The 8 Dec "safe harbour" is for state courts only, so I won't be surprised if BF don't settle tomorrow.
And why of the "candidates" other than Trump and Biden is Harris up there alongside Pence as the person who has most money staked against her? (I'm not sure what that figure at BF means. Does it mean that if someone wanted to stake £94K on Harris (i.e. basically on Biden falling ill in the ongoing third wave - which may be about to go powerfully convex - and then being removed before whenever BF settle), they would stand to win £94M? That's an awful lotta spondoolas. Surely Harris has the highest actual probability (small though it may be) out of everyone who isn't Biden (or who isn't Biden and Trump, if you must)? Those numbers on the BF screen are ... peculiar.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It was Giuliani's broken windows policy of tackling small crimes hard and three strikes and you are out that made the difference, under Koch and Dinkins his predecessors much of New York city was a crime ridden hellhole, particularly around the Bronx, Giuliani changed all that and enabled the much safer, more tourist friendly city that it is today
Then why was it dropping dramatically before he took office and why did other cities which did not implement it record similar falls?
The biggest fall in crime in New York city under any New York Mayor came under Giuliani
"We had to destroy the independent schools to save them..."
(I went to a comprehensive, but surely the whole point of independent schools is that, beyond safeguarding, what they do is none of HMG's dammed business?)
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. Boris is sui generis and can be evaluated when he leaves office.
Cameron did one thing that was really bad.
Every single thing BoZo has touched has been an epic fuckup.
There is no comparison.
Cameron almost lost Scotland, and did lose Europe. Cameron also gave us the disastrous NHS reorganisation under Lansley, and Universal Credit, Plan A austerity that choked off the recovery, student finance, or almost anything he touched. Worst of all was his attempted gerrymandering.
Boris is anti-austerity but even more anti-democracy. On Brexit and the pandemic, it is too early to tell though I gather from pb that the judge is eyeing his black cap.
If we crash out with no deal and BoZo is defenestrated by irate backbenchers, what price Mrs May stepping up as caretaker for the rejoin negotiations?
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership, that rules out Remainers Hunt and May again while Sunak backed Leave, but also someone prepared to compromise with the EU, Sunak also voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times unlike Boris and Raab who only voted for it on MV3 and Patel who never voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement once
What's wrong with Truss? Sounds like a surgical appliance which is what the country will feel like it needs. Excellent leaver and despiser of the poor credentials. Only very limited shagging antics compared to Johnson's palmarès. What's not to like?
If we crash out with no deal and BoZo is defenestrated by irate backbenchers, what price Mrs May stepping up as caretaker for the rejoin negotiations?
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership, that rules out Remainers Hunt and May again while Sunak backed Leave, but also someone prepared to compromise with the EU, Sunak also voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times unlike Boris and Raab who only voted for it on MV3 and Patel who never voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement once
But if No Deal happens and is a disaster, how does Sunak survive? He's a senior member (not Deputy PM, but heir apparent) of a government whose key policy has (in this please-god-no scenario) gone up in flames.
What is his answer to the "Why did back this policy? What did you know? Why didn't you speak out?" questions? Because he would need damn good ones, and I can't begin to discern them.
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Tariffs and paperwork would have some impact on exports and imports but I think that this is much exaggerated. In most cases things and services will be slightly more expensive and have less of a competitive advantage with the rest of the world. Which would no doubt reduce trade at the margins but I honestly doubt it will prove more than 5%, possibly less in the short term.
None of this makes this desirable of course and it is in our and the EU's interest to reduce any additional friction to the minimum that can be agreed. I would expect us to have a rough and ready deal this week and then look to fine tune some parts of our trading relationship over the next several years.
Yep, of course the raw % of trade potentially impacted is not that important - it depends to what extent the trade is impacted. There will be some things that buyers within the EU can easily source from another EU country (say, most crops we export), some things they'll still get mainly from UK even with delays, tariffs (e.g whisky) and a whole range of things in between, on both sides. Costs and opportunities.
FWIW, I agree on a deal, as @kinabalu has argued for a long time, failing to do a deal is so daft, on both sides, that it's not in anyone's interests. No deal would be a chunk of pain at least short term pain on both sides and that's not going to be popular and politicians don't generally do deliberately unpopular things. My fear has been that our side might just be crazy enough to do it, although I'm optimistic that the pig's lipstick colour is being chosen as we discuss.
In particular, Ireland. That has not been towed away and relocated off the coast of Japan. No deal leads to a world of political pain - for Johnson - around the GFA. It's just not an option imo. I will be flabbergasted if it happens. Flabbergasted. Super word, that. Sounds just like what it describes.
The 8 Dec "safe harbour" is for state courts only, so I won't be surprised if BF don't settle tomorrow.
And why of the "candidates" other than Trump and Biden is Harris up there alongside Pence as the person who has most money staked against her? (I'm not sure what that figure at BF means. Does it mean that if someone wanted to stake £94K on Harris (i.e. basically on Biden falling ill in the ongoing third wave - which may be about to go powerfully convex - and then being removed before whenever BF settle), they would stand to win £94M? That's an awful lotta spondoolas. Surely Harris has the highest actual probability (small though it may be) out of everyone who isn't Biden (or who isn't Biden and Trump, if you must)? Those numbers on the BF screen are ... peculiar.
