I've just given a speech setting out the long-term economic plan that the Conservatives are working through - and wanted to email you straightaway to explain what that means for you and for Britain.
Our economic plan builds a stronger, more competitive economy and secures a better future for Britain by:
Reducing the deficit so we deal with our debts, safeguard our economy for the long term and keep mortgage rates low Cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty to help hardworking people feel more financially secure Creating more jobs by backing small business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower jobs taxes Capping welfare and reducing immigration so our economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules Delivering the best schools and skills for young people so the next generation can succeed in the global race
The plan is working. For the first time in a long while, there's a real sense that Britain is on the rise. But it's far too soon to say job done - it's not even half done.
There are still plenty of risks, and the greatest one here at home is the Labour Party. Labour offer more spending, higher taxes and more borrowing. Their economic approach brought economic ruin once, and would do the same all over again. Why would you give the keys back to the people who crashed the car?
So this year Britain faces a choice: to go on working through the plan that is delivering for Britain, or to squander what we've achieved and go back to economic ruin.
I'm really hurt. I thought it was a personal e-mail. Addressed to me by my first name and everything.
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & Glyn coming back into existence. HMG will sell down a substantial portion of its holding this year, just as the US Treasury has been exiting AIG.
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
I've just given a speech setting out the long-term economic plan that the Conservatives are working through - and wanted to email you straightaway to explain what that means for you and for Britain.
Our economic plan builds a stronger, more competitive economy and secures a better future for Britain by:
Reducing the deficit so we deal with our debts, safeguard our economy for the long term and keep mortgage rates low Cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty to help hardworking people feel more financially secure Creating more jobs by backing small business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower jobs taxes Capping welfare and reducing immigration so our economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules Delivering the best schools and skills for young people so the next generation can succeed in the global race
The plan is working. For the first time in a long while, there's a real sense that Britain is on the rise. But it's far too soon to say job done - it's not even half done.
There are still plenty of risks, and the greatest one here at home is the Labour Party. Labour offer more spending, higher taxes and more borrowing. Their economic approach brought economic ruin once, and would do the same all over again. Why would you give the keys back to the people who crashed the car?
So this year Britain faces a choice: to go on working through the plan that is delivering for Britain, or to squander what we've achieved and go back to economic ruin.
And I (sobs quietly onto his onesie) thought I was the only object of his affection and confidence. What a tart.
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & Glyn coming back into existence. HMG will sell down a substantial portion of its holding this year, just as the US Treasury has been exiting AIG.
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
We agree that the UK banking market is over-concentrated, and insufficiently competitive.
@Random I think I should point out for the record that my candidature in Buckingham was strenuously opposed by the local Lib Dem membership. Leading LDs from Charles Kennedy downwards enthusiastically endorsed the Speaker. My principal supporters were Conservatives disillusioned with the Speaker, of whom there was no shortage and hostile to UKIP, a rather smaller, but robust number. I was however helped by the most effective advice of a now ex LD campaigner. I was saddened that the LD's did not see the opportunity to encapsulate the case for fundamental parliamentary reform, following the expenses scandal, by seeking to get rid of the Speaker, which would have been a game-changer. One of the great missed opportunities of 2010, which now, following the fiascos on PR, and the House of Lords, and the continuing insult to democracy of the current constituency boundaries, to say nothing of recall etc. gives to this country a late Hapsburg quality of institutional stasis amid a growing crisis of legitimacy. The LDs have alas lost their claim to constitutional radicalism and being the torch bearers of renewal to UKIP. But UKIP was my real target, because, for this very reason, they are riding deep discontentment with our governing class. I have thus long regarded them not as a serious challenge and thus a real threat to the National interest. Many of the grievances they represent are legitimate and entirely in line with traditional Conservatism, which is certainly not the relic metropolitan opinion often assumes it to be. These however that have little to do with Europe, and their one size fits all solution, withdrawal from the EU, would be a catastrophe for Britain. I wanted to challenge UKIPs anti-Europeanism and made no secret of my support, for example, for our joining the euro, which, of course, I continue to favour (and was the principal reason for my estrangement from the LDs before 2010. I was fearful the expenses scandal could have given Nigel Farage the seat if he was unopposed, hence my rather late entry into the field. As it happened the whole campaign was transformed by the TV debates and the expenses factor faded away. Nevertheless I hoped my limited success would have emboldened the Coalition (the formation of which I supported) to really attack UKIP's anti-European platform. As I was seeking to do with the pro Euro Conservative Party I was, like the promoters of Rab Butler, offering a gun for others to fire. Like K Clarke and M Heseltine in 1999, D. Cameron and N Clegg chose not to pick the gun up. UKIPs recent rise has not exceeded my expectations. Indeed, I think they are likely to top the poll in May and to win seats at the GE. Whether they then succeed in effectively taking over the Conservative Party will depend on the fighting will of those remaining pro European Conservatives and their LD allies. I have to say looking at things now it is hard for someone of my convictions to be optimistic.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
I just went onto the AA's route finder, entered that stretch of motorway and checked traffic speeds. It's down to 15/20 MPH in both directions on either side of junction 30. At 11.30 on a Monday, that's indicative of a problem if it happens frequently.
