I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
Little chance of a French Maggie - they prefer malaise to reform.
Ah the cult of Maggie is alive and well. I suppose the true believers will never accept that she didn't preside over any kind of economic miracle and simply benefitted from North Sea Oil and a credit boom. The French have a problem with their currency right now, but I'm not sure how we're better off in any serious way.
The political right in this country always love to mock the French. You'd think we had twice their GDP per head.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
France needs a Maggie to sell off their nationalised industries cheaply to, erm, French nationalised industries? Well, it's a plan.
A robust round of privatisations would be very good for France, especially energy companies and SNCF. But most of all La Maggie would need to gut their unions and legislate to put consumers ahead of producers, free up new business formation and allow businesses to get ahead.
Maggie and indeed the Conservatives generally did not and do not put consumers ahead of producers. That is Blairism, or as I believe, Alastair Campbellism (intellectuals might point to Giddens and his third way, but he probably nicked it from AC's Today newspaper editorials).
There is some truth in yr first point. The papers do get incestuous, but so does the media in every democracy - cf the American Left's aggressive obsession with Fox News. It's probably inevitable, if sometimes offputting to readers. But then what would we talk about on here if we didn't have papers generating debate and pinion?
I disagree that we do not have a decent newspaper, because I reckon you are harking back to a golden age that did not exist. Newspapers are in some ways better and livelier than ever ESPECIALLY in their commentary, as the internet allows readers to argue back, and shout at the hacks, revealing their errors, and bringing them down a peg or two.
As a hack, I welcome this. It makes things more fun. Remember the dull days when the only reader interaction was a stiff, pompous letter to the Times three days later? Yawn.
The Times was excellent until it changed its editorial coverage a couple of years ago to become much more overtly Tory-leaning. It had a balance of views and always sought to challenge its readership. It does not do that anymore, so has become just another newspaper with a party political agenda. I think that is a shame. I do not disagree that overall coverage of events in the papers is much more in-depth across many more areas. But looking specifically at politics a load of articles that are essentially responses to articles in other newspapers is not, in the end, very interesting - though I do appreciate they must be great fun to write.
Fully agree France has some top notch companies such as Danone, Airbus, Total and Schneider Electric. But these are all really French multinationals. France lacks a Mittelstand or a City of London to serve as its domestic economic engine.
The car industry is probably as good a proxy as any for the whole. Germany has strength in depth. The UK has great strength at the top end and we wisely got out of local cheap'n'cheerful by selling to or encouraging investment from the likes of Honda. Both countries now produce great cars with a Teutonic efficiency. France religiously refuses to accept that both Renault and Peugeot Citroen produce crap cars expensively and have no future. They'll throw good money after bad and make it 'illegal' for them to close French plants. But they will close in the end as France itself is not a big enough market for their manufacturers to be able to compete with cheaper better imports. And when they close the idiots will wonder why - much as we did when the British car industry was in its post-Leyland nadir.
A country cannot succeed at business if it hates business. (Miliblob take note)
For anyone interested in a lesser-acknowledged part of WWII, Jeremy Clarkson presents a documentary on BBC 2 tonight on the PQ17 Arctic Convoy disaster. Not our brightest moment in that conflict.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
France needs a Maggie to sell off their nationalised industries cheaply to, erm, French nationalised industries? Well, it's a plan.
A robust round of privatisations would be very good for France, especially energy companies and SNCF. But most of all La Maggie would need to gut their unions and legislate to put consumers ahead of producers, free up new business formation and allow businesses to get ahead.
Maggie and indeed the Conservatives generally did not and do not put consumers ahead of producers. That is Blairism, or as I believe, Alastair Campbellism (intellectuals might point to Giddens and his third way, but he probably nicked it from AC's Today newspaper editorials).
What on earth do you think privatisation was all about? Or buying your own council house? How long did people need to register and wait for a new phone line in 1979? What happened to the cost / benefit of airline tickets or steel production or water treatment? Your hatred of Maggie blinds you to simple facts.
