The press release from NIESR is a good example of why we need self-financing rules. They say that the furlough should be open ended because it will save 1.2m jobs. The cost of that would be massive and the economic gain small, yet here we are with a respected body essentially asking for unlimited use of self-financing to save an actually pretty small number of jobs when one considers that at the peak of the jobs boom the UK was creating 800-900k jobs in a year.
Again, moving the use of QE into the political sphere is fraught with danger, the government needs to address it or the demands on spending will become unimaginable and eventually we will end up with a huge inflationary crisis and weakening of the currency as asset holders bail out.
The government can't address it. No government can bind its successors.
Gordon Brown gave it his best shot when he signed the Lisbon Treaty.
To be fair that is true of any PM who signs a treaty.
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
It's part of the plan to replace off the record lobby briefing sessions with publicly available press conferences - which means you are going from anonymous press secretaries and PR people to someone who is photogenic and good on TV.
If it’s on the record the PM or one of the Cabinet can do it. That’s what they’re there for. It’s their job, for crying out loud. To announce and explain government policies and answer questions on them, first in Parliament and then elsewhere.
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
Because if you look long enough and hard enough at a conman, you will see through his veneer.
He does not seem to like Select Committees, he hides in fridges, he avoids difficult (most!) questions and bluster and buffoonery will only carry you so far.
So he needs a layer between him and questions. And it probably helps that The Donald has a pretty blonde doing his propaganda so we can probably expect an attractive woman if Boris copies his hero. She might even be blonde
Can anyone remember when we last had this discussion? I linked to a set of slides from a Cambridge economist who neatly summarised the issue, showing out to be some where between @Philip_Thompson and @RochdalePioneers positions. I now can’t remember what google search I did to find it...
Of course its somewhere in-between. Only a fool would argue that no mistakes were made. My point is that the political "its Brown's fault" name calling is revisionist. Lack of Banking Regulation? The Tories called for less regulation at the time Deficit Spending? The Tories pledged to maintain it pound for pound Boom Bubble? The Tories declared they'd inflate it bigger to allow tax cuts as we "share in the proceeds of (bubble) growth.
If the Tories were so against these things why were they for them? Its like how they keep waving "there's no money left" as if it was factual. If there was no money left when debt was half then what it is now how would they describe what Sunak is doing? I am no fan of Gordon Brown, but saying that black is white and I always said so is as laughable as Shagger insisting he never told that room full of NI business people that there wouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea.
@RochdalePioneers - you are absolutely correct, but there is a sizeable component of PB that consist of fan-boys mindlessly repeating "their sides" position over and over. I wonder if they actually believe what they are saying or whether they think that if they keep spouting it often enough then the rest of us will see the light and have Dasmascene conversions...
True, but it applies to both sides...
I thought I had made that clear enough. Perhaps not
I have also frequently referred to PB as being like trench warfare in WW1 where much ammo gets fired but nobody moves an inch for years and years.....
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
Because if you look long enough and hard enough at a conman, you will see through his veneer.
He does not seem to like Select Committees, he hides in fridges, he avoids difficult (most!) questions and bluster and buffoonery will only carry you so far.
So he needs a layer between him and questions. And it probably helps that The Donald has a pretty blonde doing his propaganda so we can probably expect an attractive woman if Boris copies his hero. She might even be blonde
Christ, it may as well be Carrie then.
And there was I being told by his fans that one of Boris‘s great qualities was his communication skills. Seems he can’t even be bothered to do that.
You missed off when he hid under a table in Afghanistan to avoid having to actually keep a promise and resign as a minister over the third runway, only to resign a few weeks later, trailing in the wake of David Davis.
*sighs*
I wish Starmer weren't a kneeling fiefdom enthusiast. His apparent plans to carve England to bits and foolish indulgence of BLM is off-putting.
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
What's wrong with having a press secretary? The PM surely has better things to do that spend all their time in front of the cameras.
Can anyone remember when we last had this discussion? I linked to a set of slides from a Cambridge economist who neatly summarised the issue, showing out to be some where between @Philip_Thompson and @RochdalePioneers positions. I now can’t remember what google search I did to find it...
Of course its somewhere in-between. Only a fool would argue that no mistakes were made. My point is that the political "its Brown's fault" name calling is revisionist. Lack of Banking Regulation? The Tories called for less regulation at the time Deficit Spending? The Tories pledged to maintain it pound for pound Boom Bubble? The Tories declared they'd inflate it bigger to allow tax cuts as we "share in the proceeds of (bubble) growth.
If the Tories were so against these things why were they for them? Its like how they keep waving "there's no money left" as if it was factual. If there was no money left when debt was half then what it is now how would they describe what Sunak is doing? I am no fan of Gordon Brown, but saying that black is white and I always said so is as laughable as Shagger insisting he never told that room full of NI business people that there wouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea.
@RochdalePioneers - you are absolutely correct, but there is a sizeable component of PB that consist of fan-boys mindlessly repeating "their sides" position over and over. I wonder if they actually believe what they are saying or whether they think that if they keep spouting it often enough then the rest of us will see the light and have Dasmascene conversions...
True, but it applies to both sides...
I thought I had made that clear enough. Perhaps not
I have also frequently referred to PB as being like trench warfare in WW1 where much ammo gets fired but nobody moves an inch for years and years.....
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
Because if you look long enough and hard enough at a conman, you will see through his veneer.
He does not seem to like Select Committees, he hides in fridges, he avoids difficult (most!) questions and bluster and buffoonery will only carry you so far.
So he needs a layer between him and questions. And it probably helps that The Donald has a pretty blonde doing his propaganda so we can probably expect an attractive woman if Boris copies his hero. She might even be blonde
If she’s doing the PM’s propaganda, who, er, what will the PM be doing?
I'll be honest, I didn't support his removal. He was undoubtedly a vicious, cruel, 'orrible dictator. But he wasn't a sponsor of Islamist terror (somewhat the contrary), or remotely dangerous in terms of 'WMD'. Much as I would hate to live in an autocratic regime, I would fear living in the chaos that followed it more. Deep down, Blair must find that decision very hard to live with.
He gave plenty of cash and weapons to the PLO and PFLP.
I think I began to lose faith in the Iraqi project when we robbed a shop at gunpoint. The British squaddie, by dint of necessity, is nature's unsurpassed stealing machine. We were slightly less rapey than the Americans though, so there's that.
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
It's part of the plan to replace off the record lobby briefing sessions with publicly available press conferences - which means you are going from anonymous press secretaries and PR people to someone who is photogenic and good on TV.
Off the record briefings to favoured journalists will no doubt carry on. This gives the appearance of increasing transparency while actually decreasing it.
I wonder if it's all part of the Americanisation process. President has a press secretary, who can be fired once they've become unpopular.