Cutting the limit from 70 -> 60 is going to do the square root of F all for that particular issue.
Well, it's indicative (although far from proof) that the stretch of road may have problems. And ISTR studies that show slower speeds do decrease congestion. Perhaps it's part of the rationale behind the variable speed limits they've introduced on some motorways such as the M42?
I daresay Sunil would be able to tell us if there were any plans to widen that stretch of road, and how much it would cost.
I would have thought that a managed motorway would be a more sensible and flexible (if more expensive) solution than a blanket 60mph limit. Since the flexible speed limits were introduced on the M62 in West Yorkshire, traffic flow has improved greatly. That too used to be stop-start for much of the day. I would hope the same improvement will happen on the M1 between J39-42.
I've just given a speech setting out the long-term economic plan that the Conservatives are working through - and wanted to email you straightaway to explain what that means for you and for Britain.
Our economic plan builds a stronger, more competitive economy and secures a better future for Britain by:
Reducing the deficit so we deal with our debts, safeguard our economy for the long term and keep mortgage rates low Cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty to help hardworking people feel more financially secure Creating more jobs by backing small business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower jobs taxes Capping welfare and reducing immigration so our economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules Delivering the best schools and skills for young people so the next generation can succeed in the global race
The plan is working. For the first time in a long while, there's a real sense that Britain is on the rise. But it's far too soon to say job done - it's not even half done.
There are still plenty of risks, and the greatest one here at home is the Labour Party. Labour offer more spending, higher taxes and more borrowing. Their economic approach brought economic ruin once, and would do the same all over again. Why would you give the keys back to the people who crashed the car?
So this year Britain faces a choice: to go on working through the plan that is delivering for Britain, or to squander what we've achieved and go back to economic ruin.
And I (sobs quietly onto his onesie) thought I was the only object of his affection and confidence. What a tart.
Edited to add: The Tories are lucky they can't use the "If you want the car to go forward you put it in 'D', if you want it to go back you put it in 'R'" bit. That's probably the part that lost them the House.
He's also written to the made-up person who exists only as a signer of a petition on being mean to pedophiles or something they did a while back: http://mailinator.com/inbox.jsp?to=davidjobs
These standard emails always have some entertaining recipients. Broxtowe Tories sent an appeal a few months ago to the head of Broxtowe Labour's fund-raising team, who studied the style with interest to pick up tips. Another (hard copy) letter went to the former Labour deputy council leader on Parliamentary paper, addressed to Dear The Occupant and holding forth on the wonders of Tory NHS policy.
I've just given a speech setting out the long-term economic plan that the Conservatives are working through - and wanted to email you straightaway to explain what that means for you and for Britain.
Our economic plan builds a stronger, more competitive economy and secures a better future for Britain by:
Reducing the deficit so we deal with our debts, safeguard our economy for the long term and keep mortgage rates low Cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty to help hardworking people feel more financially secure Creating more jobs by backing small business and enterprise with better infrastructure and lower jobs taxes Capping welfare and reducing immigration so our economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules Delivering the best schools and skills for young people so the next generation can succeed in the global race
The plan is working. For the first time in a long while, there's a real sense that Britain is on the rise. But it's far too soon to say job done - it's not even half done.
There are still plenty of risks, and the greatest one here at home is the Labour Party. Labour offer more spending, higher taxes and more borrowing. Their economic approach brought economic ruin once, and would do the same all over again. Why would you give the keys back to the people who crashed the car?
So this year Britain faces a choice: to go on working through the plan that is delivering for Britain, or to squander what we've achieved and go back to economic ruin.
And I (sobs quietly onto his onesie) thought I was the only object of his affection and confidence. What a tart.
Look again, he signed your one off with an "x".
So he did! All is forgiven. I'll give him a smoochy Hersham Hug if he turns up at Dave's Cocktails for Tory boys and girls that takes place soon.
I am sorry I find this posting system without editing option (different from Con Home for example) irksome. I should clarify I have long regarded UKIP as a very serious challenge and thus a real threat to the National interest.
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
We agree that the UK banking market is over-concentrated, and insufficiently competitive.