Welcome new person.
I think 14/15 Dec is looking very likely for BF settlement.
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It was Giuliani's broken windows policy of tackling small crimes hard and three strikes and you are out that made the difference, under Koch and Dinkins his predecessors much of New York city was a crime ridden hellhole, particularly around the Bronx, Giuliani changed all that and enabled the much safer, more tourist friendly city that it is today
Then why was it dropping dramatically before he took office and why did other cities which did not implement it record similar falls?
The biggest fall in crime in New York city under any New York Mayor came under Giuliani
Of course, because he had eight years while Dinkins had four. But, insofar as any mayors are responsible, Dinkins laid the groundwork and Giuliani didn't screw it up and took the credit. In fact, other factors such as a break in the crack epidemic, demographic changes and Dinkins's big increase in policy numbers (which Giuliani continued) were almost certainly more important.
Incidentally, New York City did not enact a three strikes and you're out law under Giuliani, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it would have been a state, not a city, law. Secondly, New York already had a habitual offenders statute dating from the 18th century, so it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.
And you haven't answered my question about why other big American cities recorded similar falls? New York gets most attention because it is the biggest and most international US city, but San Francisco didn't implement a broken windows policy and recorded falls in crime as great as or greater than New York's in the 90s.
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Tariffs and paperwork would have some impact on exports and imports but I think that this is much exaggerated. In most cases things and services will be slightly more expensive and have less of a competitive advantage with the rest of the world. Which would no doubt reduce trade at the margins but I honestly doubt it will prove more than 5%, possibly less in the short term.
None of this makes this desirable of course and it is in our and the EU's interest to reduce any additional friction to the minimum that can be agreed. I would expect us to have a rough and ready deal this week and then look to fine tune some parts of our trading relationship over the next several years.
Yep, of course the raw % of trade potentially impacted is not that important - it depends to what extent the trade is impacted. There will be some things that buyers within the EU can easily source from another EU country (say, most crops we export), some things they'll still get mainly from UK even with delays, tariffs (e.g whisky) and a whole range of things in between, on both sides. Costs and opportunities.
FWIW, I agree on a deal, as @kinabalu has argued for a long time, failing to do a deal is so daft, on both sides, that it's not in anyone's interests. No deal would be a chunk of pain at least short term pain on both sides and that's not going to be popular and politicians don't generally do deliberately unpopular things. My fear has been that our side might just be crazy enough to do it, although I'm optimistic that the pig's lipstick colour is being chosen as we discuss.
Unlike a lot of leavers I am pretty relaxed about the content of the deal. More interesting will be the deal after that and the one after that. What will be the direction of travel, something pretty close to EEA or something more distant? The first deal will set the tone in my view. If either side feels screwed over then the direction of travel may well be set.
If we crash out with no deal and BoZo is defenestrated by irate backbenchers, what price Mrs May stepping up as caretaker for the rejoin negotiations?
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership, that rules out Remainers Hunt and May again while Sunak backed Leave, but also someone prepared to compromise with the EU, Sunak also voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times unlike Boris and Raab who only voted for it on MV3 and Patel who never voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement once
But if No Deal happens and is a disaster, how does Sunak survive? He's a senior member (not Deputy PM, but heir apparent) of a government whose key policy has (in this please-god-no scenario) gone up in flames.
What is his answer to the "Why did back this policy? What did you know? Why didn't you speak out?" questions? Because he would need damn good ones, and I can't begin to discern them.
I'm not sure he'd be toast. The same questions could be levelled at Starmer (albeit that he didn't actually have to back any policies being carried out, just put in the manifesto - there is the anti-Semitism issue, but he appears to be forgiven for that due to actions since becoming leader).
Still, in the event of a disaster, I'd expect either a swivel towards (former) remainers if it was acknowledged to be a mistake (Hunt or someone pushing for a close BINO/EEA type deal) or a doubling down on it just not being done right/hard enough and a Patel-like figure.
Sunak might still have a chance as a compromise candidate, although I'm not sure what compromise* - a looser FTA where we agree to what the EU suggests but stay a bit more distant than EEA (e.g. no FoM, but we sign up for the LPF rules and nothing much changes on fish).
*compromise also hasn't been a thing that seems to exist in the Brexit process so far
I wonder how much longer they can delay announcing the deal? Talk about ramping up the tension! Fine by me, but not really fair on the vulnerable. John Redwood, for example, is clearly now in a state of utter anguish over fish and might flip before too long.
#getbrexitdone
The U.K. was happy to negotiate this stuff years ago, the ‘sequencing’ is entirely down to the EU side.
And the fact we allowed any "sequencing" is part of the problem here.
Indeed. Thank Theresa May for that one.
Truly our worst ever PM.
David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. Boris is sui generis and can be evaluated when he leaves office.
