The official boundaries of the City of Manchester and the City of Nottingham are absurd. In both cases you can walk a mile from the centre of town and be officially outside the city. Expansion is decades overdue.
According to Google maps, the railway station which is the closest by walking distance to Manchester Town Hall is Salford Central.
You can kick a football from the steps of Manchester Cathedral and get it to land in Salford.
That being said the issue is not the size of local authorities, single authorities that encompass too many people *cough*Birmingham*cough* tend to be inefficient. Remember the City of London and the City of Westminster are tiny too.
We talk about plagues of locusts as a metaphor here but Somalia is having almost all of its crops eaten right now by an actual (biblical scale) plague of locusts:
Any there is a Political reason for that: Any inflation of the boundaries of the Core CIties is likely to incorporate Tory areas and, in extreme, to the extent that Labour will lose control.
I doubt this part is true because we are mainly talking about councils like Manchester (93-3 to Labour), Nottingham (50-5), Liverpool (72-18), Birmingham (67-34) and Sheffield (49-35, none of whom are Tories). There is very little chance these would be lost by Labour to Conservatives. Birmingham might be, depending on who was in or out, e.g. Andy Street.
Indeed, in some of these areas, the major beneficiary would be the City Council which would gain additional tax revenues without significant extra expenses. So, you'd think the Cities would want to expand their boundaries to include suburbia.
It's an issue in Nottingham - the city is tightly constrained and would love to expand into suburbia (as bunnco says they wouldn't worry about the politics of it), but the district councils are understandably not keen and the city feels it'd be unporoductively undiplomatic to press. In Broxtowe (western side) it would be plausible to merge Beeston and Chilwell into very similar Wollatoin, and to split the rural/ex-mining hinterland into Amber Valley. But Beeston residents (although solidly Labour) don't much fancy the idea, feeling their fairly prosperous town would always come last when it came to engaging the attention of the council. I expect similar concerns arise elsewhere.
Liverpool have won the title and deserve many plaudits in the way they have done It. A great manager and team but I remember our first premiership title (Man Utd) and the celebrations were fabulous but all too soon it moved onto the next season and retaining it.
Liverpool's next season success depends on them holding on to key players including Van Dijk, Mane and Salah, all of whom have been subject to press speculation in the last few days
My advice is to enjoy the moment, you deserve it
Where are they going to go that's better? I mean, really, they're gonna move? When they will be Living Gods in Liverpool or fighting each week for their place on the bench in Barca or Milan?
On that National poll with Trump beating everyone but Biden, IBD has a notoriously Republican lean polling bias, their eve of election poll had Trump winning nationally by 2 points.
The final IBD 2016 poll had Hillary ahead by 1% and she won the popular vote by 2%, so was almost spot on.
Errr, you linked to a reference saying the IBD poll saying trump leads by 2.
Nope both had Clinton ahead 43% to 42% in the final IBD poll
Mate, I provided a link and a screenshot to the final IBD Poll showing the Trump lead. The Wikipedia citation you linked to said it was a Trump lead.
IBD was showing a trump lead.
RCP made an error and put something labelled as IBD on the Trump-Clinton head to head section but that was not the IBD poll. I know this because I linked to the actual poll. That had a Trump lead.
On that National poll with Trump beating everyone but Biden, IBD has a notoriously Republican lean polling bias, their eve of election poll had Trump winning nationally by 2 points.
The final IBD 2016 poll had Hillary ahead by 1% and she won the popular vote by 2%, so was almost spot on.
Errr, you linked to a reference saying the IBD poll saying trump leads by 2.
Nope both had Clinton ahead 43% to 42% in the final IBD poll
Mate, I provided a link and a screenshot to the final IBD Poll showing the Trump lead. The Wikipedia citation you linked tool said it was a Trump lead.
IBD was showing a trump lead.
RCP made an error and put something labelled as IBD on the Trump-Clinton head to head section but that was not the IBD poll. I know this because I linked to the actual poll. That had a Trump lead.
The Clinton lead was in the head to head poll:
In a two-way matchup that excludes the two third-party candidates, however, Clinton still holds a 43% to 42% lead over Trump, with 9% of those responding saying they were "unsure" for whom they would vote.
Dominic Cummings, for instance, will surely have thought about
There is one hell of an assumption in that phrase.