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. d eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
We agree that the UK banking market is over-concentrated, and insufficiently competitive.
We could play ping pong with this all day, your return serve is pretty good ! However if I stand back a bit, the thing I like about these exchanges is they show the variance of opinion between you folks in the SE and the rest of us. For me the two big issues from the crisis ( which is now heading into it's sixth year !) are
1. I just don't think there has been enough downside for the banks so we have the moral jeopardy that condems us to repeat the cycle again in about twenty years or so.
2. It shows the gap between the London-centred economy and the the rest of the UK, where the overriding desire to support banks takes precendence over the performance of the rest of the economy. Here we have an economy which is run for the benefit of the banks rather than vice versa, it's sort of a latter day version of Voltaire's remarks on Prussia and its army.
I am sorry I find this posting system without editing option (different from Con Home for example) irksome. I should clarify I have long regarded UKIP as a very serious challenge and thus a real threat to the National interest.
The edit button is there for a few minutes, go to your post, hover your mouse in the top right hand corner, a gear symbol should appear, click that, and it'll give you the ability to edit your post.
I am sorry I find this posting system without editing option (different from Con Home for example) irksome. I should clarify I have long regarded UKIP as a very serious challenge and thus a real threat to the National interest.
John,
You can edit posts. Just click on the little 'cog' that appears at the top right of your post when the mouse pointer hovers over it.
I would have thought that a managed motorway would be a more sensible and flexible (if more expensive) solution than a blanket 60mph limit.
The consultation document states that the Highways Agency is introducing a managed motorway scheme for almost the entire stretch in question.
In which case, what's the fuss about? (Unless they're saying that the maximum speed will be 60mph, even on a clear day with no other cars in sight, which would be daft).
I would have thought that a managed motorway would be a more sensible and flexible (if more expensive) solution than a blanket 60mph limit.
The consultation document states that the Highways Agency is introducing a managed motorway scheme for almost the entire stretch in question.
In which case, what's the fuss about? (Unless they're saying that the maximum speed will be 60mph, even on a clear day with no other cars in sight, which would be daft).
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & Glyn coming back into existence. HMG will sell down a substantial portion of its holding this year, just as the US Treasury has been exiting AIG.
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
We agree that the UK banking market is over-concentrated, and insufficiently competitive.
Is there a correlation between the concentration of a national banking sector and its competitiveness?
Stability and risk management tend to override the normal drivers of competition which we see in other industries.
We could play ping pong with this all day, your return serve is pretty good ! However if I stand back a bit, the thing I like about these exchanges is they show the variance of opinion between you folks in the SE and the rest of us. For me the two big issues from the crisis ( which is now heading into it's sixth year !) are
1. I just don't think there has been enough downside for the banks so we have the moral jeopardy that condems us to repeat the cycle again in about twenty years or so.
2. It shows the gap between the London-centred economy and the the rest of the UK, where the overriding desire to support banks takes precendence over the performance of the rest of the economy. Here we have an economy which is run for the benefit of the banks rather than vice versa, it's sort of a latter day version of Voltaire's remarks on Prussia and its army.
New confidence survey out from Lloyds Bank this morning, Mr. Brooke.
It concludes that UK business confidence is at its highest level for 20 years, with rising orders, sales and profits underpinning sentiment.
It notes that confidence has particularly risen in the West Midlands.
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & Glyn coming back into existence. HMG will sell down a substantial portion of its holding this year, just as the US Treasury has been exiting AIG.
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
We agree that the UK banking market is over-concentrated, and insufficiently competitive.
Is there a correlation between the concentration of a national banking sector and its competitiveness?
Stability and risk management tend to override the normal drivers of competition which we see in other industries.
Arrrgghhhh
go exile thyself Pole to the land of Heathite Corporatism where you belong !!!
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & Glyn coming back into existence. HMG will sell down a substantial portion of its holding this year, just as the US Treasury has been exiting AIG.
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
We agree that the UK banking market is over-concentrated, and insufficiently competitive.
Is there a correlation between the concentration of a national banking sector and its competitiveness?
Stability and risk management tend to override the normal drivers of competition which we see in other industries.
Not really. There were far more providers 30 / 50 years ago and the market was far less competitive as they all had pretty much the same attitude to customers i.e. they were doing them a favour offering them a service.
Bloody hell, the European Commission are posting and tweeting about Mike Smithson and PB
Now, it’s time to take the debate online. Viviane Reding, the Vice-President for Justice and Citizenship, is hosting a Google hangout this 16 January at 20:00. That means wherever you are, you can get involved!
