I dont understand why people think UK coalitions will be any different to any coalitions we see in other countries where ministers stay in place until the election. Why on earth would the Lib Dems all resign next Jan or next Easter? These parties are going to hang together until the end.
This is the thrust of Ming Campbell's big new idea. He wants ministers to remain in post, but the parties to effectively split, with non-ministerial MPs from each party working on their next plans.
Blair only won in 2001 and 2005 because of the desperate and broken state of the Tory Party post 1990 (a factor that has not been resolved in any substantive way).
Blair won a majority in 2005 because of the electoral geography. Reverse the %s and it would have been hung parliament time.
...perhaps those of us who did might be given a little credit in our take on the effects for 2015 beyond 'wishful thinking'.
Oh gosh. I forgot. You're always right about everything, and the only chance the UK has against the Asian tigers is for everyone to the left of Theresa May to be taken out and shot by this time yesterday.
What I admire about you most, David, is your humility. Or not.
Right: now it's time for me to go shopping. And the Tories can have me banned from the site for being abusive (and don't pretend you don't want to)...
Nope, I don't get everything right - and, fwiw, I'm not particularly confident about the subject of this thread: the polls may end up beating the punters - but on the subject of the end of the recession, I do think I deserve credit for that March piece, which was well ahead of the general commentary curve on calling the start of the recovery. Unfortunately, the comments have all gone so we can't see what those on the left were saying in response at the time.
SmithersJones. Thatcher, and possibly Attlee, are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most re-elected administrations, Asquith's, Baldwin's, MacMillan's, Wilson's, Major's and Blair's all never strayed too far from the centre ground. Thatcher and Attlee were both ideologues needed once in history, one to found the welfare state and increase the power of the state, the other to curtail it and liberalise the economy
One of the biggest (but by no means only) psephological mistakes of Mike Smithson's approach to this is to deal in voters as percentages and with it the fallacy of churn. The General Election will be decided by numbers: actual voters, some of whom voted before, some of whom didn't, some of whom will switch. The difference between 28 million people voting and 30 million people voting is huge in terms of effect on result, the more so when many of those will not have voted in 2010, and many of those who did either lie or forget how they voted because unlike here they don't live in a Westminster bubble. This is why narrative is so important. Once you generate the Big Mo it's unstoppable because you attract support from those who are far, far, away from VI opinion polling. The narrative is undeniably moving the Conservatives's way. The real question is how much it will continue to do so. Were the election in 2014 I'd rate their chances much lower, but spring 2015? You'd be a fool to bet against them now, whatever Mike Smithson says.
And, Nick, I'd be a little bit circumspect about criticising local MP's who, after all, kept their jobs.
p.s. Boris bringing home the bacon for his 'friend' Dave … can see it now.
I don't think I've criticised local MPs who kept their jobs? Not sure what you're referring to there.
On the wider issue, as Sean F notes the proportion who think the Government has handled the economy satisfactorily has risen, but it's not translating so far into voting intention, for the reasons we've discussed here, mainly because maqny of the people who think that are already supporters. We're seeing a move from "dissatisfied support " to "satisfied support", which helps turnout, but the fundamental problem remains how to overcome the 29% who liked Labour in 2010 plus the 8% or so switching from the LibDems. There is very little churn, as you can see from the polling breakdown of how people who voted last time are planning to vote this time.
Of course the rise of new parties of the right and left like UKIP and the Greens does offer ideologues an alternative, and under PR that is where most would go
The only realistic chance of a Tory majority is if Scotland vote for Independence denying Labour of 50 or so MP's and the Tories somehow manage to squeeze the Libdems in their strongholds.
I cannot see it. I expect Scotland to stay with the Union and I expect the Libdems to resist the Tories with UKIP either hindering Tory progress or in some cases superseding the Tories as happened in Eastleigh.
Mr. Fear, there remains a blank canvas for someone to paint a picture of a prosperous future. A focus on science, engineering and R&D would be good both for the country and for future trading.
Personally, I'd abolish tuition fees for those subjects, try and change the tax/patent laws to encourage more high tech research and manufacturing here and give tax breaks to games companies (which happens elsewhere). In certain areas (ARM, super high end engineering needed for F1) we're world leaders, and we should seek to capitalise upon this, and increase our science and engineering capabilities to a significant degree.
SmithersJones. Thatcher, and possibly Attlee, are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most re-elected administrations, Asquith's, Baldwin's, MacMillan's, Wilson's, Major's and Blair's all never strayed too far from the centre ground. Thatcher and Attlee were both ideologues needed once in history, one to found the welfare state and increase the power of the state, the other to curtail it and liberalise the economy
Excluding Asquith and Baldwin (given their terms began before universal suffrage) if one examine's the 2nd elections of those you list most of them lost after their first full term (Wilson won and then lost, won and then lost ( under Callaghan), Major won and then lost. MacMillan won and then lost (under Hume), The only one who actually survived for a second consecutive term was Blair and I've already given my views on why. Holding the centre ground and nothing else just like retreating to your base is not a strategy that wins second elections.
It doesn't look optimistic for Cameron.
PS Perhaps the fact that Thatcher believed in something when by implication most of the others didn't might explain why she was by far the most successful politician of the modern era in vote terms?
Avery (8.35am): a degree in the 1940s and a degree to-day are two very different things. A lot of vocational qualifications have been re-labelled, for one thing. Also, until fairly recently a degree in most subjects was a job ticket. No longer.
But if we wish to survive in the global economy our only option is to upskill and compete. And this requires a much greater proportion of our population to be better educated to higher levels.
Good morning Avery.
Upskilling is important but needs to undertaken at all levels of the workforce so that wealth creation can take place throughout the country in both geographic and socioeconomic terms.
The strategy RN seems to advocate of a concentration on high skilled and high value adding industries is flawed on grounds of economic security and societal cohesion.
rcs 1000 UKIP's rise is more about immigration, the EU and to a lesser extent gay marriage than anything libertarian.
Add in, disgust with the political class, and a general feeling that this country has a great future behind it.
I agree with this. The only issue I have is that UKIP seems like just another flavour of the same old political class. Just as with Obama's supporters, UKIP is untouched by the grubby reality of compromise that is the reality of administration.
One thought that occurred to me whilst I was shopping is that previous economic recoveries have benefitted the incumbent government due to the "trickle down" phenomenon. I don't know whether polls ask about this, but one reason that matters may indeed be different this time (the other obviously being that the outgoing government is a coalition) is that "trickle down" may be less in evidence nowadays. Or, more precisely, that voters don't believe it's happening.
SmithersJones. Thatcher, and possibly Attlee, are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most re-elected administrations, Asquith's, Baldwin's, MacMillan's, Wilson's, Major's and Blair's all never strayed too far from the centre ground. Thatcher and Attlee were both ideologues needed once in history, one to found the welfare state and increase the power of the state, the other to curtail it and liberalise the economy
Excluding Asquith and Baldwin (given their terms began before universal suffrage) if one examine's the 2nd elections of those you list most of them lost after their first full term (Wilson won and then lost, won and then lost ( under Callaghan), Major won and then lost. MacMillan won and then lost (under Hume), The only one who actually survived for a second consecutive term was Blair and I've already given my views on why. Holding the centre ground and nothing else just like retreating to your base is not a strategy that wins second elections.
It doesn't look optimistic for Cameron.
PS Perhaps the fact that Thatcher believed in something when by implication most of the others didn't might explain why she was by far the most successful politician of the modern era in vote terms?
You were interested in the Debenham's results, perhaps you could give your views on why this incompetant executive oligarch should get a year's payoff:
" Debenham's finance boss Simon Herrick has resigned just days after the department store chain's shock profit warning following disappointing Christmas trading.
Herrick has stepped down from his post as chief financial officer with immediate effect, but will not leave the company formally until 7 February.
There was no reason given for his departure, but the move comes after Debenhams warned on Tuesday that profits were expected to fall by as much as 26% due to its failure to entice a rush of shoppers in the days leading up to Christmas, sparking a 12% shares slide.
It also follows reports last week that Herrick's position at the group was under pressure amid shareholder concern over his performance. He has been criticised over a so-called "Santa tax" letter hitting suppliers with demands for discounts days before Christmas.
Investors are also said to have been angered by guidance provided to analysts this year, with the City caught off-guard by an earlier profit warning in March and unexpected costs revealed when full-year results were announced in October.
Debenhams said it had begun a search to find Herrick's replacement, with the finance director, Neil Kennedy, taking on the role on an interim basis.