The press release from NIESR is a good example of why we need self-financing rules. They say that the furlough should be open ended because it will save 1.2m jobs. The cost of that would be massive and the economic gain small, yet here we are with a respected body essentially asking for unlimited use of self-financing to save an actually pretty small number of jobs when one considers that at the peak of the jobs boom the UK was creating 800-900k jobs in a year.
Again, moving the use of QE into the political sphere is fraught with danger, the government needs to address it or the demands on spending will become unimaginable and eventually we will end up with a huge inflationary crisis and weakening of the currency as asset holders bail out.
The government can't address it. No government can bind its successors.
No, but they could at least start to address the issue themselves and not indulge in it too much now.
Agreed once we're through this pandemic they need to do the right thing.
Most people can repair a bicycle: 80% of repair & maintenance is within the competence of anybody (Google is your friend, and most libraries stock a book on cycle maintenance), and the 20% that is tricky and usually needs an experienced bike technician is relatively cheap.
Your neglected Halfords 200 quid piles of shit that this scheme is aimed at will likely need new chains and BBs. That's not cheap at a bike shop who employ exclusively from the ranks of liars, idiots and thieves.
One man's Halford's 200 quid pile of shit is another's street weapon.
A £200 bike-shaped-object from Halfords is perfectly usable for popping to the shops.
A £8000 carbon race machine fully kitted out with Dura-Ace Di2 is not.
LOL. Have you seen the idiots on their fixies trying to pop-to-the-shops?
A chap I know who owns a bike shop is doing a roaring trade, charging a fortune to add internal hub gears to bikes owned by very unfit, middle aged blokes trying to be Down Wiv Der Kidz.
There's not many fixies round here as it isn't a trendy enough area. But there are definitely more people on bikes, and bike shops are doing plenty of trade.
The only problem with all this is that none of them can actually sell you a bike, because they are all sold out.
I "needed" (n+1 and all that) a new MTB and have had to import it from Germany.
On bikes and prices its not a surprise - demand outstrips supply. I had a slow puncture on my current bike. Couldn't find inner tubes in an actual shop or their online outlets. Amazon marketplace sorted me out but bought way over-specced for £lots.
As for actual bikes themselves I want to buy a better one. Had decided what I wanted, was released into stock new and out of stock nationally within a few hours. Alternatives are £bongo priced or not what my research suggests I am looking for (gravel bike as opposed to road).
The press release from NIESR is a good example of why we need self-financing rules. They say that the furlough should be open ended because it will save 1.2m jobs. The cost of that would be massive and the economic gain small, yet here we are with a respected body essentially asking for unlimited use of self-financing to save an actually pretty small number of jobs when one considers that at the peak of the jobs boom the UK was creating 800-900k jobs in a year.
Again, moving the use of QE into the political sphere is fraught with danger, the government needs to address it or the demands on spending will become unimaginable and eventually we will end up with a huge inflationary crisis and weakening of the currency as asset holders bail out.
The government can't address it. No government can bind its successors.
No, but they could at least start to address the issue themselves and not indulge in it too much now.
Agreed once we're through this pandemic they need to do the right thing.
As has been explained, "the right thing" is in the eye of the office holder. If you are Cons you might legitimately think that a global pandemic is grounds to fire up the presses. If you are Lab you might think an equally important reason is to nationalise Tescos.
Once you legitimise one action you legitimise them all.
The press release from NIESR is a good example of why we need self-financing rules. They say that the furlough should be open ended because it will save 1.2m jobs. The cost of that would be massive and the economic gain small, yet here we are with a respected body essentially asking for unlimited use of self-financing to save an actually pretty small number of jobs when one considers that at the peak of the jobs boom the UK was creating 800-900k jobs in a year.
Again, moving the use of QE into the political sphere is fraught with danger, the government needs to address it or the demands on spending will become unimaginable and eventually we will end up with a huge inflationary crisis and weakening of the currency as asset holders bail out.
The government can't address it. No government can bind its successors.
No, but they could at least start to address the issue themselves and not indulge in it too much now.
Agreed once we're through this pandemic they need to do the right thing.
As has been explained, "the right thing" is in the eye of the office holder. If you are Cons you might legitimately think that a global pandemic is grounds to fire up the presses. If you are Lab you might think an equally important reason is to nationalise Tescos.
Once you legitimise one action you legitimise them all.
You're acting as if only one government can legitimise an action. Even if you don't, the successor can.
Yes doing the right hting is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing new in that, you're acting like a rubicon is crossed and it just isn't.
I'll be honest, I didn't support his removal. He was undoubtedly a vicious, cruel, 'orrible dictator. But he wasn't a sponsor of Islamist terror (somewhat the contrary), or remotely dangerous in terms of 'WMD'. Much as I would hate to live in an autocratic regime, I would fear living in the chaos that followed it more. Deep down, Blair must find that decision very hard to live with.
He gave plenty of cash and weapons to the PLO and PFLP.
I think I began to lose faith in the Iraqi project when we robbed a shop at gunpoint. The British squaddie, by dint of necessity, is nature's unsurpassed stealing machine. We were slightly less rapey than the Americans though, so there's that.
I am coming around to the idea that we should just never do land wars unless it's against people with spears.
A minister (Lord Calanan) with ties to an anonymously controlled energy firm linked to Russia has been given a role promoting transparency and anti-corruption, The Times can reveal.
Aquind is fronted by that nice Russian chap, Alexander Temerko, who by happy coincidence has given £1.3 million to the Conservative Party and employed James Wharton who ran Boris's leadership campaign, and is controlled by ... ah, no-one knows. No-one is allowed to know.
I'll be honest, I didn't support his removal. He was undoubtedly a vicious, cruel, 'orrible dictator. But he wasn't a sponsor of Islamist terror (somewhat the contrary), or remotely dangerous in terms of 'WMD'. Much as I would hate to live in an autocratic regime, I would fear living in the chaos that followed it more. Deep down, Blair must find that decision very hard to live with.
He gave plenty of cash and weapons to the PLO and PFLP.
I think I began to lose faith in the Iraqi project when we robbed a shop at gunpoint. The British squaddie, by dint of necessity, is nature's unsurpassed stealing machine. We were slightly less rapey than the Americans though, so there's that.
I am coming around to the idea that we should just never do land wars unless it's against people with spears.
Show them the cold steel. They don't like it up 'em Mr Mannering those fuzzy-wuzzies
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
Because if you look long enough and hard enough at a conman, you will see through his veneer.
He does not seem to like Select Committees, he hides in fridges, he avoids difficult (most!) questions and bluster and buffoonery will only carry you so far.
So he needs a layer between him and questions. And it probably helps that The Donald has a pretty blonde doing his propaganda so we can probably expect an attractive woman if Boris copies his hero. She might even be blonde
If she’s doing the PM’s propaganda, who, er, what will the PM be doing?