If you’ve got a question for Vice-President Viviane Reding, all you need to do is post your questions and comments on Twitter, Facebook and Google+ with hashtags #askReding and/or #eudeb8. Euronews will be choosing the most interesting and challenging questions from social media, and you could get the opportunity to take part in the debate.
Want to get inspired? We’ve also invited a group of bloggers from around Europe to have an online debate with Vice-President Reding – from citizens’ participation to data protection. Tune in to watch the discussion live on Tuesday 7 January at 17:00! We’ll be posting the live YouTube link here on the day!
Adelina Marini: Bulgarian – based in Croatia (www.euinside.eu)
We’re looking forward to hearing what you have to say, about the sort of Europe that you want to live in. It’s an important debate, and it’s happening online, so join and get involved!
We could play ping pong with this all day, your return serve is pretty good ! However if I stand back a bit, the thing I like about these exchanges is they show the variance of opinion between you folks in the SE and the rest of us. For me the two big issues from the crisis ( which is now heading into it's sixth year !) are
1. I just don't think there has been enough downside for the banks so we have the moral jeopardy that condems us to repeat the cycle again in about twenty years or so.
2. It shows the gap between the London-centred economy and the the rest of the UK, where the overriding desire to support banks takes precendence over the performance of the rest of the economy. Here we have an economy which is run for the benefit of the banks rather than vice versa, it's sort of a latter day version of Voltaire's remarks on Prussia and its army.
New confidence survey out from Lloyds Bank this morning, Mr. Brooke.
It concludes that UK business confidence is at its highest level for 20 years, with rising orders, sales and profits underpinning sentiment.
It notes that confidence has particularly risen in the West Midlands.
Time to polish up that smile of yours, methinks.
Not with Lloyds Mr Pole, they're not lending up here in the Midlands. Apparently they don't want to lend to back manufacturing but are really happy to consolidate my debts, which since I don't have any is a tad useless.
You don't see skis like that very often these days. So old school I'm surprising she's not sporting a neon all-in-one and a perm.
No doubt the Frau will also keep up the Germanic [non-]appreciation of how to queue for a lift. Well, perhaps not so much with a broken pelvis, but you know what I mean...
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & Glyn coming back into existence. HMG will sell down a substantial portion of its holding this year, just as the US Treasury has been exiting AIG.
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
We agree that the UK banking market is over-concentrated, and insufficiently competitive.
Is there a correlation between the concentration of a national banking sector and its competitiveness?
Stability and risk management tend to override the normal drivers of competition which we see in other industries.
Not really. There were far more providers 30 / 50 years ago and the market was far less competitive as they all had pretty much the same attitude to customers i.e. they were doing them a favour offering them a service.
Now we have about 6 with the same attitude but demanding bigger salaries for getting out of bed. That's progress ?
NHS worker threatened to collect a patient’s pubic hair and attach them to his face ‘Wiggins style’
Kenneth Williams was once wearing an awful fake beard, on the set of one of the Carry On Films. Barbara Windsor turned to him and said "Take it off Kenneth. You look like you're wearing my minge."
I would have thought that a managed motorway would be a more sensible and flexible (if more expensive) solution than a blanket 60mph limit.
The consultation document states that the Highways Agency is introducing a managed motorway scheme for almost the entire stretch in question.
In which case, what's the fuss about? (Unless they're saying that the maximum speed will be 60mph, even on a clear day with no other cars in sight, which would be daft).
I would have thought that a managed motorway would be a more sensible and flexible (if more expensive) solution than a blanket 60mph limit.
The consultation document states that the Highways Agency is introducing a managed motorway scheme for almost the entire stretch in question.
In which case, what's the fuss about? (Unless they're saying that the maximum speed will be 60mph, even on a clear day with no other cars in sight, which would be daft).
Well, then they've taken leave of their senses. If they're introducing a managed motorway then you'd only be able to do more than 60mph if it was safe to do so. And if it is safe to do so, why shouldn't you be able to (given that you can on just about every other motorway in like conditions)?
The only exception I'd make would be for the Tinsley viaduct, where safety might make a permanent reduced speed sensible.
No, they havent. Their rationale is set out in the document. You may not agree (and feel free to submit a view to their consultation but perhaps not starting with "you've taken leave of your senses") but it's evidence-based rather than irrational.
Re Germans and Skii..They deserve all they get, I remember them swishing past me at speed when I was on the learners slopes, sneering as they sped by...mind you..they were all about seven years old.
What government life support do you believe Lloyds TSB is currently benefitting from?
Same as all the other banks. Historically low interest rates, loan guarantees for basic services eg mortgages. Furthermore in LLoyds case from a blind eye to breaking it up for monopoly purposes and having a 32% shareholder called HMG who needs to get it money back and therefore won't create a bank that can fail.