Herrick will continue to be paid salary and benefits worth nearly £490,000 over a 12-month notice period, with up to £12,000 on top to cover legal fees. "
Mr. Fear, there remains a blank canvas for someone to paint a picture of a prosperous future. A focus on science, engineering and R&D would be good both for the country and for future trading.
Personally, I'd abolish tuition fees for those subjects, try and change the tax/patent laws to encourage more high tech research and manufacturing here and give tax breaks to games companies (which happens elsewhere). In certain areas (ARM, super high end engineering needed for F1) we're world leaders, and we should seek to capitalise upon this, and increase our science and engineering capabilities to a significant degree.
Much as I love all my games industry friends, I don't think they should be singled out for special treatment. Trying to pick winners , whether at an industry or a company level, is a dangerous and difficult business.
rcs 1000 UKIP's rise is more about immigration, the EU and to a lesser extent gay marriage than anything libertarian.
Add in, disgust with the political class, and a general feeling that this country has a great future behind it.
And add in that the 1% are 'stealing' the fruits of the worker's labour AND the shareholder's investment.
'Buy at Eastern Costs, Sell at Western Prices, Pay Monaco taxes' should be a UKIP slogan - it hits the nails of resentment on unemployment, inflation and tax avoidance in eleven words.
Mr. 1000, must say I have slightly mixed feelings on the games tax break idea. My main reason for suggesting is that our competitor nations do likewise, and that it's an area of success for us, as well as a sector that's growing.
To be honest, I consider it an appendix to the main idea of focusing on science and R&D/engineering.
AnotherRichard If low taxes for the rich are the complaint voters will vote Labour or Green not UKIP, UKIP wants to cut the top rate to 40% now, not introduce a Hollande like 75% top rate
SmithersJones All governments and PMs lose eventually, as would Thatcher in 1992 had she stayed, I was comparing when they were first up for re-election as Cameron will be in 2015 and in Major's case he had already been PM for 2 years in 1992 so it was in effect a re-election election as was Macmillan's in 1959 as he had also been PM for 2 years. On that basis, Macmillan in 1959, Wilson in 1966. Major in 1992 and Blair in 2001 all won a second term. Attlee and Macmillan and Wilson also all won a higher voteshare than Thatcher
An interesting side effect of UK immigration policy. 'British homes for foreign workers'.
'Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
AnotherRichard If low taxes for the rich are the complaint voters will vote Labour or Green not UKIP, UKIP wants to cut the top rate to 40% now, not introduce a Hollande like 75% top rate
UKIP's actual policies are irrelevant.
They're becoming the hoover for all resentment.
In any case its irrelevant if UKIP want a top rate of 40% or 45%, the taxes I mentioned regarding the 1% are 'Monaco taxes'.
That's what the 1% are believed to pay and that's why there's scope for UKIP here.
Mr. 1000, must say I have slightly mixed feelings on the games tax break idea. My main reason for suggesting is that our competitor nations do likewise, and that it's an area of success for us, as well as a sector that's growing.
To be honest, I consider it an appendix to the main idea of focusing on science and R&D/engineering.
Also, can you imagine the Daily Mail after British taxpayers pounds are used to subsidise GTA 6...
Not sure if I'll pick up GTAV. I've only ever played San Andreas. Never really grabbed me as a game, unlike, say, Skyrim or Dragon Age: Origins. Speaking of which, Dragon Age Inquisition looks like it just might be bloody fantastic. It's my only dead cert purchase this year.
An interesting side effect of UK immigration policy. 'British homes for foreign workers'.
'Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers
If executive pay is an issue today, it was then, and politicians and shareholders still haven't found a way of blocking payments for extremely poor performance.
AnotherRichard No, because if your resentment is the superrich the last party you would vote for is UKIP! UKIP are the UK Tea Party, for those whose resentment is big government and foreigners!
If executive pay is an issue today, it was then, and politicians and shareholders still haven't found a way of blocking payments for extremely poor performance.
Indeed.
But it should be noted that the 'shareholders' are in effect financial institutions casting block votes in favour of ever expanding executive earnings.
That the people deciding to do this have a personal vested interest in so doing is no coincidence.
Its not difficult to argue either that politicians also have a personal vested interest in ever expanding executive earnings.
Not sure if I'll pick up GTAV. I've only ever played San Andreas. Never really grabbed me as a game, unlike, say, Skyrim or Dragon Age: Origins. Speaking of which, Dragon Age Inquisition looks like it just might be bloody fantastic. It's my only dead cert purchase this year.
I'm not bothering with Dragon Age Inquisition now. It may indeed be good but I'm waiting for the "Elder Scrolls Online", to start in April. Now that promises to be THE game of the year.
The kings were essentially French/Norman from William on through Stephen (of Blois), Henry II through to Edward I as the first non-Franco-Norman king. It's far from meaningless that England was part of what is known as the Angevin empire. Your conception of Normandy as an English acquisition is a very anglo-centric one.
The Irish "settlement" was a pretty violent "settlement" at times.
William III was pretty Dutch and as I've pointed out, bore more than passing comparisons to the Spanish Armada. That it is so rammed home as the Glorious Revolution is a fine example of historical propaganda brought about after his victory.
So James II was a foreign invasion now, but those others aren't?
If you start ticking off those where the invaders had some blood connection to the throne or had some support of local nobles then a lot of then you're going to start deciding that a lot of those foreign invasions in central europe were actually civil wars.
drspyn shareholders can hold executives to account on pay if they want, as WPP shareholders did with Sir Martin Sorrell in rejecting his 2012 pay award for instance, as did Aviva shareholders that year reject executive pay
If executive pay is an issue today, it was then, and politicians and shareholders still haven't found a way of blocking payments for extremely poor performance.
When management destroy a company that's what makes the case for high pay. The difference between hiring a manager with a 10% chance of destroying the company and hiring one with a 9% chance of destroying the company is worth a lot to the shareholders. And if I was a potential CEO offering shareholders that much benefit, I'd definitely want to negotiate a contract where I got well paid if I screwed up, even at the expense of some of that upside benefit that I could otherwise have negotiated for the case where things went well.
An interesting side effect of UK immigration policy. 'British homes for foreign workers'.
'Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers
If that's the Britain you want to live in(it isn't mine),good luck with it but why not ask the Questions of why they default on payment of rent and why single mums instead of throwing british people out onto the streets.
Corporeal Yes, and Normandy and the Norman Kings all stemmed from the ONE time England really was last successfully invaded by a foreign power in 1066 so the point stands.
Ireland was pretty violent, but not really to do with invasion by a foreign power.
The Glorious Revolution was nothing like the Spanish Armada, in 1588 a Protestant Queen of a Protestant nation defeated an invading Catholic nation, the naval forces of King Philip II of Spain. In 1688 a Catholic monarch was trying to impose Catholicism on a Protestant nation, so a Protestant King from a generally friendly power was invited over to succeed him and marry the daughter of the departing King to cement his claim, there was no foreign invasion. However James II did try to reclaim his throne in Ireland with the help of the French King Louis and was defeated.
Of course, you do not need to go back to the Middle Ages to see mainland Europe invaded, Eastern Europe by the Russians, most of Western Europe by the Germans and Spain, much of Italy and Germany and Russia by Napoleon's French ALL after 1800!
An interesting side effect of UK immigration policy. 'British homes for foreign workers'.
'Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers
Pretty pathetic attitude and nowhere does it say working eastern Europeans so they could just as easy be on the dole. You Tories will not be happy till they have workhouses in action and poor people shoved into them. I hope your luck does not run out.
An interesting side effect of UK immigration policy. 'British homes for foreign workers'.
'Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers
If that's the Britain you want to live in,good luck with it but why not ask the Questions of why they default on payment of rent and why single mums instead of throwing british people out onto the streets.
Well, we know there are jobs, because the immigrant workers are doing them.
Do you think if the immigrant workers go home, then the indigenous Brits will suddenly become much more productive?
Immigration is the symptom of a broken education and benefits system. If you want to try and treat the symptoms, by making British companies less productive, well, it's a policy.
Nigel Farage says that British workers face 'prejudice' from employers. I always thought that it was only the loony left who went around moaning about prejudice. British employers and companies are rational. They will do what is best to enable them to compete on the world stage. And they will hire the best people possible.