Mr. T, worth mentioning that quote's a bit false. Alexander wanted to go further east and conquer more of India, but his troops, on the not unreasonable grounds they were thousands of miles away from a home they hadn't seen for a decade, refused to go any further.
Given he buggered up what should've been the simplest thing he did (go back home) one wonders if he would've had not only more conquests but a much longer life if the Macedonians hadn't been so war-weary.
For anyone interested in a lesser-acknowledged part of WWII, Jeremy Clarkson presents a documentary on BBC 2 tonight on the PQ17 Arctic Convoy disaster. Not our brightest moment in that conflict.
It should be interesting: Clarkson's usually quite good at this populist military history stuff.
Not our brightest moment indeed.
As you say it looks like it may have promise and have set the box to record it.
Quite, although the disaster was more down to one tired, old, over-promoted man jumping at shadows than a systemic failure. After all, it happened because the existing policy was deviated from, not because it was followed.
Fully agree France has some top notch companies such as Danone, Airbus, Total and Schneider Electric. But these are all really French multinationals. France lacks a Mittelstand or a City of London to serve as its domestic economic engine.
The car industry is probably as good a proxy as any for the whole. Germany has strength in depth. The UK has great strength at the top end and we wisely got out of local cheap'n'cheerful by selling to or encouraging investment from the likes of Honda. Both countries now produce great cars with a Teutonic efficiency. France religiously refuses to accept that both Renault and Peugeot Citroen produce crap cars expensively and have no future. They'll throw good money after bad and make it 'illegal' for them to close French plants. But they will close in the end as France itself is not a big enough market for their manufacturers to be able to compete with cheaper better imports. And when they close the idiots will wonder why - much as we did when the British car industry was in its post-Leyland nadir.
A country cannot succeed at business if it hates business. (Miliblob take note)
France does not hate business, neither does Miliband. But too many in France do not *get* business. And this is Miliband's problem too (which far too many in Labour share). I see a lot of very impressive French companies with very progressive managements in my line of work. It's no surprise so many French executives come over here and thrive - they are better than our time-serving, cost-obsessed native breed. We should export our management class to France and let it deal with their unions. It would be a marriage made in heaven.
I voted Tory in 2005 before I decided trickle-down economics was ineffective
You stopped voting Tory because you didn't like the economics after 8 years of Gordon Brown...
OK.
It was more a question of ideology than personal experience, I was reaching political maturity and moving past the desolate wasteland of Conservative despair for the sunny uplands of Progressive Thought.
Sadly, then Nick Clegg happened.
Progressive Thought's great if you have the money for it. What happens when you don't ?
The facts of life remain conservative.
$33Bn squirreled away in tax havens, there is plenty of money in the world, but the people who shape the facts are conservative.
Conservative? You mean people like Margaret Hodge or should I say the Hon. Lady Margaret Hodge whose brother boasts on the family company website (Stemcor) that they have paid £14 million Corporation Tax in the past 3 years on turnover of approx. £1.5 billion.
Turnover is a very misleading comparison for a trading business like Stemcor
As I have long said, France will be the country which decides if the Euro lives or dies (and with the Euro, the whole EU): if it reforms, as it did under the socialist Mitterrand, then it will recover and the Euro will survive. But choosing the reforms necessary for survival, as both Ireland and Spain have shown, is extremely painful in the short term.
My head says they will reform (for the political class largely understands what the problem is), but I am not, in my heart, optimistic.
There is some truth in yr first point. The papers do get incestuous, but so does the media in every democracy - cf the American Left's aggressive obsession with Fox News. It's probably inevitable, if sometimes offputting to readers. But then what would we talk about on here if we didn't have papers generating debate and pinion?
I disagree that we do not have a decent newspaper, because I reckon you are harking back to a golden age that did not exist. Newspapers are in some ways better and livelier than ever ESPECIALLY in their commentary, as the internet allows readers to argue back, and shout at the hacks, revealing their errors, and bringing them down a peg or two.
As a hack, I welcome this. It makes things more fun. Remember the dull days when the only reader interaction was a stiff, pompous letter to the Times three days later? Yawn.