Lol. It's not his day job, so it's more likely that he has thought about this stuff. Also see his blog.
I meant, you are assuming he is capable of thought. Having read his rambling, incoherent and usually inaccurate blog and lived under some of the calamities he put in place thinking he knew what he was doing, I have reservations.
The Singapore strategy and the EEA strategies are very different, but at least they make sense as a set of successful future outcomes for the UK. One could not say that the current government is pressing ahead for either. Dom may want to invest lots of money in Manchester mathematicians, but it is being spent on 19th century railways and 20th century hospitals.
I don't think Singapore does work. Firstly because it would only apply to London and would leave the rest of the country behind, which is the opposite of what we want to achieve. Secondly, Singapore positions itself as a bastion of stability in a fragmented part of the world. It serves Asia but is aloof from it. That doesn't apply to a detached UK towards a highly organised Europe.
I agree with the broad thrust of your two points, in so far as they highlight the perils of the strategy. However, they don't mean the strategy would fail to work, simply that it would have impacts not listed in the Vote Leave literature, but that Dominic Cummings, for instance, will surely have thought about in his studies on modern tech firm / 20th century engineering successes.
EDIT: Either way, surely we can agree that spending lots more cash on the NHS, and bailing out under-invested railway lines, is a short-term political economy strategy, rather than a new economic growth model?
The trains could have a real effect by allowing commuting over longer distances. The ease of commuting to London from even 200 miles away is surely a factor in its prosperity. Up north, even a couple of inches on the map can be well-nigh impossible without a car.
Trains could allow more commuting, but I think long commutes are caused by prosperity rather than vice versa. Willing to be convinced.
Now that is a MASSIVELY better poll for Sanders than the earlier ones.
That would see - I would guess - him probably getting 40% of the delegates, with Warren getting 30%, and then about 15% for each of Biden and Buttigieg.
The only thing that gives me pause about that poll is that the combined Warren plus Sanders number is so high. The previous best that I've seen in any Iowa poll is 41% (with most in the high 30s), and that is eight above.
Have you seen the tweets I've posted about predicted turnout. There is, in effect, a massive youth quake predicted, to the extent most election modellers cannot believe it. If it comes to pass the Sanders (especially) and Warren are going to be in hog heaven.
Due to the lack of BPC style rules it's impossible to dig into the data on most of these polls to make my own conclusion.
Liverpool have won the title and deserve many plaudits in the way they have done It. A great manager and team but I remember our first premiership title (Man Utd) and the celebrations were fabulous but all too soon it moved onto the next season and retaining it.
Liverpool's next season success depends on them holding on to key players including Van Dijk, Mane and Salah, all of whom have been subject to press speculation in the last few days
My advice is to enjoy the moment, you deserve it
Where are they going to go that's better? I mean, really, they're gonna move? When they will be Living Gods in Liverpool or fighting each week for their place on the bench in Barca or Milan?
Philippe Coutinho was probably Liverpool's best player when he left for Barcelona, since when the club have gone from strength to strength whereas his form quickly went backwards leading Barcelona to dump him on loan to Bayern Munich.
We talk about plagues of locusts as a metaphor here but Somalia is having almost all of its crops eaten right now by an actual (biblical scale) plague of locusts:
What a surprise Bozo agreed to the level playing field provisions and is now lying about the EU .
And of course the pathological liar will have the right wing press to help him keep on lying and when the trade talks crash and burn they’ll be there ready to blame the EU .
Now that is a MASSIVELY better poll for Sanders than the earlier ones.
That would see - I would guess - him probably getting 40% of the delegates, with Warren getting 30%, and then about 15% for each of Biden and Buttigieg.
The only thing that gives me pause about that poll is that the combined Warren plus Sanders number is so high. The previous best that I've seen in any Iowa poll is 41% (with most in the high 30s), and that is eight above.
Have you seen the tweets I've posted about predicted turnout. There is, in effect, a massive youth quake predicted, to the extent most election modellers cannot believe it. If it comes to pass the Sanders (especially) and Warren are going to be in hog heaven.
Due to the lack of BPC style rules it's impossible to dig into the data on most of these polls to make my own conclusion.
Yep, they want to disappear down the same plughole the British left did over here during the last five years.