The national embarrassment is that we've created a culture where it is better for a Polish person to cross Europe, spend a fortune more on housing, and live somewhere where he doesn't feel at home, simply because he is much better qualified and much more incentivised to work than the indigenous population.
UKIP has identified the symptoms, and are attacking them with much gusto.
What does UKIP say about education and the broken benefits system? Nothing. It's website lists energy, fishing, health tourism, gay marriage, social housing and 'soveriegn wealth fund'. It's an absurdiuty. How can you put a sovereign wealth fund above education in your policy list when government debt-to-GDP is more than 70%?
Mr. K, I don't play online stuff. Inquisition *could* be excellent. It sounds like they've actually listened to feedback from players. Anyway, it'll probably be out Q3 2014, so you may've finished with TESO by then.
An interesting side effect of UK immigration policy. 'British homes for foreign workers'.
'Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers
It appears that they are going to evict people purely on the basis that they are on housing benefits and not on whether they have or have not been paying their rent on time every month . Your statement that British single mothers who don't pay their rent should not expect to be housed is therefore irrelevant , even if they do pay their rent they would be evicted by the Wilsons . .
If executive pay is an issue today, it was then, and politicians and shareholders still haven't found a way of blocking payments for extremely poor performance.
When management destroy a company that's what makes the case for high pay. The difference between hiring a manager with a 10% chance of destroying the company and hiring one with a 9% chance of destroying the company is worth a lot to the shareholders. And if I was a potential CEO offering shareholders that much benefit, I'd definitely want to negotiate a contract where I got well paid if I screwed up, even at the expense of some of that upside benefit that I could otherwise have negotiated for the case where things went well.
Alternatively they could hire the first bloke they find on the street outside.
Who would likely have only a 1% chance of destroying the company.
If you deliberately set out to destroy a business you'd proably succeed less well in so doing than some of the egomaniacal nutters that have mismanaged British companies in recent years.
The FTSE100's performance since 2000 and its comparison with the equivalents in similar countries suggest that the executive oligarchy has not justified its earnings.
The cult of the supposed brilliant executive who apparantly creates great shareholder value and thus needs contractual protection in case he screws up is frankly bollox.
rcs1000 The Poles coming here is simply a matter that they can be paid twice or even three times the salary they earn in Poland doing the same job in the UK and can then save up and become wealthy if they return to Poland. The works culture is a side issue!
The kings were essentially French/Norman from William on through Stephen (of Blois), Henry II through to Edward I as the first non-Franco-Norman king. It's far from meaningless that England was part of what is known as the Angevin empire. Your conception of Normandy as an English acquisition is a very anglo-centric one.
The Irish "settlement" was a pretty violent "settlement" at times.
William III was pretty Dutch and as I've pointed out, bore more than passing comparisons to the Spanish Armada. That it is so rammed home as the Glorious Revolution is a fine example of historical propaganda brought about after his victory.
So James II was a foreign invasion now, but those others aren't?
If you start ticking off those where the invaders had some blood connection to the throne or had some support of local nobles then a lot of then you're going to start deciding that a lot of those foreign invasions in central europe were actually civil wars.
You forgot the invasion of England by the King of the Scots, which came to grief at Worcester in 1651. Otherwise known as the 3rd (English) Civil War.
One of the biggest (but by no means only) psephological mistakes of Mike Smithson's approach to this is to deal in voters as percentages and with it the fallacy of churn. The General Election will be decided by numbers: actual voters, some of whom voted before, some of whom didn't, some of whom will switch. The difference between 28 million people voting and 30 million people voting is huge in terms of effect on result, the more so when many of those will not have voted in 2010, and many of those who did either lie or forget how they voted because unlike here they don't live in a Westminster bubble. This is why narrative is so important. Once you generate the Big Mo it's unstoppable because you attract support from those who are far, far, away from VI opinion polling. The narrative is undeniably moving the Conservatives's way. The real question is how much it will continue to do so. Were the election in 2014 I'd rate their chances much lower, but spring 2015? You'd be a fool to bet against them now, whatever Mike Smithson says.
And, Nick, I'd be a little bit circumspect about criticising local MP's who, after all, kept their jobs.
p.s. Boris bringing home the bacon for his 'friend' Dave … can see it now.
I don't think I've criticised local MPs who kept their jobs? Not sure what you're referring to there.
On the wider issue, as Sean F notes the proportion who think the Government has handled the economy satisfactorily has risen, but it's not translating so far into voting intention, for the reasons we've discussed here, mainly because maqny of the people who think that are already supporters. We're seeing a move from "dissatisfied support " to "satisfied support", which helps turnout, but the fundamental problem remains how to overcome the 29% who liked Labour in 2010 plus the 8% or so switching from the LibDems. There is very little churn, as you can see from the polling breakdown of how people who voted last time are planning to vote this time.
Keep banging the Ed Balls drum by all means Nick but it's desperation time. Reminds me of the God of the Gaps: God fills in the gaps that science cannot explain. The trouble is, the gaps shrink. Must be awful to realise you're wrong, being proved wrong and to see people begin to move like a giant but inexorable ship.
I was referring to the fact that at least those local MPs weren't booted out of their job by the electorate ...
rcs1000 The Poles coming here is simply a matter that they can be paid twice or even three times the salary they earn in Poland doing the same job in the UK and can then save up and become wealthy if they return to Poland. The works culture is a side issue!
No, the point is that the Pole is worth more to the British employer than a British employee, and that is a disgrace. Why is it that we have a generation of people, whom British companies seem not to want to employ?
Mr. Fear, there remains a blank canvas for someone to paint a picture of a prosperous future. A focus on science, engineering and R&D would be good both for the country and for future trading.
Personally, I'd abolish tuition fees for those subjects, try and change the tax/patent laws to encourage more high tech research and manufacturing here and give tax breaks to games companies (which happens elsewhere). In certain areas (ARM, super high end engineering needed for F1) we're world leaders, and we should seek to capitalise upon this, and increase our science and engineering capabilities to a significant degree.
Much as I love all my games industry friends, I don't think they should be singled out for special treatment. Trying to pick winners , whether at an industry or a company level, is a dangerous and difficult business.
There is a certain amount of "keeping up with the Jones's" when it comes to industry tax breaks for gaming and animation. France have a huge (and illegal by EU law) programme of gaming and animation tax breaks, when they were introduced a lot of talent from London disappeared to Paris, but since then it has returned because of hostile business practices and awful employment laws in France. However, if Germany or a proper northern EU country were to go for something like that the British games industry would be buggered.
It's a very, very big deal that both SCEE and MGS Europe are headquartered in Britain, and that Britain has been at the forefront of games development for 20 years while Europe dawdled on the sidelines, but history means nothing in today's industry. There are so many start ups all over Europe and our attitude in Britain towards start ups needs to change. It stupid that in the US an upstart like Netflix can be listed and worth over $20bn while Love Film (which had access to as big a market as Netflix) was sold to Amazon for £250m. The scale of ambition in Britain is just too small, and that is why we need tax breaks to support high growth potential industries, to ensure they are financially strong enough to avoid early buyouts from multinationals, including the likes of Sony and Microsoft. We have around 5-7 potential acquisition targets in the UK alone, all of those deals could be done for less than £10m each. In the US we would be talking about spending $100m on each studio.
The government needs to support home grown talent better so the profits they generate stay in the country rather than escape to Japan, the US or some other country. Tax breaks for gaming make sense to me as someone in the industry, not just from a point of view that it will be beneficial to us, but also that it will be beneficial to the nation as jobs are created and start ups have less pressure on them to sell up to wealthy foreign companies.
Corporeal Yes, and Normandy and the Norman Kings all stemmed from the ONE time England really was last successfully invaded by a foreign power in 1066 so the point stands.
Ireland was pretty violent, but not really to do with invasion by a foreign power.
The Glorious Revolution was nothing like the Spanish Armada, in 1588 a Protestant Queen of a Protestant nation defeated an invading Catholic nation, the naval forces of King Philip II of Spain. In 1688 a Catholic monarch was trying to impose Catholicism on a Protestant nation, so a Protestant King from a generally friendly power was invited over to succeed him and marry the daughter of the departing King to cement his claim, there was no foreign invasion. However James II did try to reclaim his throne in Ireland with the help of the French King Louis and was defeated.
Of course, you do not need to go back to the Middle Ages to see mainland Europe invaded, Eastern Europe by the Russians, most of Western Europe by the Germans and Spain, much of Italy and Germany and Russia by Napoleon's French ALL after 1800!