The Times was excellent until it changed its editorial coverage a couple of years ago to become much more overtly Tory-leaning. It had a balance of views and always sought to challenge its readership. It does not do that anymore, so has become just another newspaper with a party political agenda. I think that is a shame. I do not disagree that overall coverage of events in the papers is much more in-depth across many more areas. But looking specifically at politics a load of articles that are essentially responses to articles in other newspapers is not, in the end, very interesting - though I do appreciate they must be great fun to write.
It`s odd you think The Times changed it`s coverage a couple of years ago.By my reckoning the NI stable changed it`s coverage around 2006-2007 and has remained pro-Tory since.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
Little chance of a French Maggie - they prefer malaise to reform.
Ah the cult of Maggie is alive and well. I suppose the true believers will never accept that she didn't preside over any kind of economic miracle and simply benefitted from North Sea Oil and a credit boom. .
You don't think the Uk improved it's labour practices between 1979 and 1997 which helped international competitiveness ?
There is some truth in yr first point. The papers do get incestuous, but so does the media in every democracy - cf the American Left's aggressive obsession with Fox News. It's probably inevitable, if sometimes offputting to readers. But then what would we talk about on here if we didn't have papers generating debate and pinion?
I disagree that we do not have a decent newspaper, because I reckon you are harking back to a golden age that did not exist. Newspapers are in some ways better and livelier than ever ESPECIALLY in their commentary, as the internet allows readers to argue back, and shout at the hacks, revealing their errors, and bringing them down a peg or two.
As a hack, I welcome this. It makes things more fun. Remember the dull days when the only reader interaction was a stiff, pompous letter to the Times three days later? Yawn.
The Times was excellent until it changed its editorial coverage a couple of years ago to become much more overtly Tory-leaning. It had a balance of views and always sought to challenge its readership. It does not do that anymore, so has become just another newspaper with a party political agenda. I think that is a shame. I do not disagree that overall coverage of events in the papers is much more in-depth across many more areas. But looking specifically at politics a load of articles that are essentially responses to articles in other newspapers is not, in the end, very interesting - though I do appreciate they must be great fun to write.
It`s odd you think The Times changed it`s coverage a couple of years ago.By my reckoning the NI stable changed it`s coverage around 2006-2007 and has remained pro-Tory since.
It's been Tory-leaning for a while; but used to prioritise providing readers with a range of views from across the spectrum. And its support for the Tories never used to affect the way it covered the news. It does now, unfortunately.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
France needs a Maggie to sell off their nationalised industries cheaply to, erm, French nationalised industries? Well, it's a plan.
A robust round of privatisations would be very good for France, especially energy companies and SNCF. But most of all La Maggie would need to gut their unions and legislate to put consumers ahead of producers, free up new business formation and allow businesses to get ahead.
Maggie and indeed the Conservatives generally did not and do not put consumers ahead of producers. That is Blairism, or as I believe, Alastair Campbellism (intellectuals might point to Giddens and his third way, but he probably nicked it from AC's Today newspaper editorials).
You sir, are a fu
Other way round. You are giving Maggie credit for service improvements that are actually due to advances in technology (eg phones and airliners). In any case, this is separate from the question of producer versus consumer interests.
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
France needs a Maggie to sell off their nationalised industries cheaply to, erm, French nationalised industries? Well, it's a plan.
A robust round of privatisations would be very good for France, especially energy companies and SNCF. But most of all La Maggie would need to gut their unions and legislate to put consumers ahead of producers, free up new business formation and allow businesses to get ahead.
Maggie and indeed the Conservatives generally did not and do not put consumers ahead of producers. That is Blairism, or as I believe, Alastair Campbellism (intellectuals might point to Giddens and his third way, but he probably nicked it from AC's Today newspaper editorials).
You sir, are a fu
Other way round. You are giving Maggie credit for service improvements that are actually due to advances in technology (eg phones and airliners). In any case, this is separate from the question of producer versus consumer interests.
You think we would have the phone and airline market in the Uk we got without privatisation ?