Now that is a MASSIVELY better poll for Sanders than the earlier ones.
That would see - I would guess - him probably getting 40% of the delegates, with Warren getting 30%, and then about 15% for each of Biden and Buttigieg.
The only thing that gives me pause about that poll is that the combined Warren plus Sanders number is so high. The previous best that I've seen in any Iowa poll is 41% (with most in the high 30s), and that is eight above.
Have you seen the tweets I've posted about predicted turnout. There is, in effect, a massive youth quake predicted, to the extent most election modellers cannot believe it. If it comes to pass the Sanders (especially) and Warren are going to be in hog heaven.
Due to the lack of BPC style rules it's impossible to dig into the data on most of these polls to make my own conclusion.
I have not.
So, there are a bunch of big questions:
(1) Will the youths all turnout, or will it turn out to be a bit of a damp squib.
(2) Will the youths concentrate in dense urban areas, which could well end up (given the way the Democrats count success), with Sanders topping the vote count, but losing the state delegates count.
Most importantly, how will Betfair decide who's won?
Now that is a MASSIVELY better poll for Sanders than the earlier ones.
That would see - I would guess - him probably getting 40% of the delegates, with Warren getting 30%, and then about 15% for each of Biden and Buttigieg.
The only thing that gives me pause about that poll is that the combined Warren plus Sanders number is so high. The previous best that I've seen in any Iowa poll is 41% (with most in the high 30s), and that is eight above.
Have you seen the tweets I've posted about predicted turnout. There is, in effect, a massive youth quake predicted, to the extent most election modellers cannot believe it. If it comes to pass the Sanders (especially) and Warren are going to be in hog heaven.
Due to the lack of BPC style rules it's impossible to dig into the data on most of these polls to make my own conclusion.
Yep, they want to disappear down the same plughole the British left did over here during the last five years.
I don't think either Warren or Sanders are anti-Semitic shills for Russia or Iran or Hamas.
The official boundaries of the City of Manchester and the City of Nottingham are absurd. In both cases you can walk a mile from the centre of town and be officially outside the city. Expansion is decades overdue.
What real difference would messing around with boundaries make?
It would put a bigger budget for development under one Mayor & Council who know they will be judged on the economic success of the whole urban region.
Now that is a MASSIVELY better poll for Sanders than the earlier ones.
That would see - I would guess - him probably getting 40% of the delegates, with Warren getting 30%, and then about 15% for each of Biden and Buttigieg.
The only thing that gives me pause about that poll is that the combined Warren plus Sanders number is so high. The previous best that I've seen in any Iowa poll is 41% (with most in the high 30s), and that is eight above.
Have you seen the tweets I've posted about predicted turnout. There is, in effect, a massive youth quake predicted, to the extent most election modellers cannot believe it. If it comes to pass the Sanders (especially) and Warren are going to be in hog heaven.
Due to the lack of BPC style rules it's impossible to dig into the data on most of these polls to make my own conclusion.
Yep, they want to disappear down the same plughole the British left did over here during the last five years.
I don't think either Warren or Sanders are anti-Semitic shills for Russia or Iran or Hamas.
I suggest you look again and see who their acolytes are. Linda Sarsour, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar...
The official boundaries of the City of Manchester and the City of Nottingham are absurd. In both cases you can walk a mile from the centre of town and be officially outside the city. Expansion is decades overdue.
No more absurd than the official City of London. Manchester and Salford are in truth no different to Westminster and Kensington. Greater London, Greater Manchester, etc, are well known and well used comparisons.
I wonder whether the big clue to the problem is that both your counter examples to laggard cities are capital cities in a very centralised state. Edinburgh and London.
Because of this all the posh and high profile bits of the public sector will be found there, and the big decision makers, however much the other ranks are outsourced to Scunthorpe and Gateshead.. Everyone wants a presence in the capitals and unavoidably a crowd attracts a crowd.
Another factor may be this: this sort if inequality of outcome is written into reality itself. lots of things are essential and desirable. Not all of them make the same sort of value added. Financial services (banks), most of whose smart jobs are in London are wonderfully content to borrow at 0% interest and lend at a 40% overdraft rate (while closing their regional branches.) If cabbage producers in Lincolnshire or widget makers in Smethwick traded on a parallel basis to banks they would be demolished by the competition. Banks look extraordinarily like a cartel from here. Maybe the gigantic performance of capital cities are built on a plurality of monopolies and cartels? Just asking.