In 1588 a former co-ruler of England attempted to place the presumed next in line to the crown (and claimed legitimate ruler) on the throne, with some support from the English nobility.
(In the event a mixture of bad weather and good naval resistance led to their defeat).
In 1688 a foreign prince married to the second in line from the throne, with some support from English nobility attempted to place himself on the throne (He was the effective ruler, the co-ruler again a sop to pageantry).
(In the event a mixture of good weather and bad naval resistance allowed him to land. The English fleet was prepared and expecting to fight the Dutch but due to poor positioning was unable to engage them. The distinction between invasion and invitation should not be naval tactical incompetence).
You were interested in the Debenham's results, perhaps you could give your views on why this incompetant executive oligarch should get a year's payoff:
I imagine his contract of service(s) gives him a year's notice.
Of course if he is an employee, you can dismiss without notice or pay in lieu of notice, whatever the contract says, in cases of Gross Misconduct. But it never seems to occur to businesses you can do this to senior executives*. In any case, in this case I'd guess his failings don't really amount to Gross Misconduct in this case, so you are stuck with the contractual terms.
* It doesn't really occur to public bodies either, as exemplified by the case of Sharon Shoesmith where Haringay council utterly failed in the simple matter of dismissing her for gross misconduct.
@rcs1000I mmigration is the symptom of a broken education and benefits system.
So blame the bloody governments that sent our people with low standards.
You prefer to throw british people onto the streets with out knowing they situation or even they could turn they situation around with a little help.
rcs1000,aren't you a lib dem supporter ?
Why would you think that?
We all agree that companies perform better when faced with competition.
Why is it that we don't think people perform better when faced with competition?
My point, Tykejohnno, is that UKIP is up its own arse in righteous indignation, and does not come up with any sensible solutions to the major problems our country faces, notably:
1. A tax and benefits system that has its highest marginal rates not for the 1% (like me), but for the bottom 10%. 2. An education system that has de-emphasised science and technology. 3. An economy dominated by financial services that sucks much of our brightest talent away from real businesses.
Is gay marriage or a sovereign wealth fund really up there?
Germany has much lower levels of intra-EU immigration than we do, despite its unemployment rate being a third lower than ours (and at 30 year lows). That's because it has a much more sensible tax and benefits system; it has a much stronger technology and engineering education system; and financial services doesn't steal the brightest and the best from its universities.
You were interested in the Debenham's results, perhaps you could give your views on why this incompetant executive oligarch should get a year's payoff:
I imagine his contract of service(s) gives him a year's notice.
Of course if he is an employee, you can dismiss without notice or pay in lieu of notice, whatever the contract says, in cases of Gross Misconduct. But it never seems to occur to businesses you can do this to senior executives*. In any case, in this case I'd guess his failings don't really amount to Gross Misconduct in this case, so you are stuck with the contractual terms.
* It doesn't really occur to public bodies either, as exemplified by the case of Sharon Shoesmith where Haringay council utterly failed in the simple matter of dismissing her for gross misconduct.
Gross misconduct usually requires more than being sh1t at your job.
You were interested in the Debenham's results, perhaps you could give your views on why this incompetant executive oligarch should get a year's payoff:
I imagine his contract of service(s) gives him a year's notice.
Of course if he is an employee, you can dismiss without notice or pay in lieu of notice, whatever the contract says, in cases of Gross Misconduct. But it never seems to occur to businesses you can do this to senior executives*. In any case, in this case I'd guess his failings don't really amount to Gross Misconduct in this case, so you are stuck with the contractual terms.
* It doesn't really occur to public bodies either, as exemplified by the case of Sharon Shoesmith where Haringay council utterly failed in the simple matter of dismissing her for gross misconduct.
Gross misconduct usually requires more than being sh1t at your job.
As I said "In any case, in this case I'd guess his failings don't really amount to Gross Misconduct in this case, so you are stuck with the contractual terms."
The problem with executive pay is that they can make zillions of pound on the premise that if they succeed they make hundreds of zillions for the shareholders - but when they f*ck up, well I have never seen an executive lose his shirt. The result, in my opinion, is a gross distortion of risk. Maybe there needs to be greater regulation on executive terms and conditions, three months' notice seems plenty to me.
In 1588 England was Protestant and Philip was trying to conquer it and turn it Catholic and the invasion failed anyway.
Elizabeth 1st had the English people behind her, James did not. Both leaders of the Tories and Whigs invited William to take the throne, Philip had neither the English Parliament nor people behind him. Indeed, there were anti Catholic riots in towns across England when William arrived as the English people were determined to be rid of James and Popery!
Indeed, the only conflict of 1688 on land, the Battle of Reading, saw Reading inhabitants rush to join William's forces and force James's largely Irish Catholic troops from the City
JohnLilburne Indeed, but again not a foreign power invading the British mainland.
Scotland was a foreign power until 1707. In 1652, the Covenanters had signed the Treaty of Breda with Charles II and were opposed to Cromwell's government in England.
'Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers'
You don't know nothing about they situation and your first thought was to kick the british single mother out and replace them with immigrants who also might default on they rents.
"...In 1688 a Catholic monarch was trying to impose Catholicism on a Protestant nation, so a Protestant King from a generally friendly power was invited over to succeed him and marry the daughter of the departing King to cement his claim, there was no foreign invasion. However James II did try to reclaim his throne in Ireland with the help of the French King Louis and was defeated..."
Let's try again, shall we
"...In 1688 the appointed-by-God monarch of the State wanted to change the State religion, so a foreign King from another nation was invited over by traitors to usurp him and marry the daughter of the real King to add spurious legitimacy to his claim. There was a foreign invasion and the foreign King won. However the real King did try to reclaim his throne in Ireland with the help of the French King Louis and was defeated...."
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - John Harrington
JohnLilburne I said 'the British mainland' as the whole point of my argument with corporal stems from a point I made last night that the last time Britain was successfully invaded by a foreign power was 1066.
'Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers'
You don't know nothing about they situation and your first thought was to kick the british single mother out and replace them with immigrants who also might default on they rents.
Is this some new ruthlessly capitalistic liberal democrat party? If they become a genuine party of freedom, let me know.
I don't understand why you would expect people to be housed if they don't pay their rent.
You were interested in the Debenham's results, perhaps you could give your views on why this incompetant executive oligarch should get a year's payoff:
I imagine his contract of service(s) gives him a year's notice.
Of course if he is an employee, you can dismiss without notice or pay in lieu of notice, whatever the contract says, in cases of Gross Misconduct. But it never seems to occur to businesses you can do this to senior executives*. In any case, in this case I'd guess his failings don't really amount to Gross Misconduct in this case, so you are stuck with the contractual terms.
* It doesn't really occur to public bodies either, as exemplified by the case of Sharon Shoesmith where Haringay council utterly failed in the simple matter of dismissing her for gross misconduct.
Gross misconduct usually requires more than being sh1t at your job.
But being sh1t at your job rarely gets you a half million payout.
Doubtless there will be Debenhams' employees who will be made redundant in coming months because the executives were sh1t at their jobs.
The differences being that the employees who will be made redundant were perhaps not sh1t at their jobs nor will they be getting half million payouts either.
The kings were essentially French/Norman from William on through Stephen (of Blois), Henry II through to Edward I as the first non-Franco-Norman king. It's far from meaningless that England was part of what is known as the Angevin empire. Your conception of Normandy as an English acquisition is a very anglo-centric one.
The Irish "settlement" was a pretty violent "settlement" at times.
William III was pretty Dutch and as I've pointed out, bore more than passing comparisons to the Spanish Armada. That it is so rammed home as the Glorious Revolution is a fine example of historical propaganda brought about after his victory.
So James II was a foreign invasion now, but those others aren't?
If you start ticking off those where the invaders had some blood connection to the throne or had some support of local nobles then a lot of then you're going to start deciding that a lot of those foreign invasions in central europe were actually civil wars.
Things I have learned on OGH's site [iv]:
That "Wales" existed as a nation (other than outwith Conway). Marcher-Lords and Scotched-Normans hey...?
William III was pretty Dutch
As any fule knoes Orange is in the lost Italian provinces of the Colonial France. Even Junior's hint - at Christmas - went :woosh: in your comprehension...
Viewcode This is not an argument about the King's divine authority, which in any case rested on Parliament's approval as had been proved by Cromwell's execution of Charles 1st for imposing taxation without Parliament's approval earlier in the century. James, by imposing Catholicism against the will of Parliament and the nation had made himself an illegitimate monarch in the eyes of both!
'Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers'
You don't know nothing about they situation and your first thought was to kick the british single mother out and replace them with immigrants who also might default on they rents.
Is this some new ruthlessly capitalistic liberal democrat party? If they become a genuine party of freedom, let me know.
I don't understand why you would expect people to be housed if they don't pay their rent.
No one is expecting people to be housed if they do not pay their rent . However you seem to think it is ok to evict a single mother who is paying her rent promptly and on time simply because she is on housing benefit .
'Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers'
You don't know nothing about they situation and your first thought was to kick the british single mother out and replace them with immigrants who also might default on they rents.
Is this some new ruthlessly capitalistic liberal democrat party? If they become a genuine party of freedom, let me know.
I don't understand why you would expect people to be housed if they don't pay their rent.
No one is expecting people to be housed if they do not pay their rent . However you seem to think it is ok to evict a single mother who is paying her rent promptly and on time simply because she is on housing benefit .
I've been evicted by a landlord before. It's good property, it's his to use as he wishes.
"...In 1688 the appointed-by-God monarch of the State... "
Well, that's controversial to start with, the Divine Right of Kings is a late medieval invention, and one that has no place in the English concept of kingship. While succession has usually been generally hereditary, the disposal of the Crown is actually in Parliament's hands, not the monarch's (or God's for that matter). Today's succession is governed by the Act of Settlement 1701, as amended (notably by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013) - by Parliament.
'Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers'
You don't know nothing about they situation and your first thought was to kick the british single mother out and replace them with immigrants who also might default on they rents.
Is this some new ruthlessly capitalistic liberal democrat party? If they become a genuine party of freedom, let me know.
I don't understand why you would expect people to be housed if they don't pay their rent.
No one is expecting people to be housed if they do not pay their rent . However you seem to think it is ok to evict a single mother who is paying her rent promptly and on time simply because she is on housing benefit .
I've been evicted by a landlord before. It's good property, it's his to use as he wishes.
It is that sort of capitalist belief that led to Rachman .
'Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers'
You don't know nothing about they situation and your first thought was to kick the british single mother out and replace them with immigrants who also might default on they rents.
Is this some new ruthlessly capitalistic liberal democrat party? If they become a genuine party of freedom, let me know.
I don't understand why you would expect people to be housed if they don't pay their rent.
No one is expecting people to be housed if they do not pay their rent . However you seem to think it is ok to evict a single mother who is paying her rent promptly and on time simply because she is on housing benefit .
The problem with executive pay is that they can make zillions of pound on the premise that if they succeed they make hundreds of zillions for the shareholders - but when they f*ck up, well I have never seen an executive lose his shirt. The result, in my opinion, is a gross distortion of risk. Maybe there needs to be greater regulation on executive terms and conditions, three months' notice seems plenty to me.
That's right, but competition in recruitment makes it difficult. As with football managers, executives are aware that they'll potentially only be kept on until the next best results, so a company that only offers 3 months' redundancy pay will struggle to get people compared with one that offers more.
Those dangerous left-wingers, the Swiss electorate, voted to ban golden hellos and golden goodbyes for exacvtly this reason. Whether that will really address the problem or just squeeze it into a different part of the package I'm not sure.
The same issue arose with financial traders, I understand - they would get huge bonuses if they profited, but wouldn't lose anything if they lost except, eventually, their jobs. So they had a big incentive to engage in high-risk speculation. If it worked, they'd be rolling. If it didn't, oh well. Not sure if that's been fully addressed or not, but others here will know.
Fair point, but that's an argument for saying the successful invasion of England by a foreign King and his armed forces is legitimate. It's not an argument for saying the successful invasion of England by a foreign King and his armed forces didn't happen.
No one is expecting people to be housed if they do not pay their rent . However you seem to think it is ok to evict a single mother who is paying her rent promptly and on time simply because she is on housing benefit .
Well, exactly. And even for the non-payers there's an issue - we aren't really going to have a policy of leaving people on the street, especially mothers with kids, so even when evicted they will get somewhere else. I've never understood why we switched housing benefit to pay tenants instead of paying landlords directly.
SmithersJones. Thatcher, and possibly Attlee, are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most re-elected administrations, Asquith's, Baldwin's, MacMillan's, Wilson's, Major's and Blair's all never strayed too far from the centre ground. Thatcher and Attlee were both ideologues needed once in history, one to found the welfare state and increase the power of the state, the other to curtail it and liberalise the economy
I agree with your centrist contention but don't be fooled into thinking Thatcher was just a right-wing idealogue. She only won by a relatively narrow margin in 1979 which is astonishing despite the winter of discontent and the IMF bailout. In 1983 she won a landslide partly because set against the loon Michael Foot she appeared as centrist as it's possible to be. Foot campaigned on an agenda so left-wing it's breathtaking to consider: unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the EU, end to council house sales, re-nationalisation of industry, and a 5-year economic plan that was more redolent of Lenin than Labour. No wonder Gerald Kaufman dubbed it 'the longest suicide note in history.'
I'm sure Thatcher was pretty right of centre in lots of ways but in the early days especially she also propounded her greengrocer's daughter housewife approach which was a very down-to-earth form of monetarism. Let's just say, she knew what things in the shops cost
The same issue arose with financial traders, I understand - they would get huge bonuses if they profited, but wouldn't lose anything if they lost except, eventually, their jobs. So they had a big incentive to engage in high-risk speculation. If it worked, they'd be rolling. If it didn't, oh well. Not sure if that's been fully addressed or not, but others here will know.
Would love to see a system where bonuses were proportionate to profit - on the premise that if you made a loss, you owed your employer money.
On the main issue of executive payoffs, of course short-termism has always been an issue, which is why long-term incentives were devised. But there needs to be a balance. In my view, having screwed up so catastrophically as to deliver the business into the arms of the UK taxpayer, the executives of Northern Rock should have walked away with no more than what they stood up in. Bet that didn't happen, though.
In 1588 England was Protestant and Philip was trying to conquer it and turn it Catholic and the invasion failed anyway.
Elizabeth 1st had the English people behind her, James did not. Both leaders of the Tories and Whigs invited William to take the throne, Philip had neither the English Parliament nor people behind him. Indeed, there were anti Catholic riots in towns across England when William arrived as the English people were determined to be rid of James and Popery!
The opinions of the populace to their (by that time rather regular) dramatic shifts in religion in the 16th century is a matter of some debate among historians.
There were anti-catholic riots, but equally you should count the number of jacobin risings there were.
There were riots sure, but it isn't like the army or navy melted away. The navy was prepared to fight but unable to, the army was both prepared and able, before James II decided to run.
The absence of major battles was absolutely not due to universal welcoming of the stadtholder, but rather severe incompetence to the point of cowardice.
But as to the underlying point. It is clearly not one relating to the actual nationality of monarch, William undoubtedly Dutch, the German rulers etc.
If it is about military strength then the systematic loss of the rest of the Angevin empire (which England was an acquisition of), alongside that William III's arrival was not a case of the army and navy supporting him, but rather tactical incompetence/cowardice meaning the Navy was out of position and James fled before bringing his (pretty large) army to battle. It was purely military failure at the highest level that allowed the take-over to happen without major battles being fought. Not to mention the other examples of returning royally blooded invaders we've gone over.
If in a comparison against the mainland countries you're making the militarily tactical claim that a 4+ mile stretch of sea makes quite a handy defensive position compared to having rivers or open country as your border, then I think that's basic military sense and not much of a point at all. It's certainly a nice place to hold after you've lost all the land on the side of it.
SmithersJones. Thatcher, and possibly Attlee, are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most re-elected administrations, Asquith's, Baldwin's, MacMillan's, Wilson's, Major's and Blair's all never strayed too far from the centre ground. Thatcher and Attlee were both ideologues needed once in history, one to found the welfare state and increase the power of the state, the other to curtail it and liberalise the economy
I agree with your centrist contention but don't be fooled into thinking Thatcher was just a right-wing idealogue. She only won by a relatively narrow margin in 1979 which is astonishing despite the winter of discontent and the IMF bailout. In 1983 she won a landslide partly because set against the loon Michael Foot she appeared as centrist as it's possible to be. Foot campaigned on an agenda so left-wing it's breathtaking to consider: unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the EU, end to council house sales, re-nationalisation of industry, and a 5-year economic plan that was more redolent of Lenin than Labour. No wonder Gerald Kaufman dubbed it 'the longest suicide note in history.'