No he wasn't, Eden, Heath, Callaghan and Brown were worse and that is just since WW2 and before then you had Chamberlain, Balfour, Wellington etc
Eden was shocking, I'll grant you. Your prejudices are showing with Heath, Callaghan and Brown. Revisionists can make a case for Chamberlain buying time, rearming, and striving to avoid war (and remember that in 1937, the slaughter of the Great War finished just 19 years earlier, well within living memory). Cameron actively made things worse.
I wonder how much longer they can delay announcing the deal? Talk about ramping up the tension! Fine by me, but not really fair on the vulnerable. John Redwood, for example, is clearly now in a state of utter anguish over fish and might flip before too long.
#getbrexitdone
The U.K. was happy to negotiate this stuff years ago, the ‘sequencing’ is entirely down to the EU side.
And the fact we allowed any "sequencing" is part of the problem here.
Indeed. Thank Theresa May for that one.
Truly our worst ever PM.
David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. Boris is sui generis and can be evaluated when he leaves office.
No he wasn't, Eden, Heath, Callaghan and Brown were worse and that is just since WW2 and before then you had Chamberlain, Balfour, Wellington etc
Eden was shocking, I'll grant you. Your prejudices are showing with Heath, Callaghan and Brown. Revisionists can make a case for Chamberlain buying time, rearming, and striving to avoid war (and remember that in 1937, the slaughter of the Great War finished just 19 years earlier, well within living memory). Cameron actively made things worse.
It matters not - Boris is going to trump them all in the worst ever PM stakes.
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
The comment I would make is that EU members with the exception of Ireland don't seem massively exercised about access to the UK market (shorthand: "German car manufacturers", who are notable by their absence). Maybe they should be, but they are not. It reduces UK leverage in negotiations with the EU. Not just these ones. Going forwards too.
[Edit] They are however exercised about protection. Hence the LPF demands. These protections can most easily be applied by blocking the UK from its markets. The UK has to make a convincing case why they shouldn't do that.
If we crash out with no deal and BoZo is defenestrated by irate backbenchers, what price Mrs May stepping up as caretaker for the rejoin negotiations?
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership, that rules out Remainers Hunt and May again while Sunak backed Leave, but also someone prepared to compromise with the EU, Sunak also voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times unlike Boris and Raab who only voted for it on MV3 and Patel who never voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement once
What's wrong with Truss? Sounds like a surgical appliance which is what the country will feel like it needs. Excellent leaver and despiser of the poor credentials. Only very limited shagging antics compared to Johnson's palmarès. What's not to like?
She's easier on the eye, if that is a criterion (admittedly it is not difficult to look better than a mobile haystack).
Edit: I hasten to add that that is from a purely unisex and non-gendered viewpoint, with a con sideration of the public image projected.
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership
If it's a disaster, the membership are going to be the ones clamouring for blood.
The "Brexit would have been great if only someone else delivered it" line won't work after BoZo crashes and burns.
Only a total repudiation of Brexit and all its works will do
You're in cloud cuckoo land.
Independence can never be a bad idea. Countries all over the globe are sovereign.
If things go wrong then we can change leadership, there's no need whatsoever to repudiate freedom.
You can't pay a mortgage with "freedom".
Plenty of other countries in the world manage both. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible here (or an independent Scotland for that matter).
Nobody is suggesting we wont "manage". Stop moving the goalposts. We're discussing whether any pain in the short, medium, and long term is "worth it".
On what terms though?
How much do you value your freedom? Your sovereignty? What price would sell your soul for?
Or is just being able to pay your bills what you care about?
If I cant pay my bills I will be homeless. In that situation I couldn't care less about theoretical "freedom", especially as I didn't feel "unfree" to begin with.
Your ridiculous libertarian viewpoint comes from a position of immense privilege.
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
The comment I would make is that EU members with the exception of Ireland don't seem massively exercised about access to the UK market (shorthand: "German car manufacturers", who are notable by their absence). Maybe they should be, but they are not. It reduces UK leverage in negotiations with the EU. Not just these ones. Going forwards too.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
The comment I would make is that EU members with the exception of Ireland don't seem massively exercised about access to the UK market (shorthand: "German car manufacturers", who are notable by their absence). Maybe they should be, but they are not. It reduces UK leverage in negotiations with the EU. Not just these ones. Going forwards too.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The only reason I can see Boris sees a no deal as an option is becuase there's some amazing contingency in place to minimise disruption (I'm really not confident this can be the case...)
Otherwise, he's taking a massive gamble on peoples jobs, livelihoods and the union. I'm not convinced that's good leadership, and the tories deserved to be punished by voters of choas ensues (particularly during a public health crisis)
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership
If it's a disaster, the membership are going to be the ones clamouring for blood.
The "Brexit would have been great if only someone else delivered it" line won't work after BoZo crashes and burns.
Only a total repudiation of Brexit and all its works will do
You're in cloud cuckoo land.
Independence can never be a bad idea. Countries all over the globe are sovereign.
If things go wrong then we can change leadership, there's no need whatsoever to repudiate freedom.