My own suspicion is that he will be trying find a way to get out of the responsibilities whilst keeping the money and prestige. A lot of entitled idiots think that being at the top of the pile is their reward and they have no time for the messy stuff (aka The Actual Job) that goes with it.
Money, position, power, largesse... 'twas ever thus for a certain segment of society. Accountability and responsibility are for other, lesser people...
The press release from NIESR is a good example of why we need self-financing rules. They say that the furlough should be open ended because it will save 1.2m jobs. The cost of that would be massive and the economic gain small, yet here we are with a respected body essentially asking for unlimited use of self-financing to save an actually pretty small number of jobs when one considers that at the peak of the jobs boom the UK was creating 800-900k jobs in a year.
Again, moving the use of QE into the political sphere is fraught with danger, the government needs to address it or the demands on spending will become unimaginable and eventually we will end up with a huge inflationary crisis and weakening of the currency as asset holders bail out.
The government can't address it. No government can bind its successors.
No, but they could at least start to address the issue themselves and not indulge in it too much now.
Agreed once we're through this pandemic they need to do the right thing.
As has been explained, "the right thing" is in the eye of the office holder. If you are Cons you might legitimately think that a global pandemic is grounds to fire up the presses. If you are Lab you might think an equally important reason is to nationalise Tescos.
Once you legitimise one action you legitimise them all.
You're acting as if only one government can legitimise an action. Even if you don't, the successor can.
Yes doing the right hting is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing new in that, you're acting like a rubicon is crossed and it just isn't.
haha no you are! You are saying that the Cons are right to spaff money up the wall because we are in an emergency and after that no one should spaff money up the wall because we will no longer be in an emergency.
But Lab can say that poverty is an emergency and hence can spaff money up the wall to address that and when the Cons say you are spending recklessly Lab will say - we are doing exactly the same as you did: spaffing money up the wall on an emergency.
Given how bad government comms have been over the last few weeks and how important that a clear message is going out in the middle of a pandemic, my question is why are they being so stingy? MPs are either significantly underpayed for the job they do or they should regard it as a part time post and get a day job that pays the bills. Given that ministers can do their job while being MPs I’m inclined to the latter solution.
I'll be honest, I didn't support his removal. He was undoubtedly a vicious, cruel, 'orrible dictator. But he wasn't a sponsor of Islamist terror (somewhat the contrary), or remotely dangerous in terms of 'WMD'. Much as I would hate to live in an autocratic regime, I would fear living in the chaos that followed it more. Deep down, Blair must find that decision very hard to live with.
He gave plenty of cash and weapons to the PLO and PFLP.
I think I began to lose faith in the Iraqi project when we robbed a shop at gunpoint. The British squaddie, by dint of necessity, is nature's unsurpassed stealing machine. We were slightly less rapey than the Americans though, so there's that.
I am coming around to the idea that we should just never do land wars unless it's against people with spears.
I think the point has been made well (by Frank Ledwidge and others) that the famed British idea of "punching above our weight" violates any number of principles of war and generally means you lose.
A minister (Lord Calanan) with ties to an anonymously controlled energy firm linked to Russia has been given a role promoting transparency and anti-corruption, The Times can reveal.
Aquind is fronted by that nice Russian chap, Alexander Temerko, who by happy coincidence has given £1.3 million to the Conservative Party and employed James Wharton who ran Boris's leadership campaign, and is controlled by ... ah, no-one knows. No-one is allowed to know.
I met him once. Where's Wharton brought him to one of the hustings in a rare visit to his constituency. Seemed to have minders with him...
On bikes and prices its not a surprise - demand outstrips supply. I had a slow puncture on my current bike. Couldn't find inner tubes in an actual shop or their online outlets. Amazon marketplace sorted me out but bought way over-specced for £lots.
As for actual bikes themselves I want to buy a better one. Had decided what I wanted, was released into stock new and out of stock nationally within a few hours. Alternatives are £bongo priced or not what my research suggests I am looking for (gravel bike as opposed to road).
Absolutely. It is the market at work. No problems with that at all. Of course it also involved other laws of economics: substitution and price elasticity of demand. ie I stopped buying new inner tubes and began to buy puncture repair kits.
Given how bad government comms have been over the last few weeks and how important that a clear message is going out in the middle of a pandemic, my question is why are they being so stingy? MPs are either significantly underpayed for the job they do or they should regard it as a part time post and get a day job that pays the bills. Given that ministers can do their job while being MPs I’m inclined to the latter solution.
Edit: removed space before a comma!
The best coronavirus communicators I've come across were the team of Colin Murray and Dr. Chris Smith on the R5 Coronavirus Call-In.
Not sure they'd be volunteering for the government job, though...
The press release from NIESR is a good example of why we need self-financing rules. They say that the furlough should be open ended because it will save 1.2m jobs. The cost of that would be massive and the economic gain small, yet here we are with a respected body essentially asking for unlimited use of self-financing to save an actually pretty small number of jobs when one considers that at the peak of the jobs boom the UK was creating 800-900k jobs in a year.
Again, moving the use of QE into the political sphere is fraught with danger, the government needs to address it or the demands on spending will become unimaginable and eventually we will end up with a huge inflationary crisis and weakening of the currency as asset holders bail out.
The government can't address it. No government can bind its successors.
No, but they could at least start to address the issue themselves and not indulge in it too much now.
Agreed once we're through this pandemic they need to do the right thing.
As has been explained, "the right thing" is in the eye of the office holder. If you are Cons you might legitimately think that a global pandemic is grounds to fire up the presses. If you are Lab you might think an equally important reason is to nationalise Tescos.
Once you legitimise one action you legitimise them all.
You're acting as if only one government can legitimise an action. Even if you don't, the successor can.
Yes doing the right hting is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing new in that, you're acting like a rubicon is crossed and it just isn't.
haha no you are! You are saying that the Cons are right to spaff money up the wall because we are in an emergency and after that no one should spaff money up the wall because we will no longer be in an emergency.
But Lab can say that poverty is an emergency and hence can spaff money up the wall to address that and when the Cons say you are spending recklessly Lab will say - we are doing exactly the same as you did: spaffing money up the wall on an emergency.
I am being clear that we should be countercyclical with spending and that isn't a new or innovative idea. I suggest you read about John Maynard Keynes if you think this is an original thought.
Can anyone remember when we last had this discussion? I linked to a set of slides from a Cambridge economist who neatly summarised the issue, showing out to be some where between @Philip_Thompson and @RochdalePioneers positions. I now can’t remember what google search I did to find it...