I wonder whether the big clue to the problem is that both your counter examples to laggard cities are capital cities in a very centralised state. Edinburgh and London.
Because of this all the posh and high profile bits of the public sector will be found there, and the big decision makers, however much the other ranks are outsourced to Scunthorpe and Gateshead.. Everyone wants a presence in the capitals and unavoidably a crowd attracts a crowd.
Another factor may be this: this sort if inequality of outcome is written into reality itself. lots of things are essential and desirable. Not all of them make the same sort of value added. Financial services (banks), most of whose smart jobs are in London are wonderfully content to borrow at 0% interest and lend at a 40% overdraft rate (while closing their regional branches.) If cabbage producers in Lincolnshire or widget makers in Smethwick traded on a parallel basis to banks they would be demolished by the competition. Banks look extraordinarily like a cartel from here. Maybe the gigantic performance of capital cities are built on a plurality of monopolies and cartels? Just asking.
From other reports it sounds like one of those impossible cases to prevent. He was sentenced for sharing extremist material, but not for actually carrying anything out. And then today he walked into a store, grabbed a knife and stabbed people.
The worrying thing is that we aren't talking about a handful of people like this, the authorities talk about 1000s who should be supervised and 10,000s that are of concern.
What a surprise Bozo agreed to the level playing field provisions and is now lying about the EU .
And of course the pathological liar will have the right wing press to help him keep on lying and when the trade talks crash and burn they’ll be there ready to blame the EU .
Johnson didn't agree to LPF provisions beyond the transition beyond what Canada etc have agreed to.
Europe has no right to expect us to agree to more than Canada have signed up to.
10 out of 12 for Starmer today. He's been killing it all weekend. Not sure if his lead is even bigger among the membership or he's just been lucky with the CLPs for a couple of days. But if I were him I'd always rather have a 10/12 day than a 2/12 day.
I wonder whether the big clue to the problem is that both your counter examples to laggard cities are capital cities in a very centralised state. Edinburgh and London.
Because of this all the posh and high profile bits of the public sector will be found there, and the big decision makers, however much the other ranks are outsourced to Scunthorpe and Gateshead.. Everyone wants a presence in the capitals and unavoidably a crowd attracts a crowd.
Another factor may be this: this sort if inequality of outcome is written into reality itself. lots of things are essential and desirable. Not all of them make the same sort of value added. Financial services (banks), most of whose smart jobs are in London are wonderfully content to borrow at 0% interest and lend at a 40% overdraft rate (while closing their regional branches.) If cabbage producers in Lincolnshire or widget makers in Smethwick traded on a parallel basis to banks they would be demolished by the competition. Banks look extraordinarily like a cartel from here. Maybe the gigantic performance of capital cities are built on a plurality of monopolies and cartels? Just asking.
You could go into the business yourself and take on the cartel if there is lots of free money on the table.
On that National poll with Trump beating everyone but Biden, IBD has a notoriously Republican lean polling bias, their eve of election poll had Trump winning nationally by 2 points.
The final IBD 2016 poll had Hillary ahead by 1% and she won the popular vote by 2%, so was almost spot on.
Errr, you linked to a reference saying the IBD poll saying trump leads by 2.
Nope both had Clinton ahead 43% to 42% in the final IBD poll
Mate, I provided a link and a screenshot to the final IBD Poll showing the Trump lead. The Wikipedia citation you linked tool said it was a Trump lead.
IBD was showing a trump lead.
RCP made an error and put something labelled as IBD on the Trump-Clinton head to head section but that was not the IBD poll. I know this because I linked to the actual poll. That had a Trump lead.
The Clinton lead was in the head to head poll:
In a two-way matchup that excludes the two third-party candidates, however, Clinton still holds a 43% to 42% lead over Trump, with 9% of those responding saying they were "unsure" for whom they would vote.
I wonder whether the big clue to the problem is that both your counter examples to laggard cities are capital cities in a very centralised state. Edinburgh and London.
Because of this all the posh and high profile bits of the public sector will be found there, and the big decision makers, however much the other ranks are outsourced to Scunthorpe and Gateshead.. Everyone wants a presence in the capitals and unavoidably a crowd attracts a crowd.
