Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
The other view is that he’s being deeply offensive (the Nazis comparison) about something he has no direct experience or informed knowledge of.
The Newsnight interview I watched was not edifying in the slightest, and he went down considerably in my estimation.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
Maybe, maybe not. We all say "SARS" and not "bird-flu", which demonstrates that they do have the ability to change popular usage of language. If media outlets switch terms, then everyone else will follow within a few weeks.
EU will completely tank within access to London's financial markets
Why? What service is offered in London that is completely impossible to get outside the UK?
(I'm not saying that the London doesn't do things better. But it's not like there aren't alternative financial centres around the world. And ultimately finance is just people. You don't need factories.)
I think the EU will find that London's losses won't be their gains. London will lose business primarily to New York and Singapore. I've found that investors are very sceptical of the ability of EU nations to protect their money in extreme circumstances, having already been burned by "for the greater good" rulings by the ECJ. So if London loses its capital markets I find it very hard to believe they will go to Paris or Frankfurt.
London is successful because of a huge number of small things it does right. Some of that will change outside of he EU, how it changes remains to be seen. Companies from all over the world raise money in London in loads of different currencies, I find it highly unlikely that EU based companies will suddenly stop wanting to raise money in London and there really isn't a lot the EU can do to stop them. The EU doesn't have the ability to restrict the sale of Euro denominates bonds outside of the EU.
I don't think London will have losses. The brutal reality is money talks and it doesn't matter what the EU wants - people who are dealing with millions, billions or trillions of currency in finance aren't going to care what trade organisations or geopolitical leaders want - they will do what works and London (like Singapore and New York) works.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
I think most people assumed TMay was going to get a landslide. That benefitted Corbyn because no-one thought he stood a chance. Second time around people realised how close they came and rejected him in spite of the rather unpalatable leader of the Conservative Party. The Tories won handsomely in spite of Johnson, not because of him.
Good point (first sentence). Electorate reacted against the over-confidence.
Voters certainly prefer slogans and messages that are about what you want to do (get Brexit done) rather than just about how great you think you are (strong and stable).
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
I also think there was a general belief that the Tories were going to win easily, so you could vote Labour because you didn't want the Tories without necessarily worrying about Corbyn as PM. In 2019 the fear of Corbyn was greater because people saw him as a realistic threat.
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
Shame you dislike Gervais. He`s put together a stunning portfolio: The Office, Extras and After Life are all suberb. The only rival in terms of quality of portfolio in my opinion is Iannucci.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
Get your money on Nandy while there is still time?
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
The other view is that he’s being deeply offensive (the Nazis comparison) about something he has no direct experience or informed knowledge of.
The Newsnight interview I watched was not edifying in the slightest, and he went down considerably in my estimation.
I don't like him because I think he is very smug and also (IMO) not funny. I am inclined to believe his "humour" is based on the Emperors New Clothes principle
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
By the look of things he's going to be leader of a Labour party, which is exactly what he wanted. The polling suggests he's managed to get into that position while still being relatively popular with voters overall - not exactly easy when he had to make sure he stayed popular with the left wing Labour membership.
It remains to be seen whether he's got the X factor with the public, but in terms of "politics" I think he's shown that he knows what he's doing.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
I think most people assumed TMay was going to get a landslide. That benefitted Corbyn because no-one thought he stood a chance. Second time around people realised how close they came and rejected him in spite of the rather unpalatable leader of the Conservative Party. The Tories won handsomely in spite of Johnson, not because of him.
Good point (first sentence). Electorate reacted against the over-confidence.
Voters certainly prefer slogans and messages that are about what you want to do (get Brexit done) rather than just about how great you think you are (strong and stable).
Indeed its worth remembering the successful 2015 slogan was Long Term Economic Plan.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
Get your money on Nandy while there is still time?
Possibly. If hard left are successful in getting Starmer off the ballet (I doubt it) then there would surely be a reaction against RLB in favour of Nandy. 21 with BF.
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
The other view is that he’s being deeply offensive (the Nazis comparison) about something he has no direct experience or informed knowledge of.
The Newsnight interview I watched was not edifying in the slightest, and he went down considerably in my estimation.
I don't like him because I think he is very smug and also (IMO) not funny. I am inclined to believe his "humour" is based on the Emperors New Clothes principle
Sorry pedants, forgot the apostrophe in "Emperor's" (whilst realising Emperor was harder to spell correctly than I thought!)
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
She's a genuine national figure and a heavyweight, the leading progressive other than Bernie, and she is still swinging. That does not spell 30/1 to me. And 100/1 for POTUS is nuts IMO.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
Get your money on Nandy while there is still time?
Possibly. If hard left are successful in getting Starmer off the ballet (I doubt it) then there would surely be a reaction against RLB in favour of Nandy. 21 with BF.
If the nutters get Starmer off, then Labour is finished.