Of course its somewhere in-between. Only a fool would argue that no mistakes were made. My point is that the political "its Brown's fault" name calling is revisionist. Lack of Banking Regulation? The Tories called for less regulation at the time Deficit Spending? The Tories pledged to maintain it pound for pound Boom Bubble? The Tories declared they'd inflate it bigger to allow tax cuts as we "share in the proceeds of (bubble) growth.
If the Tories were so against these things why were they for them? Its like how they keep waving "there's no money left" as if it was factual. If there was no money left when debt was half then what it is now how would they describe what Sunak is doing? I am no fan of Gordon Brown, but saying that black is white and I always said so is as laughable as Shagger insisting he never told that room full of NI business people that there wouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea.
@RochdalePioneers - you are absolutely correct, but there is a sizeable component of PB that consist of fan-boys mindlessly repeating "their sides" position over and over. I wonder if they actually believe what they are saying or whether they think that if they keep spouting it often enough then the rest of us will see the light and have Dasmascene conversions...
True, but it applies to both sides...
I thought I had made that clear enough. Perhaps not
I have also frequently referred to PB as being like trench warfare in WW1 where much ammo gets fired but nobody moves an inch for years and years.....
Can anyone remember when we last had this discussion? I linked to a set of slides from a Cambridge economist who neatly summarised the issue, showing out to be some where between @Philip_Thompson and @RochdalePioneers positions. I now can’t remember what google search I did to find it...
Of course its somewhere in-between. Only a fool would argue that no mistakes were made. My point is that the political "its Brown's fault" name calling is revisionist. Lack of Banking Regulation? The Tories called for less regulation at the time Deficit Spending? The Tories pledged to maintain it pound for pound Boom Bubble? The Tories declared they'd inflate it bigger to allow tax cuts as we "share in the proceeds of (bubble) growth.
If the Tories were so against these things why were they for them? Its like how they keep waving "there's no money left" as if it was factual. If there was no money left when debt was half then what it is now how would they describe what Sunak is doing? I am no fan of Gordon Brown, but saying that black is white and I always said so is as laughable as Shagger insisting he never told that room full of NI business people that there wouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea.
@RochdalePioneers - you are absolutely correct, but there is a sizeable component of PB that consist of fan-boys mindlessly repeating "their sides" position over and over. I wonder if they actually believe what they are saying or whether they think that if they keep spouting it often enough then the rest of us will see the light and have Dasmascene conversions...
True, but it applies to both sides...
I thought I had made that clear enough. Perhaps not
I have also frequently referred to PB as being like trench warfare in WW1 where much ammo gets fired but nobody moves an inch for years and years.....
Absolutely. It is the market at work. No problems with that at all. Of course it also involved other laws of economics: substitution and price elasticity of demand. ie I stopped buying new inner tubes and began to buy puncture repair kits.
Go tubeless. It's the future. I did 9,000km on tubeless tyres in 2019 and had zero punctures.
Can anyone remember when we last had this discussion? I linked to a set of slides from a Cambridge economist who neatly summarised the issue, showing out to be some where between @Philip_Thompson and @RochdalePioneers positions. I now can’t remember what google search I did to find it...
Of course its somewhere in-between. Only a fool would argue that no mistakes were made. My point is that the political "its Brown's fault" name calling is revisionist. Lack of Banking Regulation? The Tories called for less regulation at the time Deficit Spending? The Tories pledged to maintain it pound for pound Boom Bubble? The Tories declared they'd inflate it bigger to allow tax cuts as we "share in the proceeds of (bubble) growth.
If the Tories were so against these things why were they for them? Its like how they keep waving "there's no money left" as if it was factual. If there was no money left when debt was half then what it is now how would they describe what Sunak is doing? I am no fan of Gordon Brown, but saying that black is white and I always said so is as laughable as Shagger insisting he never told that room full of NI business people that there wouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea.
@RochdalePioneers - you are absolutely correct, but there is a sizeable component of PB that consist of fan-boys mindlessly repeating "their sides" position over and over. I wonder if they actually believe what they are saying or whether they think that if they keep spouting it often enough then the rest of us will see the light and have Dasmascene conversions...
True, but it applies to both sides...
I thought I had made that clear enough. Perhaps not
I have also frequently referred to PB as being like trench warfare in WW1 where much ammo gets fired but nobody moves an inch for years and years.....
The sanitation and living conditions are somewhat better, though.
The press release from NIESR is a good example of why we need self-financing rules. They say that the furlough should be open ended because it will save 1.2m jobs. The cost of that would be massive and the economic gain small, yet here we are with a respected body essentially asking for unlimited use of self-financing to save an actually pretty small number of jobs when one considers that at the peak of the jobs boom the UK was creating 800-900k jobs in a year.
Again, moving the use of QE into the political sphere is fraught with danger, the government needs to address it or the demands on spending will become unimaginable and eventually we will end up with a huge inflationary crisis and weakening of the currency as asset holders bail out.
The government can't address it. No government can bind its successors.
No, but they could at least start to address the issue themselves and not indulge in it too much now.
Agreed once we're through this pandemic they need to do the right thing.
As has been explained, "the right thing" is in the eye of the office holder. If you are Cons you might legitimately think that a global pandemic is grounds to fire up the presses. If you are Lab you might think an equally important reason is to nationalise Tescos.
Once you legitimise one action you legitimise them all.
You're acting as if only one government can legitimise an action. Even if you don't, the successor can.
Yes doing the right hting is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing new in that, you're acting like a rubicon is crossed and it just isn't.
haha no you are! You are saying that the Cons are right to spaff money up the wall because we are in an emergency and after that no one should spaff money up the wall because we will no longer be in an emergency.
But Lab can say that poverty is an emergency and hence can spaff money up the wall to address that and when the Cons say you are spending recklessly Lab will say - we are doing exactly the same as you did: spaffing money up the wall on an emergency.
I am being clear that we should be countercyclical with spending and that isn't a new or innovative idea. I suggest you read about John Maynard Keynes if you think this is an original thought.
And I agree with you. And I set out earlier my views on why and how Brown got it wrong.
But we are talking about "excess" spending by the Cons on COVID-19 and as you know, this opens the door to Lab "excess" spending on whatever they damn well please.
Can anyone remember when we last had this discussion? I linked to a set of slides from a Cambridge economist who neatly summarised the issue, showing out to be some where between @Philip_Thompson and @RochdalePioneers positions. I now can’t remember what google search I did to find it...
Of course its somewhere in-between. Only a fool would argue that no mistakes were made. My point is that the political "its Brown's fault" name calling is revisionist. Lack of Banking Regulation? The Tories called for less regulation at the time Deficit Spending? The Tories pledged to maintain it pound for pound Boom Bubble? The Tories declared they'd inflate it bigger to allow tax cuts as we "share in the proceeds of (bubble) growth.