You can't pay a mortgage with "freedom".
Plenty of other countries in the world manage both. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible here (or an independent Scotland for that matter).
Nobody is suggesting we wont "manage". Stop moving the goalposts. We're discussing whether any pain in the short, medium, and long term is "worth it".
On what terms though?
How much do you value your freedom? Your sovereignty? What price would sell your soul for?
Or is just being able to pay your bills what you care about?
If I cant pay my bills I will be homeless. In that situation I couldn't care less about theoretical "freedom", especially as I didn't feel "unfree" to begin with.
Your ridiculous libertarian viewpoint comes from a position of immense privilege.
Level playing field was always going to be the toughest. The EU are requiring the UK to behave as if we have not left the EU. To which the only - and continuing - response is "Fuck off".
In the 1990s violent crime fell by 56% in New York city under Giuliani's Mayoralty compared to only 28% across the US as a whole, property crimes fell by 65% in the city but only 26% nationally.
New York city was in many parts a violent crime ridden hellhole under his predecessors Mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins, especially once you got outside the most wealthy bits of Manhattan and towards the Bronx and it was not safe to walk alone at night in many parts, Giuliani changed that
But the relevant comparator is not the country generally, since big cities experienced far higher falls (from higher peaks) than the rest of the nation. It's other big cities. And the more you look at the numbers, the less important Giuliani's role is. He was inaugurated in 1993, when crime in New York was already dropping dramatically. Its peak year was 1990. And the big increase in police numbers was agreed by his predecessor.
Once you allow for those factors, New York's performance is about average, or maybe slightly better, but certainly not as good as you make it out to be.
It was Giuliani's broken windows policy of tackling small crimes hard and three strikes and you are out that made the difference, under Koch and Dinkins his predecessors much of New York city was a crime ridden hellhole, particularly around the Bronx, Giuliani changed all that and enabled the much safer, more tourist friendly city that it is today
Then why was it dropping dramatically before he took office and why did other cities which did not implement it record similar falls?
The biggest fall in crime in New York city under any New York Mayor came under Giuliani
Of course, because he had eight years while Dinkins had four. But, insofar as any mayors are responsible, Dinkins laid the groundwork and Giuliani didn't screw it up and took the credit. In fact, other factors such as a break in the crack epidemic, demographic changes and Dinkins's big increase in policy numbers (which Giuliani continued) were almost certainly more important.
Incidentally, New York City did not enact a three strikes and you're out law under Giuliani, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it would have been a state, not a city, law. Secondly, New York already had a habitual offenders statute dating from the 18th century, so it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.
And you haven't answered my question about why other big American cities recorded similar falls? New York gets most attention because it is the biggest and most international US city, but San Francisco didn't implement a broken windows policy and recorded falls in crime as great as or greater than New York's in the 90s.
Go to San Francisco now and it has more homeless and a higher crime rate than New York city.
Crime rate in San Francisco 64 per 1000, in New York city only 17.9 per 1000.
That is because San Francisco has always only elected left liberal Mayors, never a tough on crime Mayor like Giuliani
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
The comment I would make is that EU members with the exception of Ireland don't seem massively exercised about access to the UK market (shorthand: "German car manufacturers", who are notable by their absence). Maybe they should be, but they are not. It reduces UK leverage in negotiations with the EU. Not just these ones. Going forwards too.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
There are over 100 million Russians in Europe.
yes I was expecting that and you can argue Turkey too but both are on the periphery with large Asian hinterlands and not Europe in the traditional sense.
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
The comment I would make is that EU members with the exception of Ireland don't seem massively exercised about access to the UK market (shorthand: "German car manufacturers", who are notable by their absence). Maybe they should be, but they are not. It reduces UK leverage in negotiations with the EU. Not just these ones. Going forwards too.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
There are over 100 million Russians in Europe.
yes I was expecting that and you can argue Turkey too but both are on the periphery with large Asian hinterlands and not Europe in the traditional sense.
If we crash out with no deal and BoZo is defenestrated by irate backbenchers, what price Mrs May stepping up as caretaker for the rejoin negotiations?
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership, that rules out Remainers Hunt and May again while Sunak backed Leave, but also someone prepared to compromise with the EU, Sunak also voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times unlike Boris and Raab who only voted for it on MV3 and Patel who never voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement once
What's wrong with Truss? Sounds like a surgical appliance which is what the country will feel like it needs. Excellent leaver and despiser of the poor credentials. Only very limited shagging antics compared to Johnson's palmarès. What's not to like?
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership
If it's a disaster, the membership are going to be the ones clamouring for blood.
The "Brexit would have been great if only someone else delivered it" line won't work after BoZo crashes and burns.
Only a total repudiation of Brexit and all its works will do
If Boris goes after a No Deal Brexit which goes wrong I expect MPs would contrive a Sunak v Hunt final two so no headbanger goes to the membership which Sunak would then win by a landslide.