Another factor may be this: this sort if inequality of outcome is written into reality itself. lots of things are essential and desirable. Not all of them make the same sort of value added. Financial services (banks), most of whose smart jobs are in London are wonderfully content to borrow at 0% interest and lend at a 40% overdraft rate (while closing their regional branches.) If cabbage producers in Lincolnshire or widget makers in Smethwick traded on a parallel basis to banks they would be demolished by the competition. Banks look extraordinarily like a cartel from here. Maybe the gigantic performance of capital cities are built on a plurality of monopolies and cartels? Just asking.
You could go into the business yourself and take on the cartel if there is lots of free money on the table.
Banco Algarcirco borrowing at 37% and lending at 39% along with the alternative Foreign Office undercutting their visa rates opens for business on Tuesday. Thanks for the idea.
Will be fascinating to see how the Labour Party machine manages to remove Starmer's eligibility to run for leader
In fairness to the Corbynite Left, I think they are taking likely defeat very well so far. Obviously there are loud shouty idiots on twitter, but show me a political opinion without that? Despite Starmer looking to be cruising to victory there has been no emergency NEC meeting to change the rules or over-the-line personal attacks by Corbyn/McDonnell to try and sink him.
Another post from faraway places - this time Santarem in the Amazonia region of Brasil. They have an intersting housing policy. The government builds houses, rents them out for 4 years, and then the tenants are given ownership. Thatcherism in the jungle?
Small print...Nissan will close European mainland plants in Spain and France if required and double down on production in the UK.
Isn't that exactly the opposite of what was previously claimed?
It is. The opposite of what they suggested too. This is the company which insisted on a special meeting with the May government where they were allegedly promised we'd get frictionless trade in return for them promising not to pull out of the UK.
It would be a brave move for Nissan, and great news for some towns and cities in the UK.
I wonder whether the big clue to the problem is that both your counter examples to laggard cities are capital cities in a very centralised state. Edinburgh and London.
Because of this all the posh and high profile bits of the public sector will be found there, and the big decision makers, however much the other ranks are outsourced to Scunthorpe and Gateshead.. Everyone wants a presence in the capitals and unavoidably a crowd attracts a crowd.
Another factor may be this: this sort if inequality of outcome is written into reality itself. lots of things are essential and desirable. Not all of them make the same sort of value added. Financial services (banks), most of whose smart jobs are in London are wonderfully content to borrow at 0% interest and lend at a 40% overdraft rate (while closing their regional branches.) If cabbage producers in Lincolnshire or widget makers in Smethwick traded on a parallel basis to banks they would be demolished by the competition. Banks look extraordinarily like a cartel from here. Maybe the gigantic performance of capital cities are built on a plurality of monopolies and cartels? Just asking.
You could go into the business yourself and take on the cartel if there is lots of free money on the table.
Banco Algarcirco borrowing at 37% and lending at 39% along with the alternative Foreign Office undercutting their visa rates opens for business on Tuesday. Thanks for the idea.
It's all going to be cartels and monopolies from now on.
Nissan sees an opportunity to get its market share up as it will now be the main tariff-free source of cars. Needless to say, this improvement will not have happened because it came suddenly more productive. Same for competition in UK banking.
Britain‘s problem is that it doesn’t really have a 2nd City. There is no equivalent of Marseilles, Frankfurt, Milan etc to counterbalance London in a meaningful way. The likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow are “3rd cities” really
Britain‘s problem is that it doesn’t really have a 2nd City. There is no equivalent of Marseilles, Frankfurt, Milan etc to counterbalance London in a meaningful way. The likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow are “3rd cities” really
Marseilles isn't a second city by that definition either.
I wonder whether the big clue to the problem is that both your counter examples to laggard cities are capital cities in a very centralised state. Edinburgh and London.
Because of this all the posh and high profile bits of the public sector will be found there, and the big decision makers, however much the other ranks are outsourced to Scunthorpe and Gateshead.. Everyone wants a presence in the capitals and unavoidably a crowd attracts a crowd.