I think the EU will find that London's losses won't be their gains. London will lose business primarily to New York and Singapore. I've found that investors are very sceptical of the ability of EU nations to protect their money in extreme circumstances, having already been burned by "for the greater good" rulings by the ECJ. So if London loses its capital markets I find it very hard to believe they will go to Paris or Frankfurt.
London is successful because of a huge number of small things it does right. Some of that will change outside of he EU, how it changes remains to be seen. Companies from all over the world raise money in London in loads of different currencies, I find it highly unlikely that EU based companies will suddenly stop wanting to raise money in London and there really isn't a lot the EU can do to stop them. The EU doesn't have the ability to restrict the sale of Euro denominates bonds outside of the EU.
I think it depends. Because finance is not really a homogenous block.
And a lot depends on how willing the government is to make it easy for highly skilled people to get work permits.
Take financial PR. Pretty much all financial PR happens in London. There are three or four big firms like Brunswick and Finsbury. But because their clients and their targets are largely pan-European, they'll be staffed with a mixture of Brits, French, German and the like. If it's easy to visas for skilled staff to come over, then why change? And it's not like financial PR is regulated or subject to tariffs. Unless we shoot ourselves in the foot (which we might do, of course) then it will stay in London.
The same is true for legal services around corporate transactions. There's nowhere else with the concentration of people with the experience of French, German, Italian, etc. corporate law. Unless we do something really stupid, that will stay in the UK.
Other things are a bit harder. Market making, for instance. If the entity that is bearing the risk is implicitly ECB backed, they will require oversight. That may mean that it moves over time.
I think a lot of corporate advisory work will end up being a bit more local. So, Goldman will, instead of having all their corporate finance people in London, will have a couple of people in Stockholm, a couple in Paris, etc.
But this isn't really a Brexit thing. I think this is a long-term trend. Brexit will simply speed up the existing process.
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
She's a genuine national figure and a heavyweight, the leading progressive other than Bernie, and she is still swinging. That does not spell 30/1 to me. And 100/1 for POTUS is nuts IMO.
I agree. Plus if Sanders keels over ....
Warren is only 8 years younger than Sanders but she looks a lot younger than that.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
She's a genuine national figure and a heavyweight, the leading progressive other than Bernie, and she is still swinging. That does not spell 30/1 to me. And 100/1 for POTUS is nuts IMO.
Leading progressive other than Bernie is like saying leading Republican other than Trump.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
She's a genuine national figure and a heavyweight, the leading progressive other than Bernie, and she is still swinging. That does not spell 30/1 to me. And 100/1 for POTUS is nuts IMO.
Leading progressive other than Bernie is like saying leading Republican other than Trump.
Most progressives I know, including myself, whether they lean towards Warren or Sanders would be perfectly happy with the other as POTUS.
Meh. The Guardian has long wittering essays, sometimes good, sometimes rubbish
Look at the equivalent Daily Mail pages on science. They are, to me, a lot more interesting and snappy. It is certainly difficult to argue they are "inferior" to what the Guardian does. The Daily Mail just says things in shorter sentences
EU will completely tank within access to London's financial markets
Why? What service is offered in London that is completely impossible to get outside the UK?
(I'm not saying that the London doesn't do things better. But it's not like there aren't alternative financial centres around the world. And ultimately finance is just people. You don't need factories.)
I think the EU will find that London's losses won't be their gains. London will lose business primarily to New York and Singapore. I've found that investors are very sceptical of the ability of EU nations to protect their money in extreme circumstances, having already been burned by "for the greater good" rulings by the ECJ. So if London loses its capital markets I find it very hard to believe they will go to Paris or Frankfurt.
London is successful because of a huge number of small things it does right. Some of that will change outside of he EU, how it changes remains to be seen. Companies from all over the world raise money in London in loads of different currencies, I find it highly unlikely that EU based companies will suddenly stop wanting to raise money in London and there really isn't a lot the EU can do to stop them. The EU doesn't have the ability to restrict the sale of Euro denominates bonds outside of the EU.
I don't think London will have losses. The brutal reality is money talks and it doesn't matter what the EU wants - people who are dealing with millions, billions or trillions of currency in finance aren't going to care what trade organisations or geopolitical leaders want - they will do what works and London (like Singapore and New York) works.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
When (say) Goldman Sachs engages in market making of German Government Bonds, its contracts are implicitly backed by the ECB. If Goldman goes bust and fails to deliver €20bn in Bunds, the ECB will step up and make sure that the buyer is compensated. The same is true with the BoE and Gilts. Essentially, to ensure a working market in government bonds, the market makers are implicitly backed by the central banks.
The quid pro quo of this is that the ECB/BoE are given unprecedented access to the accounts of market makers, and have statutory powers over them.
So, I think it's inevitable, absent a deal, that some of that stuff leaves the UK.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
Meh. The Guardian has long wittering essays, sometimes good, sometimes rubbish
Look at the equivalent Daily Mail pages on science. They are, to me, a lot more interesting and snappy. It is certainly difficult to argue they are "inferior" to what the Guardian does. The Daily Mail just says things in shorter sentences
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
It may not be his choice. He ended the last quarter with less than $9m in the bank. In Q4, he spend about $27m. So, his burn rate is $10m/month.