As far as Tory members are concerned even if they are down to 1 fishcake a week, British fish of course, they will still say Brexit was worth it and blame any problems on Remoaners
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
The comment I would make is that EU members with the exception of Ireland don't seem massively exercised about access to the UK market (shorthand: "German car manufacturers", who are notable by their absence). Maybe they should be, but they are not. It reduces UK leverage in negotiations with the EU. Not just these ones. Going forwards too.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Ultimately people adapt to the situation, agreed. The UK's destiny is as a somewhat frustrated satellite of the European Union. It's what it will be but we can cope with it.
Incidentally the previous younger population growth in the UK was due to EU freedom of movement and immigration from Eastern Europe. An irony of Brexit is that the UK is becoming more like the rest of Europe in its arguably problematic respects.
Always thus with carriers. Ark Royal (R09) was laid down in 1943, paid off in 1979 and spent just 18 years of that period not in dock being fixed.
My friend in the Navy reckons the Prince of Wales will be sold.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Chile?
It'llbe interesting to see what happens with it and whether it gets sold for actual naval use. I did wonder unkindly if it could be used to replace Southsea Pier. It would make up for the UK's criminal failure to preserve any capital ships (other than the nuke sub at Devonport Dockyard).
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
The comment I would make is that EU members with the exception of Ireland don't seem massively exercised about access to the UK market (shorthand: "German car manufacturers", who are notable by their absence). Maybe they should be, but they are not. It reduces UK leverage in negotiations with the EU. Not just these ones. Going forwards too.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
There are over 100 million Russians in Europe.
yes I was expecting that and you can argue Turkey too but both are on the periphery with large Asian hinterlands and not Europe in the traditional sense.
They're also impoverished compared to the UK and have declining demographics, whereas the UK has a growing population and better demographics.
Quite probable indeed that this century the UK will overtake not just Germany but European Russia too as largest country both with population and economy.
Far less likely for the UK to overtake European Turkey in population.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Does that forecast take into account all the EU citizens who will surely go home when they realise how racist this country is, and the well-enough-off EUphiles who will want to resettle and get citizenship somewhere in the EU?
Ah, appreciated (should have read the link rather than just the google search headline). So, more pain for EU countries than my initial suggestion, but still some way lower than 43%.
Still, potentially, a huge amount of trade potentially impacted on both sides.
Of course, quoting percentages of exEU trade does rather miss the point that the EU enables trillions worth of what would otherwise be international trade within the single market. I'm always a little surprised when EUphiles get into percentage dick fights (43% is an amputation, 19% a mere scratch - almost a fifth of all exports is still a LOT) rather than making that point.
Yes it is a lot but you are also making a rookie mistake. It is 19% for the EU = 27 nations. Individually it is 6-9% per nation vs our 43%.
To reply to both of you, the more committed Brexiteers seem to struggle to comprehend* that individual country pain is more relevant or that having a large internal market is more relevant. That's why it's sometimes worth pointing out that 20% (or less) is smaller than 43% as otherwise the argument goes that EU exports total to more than ours and so they have more to lose.
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
The comment I would make is that EU members with the exception of Ireland don't seem massively exercised about access to the UK market (shorthand: "German car manufacturers", who are notable by their absence). Maybe they should be, but they are not. It reduces UK leverage in negotiations with the EU. Not just these ones. Going forwards too.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Ultimately people adapt to the situation, agreed. The UK's destiny is as a somewhat frustrated satellite of the European Union. It's what it will be but we can cope with it.
Incidentally the previous younger population growth in the UK was due to EU freedom of movement and immigration from Eastern Europe. An irony of Brexit is that the UK is becoming more like the rest of Europe in its arguably problematic respects.
The UK is too big to be a satellite, a difficult neighbour certainly. As for pop growth, the E European boost certainly shoved things along, but these days most migration growth is non EU.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Does that forecast take into account all the EU citizens who will surely go home when they realise how racist this country is, and the well-enough-off EUphiles who will want to resettle and get citizenship somewhere in the EU?
This country is one of the least racist countries on the planet, a point proved repeatedly by surveys.
I wonder how much longer they can delay announcing the deal? Talk about ramping up the tension! Fine by me, but not really fair on the vulnerable. John Redwood, for example, is clearly now in a state of utter anguish over fish and might flip before too long.
#getbrexitdone
The U.K. was happy to negotiate this stuff years ago, the ‘sequencing’ is entirely down to the EU side.
And the fact we allowed any "sequencing" is part of the problem here.
Indeed. Thank Theresa May for that one.
Truly our worst ever PM.
David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. Boris is sui generis and can be evaluated when he leaves office.
No he wasn't, Eden, Heath, Callaghan and Brown were worse and that is just since WW2 and before then you had Chamberlain, Balfour, Wellington etc
Eden was shocking, I'll grant you. Your prejudices are showing with Heath, Callaghan and Brown. Revisionists can make a case for Chamberlain buying time, rearming, and striving to avoid war (and remember that in 1937, the slaughter of the Great War finished just 19 years earlier, well within living memory). Cameron actively made things worse.
It matters not - Boris is going to trump them all in the worst ever PM stakes.