Another factor may be this: this sort if inequality of outcome is written into reality itself. lots of things are essential and desirable. Not all of them make the same sort of value added. Financial services (banks), most of whose smart jobs are in London are wonderfully content to borrow at 0% interest and lend at a 40% overdraft rate (while closing their regional branches.) If cabbage producers in Lincolnshire or widget makers in Smethwick traded on a parallel basis to banks they would be demolished by the competition. Banks look extraordinarily like a cartel from here. Maybe the gigantic performance of capital cities are built on a plurality of monopolies and cartels? Just asking.
You could go into the business yourself and take on the cartel if there is lots of free money on the table.
I suggest you go and chat to, say Revolut, about the tortuous route to getting a banking license. Which included IIRC a promise that they wouldn't enter the business loan market.
Small print...Nissan will close European mainland plants in Spain and France if required and double down on production in the UK.
Isn't that exactly the opposite of what was previously claimed?
It is. The opposite of what they suggested too. This is the company which insisted on a special meeting with the May government where they were allegedly promised we'd get frictionless trade in return for them promising not to pull out of the UK.
It would be a brave move for Nissan, and great news for some towns and cities in the UK.
All the mood music about the UK-EU future trading position strategy is really clicking together now.
I'm glad that we have finally a govt capable of recognising the tremendous value of our massive internal market to both the EU and the ROW.
Sequencing of the withdrawal/trade talks not looking too favourable to the EU now - seems that the second stage talks even up the imbalance of the first.
Starmer destroys his opponents in IPSOS polling, a leader with a positive net approval!
Is that because the only people that have heard of him are Labour supporters?
In fairness, he's probably gotten more non-Labour name recognition than RLB or Nandy. Agree that we'll see if any of their popularity was to survive becoming LOTO, but it's still a good start for him.
Small print...Nissan will close European mainland plants in Spain and France if required and double down on production in the UK.
Isn't that exactly the opposite of what was previously claimed?
It is. The opposite of what they suggested too. This is the company which insisted on a special meeting with the May government where they were allegedly promised we'd get frictionless trade in return for them promising not to pull out of the UK.
It would be a brave move for Nissan, and great news for some towns and cities in the UK.
All the mood music about the UK-EU future trading position strategy is really clicking together now.
I'm glad that we have finally a govt capable of recognising the tremendous value of our massive internal market to both the EU and the ROW.
Sequencing of the withdrawal/trade talks not looking too favourable to the EU now - seems that the second stage talks even up the imbalance of the first.
Perhaps, or perhaps this is a rumour which never pans out beyond tomorrow's chip paper. Time will tell, and I don't see how we can know in advance.
Britain‘s problem is that it doesn’t really have a 2nd City. There is no equivalent of Marseilles, Frankfurt, Milan etc to counterbalance London in a meaningful way. The likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow are “3rd cities” really
Many would argue that this is directly due to post-war policy that has seen power centered in London. The UK is now one of the most centralised major economies in the world, it wasn't like that when those cities were booming in 19th Century.
I mean you say Manchester is a "3rd city" but its metro is larger than either Marseilles or Lyon. It economically underperforms both, but then for most infrastructure spending it is entirely dependant on central government to decide what is spent (usually nothing).
This does not happen in other developed countries.
Britain‘s problem is that it doesn’t really have a 2nd City. There is no equivalent of Marseilles, Frankfurt, Milan etc to counterbalance London in a meaningful way. The likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow are “3rd cities” really
Many would argue that this is directly due to post-war policy that has seen power centered in London. The UK is now one of the most centralised major economies in the world, it wasn't like that when those cities were booming in 19th Century.
I mean you say Manchester is a "3rd city" but its metro is larger than either Marseilles or Lyon. It economically underperforms both, but then for most infrastructure spending it is entirely dependant on central government to decide what is spent (usually nothing).
This does not happen in other developed countries.
Metrolink branch to the Trafford Centre due to open in April, well ahead of schedule.
Maybe we could ask the Mancunians to handle Crossrail in London!
Britain‘s problem is that it doesn’t really have a 2nd City. There is no equivalent of Marseilles, Frankfurt, Milan etc to counterbalance London in a meaningful way. The likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow are “3rd cities” really
Britain‘s problem is that it doesn’t really have a 2nd City. There is no equivalent of Marseilles, Frankfurt, Milan etc to counterbalance London in a meaningful way. The likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow are “3rd cities” really
If you're taking an interest in the Iowa Caucuses, then you might like to know that there is a Democratic Caucus in Scotland tomorrow. Colyn Burbank is holding one at his apartment in Glasgow. According to the NYT he's expecting 9 delegates, but the beeb says 23. Who new Glasgow was such a hotbed of Iowans?