And he's not bringing in $10m/month right now. Indeed, I'd be staggered if he's getting more than $1m/week. (Remember there's a pretty low cap for donations, so you can't be bankrolled by one wealthy billionaire. Unless, of course, you're the billionaire.)
If he fails tonight, and fails in Nevada, then he's going to be firing staff left, right and centre.
I think the EU will find that London's losses won't be their gains. London will lose business primarily to New York and Singapore. I've found that investors are very sceptical of the ability of EU nations to protect their money in extreme circumstances, having already been burned by "for the greater good" rulings by the ECJ. So if London loses its capital markets I find it very hard to believe they will go to Paris or Frankfurt.
London is successful because of a huge number of small things it does right. Some of that will change outside of he EU, how it changes remains to be seen. Companies from all over the world raise money in London in loads of different currencies, I find it highly unlikely that EU based companies will suddenly stop wanting to raise money in London and there really isn't a lot the EU can do to stop them. The EU doesn't have the ability to restrict the sale of Euro denominates bonds outside of the EU.
I think it depends. Because finance is not really a homogenous block.
And a lot depends on how willing the government is to make it easy for highly skilled people to get work permits.
Take financial PR. Pretty much all financial PR happens in London. There are three or four big firms like Brunswick and Finsbury. But because their clients and their targets are largely pan-European, they'll be staffed with a mixture of Brits, French, German and the like. If it's easy to visas for skilled staff to come over, then why change? And it's not like financial PR is regulated or subject to tariffs. Unless we shoot ourselves in the foot (which we might do, of course) then it will stay in London.
The same is true for legal services around corporate transactions. There's nowhere else with the concentration of people with the experience of French, German, Italian, etc. corporate law. Unless we do something really stupid, that will stay in the UK.
Other things are a bit harder. Market making, for instance. If the entity that is bearing the risk is implicitly ECB backed, they will require oversight. That may mean that it moves over time.
I think a lot of corporate advisory work will end up being a bit more local. So, Goldman will, instead of having all their corporate finance people in London, will have a couple of people in Stockholm, a couple in Paris, etc.
But this isn't really a Brexit thing. I think this is a long-term trend. Brexit will simply speed up the existing process.
Nothing in that I disagree with. I find it very unlikely that the government will restrict visa availability for financial services, especially speciality language based ones.
As I said, I'm not so sure that everything is massively negative for the city if there isn't a formal deal on financial services. It's certainly not worth signing up for a dynamic level playing field to get one anyway.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
Get your money on Nandy while there is still time?
Nandy wins if Starmer is excluded, so they’ll try to get her removed, too. This is how the hard left works.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
It may not be his choice. He ended the last quarter with less than $9m in the bank. In Q4, he spend about $27m. So, his burn rate is $10m/month.
And he's not bringing in $10m/month right now. Indeed, I'd be staggered if he's getting more than $1m/week. (Remember there's a pretty low cap for donations, so you can't be bankrolled by one wealthy billionaire. Unless, of course, you're the billionaire.)
If he fails tonight, and fails in Nevada, then he's going to be firing staff left, right and centre.
Agreed. And should he fail badly enough tonight, it could happen even faster,
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
That’s exactly right.
It’s way to late for a new name to became adopted by the public.
Coronavirus is what it is and it’s entered common parlance now.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
She's a genuine national figure and a heavyweight, the leading progressive other than Bernie, and she is still swinging. That does not spell 30/1 to me. And 100/1 for POTUS is nuts IMO.
Leading progressive other than Bernie is like saying leading Republican other than Trump.
Most progressives I know, including myself, whether they lean towards Warren or Sanders would be perfectly happy with the other as POTUS.
Which is why Warren's campaign is doomed. Sanders has the lead and barring keeling over his supporters aren't going to switch to Warren.
The same can not be said of their rivals whose support is much more fluid.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
And since.
Yes arguably. But I still don't see how Biden's apparently clear corruption so that his son benefits passes any sort of scrutiny. Biden is I think out anyway.
Leading progressive other than Bernie is like saying leading Republican other than Trump.
It quite literally isn't. Trump is 1.04 to be the Rep Nom. Bernie is 2.5 to be the Dem. I read on a previous thread that you are not a bettor - and good on you - and it is perhaps showing here.
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
She's a genuine national figure and a heavyweight, the leading progressive other than Bernie, and she is still swinging. That does not spell 30/1 to me. And 100/1 for POTUS is nuts IMO.
Leading progressive other than Bernie is like saying leading Republican other than Trump.
Most progressives I know, including myself, whether they lean towards Warren or Sanders would be perfectly happy with the other as POTUS.
Which is why Warren's campaign is doomed. Sanders has the lead and barring keeling over his supporters aren't going to switch to Warren.
The same can not be said of their rivals whose support is much more fluid.