I'm sure Thatcher was pretty right of centre in lots of ways but in the early days especially she also propounded her greengrocer's daughter housewife approach which was a very down-to-earth form of monetarism. Let's just say, she knew what things in the shops cost
Thatcher won a landslide in 1983 despite losing votes and vote share compared to 1979 . Fortunately for her the opposition vote was pretty evenly split between Labour and the Alliance .
No one is expecting people to be housed if they do not pay their rent . However you seem to think it is ok to evict a single mother who is paying her rent promptly and on time simply because she is on housing benefit .
Well, exactly. And even for the non-payers there's an issue - we aren't really going to have a policy of leaving people on the street, especially mothers with kids, so even when evicted they will get somewhere else. I've never understood why we switched housing benefit to pay tenants instead of paying landlords directly.
Fully agree mr palmer,and for me,the landlord as come pretty close to discrimination,anything wrong in what he said ?
has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
Change the words eastern European to English people and then change the words single mums to immigrants,this guy would be in serious trouble.
JohnLilburne Indeed, but again not a foreign power invading the British mainland.
Scotland was a foreign power until 1707. In 1652, the Covenanters had signed the Treaty of Breda with Charles II and were opposed to Cromwell's government in England.
Another for Corporeal's collection - the failed, or rather chickened-out-of, invasion of England that led to Culloden in 1746 and, in the longer perspective, the end of the Wars of the Covenant (which those down south like to call the English Civil War, Restoration, Glorious Revolution, etc. etc., and are perhaps best called communally the Civil Wars of Britain and Ireland). And remember the Scots started that by opposing Charles I in the Bishops' Wars and supporting Oliver C and chums, before turning round and supporting the Stuarts!
What one calls the '45 all depends on one's perspective then and now, but Charles Edward Stuart's landing, with French support, led to what was as much a Scottish civil war (and not a simple Highland-Lowland civil war) as an attack on his Hanoverian dynastic rivals (as exemplified nicely by the commander at Culloden, the prince Duke of Cumberland), AND a territorial invasion of England, so you can pick and choose. Whether this counts as a foreign invasion is a matter of sentiment, and also on how one regarded the 1707 union, but apart from Charles being pretty much a Continental by upbringing, remember it was a largely Highland army and they were pretty alien to the Lowlanders never mind the Londoners, even if the Highlanders made rather more disciplined soldiers where the locals were concerned.
Arguably CES's big mistakes were (a) not to stand fast in Scotland once he'd thrashed the British Army , with a restoration of the Stuart dynasty in its pre-1603 borders, tearing up the Treaty of Union; and (b) once he had made up his mind to go for broke, to turn back at Derby and not to march on to London using the rapid marching capabilities of his Highland infantry.
The problem with executive pay is that they can make zillions of pound on the premise that if they succeed they make hundreds of zillions for the shareholders - but when they f*ck up, well I have never seen an executive lose his shirt. The result, in my opinion, is a gross distortion of risk. Maybe there needs to be greater regulation on executive terms and conditions, three months' notice seems plenty to me.
That's right, but competition in recruitment makes it difficult. As with football managers, executives are aware that they'll potentially only be kept on until the next best results, so a company that only offers 3 months' redundancy pay will struggle to get people compared with one that offers more.
Those dangerous left-wingers, the Swiss electorate, voted to ban golden hellos and golden goodbyes for exacvtly this reason. Whether that will really address the problem or just squeeze it into a different part of the package I'm not sure.
The same issue arose with financial traders, I understand - they would get huge bonuses if they profited, but wouldn't lose anything if they lost except, eventually, their jobs. So they had a big incentive to engage in high-risk speculation. If it worked, they'd be rolling. If it didn't, oh well. Not sure if that's been fully addressed or not, but others here will know.
That applies not just to traders but even more so to the institutions that employ them. Make billions or get bailed out.
There were anti-catholic riots, but equally you should count the number of jacobin risings there were.
Jacobin? Or Jacobite?
But as to the underlying point. It is clearly not one relating to the actual nationality of monarch, William undoubtedly Dutch, the German rulers etc.
Actually, I rather think that the foreign monarchs were welcomed by the grandees of the time, as it helped them to cement their hold on power rather than it being entirely made up of a circle round the monarch. Perhaps not a coincidence that the rise of Parliament as a power bloc in its own right was during the reign of the Stuarts - they may have (sort of) spoken the same language, but would have been unfamiliar with the workings of the machinery of state. Charles I had some very strange ideas.
Did we have that bet on the debates? £100@9/4 Farage appears in at least one
I thought you had given up.
You still have not framed the bet in unambiguous terms.
George Osborne appeared in at least one nationally televised debate during the general election campaign last time round, as did Alex Salmond, but I suspect that is not what you meant.
Also, the financial terms are unclear.
Are you offering to lay 100 @ 4/9 (you win 100, I win 44.44) or are you asking me to lay 100 @ 9/4 (I win 100, you win 225)?
Would love to see a system where bonuses were proportionate to profit - on the premise that if you made a loss, you owed your employer money.
So would I, but not practical when they're trading in multi-millions. A probably better solution (and one that I understand is being encouraged? required?) is that trader are rewarded for net performance over several years. The same approach is used by the more enlightened companies, who give share options only executable over a longer period.
But this isn't my area of expertise, and others here will know more.
"...In 1688 the appointed-by-God monarch of the State... "
Well, that's controversial to start with, the Divine Right of Kings is a late medieval invention, and one that has no place in the English concept of kingship.
I think the Queen holds a different opinion. I'm certain that Henry VIII held a different opinion.
While succession has usually been generally hereditary, the disposal of the Crown is actually in Parliament's hands, not the monarch's (or God's for that matter). Today's succession is governed by the Act of Settlement 1701, as amended (notably by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013) - by Parliament.
But again, this is an argument of for the legitiimacy of William. It doesn't alter the facts that:
a) William was not English b) William was the King of another country c) William's armed forces landed on English soil against the Crown[2] forces d) William's armed forces fought on English[1] soil against the Crown[2] forces e) William's armed forces won f) William became King of England thru force of arms
The fact that Parliament authorised the invasion and legitimised the outcome doesn't alter the *fact* of the invasion
[1] and later Irish soil [2] I acknowledge they are not considered Crown forces now. But they would have been so considered at the time of the battles, if not after they were lost.
Fully agree mr palmer,and for me,the landlord as come pretty close to discrimination,anything wrong in what he said ?
has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
Change the words eastern European to English people and then change the words single mums to immigrants,this guy would be in serious trouble.
Yes, and if he's been correctly reported it is an offensive generalisation which must have been intended as a provocation.
In principle, I'd like to see discrimination laws apply to any statement that unfairly classifies everyone in a group in a manner that appears intended to stir up hatred against individuals within it. The groups who might be affected will vary over time - it might be single mothers, or Romanians, or tykes, or Morris dancers. It wouldn't apply where the statement could be reasonably justified as applying to every individual in the group (e.g. stirring up hatred of war criminals, or perhaps of ex-MP expense cheaters, would not be an offence). But trying to have an exhaustive list of groups needing special protection as we do now (race, religion, gender) is awkward.
In practice, I appreciate that it'd be hard to avoid unintended consequences with such a law (without getting into silliness like banning jokes about lawyers) so the burden of proof would need to be high - proving deliberate intent to incite hatred would be one possibility.
There is of course the alternative libertarian view that anyone should be free to say anything and the nutters should just get punished by derision. But that tends to break down when the group is unpopular (Roma, for instance), and it seems to me legitimiate for governments to protect individuals in groups that happen to be unpopular, if they've not done anything bad themselves.
Comments
Did we have that bet on the debates? £100@9/4 Farage appears in at least one
Cameron did better in 2010 then Blair.
On the wider issue, as Sean F notes the proportion who think the Government has handled the economy satisfactorily has risen, but it's not translating so far into voting intention, for the reasons we've discussed here, mainly because maqny of the people who think that are already supporters. We're seeing a move from "dissatisfied support " to "satisfied support", which helps turnout, but the fundamental problem remains how to overcome the 29% who liked Labour in 2010 plus the 8% or so switching from the LibDems. There is very little churn, as you can see from the polling breakdown of how people who voted last time are planning to vote this time.
I cannot see it. I expect Scotland to stay with the Union and I expect the Libdems to resist the Tories with UKIP either hindering Tory progress or in some cases superseding the Tories as happened in Eastleigh.