Probably unconnected but we have a monument to one famous Iowan.
Biden's campaign is going down the toilet at the moment, John Kerry (who is supporting Biden) is considering joining the race as a candidate of his own to try to stop Bernie Sanders: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1224078785332633600 That's not a vote of confidence for Biden.
Small print...Nissan will close European mainland plants in Spain and France if required and double down on production in the UK.
Isn't that exactly the opposite of what was previously claimed?
It is. The opposite of what they suggested too. This is the company which insisted on a special meeting with the May government where they were allegedly promised we'd get frictionless trade in return for them promising not to pull out of the UK.
It would be a brave move for Nissan, and great news for some towns and cities in the UK.
All the mood music about the UK-EU future trading position strategy is really clicking together now.
I'm glad that we have finally a govt capable of recognising the tremendous value of our massive internal market to both the EU and the ROW.
Sequencing of the withdrawal/trade talks not looking too favourable to the EU now - seems that the second stage talks even up the imbalance of the first.
"our massive internal market" ??
It's not really 'massive' compared to the EU, USA, China, India or Japan is it?
Britain‘s problem is that it doesn’t really have a 2nd City. There is no equivalent of Marseilles, Frankfurt, Milan etc to counterbalance London in a meaningful way. The likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow are “3rd cities” really
We are an independent, free trading, seafaring nation. We've just returned to the norm.
We aren't a seafaring nation any longer. About 2.something% of tonnage is carried on British flagged ships and only a small proportion of the crew of those would be British.
Maybe Johnson is planning to restore the Red Ensign to its former glory with a massive program of merchant shipbuilding on the Clyde, Mersey and Tyne. They will be needed to bring this year's record jute harvest from Calcutta to Dundee. It's definitely the type of shit he would bore on about though less so the type of thing he would actually do.
Comments
'Nah, fuckers can still mess up,' he replied.
If you look at pretty much any country in the world, the wealthiest bits are... the cities.
Look at Germany: the Länder which are Cities (Hamburg and Bremen) are by far the wealthiest in Germany. Indeed, Hamburg's GDP per capita is about 40% higher than Singapore's. New York, San Francisco, LA, Chicago will all have GDP per capita that are well above the US's.
Countries which are basically just cities do well shocker.
That would see - I would guess - him probably getting 40% of the delegates, with Warren getting 30%, and then about 15% for each of Biden and Buttigieg.
The only thing that gives me pause about that poll is that the combined Warren plus Sanders number is so high. The previous best that I've seen in any Iowa poll is 41% (with most in the high 30s), and that is eight above.
It's harder for cities to grow when they have already developed all the land. And new investment has to be discounted as the previous use is counted against it.
By contrast, the immediately adjacent 'donut' districts alongside have lower tax bases but have a greater capacity to GROW in their greenfields and lack of workplace parking restrictions etc.
That's why the Core Cities analysis is flawed: It;s only looking at half the territory in a Functional Economic Geography.
Any there is a Political reason for that: Any inflation of the boundaries of the Core CIties is likely to incorporate Tory areas and, in extreme, to the extent that Labour will lose control.
The Queens Speech supporting papers talk about 'defragmentation' over 'Functioal Economic Geographies'. This is what's behind it.
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
EDIT: Either way, surely we can agree that spending lots more cash on the NHS, and bailing out under-invested railway lines, is a short-term political economy strategy, rather than a new economic growth model?
Liverpool's next season success depends on them holding on to key players including Van Dijk, Mane and Salah, all of whom have been subject to press speculation in the last few days
My advice is to enjoy the moment, you deserve it
https://twitter.com/caley_graphics/status/1224041835766714368?s=21
Battersea
Bexhill and Battle
Birmingham, Erdington
Brent Central
Broxtowe
Central Devon
Chatham and Aylesford
Chesham and Amersham
Dulwich and West Norwood
Ealing Central and Acton
Erith and Thamesmead
Esher and Walton
Guildford
Hastings and Rye
Horsham
Lancaster and Fleetwood
Mid Dorset and North Poole
Mid Worcestershire
Newark
North East Hampshire
Romford
Rushcliffe
Sevenoaks
South Derbyshire
Spelthorne
Stoke Central
Streatham
Tonbridge and Malling
Totnes
Wantage
West Dorset
Windsor
Wirral West
As Salford is many centuries older than Manchester I think it should have first dibs on expansion...