Given that Sanders is in his late-70s, had a heart attack a few months ago, and is engaging in the incredibly strenuous event that is a Primary campaign, he might get bowled over by a health issue.
In which case, Warren is the likely beneficiary. There has to be way more than a 1% risk of another heart attack between now and the convention.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
Plus the Tory Manifesto was a disaster.
Plus Brexit as an issue was 'dealt with' as labour committed to carry out the referendum.
There is a strangely forgotten part of the 2017 election. Terrorism.
The Manchester Arena bombing and the London Bridge attacks occurred during the election campaign itself. Law and order is a Conservative issue, right? Unless the Tories, and Theresa May personally, had axed 20,000 coppers.
Ask Boris, he knows!
Another 2017/2019 paradox is Corbyn's consistency in not caring either way and certainly not talking about Brexit played differently in the two elections. In 2017 it was a strength; not in 2019.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
It may not be his choice. He ended the last quarter with less than $9m in the bank. In Q4, he spend about $27m. So, his burn rate is $10m/month.
And he's not bringing in $10m/month right now. Indeed, I'd be staggered if he's getting more than $1m/week. (Remember there's a pretty low cap for donations, so you can't be bankrolled by one wealthy billionaire. Unless, of course, you're the billionaire.)
If he fails tonight, and fails in Nevada, then he's going to be firing staff left, right and centre.
Biden will probably get a relative bump in Nevada. It's a caucus and he has the support of some unions. If nothing else, he'll avoid the blowout he'll see tonight.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
And since.
Yes arguably. But I still don't see how Biden's apparently clear corruption so that his son benefits passes any sort of scrutiny. Biden is I think out anyway.
I don’t think it anywhere near that ‘clear’. Deeply questionable, sure (though hardly unusual in the US), and it’s likely it has severely damaged Biden’s nomination prospects, but there is absolutely no evidence so far of anything criminal.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
It may not be his choice. He ended the last quarter with less than $9m in the bank. In Q4, he spend about $27m. So, his burn rate is $10m/month.
And he's not bringing in $10m/month right now. Indeed, I'd be staggered if he's getting more than $1m/week. (Remember there's a pretty low cap for donations, so you can't be bankrolled by one wealthy billionaire. Unless, of course, you're the billionaire.)
If he fails tonight, and fails in Nevada, then he's going to be firing staff left, right and centre.
Biden will probably get a relative bump in Nevada. It's a caucus and he has the support of some unions. If nothing else, he'll avoid the blowout he'll see tonight.
Warren has been assiduous in courting the union vote in Nevada, and I think she should probably be favourite.
But it seems Harry Reid, the influential former Senator who runs a terrific "machine" is throwing his lot behind Pete Buttigieg.
The CWU has not endorsed anyone yet. I can't see them throwing their lot behind Biden.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
It may not be his choice. He ended the last quarter with less than $9m in the bank. In Q4, he spend about $27m. So, his burn rate is $10m/month.
And he's not bringing in $10m/month right now. Indeed, I'd be staggered if he's getting more than $1m/week. (Remember there's a pretty low cap for donations, so you can't be bankrolled by one wealthy billionaire. Unless, of course, you're the billionaire.)
If he fails tonight, and fails in Nevada, then he's going to be firing staff left, right and centre.
Biden will probably get a relative bump in Nevada. It's a caucus and he has the support of some unions. If nothing else, he'll avoid the blowout he'll see tonight.
Its about expectations though, he was predicted to do well there - if he scrapes through moderately OK that's not going to be good for him. He needs to do well.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
And since.
Yes arguably. But I still don't see how Biden's apparently clear corruption so that his son benefits passes any sort of scrutiny. Biden is I think out anyway.
I don’t think it anywhere near that ‘clear’. Deeply questionable, sure (though hardly unusual in the US), and it’s likely it has severely damaged Biden’s nomination prospects, but there is absolutely no evidence so far of anything criminal.
Your son for no reason at all follows you on a trip to Ukraine and magically gets to be a big wheel in Ukrainian oil, and then a similar thing in China. Seems likely there's something amiss to me.
Leading progressive other than Bernie is like saying leading Republican other than Trump.
It quite literally isn't. Trump is 1.04 to be the Rep Nom. Bernie is 2.5 to be the Dem. I read on a previous thread that you are not a bettor - and good on you - and it is perhaps showing here.
It was an analogy.
Bernie is 2.5 to be the Dem nominee but that is because of other moderate nominees not because of other progressives.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
Get your money on Nandy while there is still time?
Possibly. If hard left are successful in getting Starmer off the ballet (I doubt it) then there would surely be a reaction against RLB in favour of Nandy. 21 with BF.
If the nutters get Starmer off, then Labour is finished.
Labour about to be finished is the most oft repeated prediction of my political lifetime.
I agree, our country’s politics would be better off if ever it comes true.
But you only have to look at the posting history of moderates like our Southam to see the obstacles that have to be overcome before we ever get to a centre-left alternative to Labour credible enough to take on the Tories.