More lol.
"Maggie was lucky" - are pills available for this affliction ?
I'm not sure it is just the recent economic insanity of its socialist president. FWIW I think France has been cruising for a bruising over a much longer timeframe. They have somehow, bizarrely and dangerously, come to the collective attitude that free enterprise and markets are evil and that there is honour and growth and equality to be found in a rapacious state. They are desperately in need of a Maggie.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
France needs a Maggie to sell off their nationalised industries cheaply to, erm, French nationalised industries? Well, it's a plan.
A robust round of privatisations would be very good for France, especially energy companies and SNCF. But most of all La Maggie would need to gut their unions and legislate to put consumers ahead of producers, free up new business formation and allow businesses to get ahead.
Maggie and indeed the Conservatives generally did not and do not put consumers ahead of producers. That is Blairism, or as I believe, Alastair Campbellism (intellectuals might point to Giddens and his third way, but he probably nicked it from AC's Today newspaper editorials).
You sir, are a fu
Other way round. You are giving Maggie credit for service improvements that are actually due to advances in technology (eg phones and airliners). In any case, this is separate from the question of producer versus consumer interests.
You think we would have the phone and airline market in the Uk we got without privatisation ?
More lol.
"Maggie was lucky" - are pills available for this affliction ?
Examine your phone -- where was it manufactured? Where was it designed? Do the same for your next airliner.
Speaking of Conservative leaders, Cameron's supported the proposals for longer sentences (and axing the concurrent craziness we have now): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25574176
We'll have to wait and see if this goes ahead, but it seems very popular. Except with the ECHR, of course, and some human rights lawyers.
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
.
A robust round of privatisations would be very good for France, especially energy companies and SNCF. But most of all La Maggie would need to gut their unions and legislate to put consumers ahead of producers, free up new business formation and allow businesses to get ahead.
Maggie and indeed the Conservatives generally did not and do not put consumers ahead of producers. That is Blairism, or as I believe, Alastair Campbellism (intellectuals might point to Giddens and his third way, but he probably nicked it from AC's Today newspaper editorials).
You sir, are a fu
Other way round. You are giving Maggie credit for service improvements that are actually due to advances in technology (eg phones and airliners). In any case, this is separate from the question of producer versus consumer interests.
You think we would have the phone and airline market in the Uk we got without privatisation ?
More lol.
"Maggie was lucky" - are pills available for this affliction ?
Examine your phone -- where was it manufactured? Where was it designed? Do the same for your next airliner.
In 1979 most Uk phones were supplied by BT - they were rubbish.
The liberalisation of the Uk market helped in no small way to drive the aggressive development of mobile phones.
In 1979 I could fly between London and Edinburgh with BA or BA. From LHR or LHR.
If all the good stuff was due to Maggie being lucky - then by the same logic the pits closing and the smashing of the unions must have been due to their bad luck - so why the demonisation ?
Speaking of Conservative leaders, Cameron's supported the proposals for longer sentences (and axing the concurrent craziness we have now): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25574176
We'll have to wait and see if this goes ahead, but it seems very popular. Except with the ECHR, of course, and some human rights lawyers.
20 years for shooting a police officer, or well it was in 1993...
If and when the EU and/or the Euro really breaks open I think France will be the one wot dunnit. Their whole social economic model is unworkable and the wailing and gnashing of teeth when markets/ECB force change will be a wonder to behold. I'm buying popcorn.
.
A robust round of privatisations would be very good for France, especially energy companies and SNCF. But most of all La Maggie would need to gut their unions and legislate to put consumers ahead of producers, free up new business formation and allow businesses to get ahead.
Maggie and indeed the Conservatives generally did not and do not put consumers ahead of producers. That is Blairism, or as I believe, Alastair Campbellism (intellectuals might point to Giddens and his third way, but he probably nicked it from AC's Today newspaper editorials).
You sir, are a fu
Other way round. You are giving Maggie credit for service improvements that are actually due to advances in technology (eg phones and airliners). In any case, this is separate from the question of producer versus consumer interests.