If the Tories were so against these things why were they for them? Its like how they keep waving "there's no money left" as if it was factual. If there was no money left when debt was half then what it is now how would they describe what Sunak is doing? I am no fan of Gordon Brown, but saying that black is white and I always said so is as laughable as Shagger insisting he never told that room full of NI business people that there wouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea.
@RochdalePioneers - you are absolutely correct, but there is a sizeable component of PB that consist of fan-boys mindlessly repeating "their sides" position over and over. I wonder if they actually believe what they are saying or whether they think that if they keep spouting it often enough then the rest of us will see the light and have Dasmascene conversions...
True, but it applies to both sides...
I thought I had made that clear enough. Perhaps not
I have also frequently referred to PB as being like trench warfare in WW1 where much ammo gets fired but nobody moves an inch for years and years.....
The press release from NIESR is a good example of why we need self-financing rules. They say that the furlough should be open ended because it will save 1.2m jobs. The cost of that would be massive and the economic gain small, yet here we are with a respected body essentially asking for unlimited use of self-financing to save an actually pretty small number of jobs when one considers that at the peak of the jobs boom the UK was creating 800-900k jobs in a year.
Again, moving the use of QE into the political sphere is fraught with danger, the government needs to address it or the demands on spending will become unimaginable and eventually we will end up with a huge inflationary crisis and weakening of the currency as asset holders bail out.
The government can't address it. No government can bind its successors.
No, but they could at least start to address the issue themselves and not indulge in it too much now.
Agreed once we're through this pandemic they need to do the right thing.
As has been explained, "the right thing" is in the eye of the office holder. If you are Cons you might legitimately think that a global pandemic is grounds to fire up the presses. If you are Lab you might think an equally important reason is to nationalise Tescos.
Once you legitimise one action you legitimise them all.
You're acting as if only one government can legitimise an action. Even if you don't, the successor can.
Yes doing the right hting is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing new in that, you're acting like a rubicon is crossed and it just isn't.
haha no you are! You are saying that the Cons are right to spaff money up the wall because we are in an emergency and after that no one should spaff money up the wall because we will no longer be in an emergency.
But Lab can say that poverty is an emergency and hence can spaff money up the wall to address that and when the Cons say you are spending recklessly Lab will say - we are doing exactly the same as you did: spaffing money up the wall on an emergency.
I am being clear that we should be countercyclical with spending and that isn't a new or innovative idea. I suggest you read about John Maynard Keynes if you think this is an original thought.
And I agree with you. And I set out earlier my views on why and how Brown got it wrong.
But we are talking about "excess" spending by the Cons on COVID-19 and as you know, this opens the door to Lab "excess" spending on whatever they damn well please.
It only opens the door to Lab if the door was closed to Lab in the past.
I see no evidence for that. What is your logic that says the door was closed?
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
Because if you look long enough and hard enough at a conman, you will see through his veneer.
He does not seem to like Select Committees, he hides in fridges, he avoids difficult (most!) questions and bluster and buffoonery will only carry you so far.
So he needs a layer between him and questions. And it probably helps that The Donald has a pretty blonde doing his propaganda so we can probably expect an attractive woman if Boris copies his hero. She might even be blonde
Christ, it may as well be Carrie then.
And there was I being told by his fans that one of Boris‘s great qualities was his communication skills. Seems he can’t even be bothered to do that.
Boris's greatest skill IMO is not communication. It is clowning, tomfoolery.... let me be generous and call it "Entertainment".
In case you want to protest that it is second rate, excruciating stuff, all I can suggest is that you watch more TV. Boris is no worse than most of the light entertainment guff that gets broadcast. You could probably have dropped one of his interviews into Little Britain or The League of Gentlemen and it would not have looked out of place.
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
Because if you look long enough and hard enough at a conman, you will see through his veneer.
He does not seem to like Select Committees, he hides in fridges, he avoids difficult (most!) questions and bluster and buffoonery will only carry you so far.
So he needs a layer between him and questions. And it probably helps that The Donald has a pretty blonde doing his propaganda so we can probably expect an attractive woman if Boris copies his hero. She might even be blonde
More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.
It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.
Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?
I agree it is contrived and released for a deliberate reason. However it if is inadvertant then the "Do not hold grudges" at the top is interesting. To me that reads more as a reminder to him not to show the grudge he holds! If he does hold such a grudge she should not be odds on imo.
It occurred to me too that all of those points were nicely bland things you might say about someone you weren't going to pick for the VP slot. I used the move in prices to take out a little Rice insurance.
Absolutely. It is the market at work. No problems with that at all. Of course it also involved other laws of economics: substitution and price elasticity of demand. ie I stopped buying new inner tubes and began to buy puncture repair kits.
Go tubeless. It's the future. I did 9,000km on tubeless tyres in 2019 and had zero punctures.
I think you are mistaking me for someone who doesn't have a Halfords 200 quid pile of shit bike.
Absolutely. It is the market at work. No problems with that at all. Of course it also involved other laws of economics: substitution and price elasticity of demand. ie I stopped buying new inner tubes and began to buy puncture repair kits.
Go tubeless. It's the future. I did 9,000km on tubeless tyres in 2019 and had zero punctures.
I see there are attempts at solid tyres again - any good this time round?
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
Because if you look long enough and hard enough at a conman, you will see through his veneer.
He does not seem to like Select Committees, he hides in fridges, he avoids difficult (most!) questions and bluster and buffoonery will only carry you so far.
So he needs a layer between him and questions. And it probably helps that The Donald has a pretty blonde doing his propaganda so we can probably expect an attractive woman if Boris copies his hero. She might even be blonde
On bikes, having had my mid range Specalised hybrid nicked I'm thinking about one of these. Having to drag all that weight around will satisfy my Calvinist tendencies, and a pistol holster on your bike will provide hours of idle amusement in the east end of Glasgow.
Absolutely. It is the market at work. No problems with that at all. Of course it also involved other laws of economics: substitution and price elasticity of demand. ie I stopped buying new inner tubes and began to buy puncture repair kits.
Go tubeless. It's the future. I did 9,000km on tubeless tyres in 2019 and had zero punctures.
I see there are attempts at solid tyres again - any good this time round?
I've only ever seen them on hire bikes. I'd assume them to be shit as you would be unable to tune the tyre pressure.
Foam inserts (Cushcore, etc.) instead of tubes have their adherents on MTBs but nothing is as good as tubeless both on road and off in my experience.
Absolutely. It is the market at work. No problems with that at all. Of course it also involved other laws of economics: substitution and price elasticity of demand. ie I stopped buying new inner tubes and began to buy puncture repair kits.
Go tubeless. It's the future. I did 9,000km on tubeless tyres in 2019 and had zero punctures.