Those within Labour that torpedoed Blair’s intentions to see the Jenkins Commission through to implementation really do have a lot to answer for. If you believe in quantum physics there is a whole stack of universes out there having a better time of it than we are now.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
There's been plenty more nepotism from Trump since he took office.
But the nonsense that the Whitehouse concocted against Biden means that he's more or less immune to that line of attack from with the party. Anyone who tries it sounds like a Trump apologist.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
There's been plenty more nepotism from Trump since he took office.
But the nonsense that the Whitehouse concocted against Biden means that he's more or less immune to that line of attack from with the party. Anyone who tries it sounds like a Trump apologist.
It’s definitely the sort of thing Sanders would bring up, if there was a final debate between himself and Biden. What exactly does Biden Jr do for his $600k salary from the Ukranian oil company?
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
I don't think there's any sign of that, bar some anonymous MP saying the Information Commissioner notification was a cunning plot. If the ICO found that Starmer's staff had infringed a rule by looking at a database that should have been sealed, he would need to reprimand them, but there is nothing in the rulebook that says that if someone's staff breaks a rule then they can't stand as leader.
I think Starmer's camp in his absence (family illness) have overreacted - the party is required by law to report any allegation of infringement, so they have, shrug.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
There's been plenty more nepotism from Trump since he took office.
But the nonsense that the Whitehouse concocted against Biden means that he's more or less immune to that line of attack from with the party. Anyone who tries it sounds like a Trump apologist.
It’s definitely the sort of thing Sanders would bring up, if there was a final debate between himself and Biden.
Yeah, maybe Sanders could get away with it. But even for him it would be a big risk.
EU will completely tank within access to London's financial markets
Why? What service is offered in London that is completely impossible to get outside the UK?
(I'm not saying that the London doesn't do things better. But it's not like there aren't alternative financial centres around the world. And ultimately finance is just people. You don't need factories.)
I think the EU will find that London's losses won't be their gains. London will lose business primarily to New York and Singapore. I've found that investors are very sceptical of the ability of EU nations to protect their money in extreme circumstances, having already been burned by "for the greater good" rulings by the ECJ. So if London loses its capital markets I find it very hard to believe they will go to Paris or Frankfurt.
London is successful because of a huge number of small things it does right. Some of that will change outside of he EU, how it changes remains to be seen. Companies from all over the world raise money in London in loads of different currencies, I find it highly unlikely that EU based companies will suddenly stop wanting to raise money in London and there really isn't a lot the EU can do to stop them. The EU doesn't have the ability to restrict the sale of Euro denominates bonds outside of the EU.
I don't think London will have losses. The brutal reality is money talks and it doesn't matter what the EU wants - people who are dealing with millions, billions or trillions of currency in finance aren't going to care what trade organisations or geopolitical leaders want - they will do what works and London (like Singapore and New York) works.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
When (say) Goldman Sachs engages in market making of German Government Bonds, its contracts are implicitly backed by the ECB. If Goldman goes bust and fails to deliver €20bn in Bunds, the ECB will step up and make sure that the buyer is compensated. The same is true with the BoE and Gilts. Essentially, to ensure a working market in government bonds, the market makers are implicitly backed by the central banks.
The quid pro quo of this is that the ECB/BoE are given unprecedented access to the accounts of market makers, and have statutory powers over them.
So, I think it's inevitable, absent a deal, that some of that stuff leaves the UK.
Or the BoE steps up to the plate for transactions in London for established market makers. In which event who cares what the ECB wants?
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
That’s exactly right.
It’s way to late for a new name to became adopted by the public.
Coronavirus is what it is and it’s entered common parlance now.
Except that coronavirus is a group of viruses, new forms of which are continually evolving, and that the convention is that each novel Coronavirus is called novel coronavirus until it is named.
COVID-19 (or more likely just COVID) will become the name generally used once this epidemic has passed, just as MERS and SARS are now known by those names not by the holding names they first were called.
I'd be surprised if you are not calling it COVID by the end of the outbreak.
Bernie is 2.5 to be the Dem nominee but that is because of other moderate nominees not because of other progressives.
I will put it another way.
If you are the leading Republican bar Trump you have next to zero chance of getting the nomination because he is a lock.
But if you are the leading progressive bar Bernie you have a chance of getting the nomination that is much higher than next to zero - because Bernie is anything but a lock and if he does not make it for whatever reason and the party still wants a progressive you are in prime position.
That's all I'm saying. 100/1 for POTUS too high IMO.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
There's been plenty more nepotism from Trump since he took office.
But the nonsense that the Whitehouse concocted against Biden means that he's more or less immune to that line of attack from with the party. Anyone who tries it sounds like a Trump apologist.
It’s definitely the sort of thing Sanders would bring up, if there was a final debate between himself and Biden.
Yeah, maybe Sanders could get away with it. But even for him it would be a big risk.