You think we would have the phone and airline market in the Uk we got without privatisation ?
More lol.
"Maggie was lucky" - are pills available for this affliction ?
Examine your phone -- where was it manufactured? Where was it designed? Do the same for your next airliner.
In 1979 most Uk phones were supplied by BT - they were rubbish.
The liberalisation of the Uk market helped in no small way to drive the aggressive development of mobile phones.
In 1979 I could fly between London and Edinburgh with BA or BA. From LHR or LHR.
If all the good stuff was due to Maggie being lucky - then by the same logic the pits closing and the smashing of the unions must have been due to their bad luck - so why the demonisation ?
Cheaper fuel and more efficient planes mean travel is cheaper. Similarly technological changes mean we now have better phones/cameras/computers. Sod all to do with privatisation.
Examine your phone -- where was it manufactured? Where was it designed? Do the same for your next airliner.
It's stupid to look at any high-tech device and ask where it was 'manufactured' or 'designed'. For one thing, many items are 'assembled' from components sourced throughout the world. Do you count the final product, or all the many components that make it up?
For instance, no iPhones are manufactured here in the UK, but a company you've probably never heard of - Imagination Technologies - provides graphics processor IP that is in the iPhone and iPad. Or ARM, likewise. Both companies have benefited from Apple Fanbois paying over the odds for their fondleslabs.
The new EC trains are nominally British, being 'built' at a plant in Newton Aycliffe, are really just being assembled there from parts made by owner Hitachi and others.
Recently, Saab won a contract from the Brazilians to provide 36 planes according for their FX-2 programme. Bad for Britain? Hardly, as currently 30% of the Gripen is manufactured here in Blighty.
On the other hand, the liberalisation of markets really allowed the phone and airline industries to flourish.
In the case of mobile phones, some brilliant standards legislation by Europe to allow interoperability helped companies like Vodafone take on the world. Compare and contrast with the messy situation in the US, which uses either GSM or CDMA.
"Current research shows 96% of UK adults use one or more of the BBC's services each week, costing 40p per household, per day."
Lots of people use news service which has a monopoly on radio, the lion's share of TV and one of the last free major news sites. Shocking.
Also, listing a price per day or week is a great way to make something seem cheap. To be fair, the annual cost is mentioned earlier.
"Responding to a government inquiry into the future of the BBC, it argued the £145.50 licence fee was the "most effective way" to fund the corporation.
It warned a subscription model - where users only pay for the services they want - would exclude many who could not afford it."
That's only rational if you make it more expensive. If someone only wants current events and history documentaries they could probably save quite a bit. And you can't argue against charging people too much making a network exclusive when you're collecting involuntary payment as a tax.
I do think there's a case for a core BBC service (current events) being funded by a licence fee, but the current approach is just crazy. It's also unsustainable. TVs will never die out (too convenient) but the proportion of people without a dedicated telly will only rise in the near future.
Cheaper fuel and more efficient planes mean travel is cheaper. Similarly technological changes mean we now have better phones/cameras/computers. Sod all to do with privatisation.
May I suggest you look at the disastrous interaction between UK state-owned airlines and aircraft companies in the 1950s and 1960s to see where you are very, very wrong.
You should start with the saga of BOAC and the VC-10.
When I become the country's first Directly Elected Tyrant, I may restrict the vote to only those that work in the private sector.
Will Sherlock become part of the national curriculum, as part of the Cumberbatch Studies module?
Yes.
I'm toying with writing a thread entitled, The Tories/Lab/Lib Dems would win a landslide in 2015 if they replaced Dave/Ed/Nick with Benedict Cumberbatch.
He'd get Mrs J's vote.
Re: Desolation of Smaug. I went to see this with a female friend in Nottingham before Christmas, and God, it's long. Not I-want-to-see-more long, or even my-bladder's-going-to-burst long, but my-wife-will-think-I'm-having-an affair long.
Someone'll take the three films and condense them into a better two-hour film that is actually watchable.
Agreed JJ, Hobbit 2 was self-absorbed to the point of boredom. And Legolas looked a bit porky !