That being said the issue is not the size of local authorities, single authorities that encompass too many people *cough*Birmingham*cough* tend to be inefficient. Remember the City of London and the City of Westminster are tiny too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51348517
The Wikipedia citation you linked to said it was a Trump lead.
IBD was showing a trump lead.
RCP made an error and put something labelled as IBD on the Trump-Clinton head to head section but that was not the IBD poll. I know this because I linked to the actual poll. That had a Trump lead.
In a two-way matchup that excludes the two third-party candidates, however, Clinton still holds a 43% to 42% lead over Trump, with 9% of those responding saying they were "unsure" for whom they would vote.
Due to the lack of BPC style rules it's impossible to dig into the data on most of these polls to make my own conclusion.
And of course the pathological liar will have the right wing press to help him keep on lying and when the trade talks crash and burn they’ll be there ready to blame the EU .
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1224068679446548481
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1224069009534062593
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1224069958293913602
So, there are a bunch of big questions:
(1) Will the youths all turnout, or will it turn out to be a bit of a damp squib.
(2) Will the youths concentrate in dense urban areas, which could well end up (given the way the Democrats count success), with Sanders topping the vote count, but losing the state delegates count.
Most importantly, how will Betfair decide who's won?
Because of this all the posh and high profile bits of the public sector will be found there, and the big decision makers, however much the other ranks are outsourced to Scunthorpe and Gateshead.. Everyone wants a presence in the capitals and unavoidably a crowd attracts a crowd.
Another factor may be this: this sort if inequality of outcome is written into reality itself. lots of things are essential and desirable. Not all of them make the same sort of value added. Financial services (banks), most of whose smart jobs are in London are wonderfully content to borrow at 0% interest and lend at a 40% overdraft rate (while closing their regional branches.) If cabbage producers in Lincolnshire or widget makers in Smethwick traded on a parallel basis to banks they would be demolished by the competition. Banks look extraordinarily like a cartel from here. Maybe the gigantic performance of capital cities are built on a plurality of monopolies and cartels? Just asking.
Keir Starmer: 138
Rebecca Long-Bailey: 58
Lisa Nandy: 26
Emily Thornberry: 9
The worrying thing is that we aren't talking about a handful of people like this, the authorities talk about 1000s who should be supervised and 10,000s that are of concern.
Europe has no right to expect us to agree to more than Canada have signed up to.
Clinton 48%
Trump 46%
:Innocent:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/isis-behead-parents-girlfriend-teenage-supporter-london-terror-attack-sudesh-amman-a8687921.html
Just recently released after serving time for.......
Terror related offences
It would be a brave move for Nissan, and great news for some towns and cities in the UK.
Nissan sees an opportunity to get its market share up as it will now be the main tariff-free source of cars. Needless to say, this improvement will not have happened because it came suddenly more productive. Same for competition in UK banking.
I'm glad that we have finally a govt capable of recognising the tremendous value of our massive internal market to both the EU and the ROW.
Sequencing of the withdrawal/trade talks not looking too favourable to the EU now - seems that the second stage talks even up the imbalance of the first.
I mean you say Manchester is a "3rd city" but its metro is larger than either Marseilles or Lyon. It economically underperforms both, but then for most infrastructure spending it is entirely dependant on central government to decide what is spent (usually nothing).
This does not happen in other developed countries.
Maybe we could ask the Mancunians to handle Crossrail in London!
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1224078785332633600
That's not a vote of confidence for Biden.
It's not really 'massive' compared to the EU, USA, China, India or Japan is it?
In what way is it massive?
Maybe Johnson is planning to restore the Red Ensign to its former glory with a massive program of merchant shipbuilding on the Clyde, Mersey and Tyne. They will be needed to bring this year's record jute harvest from Calcutta to Dundee. It's definitely the type of shit he would bore on about though less so the type of thing he would actually do.