Lloyds is being broken up, with TSB being created. RBS is being broken up, with Williams & Glyn coming back into existence. HMG will sell down a substantial portion of its holding this year, just as the US Treasury has been exiting AIG.
I would disagree that low interest are a subsidy to banks. Banks would be more profitable (because they would not pay any more on deposits, but would get higher interest income from loans) in the event of interest rates rising.
Come off it RCS, there's the question of scale. It swallowed the UK's largest mortgage lender whole and now has to drop off a few unprofitable branches. Hardly a major restructuring.
We agree that the UK banking market is over-concentrated, and insufficiently competitive.
Is there a correlation between the concentration of a national banking sector and its competitiveness?
Stability and risk management tend to override the normal drivers of competition which we see in other industries.
Not really. There were far more providers 30 / 50 years ago and the market was far less competitive as they all had pretty much the same attitude to customers i.e. they were doing them a favour offering them a service.
Now we have about 6 with the same attitude but demanding bigger salaries for getting out of bed. That's progress ?
There is increased competition in finance provision to large companies, Mr. Brooke.
But then this has been achieved by the corporates disintermediating the banks and going directly to the markets to raise finance.
This is not a route open to most SMEs but they too are increasing their sources of finance through increased use of products/services such as asset financing, factoring and invoice discounting for example.
I agree that the financial crisis has left the large banks, particularly the intervened banks, somewhat arthritic when it comes to business lending but the joints are slowly loosening and progress is being made.
NHS worker threatened to collect a patient’s pubic hair and attach them to his face ‘Wiggins style’
Kenneth Williams was once wearing an awful fake beard, on the set of one of the Carry On Films. Barbara Windsor turned to him and said "Take it off Kenneth. You look like you're wearing my minge."
I liked it. Pulls no punches and with a very clear analysis and plan of action for the economy. Some may not like Osborne or his politics or his economics - but it is refreshing to have a senior politician who says what he means and means what he says, especially when it is the Chancellor. At least the Tory position on the economy is crystal clear.
NHS worker threatened to collect a patient’s pubic hair and attach them to his face ‘Wiggins style’
Kenneth Williams was once wearing an awful fake beard, on the set of one of the Carry On Films. Barbara Windsor turned to him and said "Take it off Kenneth. You look like you're wearing my minge."
A foul-mouthed NHS worker who joked on Twitter about using a patient's pubic hair to give himself 'Wiggins style' sideburns is facing a ban from the profession today.
Under the username 'Sir Cockhardt', Paul Nam wrote a series of bizarre updates about his work on a gynaecology ward in Lincolnshire.
No, they havent. Their rationale is set out in the document. You may not agree (and feel free to submit a view to their consultation but perhaps not starting with "you've taken leave of your senses") but it's evidence-based rather than irrational.
I guess it's rational from their point of view but maybe their system of incentives is irrational. Am I reading the justification right as, "We want to improve capacity, but that may make air quality worse, in which case we have to jump through a bunch more hoops, so we'll improve air quality by reducing the speed limit to make up for it"? It seems like improving air quality by reducing the speed limit is or isn't worth doing on its own merits regardless of the rest, unless there's a particular threshold above which people get sick but below which they don't.
This could be a bit of a political ticking time bomb for the SNP in the run up to the next Holyrood elections. STV News - Teachers 'angry and frustrated' with new National exam structure "Increased workloads for teachers caused by the new National exams are impacting on Scottish pupils' lessons, educators have warned.
The EIS union said it was seeing an "unprecedented" level of concern from teachers frustrated with the amount of administration needed to deliver the exams.
Many teachers have also expressed concerns that the extra pressure will have a negative impact on lessons, the union said.
The first set of students taught the new qualification will sit exams in the spring but teachers have cited a lack of support from the body that developed the changes.
In a survey carried out by the EIS, they raised concerns over poor quality materials provided by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), frequent revisions to guideline documents and the "cumbersome" assessment process."
What bollocks, when are Teachers ever not moaning about their 17 weeks holidays , gold plated pensions and 6 hour days. The EIS are a bunch of out of touch fann****
I have found it difficult to take the EIS seriously since they opposed the inclusion of at least a token amount of Scottish literature in the English syllabus. Now it's important that people get the chance to at least sample some of their local literature (I would wholeheartedly support, for instance, a little Hardy in teaching in Dorset). And this could be anything from a single poem to a short story or than a book, in plain English as well as Scots, and from any date right down to today, so it could in principle be anything from Burns through Stevenson and Spark to Welsh (though the actual selection was rather smaller). And the problem could not be the principle of set books alone. So the suspicion was that it was motivated purely by politics.