I see there are attempts at solid tyres again - any good this time round?
I've only ever seen them on hire bikes. I'd assume them to be shit as you would be unable to tune the tyre pressure.
Foam inserts (Cushcore, etc.) instead of tubes have their adherents on MTBs but nothing is as good as tubeless both on road and off in my experience.
My brother tried them when we were kids - hard as rock.
Would be interesting to see what the materials revolution has offered in that line, though.
This brings us back to Gordon’s Golden Rule. It’s actually sound economics as long as you don’t keep changing the definition of where in the economic cycle you are and you don’t classify pay rises for the public sector as investment: http://journals.rcni.com/nursing-standard/standing-ovations-for-brown-as-he-pledges-support-for-nurses-ns.23.36.5.s2 Investment should be designed to increase GDP or reduce costs for the government, that way it pays for the extra cost of borrowing it incurs. Health spending does this very indirectly at best (when there isn’t a pandemic of course) but it’s the easiest way of attacking the Tories if they refuse to match any increase in spending you can come up with.
Rules like this are sound economics but unrealistic politically, as governments never keep to them when times are bad. There is no substitute for year-by-year vigilance and electing people who know what they are talking about.
More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.
It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.
Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?
It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.
Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
True.
Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?
USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama
Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.
The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.
Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).
Too early to judge on Boris.
What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
For me his two greatest achievements:
* He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.
* Introduced equal marriage.
Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.
The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.
During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.
What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.
Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.
Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.
Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.
Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.
More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.
It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.
Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?
It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.
Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
True.
Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?
USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama
Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.
The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.
Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).
Too early to judge on Boris.
What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
For me his two greatest achievements:
* He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.
* Introduced equal marriage.
Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.
The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.
During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.
What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.
Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.
Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.
Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.
Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.
He was responsible for ramping up the housing market to the point whereby it wasn't only Lehman that got hit but our non-IB domestic mortgage lenders also.
On topic: Odds of 1.8ish are just too good a lay to resist. Quite apart from anything else, that list of her positives isn't terribly compelling. 'Doesn't bear grudges'. 'The people's lawyer'. Not exactly gushing praise, is it?
My own suspicion is that he will be trying find a way to get out of the responsibilities whilst keeping the money and prestige. A lot of entitled idiots think that being at the top of the pile is their reward and they have no time for the messy stuff (aka The Actual Job) that goes with it.
Money, position, power, largesse... 'twas ever thus for a certain segment of society. Accountability and responsibility are for other, lesser people...
If Trump loses in November, the fallout will be spectacular, as the people currently in favour discover life at the other end of the stick.
When the inverted pyramid of piffle supporting BoZo falls, it will be equally dramatic.
On topic: Odds of 1.8ish are just too good a lay to resist. Quite apart from anything else, that list of her positives isn't terribly compelling. 'Doesn't bear grudges'. 'The people's lawyer'. Not exactly gushing praise, is it?
I think Mike's assessment is about right; favourite, but no certainty. As mentioned above, I've hedged a bit.
Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.
The crash was a failure of financial regulation. And which politician had been in charge of financial regulation for the decade before the crash when the most dangerous imbalances built up and indeed had largely set up our financial regulation framework and stuffed it with tenth-rate quangocrats like Callum McCarthy and Adair Turner?
Countries like Canada or Sweden, which had their financial crashes in the early nineties and reined in their financial sectors, had fewer if any problems with their financial sectors in 2008. But those that had let them get out of control, like the UK, US, Iceland, Ireland and Spain suffered both financial crises and economic recessions. Ireland or Iceland did not matter much, but the UK and the US, with the world's two most influential financial sectors, pulled the rest of the world down with them.
This really ought to put to an end the nonsense about lab origins of the virus.
Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0771-4 There are outstanding evolutionary questions on the recent emergence of human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 including the role of reservoir species, the role of recombination and its time of divergence from animal viruses. We find that the sarbecoviruses—the viral subgenus containing SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2—undergo frequent recombination and exhibit spatially structured genetic diversity on a regional scale in China. SARS-CoV-2 itself is not a recombinant of any sarbecoviruses detected to date, and its receptor-binding motif, important for specificity to human ACE2 receptors, appears to be an ancestral trait shared with bat viruses and not one acquired recently via recombination. To employ phylogenetic dating methods, recombinant regions of a 68-genome sarbecovirus alignment were removed with three independent methods. Bayesian evolutionary rate and divergence date estimates were shown to be consistent for these three approaches and for two different prior specifications of evolutionary rates based on HCoV-OC43 and MERS-CoV. Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades....
Absolutely. It is the market at work. No problems with that at all. Of course it also involved other laws of economics: substitution and price elasticity of demand. ie I stopped buying new inner tubes and began to buy puncture repair kits.
Go tubeless. It's the future. I did 9,000km on tubeless tyres in 2019 and had zero punctures.
I see there are attempts at solid tyres again - any good this time round?
I've only ever seen them on hire bikes. I'd assume them to be shit as you would be unable to tune the tyre pressure.
Foam inserts (Cushcore, etc.) instead of tubes have their adherents on MTBs but nothing is as good as tubeless both on road and off in my experience.
More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.
It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.
Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?
It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.
Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
True.
Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?
USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama
Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.
The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.
Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).
Too early to judge on Boris.
What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
For me his two greatest achievements:
* He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.
* Introduced equal marriage.
Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.
The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.
During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.
What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.
Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.
Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.
Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.
Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.
1 was a matter of when, not if. You are acting as if it is some abhorrent and unforeseen shock that there was a crash. That is frankly delusional. Crashes happen, if it wasn't the financial markets that triggered it it would have been something else.
Thats nonsense. A lot of jobs get paid more than mps.
Chief political correspondent of Sky, for one.
I certainly dont discount the premise No.10 might care more about its media frontman than MPs, but the salary being evidence of that somehow is a pile of old wank, if you'll forgive the expression.
More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.
It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.
Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?
It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.
Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
True.
Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?
USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama
Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.
The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.
Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).
Too early to judge on Boris.
What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
For me his two greatest achievements:
* He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.
* Introduced equal marriage.
Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.
The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.
During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.
What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.
Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.
Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.
Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.
Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.
He was responsible for ramping up the housing market to the point whereby it wasn't only Lehman that got hit but our non-IB domestic mortgage lenders also.
That was all on him.
Removing the Bank from regulatory oversight of capital is also on him. Under the old regime would RBS have been allowed to operate at 50x leverage, or Northern Rock at 35x leverage? The FSA was completely incapable of performing the "financial stability" part of its remit and we all paid the price for that. The FSA completely failed to force banks not to take unnecessary risks with our money and ultimately that's on Brown, given that he set it up in 2001 and took the financial stability regulation away from the Bank and handed it to the FSA.