The risk is that the Dems pick someone who can only get half of their own party to support them in the election against OrangeManBad.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
I don't think there's any sign of that, bar some anonymous MP saying the Information Commissioner notification was a cunning plot. If the ICO found that Starmer's staff had infringed a rule by looking at a database that should have been sealed, he would need to reprimand them, but there is nothing in the rulebook that says that if someone's staff breaks a rule then they can't stand as leader.
I think Starmer's camp in his absence (family illness) have overreacted - the party is required by law to report any allegation of infringement, so they have, shrug.
I'm glad to hear it. It's a story that's made me feel uneasy about them.
I have to keep reminding myself that most of the people on this site proclaiming an understanding of how the Labour left work have been to one fewer Labour party meeting than I have!
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
Get your money on Nandy while there is still time?
Possibly. If hard left are successful in getting Starmer off the ballet (I doubt it) then there would surely be a reaction against RLB in favour of Nandy. 21 with BF.
If the nutters get Starmer off, then Labour is finished.
Labour about to be finished is the most oft repeated prediction of my political lifetime.
I agree, our country’s politics would be better off if ever it comes true.
But you only have to look at the posting history of moderates like our Southam to see the obstacles that have to be overcome before we ever get to a centre-left alternative to Labour credible enough to take on the Tories.
Those within Labour that torpedoed Blair’s intentions to see the Jenkins Commission through to implementation really do have a lot to answer for. If you believe in quantum physics there is a whole stack of universes out there having a better time of it that we are now.
Labour, that isn't 19th Century Labour, would be better.
Corbyn, McDonnell, and much of the left are simply Marxist revolutionaries. They want to bring down capitalism. They want to ruin the rich, and any cost to the poor is immaterial.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
That’s exactly right.
It’s way to late for a new name to became adopted by the public.
Coronavirus is what it is and it’s entered common parlance now.
Except that coronavirus is a group of viruses, new forms of which are continually evolving, and that the convention is that each novel Coronavirus is called novel coronavirus until it is named.
COVID-19 (or more likely just COVID) will become the name generally used once this epidemic has passed, just as MERS and SARS are now known by those names not by the holding names they first were called.
I'd be surprised if you are not calling it COVID by the end of the outbreak.
Well, I certainly won’t be now you’ve challenged me like that ;-)
Or the BoE steps up to the plate for transactions in London for established market makers. In which event who cares what the ECB wants?
Hmm, would the Bank stand behind Euro denominated government bonds though?
The issuer of the bond is precisely the guarantor. The BoE or anyone else would be foolish to act otherwise.
If the UK issues Euro denominated debt then clearly the BoE will stand behind it. (Probably not technically true, but much the same effect)
But for a foreign government?
Any bond is a contract where the issuer promises to pay. The promises of the UK Government are well regarded, the promises of the Turkish government less so.
The degree to which the promises inherent in the bond are therefore up to the buyer and the issuer.
Perhaps though you're referring to an orderly market - that, to some extent, is BoE territory.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Even up til now, no-one in a scientific paper refers to it as simply coronavirus - they used until this official naming the proper naming convention of '2019 novel coronavirus (2019n-CoV)'.
Check out the list of journal papers on Lancet's resource centre. All use the proper naming convention.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
Get your money on Nandy while there is still time?
Nandy wins if Starmer is excluded, so they’ll try to get her removed, too. This is how the hard left works.
They will succeed in removing neither.
It’s a storm in a teacup being ramped up in a vain attempt to inject some excitement into the race.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Even up til now, no-one in a scientific paper refers to it as simply coronavirus - they used until this official naming the proper naming convention of '2019 novel coronavirus (2019n-CoV)'.
Check out the list of journal papers on Lancet's resource centre. All use the proper naming convention.
I'm glad to hear it. It's a story that's made me feel uneasy about them.
I have to keep reminding myself that most of the people on this site proclaiming an understanding of how the Labour left work have been to one fewer Labour party meeting than I have!
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
The latest campaign video from Momentum shows Rebecca Long-Bailey setting out the need to have a “positive vision of Britain can be post-Brexit”. It stars an audience member explaining how the Labour vote was split in both directions by Brexit. Neither Long-Bailey nor Momentum spotted that the member asking the question appears to be Maria Carroll – a former candidate who ran a secret Facebook group advising Holocaust-denying members how to beat charges of antisemitism.
If Starmer is successful by a decent margin he needs to find a hard case who can root out Momentum. Lord Watson of Witchfinder sounds like a possible contender!
The problem approaching is *external* enquires into anti-semitism in the Labour party. Problematic because the err.. usual suspects will simply declaim that the said enquiries are EvulTory run. It will take a good deal of effort to kick the shitheads out.
I'm glad to hear it. It's a story that's made me feel uneasy about them.
I have to keep reminding myself that most of the people on this site proclaiming an understanding of how the Labour left work have been to one fewer Labour party meeting than I have!
Thanks, yeah, that's my main source of reliable information on the contest. I imagined that labourlist wouldn't exaggerate, and it does sound there as if the two sides are furious with one another, or at least Starmer's side is.