Like him or not Boris is going to go down in history like Attlee and Thatcher as a PM that transformed the country.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Does that forecast take into account all the EU citizens who will surely go home when they realise how racist this country is, and the well-enough-off EUphiles who will want to resettle and get citizenship somewhere in the EU?
This country is one of the least racist countries on the planet, a point proved repeatedly by surveys.
I wonder how much longer they can delay announcing the deal? Talk about ramping up the tension! Fine by me, but not really fair on the vulnerable. John Redwood, for example, is clearly now in a state of utter anguish over fish and might flip before too long.
#getbrexitdone
The U.K. was happy to negotiate this stuff years ago, the ‘sequencing’ is entirely down to the EU side.
And the fact we allowed any "sequencing" is part of the problem here.
Indeed. Thank Theresa May for that one.
Truly our worst ever PM.
David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. Boris is sui generis and can be evaluated when he leaves office.
No he wasn't, Eden, Heath, Callaghan and Brown were worse and that is just since WW2 and before then you had Chamberlain, Balfour, Wellington etc
Eden was shocking, I'll grant you. Your prejudices are showing with Heath, Callaghan and Brown. Revisionists can make a case for Chamberlain buying time, rearming, and striving to avoid war (and remember that in 1937, the slaughter of the Great War finished just 19 years earlier, well within living memory). Cameron actively made things worse.
It matters not - Boris is going to trump them all in the worst ever PM stakes.
Like him or not Boris is going to go down in history like Attlee and Thatcher as a PM that transformed the country.
The difference is that they transformed it, unintended consequences notwithstanding, in the way they set out to do.
Why do you post tweets like this that are demonstrably nonsense? And do so without comment that they are such? One could easily take it that you believe them.
I wonder how much longer they can delay announcing the deal? Talk about ramping up the tension! Fine by me, but not really fair on the vulnerable. John Redwood, for example, is clearly now in a state of utter anguish over fish and might flip before too long.
#getbrexitdone
The U.K. was happy to negotiate this stuff years ago, the ‘sequencing’ is entirely down to the EU side.
And the fact we allowed any "sequencing" is part of the problem here.
Indeed. Thank Theresa May for that one.
Truly our worst ever PM.
David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. Boris is sui generis and can be evaluated when he leaves office.
No he wasn't, Eden, Heath, Callaghan and Brown were worse and that is just since WW2 and before then you had Chamberlain, Balfour, Wellington etc
Eden was shocking, I'll grant you. Your prejudices are showing with Heath, Callaghan and Brown. Revisionists can make a case for Chamberlain buying time, rearming, and striving to avoid war (and remember that in 1937, the slaughter of the Great War finished just 19 years earlier, well within living memory). Cameron actively made things worse.
It matters not - Boris is going to trump them all in the worst ever PM stakes.
Like him or not Boris is going to go down in history like Attlee and Thatcher as a PM that transformed the country.
The difference is that they transformed it, unintended consequences notwithstanding, in the way they set out to do.
So is Boris.
You're only objecting because you dislike what he set out to do. Just as people disliked both Thatcher and Attlee.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Does that forecast take into account all the EU citizens who will surely go home when they realise how racist this country is, and the well-enough-off EUphiles who will want to resettle and get citizenship somewhere in the EU?
This country is one of the least racist countries on the planet, a point proved repeatedly by surveys.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership
If it's a disaster, the membership are going to be the ones clamouring for blood.
The "Brexit would have been great if only someone else delivered it" line won't work after BoZo crashes and burns.
Only a total repudiation of Brexit and all its works will do
You're in cloud cuckoo land.
Independence can never be a bad idea. Countries all over the globe are sovereign.
If things go wrong then we can change leadership, there's no need whatsoever to repudiate freedom.
Brexit is not a liberation movement fighting for national self-determination. That is a ridiculously precious badging of a project to leave the European single market in order to reduce immigration.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
I tried to quote a post earlier and Vanilla told me it was too long with my reply. I cut out the middle and tried to post again, when it did something I've not seen before. It told me I was a couple characters short of a full post, which I found insulting, I had to walk away.
Why do you post tweets like this that are demonstrably nonsense? And do so without comment that they are such? One could easily take it that you believe them.
Indeed. One would have to be a bit simple to think that cutting aid to 0.5% of GDP - still higher than almost every other country in the world - was equivalent to 'scrapping it'.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
I wonder how much longer they can delay announcing the deal? Talk about ramping up the tension! Fine by me, but not really fair on the vulnerable. John Redwood, for example, is clearly now in a state of utter anguish over fish and might flip before too long.
#getbrexitdone
The U.K. was happy to negotiate this stuff years ago, the ‘sequencing’ is entirely down to the EU side.
And the fact we allowed any "sequencing" is part of the problem here.
Indeed. Thank Theresa May for that one.
Truly our worst ever PM.
David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. Boris is sui generis and can be evaluated when he leaves office.
No he wasn't, Eden, Heath, Callaghan and Brown were worse and that is just since WW2 and before then you had Chamberlain, Balfour, Wellington etc
Eden was shocking, I'll grant you. Your prejudices are showing with Heath, Callaghan and Brown. Revisionists can make a case for Chamberlain buying time, rearming, and striving to avoid war (and remember that in 1937, the slaughter of the Great War finished just 19 years earlier, well within living memory). Cameron actively made things worse.