Carnyx , if you listen to Flanagan who is a favourite of the BBC and Director of BT, he seems to be more concerned with SNP bashing than education or teachers.
Liverpool Victoria paid out pretty much instantly for work to be done on my roof btw - I'd give them a recommendation for Home Insurance based on my anecdotal experience.
No, they havent. Their rationale is set out in the document. You may not agree (and feel free to submit a view to their consultation but perhaps not starting with "you've taken leave of your senses") but it's evidence-based rather than irrational.
I may well submit a reply (and indeed, follow your suggestions as to the wording).
But evidence-based? If their rationale is valid then why not introduce the 60mph limit 24/7 rather than for only part of each day?
Their case looks to be based on this:
The environmental assessment that has been carried out indicated that the M1 J28 to 31 and M1 J32 to 35a managed motorway – all lane running schemes could have a significant adverse effect on local air quality at sensitive receptors
However, my experience of the M62 managed motorway is that you never get the combination of all lanes (i.e. including the hard shoulder) being used when the speed limit is 70mph. If that is a general rule, then I don't get why introducing the managed motorway will increase emissions. It's possible that when the scheme is introduced, the extra capacity may encourage extra traffic (or divert extra traffic from A roads), but they're specifically talking about a situation where the traffic load is light: when the limit would otherwise be 70 and (presumably) when they're not using the hard shoulder - conditions identical to what they are now. I cannot understand why they think that the scheme will have a significant adverse impact at the times when they are not using it.
As we now have the PMIs in for the three main output sectors which contribute to GDP and, on the expenditure front, some early indications of Q4 retail sales, the forecasters of Q4 GDP have begun to sharpen their pencils.
Commenting on the [PMI] data Chris Williamson, Chief Economist at Markit, pointed out how the most recent purchasing managers´ survey results suggest that growth will have accelerated from the 0.8% pace seen in the third quarter. "If borne out by the official data gross domestic product will have expanded at a 1.9% clip over the last year, the most since 2007," he added.
Precisely in that regard Barclays Research today upped its forecast for fourth quarter economic growth to 0.8% from the 0.6% previously envisaged. A turnaround in investment, after a prolonged period of weakness, is likely to drive the recovery, Barclays said as well.
[Source: Digitallook]
The middle SWIFTIndex nowcast for Q4 growth was down at 0.3%, with the OBR forecast at the time of the Autumn Statement 0.6%. So there is some optimistic uprating going on in the commentariat.
I would have thought that a managed motorway would be a more sensible and flexible (if more expensive) solution than a blanket 60mph limit.
The consultation document states that the Highways Agency is introducing a managed motorway scheme for almost the entire stretch in question.
In which case, what's the fuss about? (Unless they're saying that the maximum speed will be 60mph, even on a clear day with no other cars in sight, which would be daft).
A document which provides no actual evidence or studies to back their claims either that a reduced speed limit will improve traffic flow or that it will improve air quality.
They really don't know their arses from their elbows.
I really wouldnt open my consultation response on that note.
Look, they're the professionals with access to the data and the latest thinking on managing motorways. They may not be giving the weights you would like to see to different factors but arguing that they dont know what they're doing at all doesnt sound very convincing to me.
How do they expect people to participate in the consultation when they provide now evidence or data to support their claims beyond 'trust us, we're the experts.'
My response begins to them, is when was the last time you drove on that stretch of road?
Er, the Highways Agency is out on all stretches of the motorway network all the time. And they have access to all the data all the time which is surely better than any one person's impression of what the traffic is like no matter how often they drive the route.
I'd be interested to know if the Highway's Agency are indeed out on that stretch of motorway all the time. Although it is 25 years ago or so now, I worked for Tarmac when they had the motorway maintenance contract for that very stretch of motorway - in fact for all the motorway's in South Yorkshire. The Highway's Agency sub-contracted every aspect of management to Tarmac at the time and you never saw an HA representative actually out on the road from one end of the year to the next. One of my jobs as a lowly management trainee was compiling and presenting reports for HA and the impression I got was that we were effectively their eyes and ears on the ground.
As previously mentioned one of the biggest problems on that stretch is Tinsley Viaduct. Unfortunately the box girder design of the viaduct was not suited for the traffic loads it was supposedly designed to take - which is why the lower (non motorway) tier has never been used to its full capacity and has had lanes closed off ever since it was built.
If they really wanted to do something long term to improve traffic flow along that section then they need to invest the money and replace the viaduct with something that can actually carry three lanes of traffic.
Comments
I think I should point out for the record that my candidature in Buckingham was strenuously opposed by the local Lib Dem membership. Leading LDs from Charles Kennedy downwards enthusiastically endorsed the Speaker. My principal supporters were Conservatives disillusioned with the Speaker, of whom there was no shortage and hostile to UKIP, a rather smaller, but robust number. I was however helped by the most effective advice of a now ex LD campaigner.