This could be nonsense, but my early impressions are that a lot of the conflicts within Labour are due to poor organisation being mistaken for malign intent?
But they also show him only grabbing a small portion of the Biden drop. It's worth remembering that he's only getting a mid-20s number nationwide. And to win this race you need 50%+1 of the delegates.
I'm glad to hear it. It's a story that's made me feel uneasy about them.
I have to keep reminding myself that most of the people on this site proclaiming an understanding of how the Labour left work have been to one fewer Labour party meeting than I have!
Thanks, yeah, that's my main source of reliable information on the contest. I imagined that labourlist wouldn't exaggerate, and it does sound there as if the two sides are furious with one another, or at least Starmer's side is.
This could be nonsense, but my early impressions are that a lot of the conflicts within Labour are due to poor organisation being mistaken for malign intent?
Or the BoE steps up to the plate for transactions in London for established market makers. In which event who cares what the ECB wants?
Hmm, would the Bank stand behind Euro denominated government bonds though?
The issuer of the bond is precisely the guarantor. The BoE or anyone else would be foolish to act otherwise.
If the UK issues Euro denominated debt then clearly the BoE will stand behind it. (Probably not technically true, but much the same effect)
This is not about the German or Greek government defaulting. It's about a market maker in government bonds failing to deliver.
In the bankruptcies of Lehman, Drexel Burnham Lambert and others, the central banks stepped in to avoid failed delivery of government securities.
The issue is about a tiny part of investment banks' portfolio of businesses - market making in government bonds, and whether the ECB would step up to guarantee delivery from a business over which it did not have regulatory oversight. I suspect that it will be easier for investment banks to move market making in Bunds, OTPs, etc. to Frankfurt or Amsterdam.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
If they're expected to do a decent job of it, it would increase their workload by orders magnitude (which it won't, so they're not).
It's also a case of either -
1) no one is responsible, private companies enforce whatever rules they think fit, 2) or someone has an actually delegated responsibility to be the ultimate arbiter/judge on this.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
I don't really understand why Biden isn't long gone. It's pretty clear he's corrupt in that he's directed money/jobs/whatever to his son. Can anyone explain why that's not something that rules him out completely?
It hasn't ruled Trump out.
Trump's wrongdoings along those lines are before he took office.
And since.
Yes arguably. But I still don't see how Biden's apparently clear corruption so that his son benefits passes any sort of scrutiny. Biden is I think out anyway.
I don’t think it anywhere near that ‘clear’. Deeply questionable, sure (though hardly unusual in the US), and it’s likely it has severely damaged Biden’s nomination prospects, but there is absolutely no evidence so far of anything criminal.
Your son for no reason at all follows you on a trip to Ukraine and magically gets to be a big wheel in Ukrainian oil, and then a similar thing in China. Seems likely there's something amiss to me.
It's standard operating procedure in US politics. And in UK politics to be fair - Tony Blair's family empire is quite interesting.
Comments
The Newsnight interview I watched was not edifying in the slightest, and he went down considerably in my estimation.
AP called last time's result at 8pm.
It remains to be seen whether he's got the X factor with the public, but in terms of "politics" I think he's shown that he knows what he's doing.
Heading there now means he's not going to pull out tonight I reckon?
And a lot depends on how willing the government is to make it easy for highly skilled people to get work permits.
Take financial PR. Pretty much all financial PR happens in London. There are three or four big firms like Brunswick and Finsbury. But because their clients and their targets are largely pan-European, they'll be staffed with a mixture of Brits, French, German and the like. If it's easy to visas for skilled staff to come over, then why change? And it's not like financial PR is regulated or subject to tariffs. Unless we shoot ourselves in the foot (which we might do, of course) then it will stay in London.
The same is true for legal services around corporate transactions. There's nowhere else with the concentration of people with the experience of French, German, Italian, etc. corporate law. Unless we do something really stupid, that will stay in the UK.
Other things are a bit harder. Market making, for instance. If the entity that is bearing the risk is implicitly ECB backed, they will require oversight. That may mean that it moves over time.
I think a lot of corporate advisory work will end up being a bit more local. So, Goldman will, instead of having all their corporate finance people in London, will have a couple of people in Stockholm, a couple in Paris, etc.
But this isn't really a Brexit thing. I think this is a long-term trend. Brexit will simply speed up the existing process.
Warren is only 8 years younger than Sanders but she looks a lot younger than that.
When (say) Goldman Sachs engages in market making of German Government Bonds, its contracts are implicitly backed by the ECB. If Goldman goes bust and fails to deliver €20bn in Bunds, the ECB will step up and make sure that the buyer is compensated. The same is true with the BoE and Gilts. Essentially, to ensure a working market in government bonds, the market makers are implicitly backed by the central banks.
The quid pro quo of this is that the ECB/BoE are given unprecedented access to the accounts of market makers, and have statutory powers over them.