Personally, I'd abolish tuition fees for those subjects, try and change the tax/patent laws to encourage more high tech research and manufacturing here and give tax breaks to games companies (which happens elsewhere). In certain areas (ARM, super high end engineering needed for F1) we're world leaders, and we should seek to capitalise upon this, and increase our science and engineering capabilities to a significant degree.
It doesn't look optimistic for Cameron.
PS Perhaps the fact that Thatcher believed in something when by implication most of the others didn't might explain why she was by far the most successful politician of the modern era in vote terms?
Check your IM!
:hugs-and-squirrels:
Upskilling is important but needs to undertaken at all levels of the workforce so that wealth creation can take place throughout the country in both geographic and socioeconomic terms.
The strategy RN seems to advocate of a concentration on high skilled and high value adding industries is flawed on grounds of economic security and societal cohesion.
You were interested in the Debenham's results, perhaps you could give your views on why this incompetant executive oligarch should get a year's payoff:
" Debenham's finance boss Simon Herrick has resigned just days after the department store chain's shock profit warning following disappointing Christmas trading.
Herrick has stepped down from his post as chief financial officer with immediate effect, but will not leave the company formally until 7 February.
There was no reason given for his departure, but the move comes after Debenhams warned on Tuesday that profits were expected to fall by as much as 26% due to its failure to entice a rush of shoppers in the days leading up to Christmas, sparking a 12% shares slide.
It also follows reports last week that Herrick's position at the group was under pressure amid shareholder concern over his performance. He has been criticised over a so-called "Santa tax" letter hitting suppliers with demands for discounts days before Christmas.
Investors are also said to have been angered by guidance provided to analysts this year, with the City caught off-guard by an earlier profit warning in March and unexpected costs revealed when full-year results were announced in October.
Debenhams said it had begun a search to find Herrick's replacement, with the finance director, Neil Kennedy, taking on the role on an interim basis.
Herrick will continue to be paid salary and benefits worth nearly £490,000 over a 12-month notice period, with up to £12,000 on top to cover legal fees. "
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/02/debenhams-finance-boss-quits-christmas-profit-warning
'Buy at Eastern Costs, Sell at Western Prices, Pay Monaco taxes' should be a UKIP slogan - it hits the nails of resentment on unemployment, inflation and tax avoidance in eleven words.
To be honest, I consider it an appendix to the main idea of focusing on science and R&D/engineering.
'Fergus Wilson, who with his wife Judith owns nearly 1,000 properties around the Ashford area of Kent, has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/04/buy-to-let-landlord-evicts-housing-benefit-tenants
They're becoming the hoover for all resentment.
In any case its irrelevant if UKIP want a top rate of 40% or 45%, the taxes I mentioned regarding the 1% are 'Monaco taxes'.
That's what the 1% are believed to pay and that's why there's scope for UKIP here.
Not sure if I'll pick up GTAV. I've only ever played San Andreas. Never really grabbed me as a game, unlike, say, Skyrim or Dragon Age: Origins. Speaking of which, Dragon Age Inquisition looks like it just might be bloody fantastic. It's my only dead cert purchase this year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2749958/Mayo-settles-his-payoff-row-with-Marconi.html
If executive pay is an issue today, it was then, and politicians and shareholders still haven't found a way of blocking payments for extremely poor performance.
But it should be noted that the 'shareholders' are in effect financial institutions casting block votes in favour of ever expanding executive earnings.
That the people deciding to do this have a personal vested interest in so doing is no coincidence.
Its not difficult to argue either that politicians also have a personal vested interest in ever expanding executive earnings.
The kings were essentially French/Norman from William on through Stephen (of Blois), Henry II through to Edward I as the first non-Franco-Norman king. It's far from meaningless that England was part of what is known as the Angevin empire. Your conception of Normandy as an English acquisition is a very anglo-centric one.
The Irish "settlement" was a pretty violent "settlement" at times.
William III was pretty Dutch and as I've pointed out, bore more than passing comparisons to the Spanish Armada. That it is so rammed home as the Glorious Revolution is a fine example of historical propaganda brought about after his victory.
So James II was a foreign invasion now, but those others aren't?
If you start ticking off those where the invaders had some blood connection to the throne or had some support of local nobles then a lot of then you're going to start deciding that a lot of those foreign invasions in central europe were actually civil wars.
Ireland was pretty violent, but not really to do with invasion by a foreign power.
The Glorious Revolution was nothing like the Spanish Armada, in 1588 a Protestant Queen of a Protestant nation defeated an invading Catholic nation, the naval forces of King Philip II of Spain. In 1688 a Catholic monarch was trying to impose Catholicism on a Protestant nation, so a Protestant King from a generally friendly power was invited over to succeed him and marry the daughter of the departing King to cement his claim, there was no foreign invasion. However James II did try to reclaim his throne in Ireland with the help of the French King Louis and was defeated.
Of course, you do not need to go back to the Middle Ages to see mainland Europe invaded, Eastern Europe by the Russians, most of Western Europe by the Germans and Spain, much of Italy and Germany and Russia by Napoleon's French ALL after 1800!
Do you think if the immigrant workers go home, then the indigenous Brits will suddenly become much more productive?
Immigration is the symptom of a broken education and benefits system. If you want to try and treat the symptoms, by making British companies less productive, well, it's a policy.
Nigel Farage says that British workers face 'prejudice' from employers. I always thought that it was only the loony left who went around moaning about prejudice. British employers and companies are rational. They will do what is best to enable them to compete on the world stage. And they will hire the best people possible.
The national embarrassment is that we've created a culture where it is better for a Polish person to cross Europe, spend a fortune more on housing, and live somewhere where he doesn't feel at home, simply because he is much better qualified and much more incentivised to work than the indigenous population.
UKIP has identified the symptoms, and are attacking them with much gusto.
What does UKIP say about education and the broken benefits system? Nothing. It's website lists energy, fishing, health tourism, gay marriage, social housing and 'soveriegn wealth fund'. It's an absurdiuty. How can you put a sovereign wealth fund above education in your policy list when government debt-to-GDP is more than 70%?
Who would likely have only a 1% chance of destroying the company.
If you deliberately set out to destroy a business you'd proably succeed less well in so doing than some of the egomaniacal nutters that have mismanaged British companies in recent years.
The FTSE100's performance since 2000 and its comparison with the equivalents in similar countries suggest that the executive oligarchy has not justified its earnings.
The cult of the supposed brilliant executive who apparantly creates great shareholder value and thus needs contractual protection in case he screws up is frankly bollox.
I was referring to the fact that at least those local MPs weren't booted out of their job by the electorate ...
So blame the bloody governments that sent our people with low standards.
You prefer to throw british people onto the streets with out knowing they situation or even they could turn they situation around with a little help.
rcs1000,aren't you a lib dem supporter ?
It's a very, very big deal that both SCEE and MGS Europe are headquartered in Britain, and that Britain has been at the forefront of games development for 20 years while Europe dawdled on the sidelines, but history means nothing in today's industry. There are so many start ups all over Europe and our attitude in Britain towards start ups needs to change. It stupid that in the US an upstart like Netflix can be listed and worth over $20bn while Love Film (which had access to as big a market as Netflix) was sold to Amazon for £250m. The scale of ambition in Britain is just too small, and that is why we need tax breaks to support high growth potential industries, to ensure they are financially strong enough to avoid early buyouts from multinationals, including the likes of Sony and Microsoft. We have around 5-7 potential acquisition targets in the UK alone, all of those deals could be done for less than £10m each. In the US we would be talking about spending $100m on each studio.
The government needs to support home grown talent better so the profits they generate stay in the country rather than escape to Japan, the US or some other country. Tax breaks for gaming make sense to me as someone in the industry, not just from a point of view that it will be beneficial to us, but also that it will be beneficial to the nation as jobs are created and start ups have less pressure on them to sell up to wealthy foreign companies.
(In the event a mixture of bad weather and good naval resistance led to their defeat).
In 1688 a foreign prince married to the second in line from the throne, with some support from English nobility attempted to place himself on the throne (He was the effective ruler, the co-ruler again a sop to pageantry).
(In the event a mixture of good weather and bad naval resistance allowed him to land. The English fleet was prepared and expecting to fight the Dutch but due to poor positioning was unable to engage them. The distinction between invasion and invitation should not be naval tactical incompetence).