I was saddened that the LD's did not see the opportunity to encapsulate the case for fundamental parliamentary reform, following the expenses scandal, by seeking to get rid of the Speaker, which would have been a game-changer. One of the great missed opportunities of 2010, which now, following the fiascos on PR, and the House of Lords, and the continuing insult to democracy of the current constituency boundaries, to say nothing of recall etc. gives to this country a late Hapsburg quality of institutional stasis amid a growing crisis of legitimacy. The LDs have alas lost their claim to constitutional radicalism and being the torch bearers of renewal to UKIP.
But UKIP was my real target, because, for this very reason, they are riding deep discontentment with our governing class. I have thus long regarded them not as a serious challenge and thus a real threat to the National interest. Many of the grievances they represent are legitimate and entirely in line with traditional Conservatism, which is certainly not the relic metropolitan opinion often assumes it to be. These however that have little to do with Europe, and their one size fits all solution, withdrawal from the EU, would be a catastrophe for Britain. I wanted to challenge UKIPs anti-Europeanism and made no secret of my support, for example, for our joining the euro, which, of course, I continue to favour (and was the principal reason for my estrangement from the LDs before 2010.
I was fearful the expenses scandal could have given Nigel Farage the seat if he was unopposed, hence my rather late entry into the field. As it happened the whole campaign was transformed by the TV debates and the expenses factor faded away.
Nevertheless I hoped my limited success would have emboldened the Coalition (the formation of which I supported) to really attack UKIP's anti-European platform. As I was seeking to do with the pro Euro Conservative Party I was, like the promoters of Rab Butler, offering a gun for others to fire. Like K Clarke and M Heseltine in 1999, D. Cameron and N Clegg chose not to pick the gun up.
UKIPs recent rise has not exceeded my expectations. Indeed, I think they are likely to top the poll in May and to win seats at the GE. Whether they then succeed in effectively taking over the Conservative Party will depend on the fighting will of those remaining pro European Conservatives and their LD allies. I have to say looking at things now it is hard for someone of my convictions to be optimistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb6gp5Ga5q8
Edited to add: The Tories are lucky they can't use the "If you want the car to go forward you put it in 'D', if you want it to go back you put it in 'R'" bit. That's probably the part that lost them the House.
You can edit posts. Just click on the little 'cog' that appears at the top right of your post when the mouse pointer hovers over it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267632/M1_J28_to_J35a_MSL_Consultation_Document.pdf
Stability and risk management tend to override the normal drivers of competition which we see in other industries.
We could play ping pong with this all day, your return serve is pretty good ! However if I stand back a bit, the thing I like about these exchanges is they show the variance of opinion between you folks in the SE and the rest of us. For me the two big issues from the crisis ( which is now heading into it's sixth year !) are
1. I just don't think there has been enough downside for the banks so we have the moral jeopardy that condems us to repeat the cycle again in about twenty years or so.
2. It shows the gap between the London-centred economy and the the rest of the UK, where the overriding desire to support banks takes precendence over the performance of the rest of the economy. Here we have an economy which is run for the benefit of the banks rather than vice versa, it's sort of a latter day version of Voltaire's remarks on Prussia and its army.
New confidence survey out from Lloyds Bank this morning, Mr. Brooke.
It concludes that UK business confidence is at its highest level for 20 years, with rising orders, sales and profits underpinning sentiment.
It notes that confidence has particularly risen in the West Midlands.
Time to polish up that smile of yours, methinks.
go exile thyself Pole to the land of Heathite Corporatism where you belong !!!
Now, it’s time to take the debate online. Viviane Reding, the Vice-President for Justice and Citizenship, is hosting a Google hangout this 16 January at 20:00. That means wherever you are, you can get involved!
If you’ve got a question for Vice-President Viviane Reding, all you need to do is post your questions and comments on Twitter, Facebook and Google+ with hashtags #askReding and/or #eudeb8. Euronews will be choosing the most interesting and challenging questions from social media, and you could get the opportunity to take part in the debate.
Want to get inspired? We’ve also invited a group of bloggers from around Europe to have an online debate with Vice-President Reding – from citizens’ participation to data protection. Tune in to watch the discussion live on Tuesday 7 January at 17:00! We’ll be posting the live YouTube link here on the day!