My own suspicion is that he will be trying find a way to get out of the responsibilities whilst keeping the money and prestige. A lot of entitled idiots think that being at the top of the pile is their reward and they have no time for the messy stuff (aka The Actual Job) that goes with it.
Money, position, power, largesse... 'twas ever thus for a certain segment of society. Accountability and responsibility are for other, lesser people...
If Trump loses in November, the fallout will be spectacular, as the people currently in favour discover life at the other end of the stick.
When the inverted pyramid of piffle supporting BoZo falls, it will be equally dramatic.
More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.
It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.
Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?
It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.
Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
True.
Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?
USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama
Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.
The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.
Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).
Too early to judge on Boris.
What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
For me his two greatest achievements:
* He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.
* Introduced equal marriage.
Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.
The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.
During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.
What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.
Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.
Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.
Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.
Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.
Who was in charge of financial stability regulation? Who created that body? Why was the regulatory oversight of financial services changed so drastically in 2001? How were RBS allowed to operate with just 2% liquidity? How was Northern Rock allowed to operate for years with just 3% liquidity and why were FSA rules allowing those banks to show more than double their true liquidity to markets?
These are all failures we can attribute to Brown. There's no doubt that the sub-prime housing crisis in the US was the match that started the fire, but Brown was the arsonist who put kindling under the UK economy when he tore up regulations in 2001 and put lesser people in charge of overseeing our most complicated and important sector.
This is an interesting idea - a very cheap and less sensitive DIY test, with very rapid results. It might miss some of those infected, but will likely pick up the vast majority of those who are actually infectious when they take the test. If used in the right way based on that knowledge, could be extremely effective. (Of course under current protocols, it's probably not sensitive enough to be approved.)
More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.
It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.
Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?
It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.
Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
True.
Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?
USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama
Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.
The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.
Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).
Too early to judge on Boris.
What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
For me his two greatest achievements:
* He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.
* Introduced equal marriage.
Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.
The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.
During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.
What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.
Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.
Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.
Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.
Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.
He was responsible for ramping up the housing market to the point whereby it wasn't only Lehman that got hit but our non-IB domestic mortgage lenders also.
That was all on him.
Removing the Bank from regulatory oversight of capital is also on him. Under the old regime would RBS have been allowed to operate at 50x leverage, or Northern Rock at 35x leverage? The FSA was completely incapable of performing the "financial stability" part of its remit and we all paid the price for that. The FSA completely failed to force banks not to take unnecessary risks with our money and ultimately that's on Brown, given that he set it up in 2001 and took the financial stability regulation away from the Bank and handed it to the FSA.
Yes absolutely the regulatory regime was also on him but I didn't want to overload @kinabalu who was there probably trading CDSs with the best of them.
I think @kinabalu lives in some bizarre parallel universe where crashes are for some reason never to be expected or prepared for so if a crash happens then its entirely reasonable to be fully exposed to it with no precautions.
Its like someone going hiking for a month in January, completely naked, with no backback, no tent, no supplies, they're just going to forage off the land. Then a storm comes in and they get hypothermia. Yes the storm may be what caused the hypothermia, but was it reasonable to be completely naked and exposed to the storm?
Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.
Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
I think @kinabalu lives in some bizarre parallel universe where crashes are for some reason never to be expected or prepared for so if a crash happens then its entirely reasonable to be fully exposed to it with no precautions.
Its like someone going hiking for a month in January, completely naked, with no backback, no tent, no supplies, they're just going to forage off the land. Then a storm comes in and they get hypothermia. Yes the storm may be what caused the hypothermia, but was it reasonable to be completely naked and exposed to the storm?
It's worse, Brown set fire to the backpack, tent and camping supplies in 2001 and then tried to dodge the blame in 2008.
Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.
Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
Shocks happen.
What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
Sort of on topic, for once, I had dinner with a contact of mine in the Democratic establishment when I was over in DC on business just after the 2018 midterms. He and his wife were certain that the Democratic ticket would be Biden and Harris and all the rest was noise. So I will certainly take his tips even more seriously in September if what he says comes to pass.
Since increasing age appears to be affecting my balance my wife is insisting I sell my (electric-assist) bike. I just can't face not having it about any more, though. Keep thinking I will get back to it one day.
Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.
Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
Shocks happen.
What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
Yes, shocks do happen. But there is a huge difference between largely exogenous shocks, like China flu, and endogenous shocks, like the 2008 financial crash. The former was largely outside our control, though with perfect foresight we could have managed it better and the latter was because our financial regulation was criminally reckless and irresponsible.
Those who just dismiss the 2008 crash by saying "shocks happen" let Blair and Brown off much too lightly.
This really ought to put to an end the nonsense about lab origins of the virus.
Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0771-4 There are outstanding evolutionary questions on the recent emergence of human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 including the role of reservoir species, the role of recombination and its time of divergence from animal viruses. We find that the sarbecoviruses—the viral subgenus containing SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2—undergo frequent recombination and exhibit spatially structured genetic diversity on a regional scale in China. SARS-CoV-2 itself is not a recombinant of any sarbecoviruses detected to date, and its receptor-binding motif, important for specificity to human ACE2 receptors, appears to be an ancestral trait shared with bat viruses and not one acquired recently via recombination. To employ phylogenetic dating methods, recombinant regions of a 68-genome sarbecovirus alignment were removed with three independent methods. Bayesian evolutionary rate and divergence date estimates were shown to be consistent for these three approaches and for two different prior specifications of evolutionary rates based on HCoV-OC43 and MERS-CoV. Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades....
Can anyone remember when we last had this discussion? I linked to a set of slides from a Cambridge economist who neatly summarised the issue, showing out to be some where between @Philip_Thompson and @RochdalePioneers positions. I now can’t remember what google search I did to find it...
Of course its somewhere in-between. Only a fool would argue that no mistakes were made. My point is that the political "its Brown's fault" name calling is revisionist. Lack of Banking Regulation? The Tories called for less regulation at the time Deficit Spending? The Tories pledged to maintain it pound for pound Boom Bubble? The Tories declared they'd inflate it bigger to allow tax cuts as we "share in the proceeds of (bubble) growth.
If the Tories were so against these things why were they for them? Its like how they keep waving "there's no money left" as if it was factual. If there was no money left when debt was half then what it is now how would they describe what Sunak is doing? I am no fan of Gordon Brown, but saying that black is white and I always said so is as laughable as Shagger insisting he never told that room full of NI business people that there wouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea.
@RochdalePioneers - you are absolutely correct, but there is a sizeable component of PB that consist of fan-boys mindlessly repeating "their sides" position over and over. I wonder if they actually believe what they are saying or whether they think that if they keep spouting it often enough then the rest of us will see the light and have Dasmascene conversions...
True, but it applies to both sides...
I thought I had made that clear enough. Perhaps not
I have also frequently referred to PB as being like trench warfare in WW1 where much ammo gets fired but nobody moves an inch for years and years.....