So, I think it's inevitable, absent a deal, that some of that stuff leaves the UK.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7975899/Scientist-creates-super-sized-sex-doll-turtles-test-mating-habits.html
And he's not bringing in $10m/month right now. Indeed, I'd be staggered if he's getting more than $1m/week. (Remember there's a pretty low cap for donations, so you can't be bankrolled by one wealthy billionaire. Unless, of course, you're the billionaire.)
If he fails tonight, and fails in Nevada, then he's going to be firing staff left, right and centre.
As I said, I'm not so sure that everything is massively negative for the city if there isn't a formal deal on financial services. It's certainly not worth signing up for a dynamic level playing field to get one anyway.
It’s way to late for a new name to became adopted by the public.
Coronavirus is what it is and it’s entered common parlance now.
Horses for courses, I suppose. Or courses for horses rather. And that - MailOnline- is not the course for this progressive left leaning horse.
The same can not be said of their rivals whose support is much more fluid.
https://twitter.com/DKurac/status/1222805878618804225
In which case, Warren is the likely beneficiary. There has to be way more than a 1% risk of another heart attack between now and the convention.
Deeply questionable, sure (though hardly unusual in the US), and it’s likely it has severely damaged Biden’s nomination prospects, but there is absolutely no evidence so far of anything criminal.
But it seems Harry Reid, the influential former Senator who runs a terrific "machine" is throwing his lot behind Pete Buttigieg.
The CWU has not endorsed anyone yet. I can't see them throwing their lot behind Biden.
Bernie is 2.5 to be the Dem nominee but that is because of other moderate nominees not because of other progressives.
I agree, our country’s politics would be better off if ever it comes true.
But you only have to look at the posting history of moderates like our Southam to see the obstacles that have to be overcome before we ever get to a centre-left alternative to Labour credible enough to take on the Tories.
Those within Labour that torpedoed Blair’s intentions to see the Jenkins Commission through to implementation really do have a lot to answer for. If you believe in quantum physics there is a whole stack of universes out there having a better time of it than we are now.
But the nonsense that the Whitehouse concocted against Biden means that he's more or less immune to that line of attack from with the party. Anyone who tries it sounds like a Trump apologist.
I think Starmer's camp in his absence (family illness) have overreacted - the party is required by law to report any allegation of infringement, so they have, shrug.
COVID-19 (or more likely just COVID) will become the name generally used once this epidemic has passed, just as MERS and SARS are now known by those names not by the holding names they first were called.
I'd be surprised if you are not calling it COVID by the end of the outbreak.
If you are the leading Republican bar Trump you have next to zero chance of getting the nomination because he is a lock.
But if you are the leading progressive bar Bernie you have a chance of getting the nomination that is much higher than next to zero - because Bernie is anything but a lock and if he does not make it for whatever reason and the party still wants a progressive you are in prime position.
That's all I'm saying. 100/1 for POTUS too high IMO.
Don't, Philip, please.
That risk is on both sides of the divide.
I have to keep reminding myself that most of the people on this site proclaiming an understanding of how the Labour left work have been to one fewer Labour party meeting than I have!
Corbyn, McDonnell, and much of the left are simply Marxist revolutionaries. They want to bring down capitalism. They want to ruin the rich, and any cost to the poor is immaterial.
If the UK issues Euro denominated debt then clearly the BoE will stand behind it. (Probably not technically true, but much the same effect)
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1227305349876789251
The degree to which the promises inherent in the bond are therefore up to the buyer and the issuer.
Perhaps though you're referring to an orderly market - that, to some extent, is BoE territory.
Cameron called himself the Heir to Blair, but he was wrong, it’s Johnson who has perfected the style Blair pioneered.
Check out the list of journal papers on Lancet's resource centre. All use the proper naming convention.
https://www.thelancet.com/coronavirus
It’s a storm in a teacup being ramped up in a vain attempt to inject some excitement into the race.
Everyone is calling it coronavirus. Almost everyone had (and has) never heard the term before, and therefore it’s a unique moniker to them.
People are talking about coronavirus and people are scared about coronavirus. They don’t care what the scientists designate it as.
Dominic Cummings is a nob end.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
This could be nonsense, but my early impressions are that a lot of the conflicts within Labour are due to poor organisation being mistaken for malign intent?
In the bankruptcies of Lehman, Drexel Burnham Lambert and others, the central banks stepped in to avoid failed delivery of government securities.
The issue is about a tiny part of investment banks' portfolio of businesses - market making in government bonds, and whether the ECB would step up to guarantee delivery from a business over which it did not have regulatory oversight. I suspect that it will be easier for investment banks to move market making in Bunds, OTPs, etc. to Frankfurt or Amsterdam.
1) no one is responsible, private companies enforce whatever rules they think fit, 2) or someone has an actually delegated responsibility to be the ultimate arbiter/judge on this.
https://twitter.com/raynerskynews/status/1227300116937216000?s=21
Apart from the Leave voter bit, obviously.