It matters not - Boris is going to trump them all in the worst ever PM stakes.
Like him or not Boris is going to go down in history like Attlee and Thatcher as a PM that transformed the country.
No, because "transformed" has positive connotations. Substitute with the more neutral "changed" and you have a goer. He IS changing us. The change could end up a net positive - it's just about in the realms of possibility - in which case "transformed" can then be used. But not right now. Way too early. And of course the change could very well end up being a net negative. Perhaps even a BIG net negative. That can't be ruled out by any means. It could easily be that Boris Johnson will go down as a man who did enormous damage to the country he professed to love but in reality did not give a flying fuck about. That is what most of the books written 50 years from now might well say. My sense, FWIW, is that they will.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
If we crash out with no deal and BoZo is defenestrated by irate backbenchers, what price Mrs May stepping up as caretaker for the rejoin negotiations?
If we go to No Deal which ends up a disaster there is no alternative but Sunak.
The new leader would still have to be a Leaver to appease the membership, that rules out Remainers Hunt and May again while Sunak backed Leave, but also someone prepared to compromise with the EU, Sunak also voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement 3 times unlike Boris and Raab who only voted for it on MV3 and Patel who never voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement once
What's wrong with Truss? Sounds like a surgical appliance which is what the country will feel like it needs. Excellent leaver and despiser of the poor credentials. Only very limited shagging antics compared to Johnson's palmarès. What's not to like?
She's easier on the eye, if that is a criterion (admittedly it is not difficult to look better than a mobile haystack).
Edit: I hasten to add that that is from a purely unisex and non-gendered viewpoint, with a con sideration of the public image projected.
No need for such delicacy, the noted lesbian newt painter has already classified her as MILFy (though that certainly proved the tastes of lesbian newt painters are not mine).
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
And the EU are using their sovereignty to impose red lines which you have been constantly whinging about.
To the Chinese? Who else woudl want it? The Indians or Japanese?
Not many navies can handle it and it's very big and very complex. Even in the RN the QE or the PoW cannot go anywhere without 2-300 civvie contractors to keep things like HMWHS functional. Quite how that will be resolved if they ever have to go to war remains to be seen.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
Only 8 other countries beyond ourselves even have an aircraft carrier, the US, France, China, Russia, Spain, Thailand , Italy and India so there are indeed only a few navies which could accomodate it
That's what people forget when they talk about "big boys" looking down their nose at our own country.
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
Dear me! My gun's bigger than yours! How provincial can you get.
That's nonsense of course. As I was saying if you'd bothered to read and understand what I wrote.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
Presumably you think that makes France a sovereign inferior?
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Does that forecast take into account all the EU citizens who will surely go home when they realise how racist this country is, and the well-enough-off EUphiles who will want to resettle and get citizenship somewhere in the EU?
This country is one of the least racist countries on the planet, a point proved repeatedly by surveys.
The continental press hardly mentions Brexit these days, its a fascination only for sulking remainers. Really its just a bore now. All the countries will survive and move on.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Does that forecast take into account all the EU citizens who will surely go home when they realise how racist this country is, and the well-enough-off EUphiles who will want to resettle and get citizenship somewhere in the EU?
This country is one of the least racist countries on the planet, a point proved repeatedly by surveys.
Q1, How racist are you?
A. Ooo very. B. A little bit. C. Not at all!
Q2, Did you answer Q1 honestly?
A. No. B. No comment. C Yes!
Nah I think it's true that Britain is on the whole much less racist than a majority of countries in the world.
That doesn't mean there's not work still to be done.
Breaking up the UK is not likely to be the sort of 'transformation' BoZo will be lauded for
He is not going to break up the UK, hence he is passing the internal markets bill and will urge a Unionist boycott of and not recognise the result of any indyref2 Sturgeon holds even if she wins a majority next year as long as he remains PM
Absolutely. No Deal would be one of the greatest failures of political statecraft in modern British history. Boris, and the rest of his Cabinet, would have no option but to resign.
Comments
The 8 Dec "safe harbour" is for state courts only, so I won't be surprised if BF don't settle tomorrow.
And why of the "candidates" other than Trump and Biden is Harris up there alongside Pence as the person who has most money staked against her? (I'm not sure what that figure at BF means. Does it mean that if someone wanted to stake £94K on Harris (i.e. basically on Biden falling ill in the ongoing third wave - which may be about to go powerfully convex - and then being removed before whenever BF settle), they would stand to win £94M? That's an awful lotta spondoolas. Surely Harris has the highest actual probability (small though it may be) out of everyone who isn't Biden (or who isn't Biden and Trump, if you must)? Those numbers on the BF screen are ... peculiar.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/04/ampleforth-has-put-death-rowjust-cromwell-did-monasteries/
*not directed at @TrèsDifficile, who I think does comprehend this and just pointing out there's also a lot of potential EU pain
Boris is anti-austerity but even more anti-democracy. On Brexit and the pandemic, it is too early to tell though I gather from pb that the judge is eyeing his black cap.