The sanitation and living conditions are somewhat better, though.
Would be a good excuse to push back elections again to give the security law more time to bed in and do its work. Serendipity at work for the CCP perhaps.
Hong Kong's hospital system could face "collapse" as it grapples with a sharp rise in coronavirus cases, the city's leader Carrie Lam has warned.
Since increasing age appears to be affecting my balance my wife is insisting I sell my (electric-assist) bike. I just can't face not having it about any more, though. Keep thinking I will get back to it one day.
I'd be inclined to take steps to recover the balance you feel you've lost. Like maybe aim to build muscle?
I liked that incident with Corbyn because it gave the lie to the idea he was not an 'ordinary' politician, one who engaged in spin just like any other. What he was was unconventional in some ways, and certainly had not been a leading figure before, but he operated like any other once he did get to the top.
Comments
To be fair that is true of any PM who signs a treaty.
He does not seem to like Select Committees, he hides in fridges, he avoids difficult (most!) questions and bluster and buffoonery will only carry you so far.
So he needs a layer between him and questions. And it probably helps that The Donald has a pretty blonde doing his propaganda so we can probably expect an attractive woman if Boris copies his hero. She might even be blonde
I have also frequently referred to PB as being like trench warfare in WW1 where much ammo gets fired but nobody moves an inch for years and years.....
And there was I being told by his fans that one of Boris‘s great qualities was his communication skills. Seems he can’t even be bothered to do that.
You missed off when he hid under a table in Afghanistan to avoid having to actually keep a promise and resign as a minister over the third runway, only to resign a few weeks later, trailing in the wake of David Davis.
*sighs*
I wish Starmer weren't a kneeling fiefdom enthusiast. His apparent plans to carve England to bits and foolish indulgence of BLM is off-putting.
Boris Johnson remains a clown.
This is childish stuff, it really is.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
I think I began to lose faith in the Iraqi project when we robbed a shop at gunpoint. The British squaddie, by dint of necessity, is nature's unsurpassed stealing machine. We were slightly less rapey than the Americans though, so there's that.
And you?
The only problem with all this is that none of them can actually sell you a bike, because they are all sold out.
I "needed" (n+1 and all that) a new MTB and have had to import it from Germany.
As for actual bikes themselves I want to buy a better one. Had decided what I wanted, was released into stock new and out of stock nationally within a few hours. Alternatives are £bongo priced or not what my research suggests I am looking for (gravel bike as opposed to road).
Once you legitimise one action you legitimise them all.
Yes doing the right hting is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing new in that, you're acting like a rubicon is crossed and it just isn't.
Aquind is fronted by that nice Russian chap, Alexander Temerko, who by happy coincidence has given £1.3 million to the Conservative Party and employed James Wharton who ran Boris's leadership campaign, and is controlled by ... ah, no-one knows. No-one is allowed to know.
Money, position, power, largesse... 'twas ever thus for a certain segment of society. Accountability and responsibility are for other, lesser people...
But Lab can say that poverty is an emergency and hence can spaff money up the wall to address that and when the Cons say you are spending recklessly Lab will say - we are doing exactly the same as you did: spaffing money up the wall on an emergency.
Not sure they'd be volunteering for the government job, though...
But we are talking about "excess" spending by the Cons on COVID-19 and as you know, this opens the door to Lab "excess" spending on whatever they damn well please.
I see no evidence for that. What is your logic that says the door was closed?
In case you want to protest that it is second rate, excruciating stuff, all I can suggest is that you watch more TV. Boris is no worse than most of the light entertainment guff that gets broadcast. You could probably have dropped one of his interviews into Little Britain or The League of Gentlemen and it would not have looked out of place.
I used the move in prices to take out a little Rice insurance.
Ducks
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1288232506697842688
Also it will put the appointee front and centre of HMG media operation and a very high profile position
https://www.epicmilitaria.com/original-swiss-military-bicycle-1940.html
A mask!
Foam inserts (Cushcore, etc.) instead of tubes have their adherents on MTBs but nothing is as good as tubeless both on road and off in my experience.
Would be interesting to see what the materials revolution has offered in that line, though.
Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.
Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.
Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13302
That was all on him.
When the inverted pyramid of piffle supporting BoZo falls, it will be equally dramatic.
As mentioned above, I've hedged a bit.
Countries like Canada or Sweden, which had their financial crashes in the early nineties and reined in their financial sectors, had fewer if any problems with their financial sectors in 2008. But those that had let them get out of control, like the UK, US, Iceland, Ireland and Spain suffered both financial crises and economic recessions. Ireland or Iceland did not matter much, but the UK and the US, with the world's two most influential financial sectors, pulled the rest of the world down with them.
Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0771-4
There are outstanding evolutionary questions on the recent emergence of human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 including the role of reservoir species, the role of recombination and its time of divergence from animal viruses. We find that the sarbecoviruses—the viral subgenus containing SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2—undergo frequent recombination and exhibit spatially structured genetic diversity on a regional scale in China. SARS-CoV-2 itself is not a recombinant of any sarbecoviruses detected to date, and its receptor-binding motif, important for specificity to human ACE2 receptors, appears to be an ancestral trait shared with bat viruses and not one acquired recently via recombination. To employ phylogenetic dating methods, recombinant regions of a 68-genome sarbecovirus alignment were removed with three independent methods. Bayesian evolutionary rate and divergence date estimates were shown to be consistent for these three approaches and for two different prior specifications of evolutionary rates based on HCoV-OC43 and MERS-CoV. Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades....
1 was a matter of when, not if. You are acting as if it is some abhorrent and unforeseen shock that there was a crash. That is frankly delusional. Crashes happen, if it wasn't the financial markets that triggered it it would have been something else.
These are all failures we can attribute to Brown. There's no doubt that the sub-prime housing crisis in the US was the match that started the fire, but Brown was the arsonist who put kindling under the UK economy when he tore up regulations in 2001 and put lesser people in charge of overseeing our most complicated and important sector.
It might miss some of those infected, but will likely pick up the vast majority of those who are actually infectious when they take the test.
If used in the right way based on that knowledge, could be extremely effective.
(Of course under current protocols, it's probably not sensitive enough to be approved.)
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1287439987143667712
Its like someone going hiking for a month in January, completely naked, with no backback, no tent, no supplies, they're just going to forage off the land. Then a storm comes in and they get hypothermia. Yes the storm may be what caused the hypothermia, but was it reasonable to be completely naked and exposed to the storm?
Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
Those who just dismiss the 2008 crash by saying "shocks happen" let Blair and Brown off much too lightly.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1288243148976783360
Hong Kong's hospital system could face "collapse" as it grapples with a sharp rise in coronavirus cases, the city's leader Carrie Lam has warned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53575875