Of course if he is an employee, you can dismiss without notice or pay in lieu of notice, whatever the contract says, in cases of Gross Misconduct. But it never seems to occur to businesses you can do this to senior executives*. In any case, in this case I'd guess his failings don't really amount to Gross Misconduct in this case, so you are stuck with the contractual terms.
* It doesn't really occur to public bodies either, as exemplified by the case of Sharon Shoesmith where Haringay council utterly failed in the simple matter of dismissing her for gross misconduct.
We all agree that companies perform better when faced with competition.
Why is it that we don't think people perform better when faced with competition?
My point, Tykejohnno, is that UKIP is up its own arse in righteous indignation, and does not come up with any sensible solutions to the major problems our country faces, notably:
1. A tax and benefits system that has its highest marginal rates not for the 1% (like me), but for the bottom 10%.
2. An education system that has de-emphasised science and technology.
3. An economy dominated by financial services that sucks much of our brightest talent away from real businesses.
Is gay marriage or a sovereign wealth fund really up there?
Germany has much lower levels of intra-EU immigration than we do, despite its unemployment rate being a third lower than ours (and at 30 year lows). That's because it has a much more sensible tax and benefits system; it has a much stronger technology and engineering education system; and financial services doesn't steal the brightest and the best from its universities.
The problem with executive pay is that they can make zillions of pound on the premise that if they succeed they make hundreds of zillions for the shareholders - but when they f*ck up, well I have never seen an executive lose his shirt. The result, in my opinion, is a gross distortion of risk. Maybe there needs to be greater regulation on executive terms and conditions, three months' notice seems plenty to me.
Elizabeth 1st had the English people behind her, James did not. Both leaders of the Tories and Whigs invited William to take the throne, Philip had neither the English Parliament nor people behind him. Indeed, there were anti Catholic riots in towns across England when William arrived as the English people were determined to be rid of James and Popery!
Because of what you posted -
'Sounds like good capitalism in action: if British single mothers don't pay their rent, why should they expect to be housed? Let's feel glad there are now workers in the area who are good payers'
You don't know nothing about they situation and your first thought was to kick the british single mother out and replace them with immigrants who also might default on they rents.
Let's try again, shall we
"...In 1688 the appointed-by-God monarch of the State wanted to change the State religion, so a foreign King from another nation was invited over by traitors to usurp him and marry the daughter of the real King to add spurious legitimacy to his claim. There was a foreign invasion and the foreign King won. However the real King did try to reclaim his throne in Ireland with the help of the French King Louis and was defeated...."
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." -
John Harrington
I don't understand why you would expect people to be housed if they don't pay their rent.
Doubtless there will be Debenhams' employees who will be made redundant in coming months because the executives were sh1t at their jobs.
The differences being that the employees who will be made redundant were perhaps not sh1t at their jobs nor will they be getting half million payouts either.
That "Wales" existed as a nation (other than outwith Conway). Marcher-Lords and Scotched-Normans hey...? As any fule knoes Orange is in the lost Italian provinces of the Colonial France. Even Junior's hint - at Christmas - went :woosh: in your comprehension...
Those dangerous left-wingers, the Swiss electorate, voted to ban golden hellos and golden goodbyes for exacvtly this reason. Whether that will really address the problem or just squeeze it into a different part of the package I'm not sure.
The same issue arose with financial traders, I understand - they would get huge bonuses if they profited, but wouldn't lose anything if they lost except, eventually, their jobs. So they had a big incentive to engage in high-risk speculation. If it worked, they'd be rolling. If it didn't, oh well. Not sure if that's been fully addressed or not, but others here will know.
Fair point, but that's an argument for saying the successful invasion of England by a foreign King and his armed forces is legitimate. It's not an argument for saying the successful invasion of England by a foreign King and his armed forces didn't happen.
I'm sure Thatcher was pretty right of centre in lots of ways but in the early days especially she also propounded her greengrocer's daughter housewife approach which was a very down-to-earth form of monetarism. Let's just say, she knew what things in the shops cost
On the main issue of executive payoffs, of course short-termism has always been an issue, which is why long-term incentives were devised. But there needs to be a balance. In my view, having screwed up so catastrophically as to deliver the business into the arms of the UK taxpayer, the executives of Northern Rock should have walked away with no more than what they stood up in. Bet that didn't happen, though.
There were anti-catholic riots, but equally you should count the number of jacobin risings there were.
There were riots sure, but it isn't like the army or navy melted away. The navy was prepared to fight but unable to, the army was both prepared and able, before James II decided to run.
The absence of major battles was absolutely not due to universal welcoming of the stadtholder, but rather severe incompetence to the point of cowardice.
But as to the underlying point. It is clearly not one relating to the actual nationality of monarch, William undoubtedly Dutch, the German rulers etc.
If it is about military strength then the systematic loss of the rest of the Angevin empire (which England was an acquisition of), alongside that William III's arrival was not a case of the army and navy supporting him, but rather tactical incompetence/cowardice meaning the Navy was out of position and James fled before bringing his (pretty large) army to battle. It was purely military failure at the highest level that allowed the take-over to happen without major battles being fought. Not to mention the other examples of returning royally blooded invaders we've gone over.
If in a comparison against the mainland countries you're making the militarily tactical claim that a 4+ mile stretch of sea makes quite a handy defensive position compared to having rivers or open country as your border, then I think that's basic military sense and not much of a point at all. It's certainly a nice place to hold after you've lost all the land on the side of it.
has sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying he prefers eastern European migrants who default much less frequently than single mums on welfare.'
Change the words eastern European to English people and then change the words single mums to immigrants,this guy would be in serious trouble.
What one calls the '45 all depends on one's perspective then and now, but Charles Edward Stuart's landing, with French support, led to what was as much a Scottish civil war (and not a simple Highland-Lowland civil war) as an attack on his Hanoverian dynastic rivals (as exemplified nicely by the commander at Culloden, the prince Duke of Cumberland), AND a territorial invasion of England, so you can pick and choose. Whether this counts as a foreign invasion is a matter of sentiment, and also on how one regarded the 1707 union, but apart from Charles being pretty much a Continental by upbringing, remember it was a largely Highland army and they were pretty alien to the Lowlanders never mind the Londoners, even if the Highlanders made rather more disciplined soldiers where the locals were concerned.
Arguably CES's big mistakes were (a) not to stand fast in Scotland once he'd thrashed the British Army , with a restoration of the Stuart dynasty in its pre-1603 borders, tearing up the Treaty of Union; and (b) once he had made up his mind to go for broke, to turn back at Derby and not to march on to London using the rapid marching capabilities of his Highland infantry.
You still have not framed the bet in unambiguous terms.
George Osborne appeared in at least one nationally televised debate during the general election campaign last time round, as did Alex Salmond, but I suspect that is not what you meant.
Also, the financial terms are unclear.
Are you offering to lay 100 @ 4/9 (you win 100, I win 44.44) or are you asking me to lay 100 @ 9/4 (I win 100, you win 225)?
But this isn't my area of expertise, and others here will know more.
a) William was not English
b) William was the King of another country
c) William's armed forces landed on English soil against the Crown[2] forces
d) William's armed forces fought on English[1] soil against the Crown[2] forces
e) William's armed forces won
f) William became King of England thru force of arms
The fact that Parliament authorised the invasion and legitimised the outcome doesn't alter the *fact* of the invasion
[1] and later Irish soil
[2] I acknowledge they are not considered Crown forces now. But they would have been so considered at the time of the battles, if not after they were lost.
In principle, I'd like to see discrimination laws apply to any statement that unfairly classifies everyone in a group in a manner that appears intended to stir up hatred against individuals within it. The groups who might be affected will vary over time - it might be single mothers, or Romanians, or tykes, or Morris dancers. It wouldn't apply where the statement could be reasonably justified as applying to every individual in the group (e.g. stirring up hatred of war criminals, or perhaps of ex-MP expense cheaters, would not be an offence). But trying to have an exhaustive list of groups needing special protection as we do now (race, religion, gender) is awkward.
In practice, I appreciate that it'd be hard to avoid unintended consequences with such a law (without getting into silliness like banning jokes about lawyers) so the burden of proof would need to be high - proving deliberate intent to incite hatred would be one possibility.
There is of course the alternative libertarian view that anyone should be free to say anything and the nutters should just get punished by derision. But that tends to break down when the group is unpopular (Roma, for instance), and it seems to me legitimiate for governments to protect individuals in groups that happen to be unpopular, if they've not done anything bad themselves.