The Hobbit is 320 pages, Lord of the Rings is 1216 pages.
That they have both been made into ~ 9 hours of movie is ridiculous.
Hobbit could and should have been done in 2 movies.
As TSE has pointed out the Hobbit film contains a lot of other Middle Earth material from other Tolkein sources. Anyone who has read the book with a critical eye will realise that without this material the book is essentially unfilmable with characters simply wandering off and then reappearing later with no explanation as to where they have been. This does actually work in a book but would not work in a film.
So far the Hobbit films for me have been a wonderful rendition of both the story and the wider Middle Earth world.
What people forget is that the Hobbit was written as a children's book - which I first read in 1943 when I was 9 - while TLOR was written for adults, all being that the first chapter still had childish overtones.
I think that the Hobbit could have been done in one 3 hour film and still make plenty of sense.
You can argue for a different course in hindsight and I agree with a lot of what you say, but Morris Dancer was implying Brown borrowed massively when I have shown with IMF data that we were less indebted than comparable Western economies.
There was a near consensus on economic policy during the Brown years. The crash would have been just as bad under the Tories.
Of course in a few hours time the data will be forgotten and we'll be back to the fantasy "we need to clean up Labour's mess" narrative
There was consensus - illadvised - about the overall spending envelope
The Tories would not have messed up regulation in the way that Labour did (apparently to square Eddie George after he threatened to resign).
The basic problem, though - is that Brown believed that the income levels were sustainable and baked in a massive structural overspend on items of marginal benefit to the country. That's what's causing the pain, not the "bail out" - which will largely be repaid, at least in nominal terms, even if for a pretty meagre return (and although I haven't done the analysis, probably a loss in real terms).
SeanT always comes over as rather a sad little man with a desperate need for attention and approval. His boastful comments day after day can become rather tedious. Other people do not feel the need to do this so why should Sean?
I disagree. I think he is probably more content within himself now than he has ever been before, and enjoys the fun of teasing the rest of us - about his success, or wealth, or ability, or whatever - just because he can.
The good thing about I.Q.s is that the people who have a high I.Q. are intelligent enough to understand how arbitrary, meaningless and irrelevant they are to real life, and the people who have a low I.Q. are too thick to know or care anything about it what it is anyway.
Comments
'If I was a politician I'd stand on a ticket of nihilism, narcissism and orgasm. In France, I'd get elected'.
The political right in this country always love to mock the French. You'd think we had twice their GDP per head.
I disagree that we do not have a decent newspaper, because I reckon you are harking back to a golden age that did not exist. Newspapers are in some ways better and livelier than ever ESPECIALLY in their commentary, as the internet allows readers to argue back, and shout at the hacks, revealing their errors, and bringing them down a peg or two.
As a hack, I welcome this. It makes things more fun. Remember the dull days when the only reader interaction was a stiff, pompous letter to the Times three days later? Yawn.
The Times was excellent until it changed its editorial coverage a couple of years ago to become much more overtly Tory-leaning. It had a balance of views and always sought to challenge its readership. It does not do that anymore, so has become just another newspaper with a party political agenda. I think that is a shame. I do not disagree that overall coverage of events in the papers is much more in-depth across many more areas. But looking specifically at politics a load of articles that are essentially responses to articles in other newspapers is not, in the end, very interesting - though I do appreciate they must be great fun to write.
Fully agree France has some top notch companies such as Danone, Airbus, Total and Schneider Electric. But these are all really French multinationals. France lacks a Mittelstand or a City of London to serve as its domestic economic engine.
The car industry is probably as good a proxy as any for the whole. Germany has strength in depth. The UK has great strength at the top end and we wisely got out of local cheap'n'cheerful by selling to or encouraging investment from the likes of Honda. Both countries now produce great cars with a Teutonic efficiency. France religiously refuses to accept that both Renault and Peugeot Citroen produce crap cars expensively and have no future. They'll throw good money after bad and make it 'illegal' for them to close French plants. But they will close in the end as France itself is not a big enough market for their manufacturers to be able to compete with cheaper better imports. And when they close the idiots will wonder why - much as we did when the British car industry was in its post-Leyland nadir.