Adelina Marini: Bulgarian – based in Croatia (www.euinside.eu)
Alexander Sander – Germany (www.netzpolitik.org)
Arianna Ciccone– Italy (www.valigiablu.it )
Jakub Gornicki – Poland (http://epf.org.pl )
Mike Smithson – UK (http://politicalbetting.com/)
We’re looking forward to hearing what you have to say, about the sort of Europe that you want to live in. It’s an important debate, and it’s happening online, so join and get involved!
http://ec.europa.eu/debate-future-europe/citizens-dialogues/online/index_en.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25622660
You don't see skis like that very often these days. So old school I'm surprising she's not sporting a neon all-in-one and a perm.
No doubt the Frau will also keep up the Germanic [non-]appreciation of how to queue for a lift. Well, perhaps not so much with a broken pelvis, but you know what I mean...
Might Ed Miliband invite Ed Balls 'skiing' any time soon ?
The only exception I'd make would be for the Tinsley viaduct, where safety might make a permanent reduced speed sensible.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/06/simon-hoggart-guardian-observer-journalist-dies-67
But then this has been achieved by the corporates disintermediating the banks and going directly to the markets to raise finance.
This is not a route open to most SMEs but they too are increasing their sources of finance through increased use of products/services such as asset financing, factoring and invoice discounting for example.
I agree that the financial crisis has left the large banks, particularly the intervened banks, somewhat arthritic when it comes to business lending but the joints are slowly loosening and progress is being made.
so what you're saying is that the banks are so useless that people are now bypassing them ?
As for sources of SME funding I suspect I'm more au fait than you Mr Pole, let's just say HMG is getting bad value for money.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/martinp16/10-reasons-you-will-fall-back-in-love-with-nick-cl-i7sk
CourtNewsUK @CourtNewsUK 1m
Besieged NHS worker claims term 'bell end' actually a 'backhanded compliment'.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/george-osbornes-new-year-speech-on-the-economy/
I liked it. Pulls no punches and with a very clear analysis and plan of action for the economy. Some may not like Osborne or his politics or his economics - but it is refreshing to have a senior politician who says what he means and means what he says, especially when it is the Chancellor. At least the Tory position on the economy is crystal clear.
Ed n Ed....over to you......
A foul-mouthed NHS worker who joked on Twitter about using a patient's pubic hair to give himself 'Wiggins style' sideburns is facing a ban from the profession today.
Under the username 'Sir Cockhardt', Paul Nam wrote a series of bizarre updates about his work on a gynaecology ward in Lincolnshire.
Read more: http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/NHS-worker-called-Sir-Cockhardt-joked-using/story-20405386-detail/story.html#ixzz2pcjCnJTZ
But evidence-based? If their rationale is valid then why not introduce the 60mph limit 24/7 rather than for only part of each day?
Their case looks to be based on this: However, my experience of the M62 managed motorway is that you never get the combination of all lanes (i.e. including the hard shoulder) being used when the speed limit is 70mph. If that is a general rule, then I don't get why introducing the managed motorway will increase emissions. It's possible that when the scheme is introduced, the extra capacity may encourage extra traffic (or divert extra traffic from A roads), but they're specifically talking about a situation where the traffic load is light: when the limit would otherwise be 70 and (presumably) when they're not using the hard shoulder - conditions identical to what they are now. I cannot understand why they think that the scheme will have a significant adverse impact at the times when they are not using it.
Tim Montgomerie agrees with Nick...
As we now have the PMIs in for the three main output sectors which contribute to GDP and, on the expenditure front, some early indications of Q4 retail sales, the forecasters of Q4 GDP have begun to sharpen their pencils.
Commenting on the [PMI] data Chris Williamson, Chief Economist at Markit, pointed out how the most recent purchasing managers´ survey results suggest that growth will have accelerated from the 0.8% pace seen in the third quarter. "If borne out by the official data gross domestic product will have expanded at a 1.9% clip over the last year, the most since 2007," he added.
Precisely in that regard Barclays Research today upped its forecast for fourth quarter economic growth to 0.8% from the 0.6% previously envisaged. A turnaround in investment, after a prolonged period of weakness, is likely to drive the recovery, Barclays said as well.
[Source: Digitallook]
The middle SWIFTIndex nowcast for Q4 growth was down at 0.3%, with the OBR forecast at the time of the Autumn Statement 0.6%. So there is some optimistic uprating going on in the commentariat.
Enough to rid ourselves of the ish.
The document, like the idea, is crap.
As previously mentioned one of the biggest problems on that stretch is Tinsley Viaduct. Unfortunately the box girder design of the viaduct was not suited for the traffic loads it was supposedly designed to take - which is why the lower (non motorway) tier has never been used to its full capacity and has had lanes closed off ever since it was built.
If they really wanted to do something long term to improve traffic flow along that section then they need to invest the money and replace the viaduct with something that can actually carry three lanes of traffic.