What is his answer to the "Why did back this policy? What did you know? Why didn't you speak out?" questions? Because he would need damn good ones, and I can't begin to discern them.
The "Brexit would have been great if only someone else delivered it" line won't work after BoZo crashes and burns.
Only a total repudiation of Brexit and all its works will do
Independence can never be a bad idea. Countries all over the globe are sovereign.
If things go wrong then we can change leadership, there's no need whatsoever to repudiate freedom.
I think 14/15 Dec is looking very likely for BF settlement.
Incidentally, New York City did not enact a three strikes and you're out law under Giuliani, for two very good reasons. Firstly, it would have been a state, not a city, law. Secondly, New York already had a habitual offenders statute dating from the 18th century, so it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.
And you haven't answered my question about why other big American cities recorded similar falls? New York gets most attention because it is the biggest and most international US city, but San Francisco didn't implement a broken windows policy and recorded falls in crime as great as or greater than New York's in the 90s.
The first deal will set the tone in my view. If either side feels screwed over then the direction of travel may well be set.
Still, in the event of a disaster, I'd expect either a swivel towards (former) remainers if it was acknowledged to be a mistake (Hunt or someone pushing for a close BINO/EEA type deal) or a doubling down on it just not being done right/hard enough and a Patel-like figure.
Sunak might still have a chance as a compromise candidate, although I'm not sure what compromise* - a looser FTA where we agree to what the EU suggests but stay a bit more distant than EEA (e.g. no FoM, but we sign up for the LPF rules and nothing much changes on fish).
*compromise also hasn't been a thing that seems to exist in the Brexit process so far
"C'est un Savoyard"
[Edit] They are however exercised about protection. Hence the LPF demands. These protections can most easily be applied by blocking the UK from its markets. The UK has to make a convincing case why they shouldn't do that.
No amount of theoretical "freedom" is going to make that feel better.
That has nothing to do with how the nation will "manage" long term.
Edit: I hasten to add that that is from a purely unisex and non-gendered viewpoint, with a con sideration of the public image projected.
Overseas Aid has also not been scrapped, just reduced to the G7 average
How much do you value your freedom? Your sovereignty? What price would sell your soul for?
Or is just being able to pay your bills what you care about?
Your ridiculous libertarian viewpoint comes from a position of immense privilege.
Interest in the UK will probably continue as we are forecast to have the largest population and eventually economy in Europe in this century. This is in contrast to a Europe which will see a population decline and in some countries a crash.
The current round of bed wetting is simply that.
Perhaps he is NF after all.
or maybe this is a stupid exercise.
Otherwise, he's taking a massive gamble on peoples jobs, livelihoods and the union. I'm not convinced that's good leadership, and the tories deserved to be punished by voters of choas ensues (particularly during a public health crisis)
It could also be that he's so deluded as well..
Crime rate in San Francisco 64 per 1000, in New York city only 17.9 per 1000.
That is because San Francisco has always only elected left liberal Mayors, never a tough on crime Mayor like Giuliani
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/crime#:~:text=With a crime rate of,here is one in 16.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/crime
As far as Tory members are concerned even if they are down to 1 fishcake a week, British fish of course, they will still say Brexit was worth it and blame any problems on Remoaners
There again, the cheese for Japanese cars contra-deal was laughable.
Incidentally the previous younger population growth in the UK was due to EU freedom of movement and immigration from Eastern Europe. An irony of Brexit is that the UK is becoming more like the rest of Europe in its arguably problematic respects.
Quite probable indeed that this century the UK will overtake not just Germany but European Russia too as largest country both with population and economy.
Far less likely for the UK to overtake European Turkey in population.
If you mean me then given my post count I must have only joined five days ago?
Even HYUFD would have only joined just over a week ago.
You're only objecting because you dislike what he set out to do. Just as people disliked both Thatcher and Attlee.
So it needs a very large and very technically capable navy to operate it. Japan and South Korea could both do it but it doesn't fit with their strategic doctrine so if it is going to be sold India is the only realistic prospect. The Baku/Vikramaditya fiasco proves they'll buy fucking anything if the bribes can be targeted to the right spot.
I think the RN will keep it and use it as a ridiculously large and expensive LPH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers
England or the United Kingdom is not only historically a "big boy", it still is today. We are a top tier economic country (G7) and a top tier military nation too (with the USA being sui generis). Which is why we both have and deserve our permanent Security Council status.
Whether that will continue to be the case in the future depends, but it is still the case today.
I never said that but, that attitude has been precisely the pathetic dick swinging we have been seeing from Europhiles here thinking the UK must accept EU terms because supposedly the EU has bigger (economic) guns.
Reality is the UK and the EU are from next year sovereign equals.
A. Ooo very.
B. A little bit.
C. Not at all!
Q2, Did you answer Q1 honestly?
A. No.
B. No comment.
C Yes!
That doesn't mean there's not work still to be done.
Good job guys.