A country cannot succeed at business if it hates business. (Miliblob take note)
As you say it looks like it may have promise and have set the box to record it.
Given he buggered up what should've been the simplest thing he did (go back home) one wonders if he would've had not only more conquests but a much longer life if the Macedonians hadn't been so war-weary.
My head says they will reform (for the political class largely understands what the problem is), but I am not, in my heart, optimistic.
It`s odd you think The Times changed it`s coverage a couple of years ago.By my reckoning the NI stable changed it`s coverage around 2006-2007 and has remained pro-Tory since.
Lol.
It's been Tory-leaning for a while; but used to prioritise providing readers with a range of views from across the spectrum. And its support for the Tories never used to affect the way it covered the news. It does now, unfortunately.
The power of pb.com
More lol.
"Maggie was lucky" - are pills available for this affliction ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25574176
We'll have to wait and see if this goes ahead, but it seems very popular. Except with the ECHR, of course, and some human rights lawyers.
The liberalisation of the Uk market helped in no small way to drive the aggressive development of mobile phones.
In 1979 I could fly between London and Edinburgh with BA or BA. From LHR or LHR.
If all the good stuff was due to Maggie being lucky - then by the same logic the pits closing and the smashing of the unions must have been due to their bad luck - so why the demonisation ?
For instance, no iPhones are manufactured here in the UK, but a company you've probably never heard of - Imagination Technologies - provides graphics processor IP that is in the iPhone and iPad. Or ARM, likewise. Both companies have benefited from Apple Fanbois paying over the odds for their fondleslabs.
The new EC trains are nominally British, being 'built' at a plant in Newton Aycliffe, are really just being assembled there from parts made by owner Hitachi and others.
Recently, Saab won a contract from the Brazilians to provide 36 planes according for their FX-2 programme. Bad for Britain? Hardly, as currently 30% of the Gripen is manufactured here in Blighty.
On the other hand, the liberalisation of markets really allowed the phone and airline industries to flourish.
In the case of mobile phones, some brilliant standards legislation by Europe to allow interoperability helped companies like Vodafone take on the world. Compare and contrast with the messy situation in the US, which uses either GSM or CDMA.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25576289
"Current research shows 96% of UK adults use one or more of the BBC's services each week, costing 40p per household, per day."
Lots of people use news service which has a monopoly on radio, the lion's share of TV and one of the last free major news sites. Shocking.
Also, listing a price per day or week is a great way to make something seem cheap. To be fair, the annual cost is mentioned earlier.
"Responding to a government inquiry into the future of the BBC, it argued the £145.50 licence fee was the "most effective way" to fund the corporation.
It warned a subscription model - where users only pay for the services they want - would exclude many who could not afford it."
That's only rational if you make it more expensive. If someone only wants current events and history documentaries they could probably save quite a bit. And you can't argue against charging people too much making a network exclusive when you're collecting involuntary payment as a tax.
I do think there's a case for a core BBC service (current events) being funded by a licence fee, but the current approach is just crazy. It's also unsustainable. TVs will never die out (too convenient) but the proportion of people without a dedicated telly will only rise in the near future.
You should start with the saga of BOAC and the VC-10.
I think that the Hobbit could have been done in one 3 hour film and still make plenty of sense.
The Tories would not have messed up regulation in the way that Labour did (apparently to square Eddie George after he threatened to resign).
The basic problem, though - is that Brown believed that the income levels were sustainable and baked in a massive structural overspend on items of marginal benefit to the country. That's what's causing the pain, not the "bail out" - which will largely be repaid, at least in nominal terms, even if for a pretty meagre return (and although I haven't done the analysis, probably a loss in real terms).
The good thing about I.Q.s is that the people who have a high I.Q. are intelligent enough to understand how arbitrary, meaningless and irrelevant they are to real life, and the people who have a low I.Q. are too thick to know or care anything about it what it is anyway.