Any recommendations <£120/night in Tokyo and Tapei for somewhere central with wifi and reasonably international breakfast? (Last time my Tapeh hotel was on the fifth floor of a block with seedy vendors downstairs, and the Tokyo hotel only had miso soup for breakfast). I'm not fussy - something like an Ibis would be fine - but if there's anywhere people recommend that'd be nice...?</p>
No it isn't. Every time you make that claim you just look stupid. Investing in the stock markets in the way Norway does is nothing like Nationalisation. I suggest you go and actually look at what the Oil Fund does as clearly you have no idea at the moment.
Come on Richard, you know as well as I do that there's no comparison between Norway and the UK as regards SWFs.
Let's start with the obvious: SWFs typically exist in small countries where a natural resources boom would result in a hideously dysfunctional local economy if excess profits weren't squiralled away. Norway has has 5 million people in it, and is Europe's biggest oil producer - extracting about 2m barrels a day. If all the money from that was allowed to slosh around the local economy, it would be $200m / day for a population of 5 million - that's $40/day in oil revenues alone. It would result in an even more insanely strong currency, and it would result in pretty much all non-petroleum activities being hammered by the strength of the Krona. (This is the so-called Dutch Disease.)
My criticism of UKIP having a SWF policy is simply that it is an absurd aspiration which you would not even consider until the national debt was at a level below - say - 35% of GDP. Given we're not even going to balance the budget before 2020 (although I think this may be unduly pessimistic), this is a policy for 2035.
That it is one of the seven policies listed on the UKIP web page under 'policy forum' is a joke. And if the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives had it as one of their seven published policies, then you would be (correctly) ripping the piss. It is only because you are suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance that you even attempt to defend it.
If you read what I actually wrote you would see I said I wasn't in favour. Like you I would rather see any windfall used to reduce the tax burden (once the deficit was removed).
But the claims that Norway's oil fund - which is what the UKIP plan is modelled on - is a form of nationalisation as SGA was claiming is simply farcical. That was the point I was answering.
As for policy websites, as I said the rest are a joke as well. Are you seriously suggesting that the total sum of Lib Dem education policy is to spend money to improve the lot of poor pupils? Nothing else? Of course not. And yet that is all that is mentioned on their website so that by your measure we should consider that the be all and end all of their education policy.
You have blind spot when it comes to UKIP in spite of your claimed libertarianism and skepticism. At least my criticisms of them are measured and constructive. Yours are little better than your Dad's claims about no one giving a Monkey's about the EU.
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
Have you any idea what the norm is for such a deal? It would be worth your while trying to find out? Furthermore, if you are going to negotiate I wouldn't ask for a review but set out a schedule of how you would like to see the deal change once that level of profit has been reached and let them haggle over it if they want.
The point is once you are signed up without having already negotiated any future changes in the deal to conclusion there is no guarantee that you would get satisfaction. How would a 'review' work? Who would be the arbitrator of the review? What happens if they just refuse any change but you are still tied into the original agreement?
Basically its best to get everything agreed up front if you can. Then everyone knows where they stand and there are no doubts. Particularly as it sounds to me that you are not 100% happy with the initial profit split?
Thanks
No I am ok with 25% for now, just if It really takes off, once initial costs are covered etc it should go 67/33 then 60/40 etc... a sliding scale basically
I think you are right and that's what I had in mind.. negotiate the change in split according to profit made, we start.
Meant to sort out the contract etc this week and I am absolutely useless/naïve in negotiations so thought Id seek advice... your thinking concurs with mine, so that's encouraging
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
Goodness gracious! A betting post on here, these days?? I'd almost forgotten that was supposedly the reason for this site's existence. Never mind, I'm sure 'Britain's most read Hotel blog' has a popular, albeit discrete, appeal.
Haha UKIP to win Thurrock at 16/1, there's another bit of betting to up the ratio!
With his lopsided grin, easy manner and tousled hair Tristram ‘Hereditary’ Hunt, did his duty impeccably, providing public school leadership to his dogged, working class party this afternoon in the Commons. He treated the sortie with the casual grace of a subaltern in vicarage garden, and ignored the terrible casualties around him.
Disdaining the enemy’s firepower, he went elegantly over the top to launch his deadly question – how many Free Schools had been approved against official advice?
I believe the guardian is looking for a new sketch writer. If talent has anything at all to do with it this is a no brainer. Simon Carr is simply the best in the business at the current time.
Agreed. An excellent sketch writer, far better than that silly bint on the Times (Treneman?). With all respect to Guido he is wasted on a blog.
The Times and STimes could find space for lots of good writers if they got rid of 2nd raters such as Treneman, India Knight and others. Camilla Long is not much good nor really is Eleanor Mills and why is Robert Crampton kept on - his column at the end of the magazine is dire. They are all so predictable in what they write - no insight, no wit, no humour and no surprise. You can read the first paragraph and pretty much guess what the rest of the article will say and, increasingly, that's what I do: skim read the 1st para then ignore.
I wonder sometimes if Cameron and Osborne's negotiating strategy with Clegg is to think of what they want, then propose something more radical and let Clegg negotiate back towards what they originally envisaged anyway. That way Cameron and Osborne get what they want and Clegg can claim he is making a difference.
BTW I've just read Boris Johnson's article on Hunt and WW1 and it's rubbish. The causes of WW1 were nowhere near as crudely one-sided as he makes out. Christopher Clark's recent book shows that and that - surely - is the point of what Hunt and other historians are saying: that Gove is making exactly the sort of simplistic case about history which he is accusing his opponents of doing.
Regarding Sovereign Wealth Funds. Lets not leave it just to UKIp to defend them. Here's a Tory on Conhome justifying them even with an enormous debt:
Britain, despite sharing in the riches of the North Sea, is in a very different position. Instead of being used to build-up assets for the long-term benefit of the nation, our own oil and gas revenues have disappeared down the drain of current public expenditure.
Shale gas, however, could provide us with a second chance. By establishing a British sovereign wealth fund, our politicians might finally tear their attention away from tomorrow’s headlines and consider the needs of the future.
But what about our mountainous national debt? Surely we have to use any windfall from shale to pay it back?
Certainly we need to get on with the job of eliminating the deficit – but once we’ve stopped adding to the debt mountain, there’s a good reason why we shouldn’t try to reduce it. Right now there’s a strong feeling that our national debt has reached a level beyond which it is unsafe to go. This places a powerful constraint on the ability of future governments to return to the policies of borrow and spend. If, however, debt levels were to be significantly reduced, then all the old temptations would come rushing back. Like an overweight person getting back on the cake after losing a stone or two, a spendthrift government could easily undo the good work of a fiscally responsible predecessor.
A sovereign wealth fund, however, would allow budgetary surpluses to be safely locked away. Whereas public borrowing is under the control of the Chancellor and can be concealed by various sleights-of-hand, the money in an independently and transparently managed fund would have to be raided in full view.
Building up such a visible and inviolable national asset would also create confidence in the fundamental solvency of our nation. Thus, paradoxically, keeping our national debt levels at the upper limit of acceptability could reduce the interest we have to pay on them.
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
Goodness gracious! A betting post on here, these days?? I'd almost forgotten that was supposedly the reason for this site's existence. Never mind, I'm sure 'Britain's most read Hotel blog' has a popular, albeit discrete, appeal.
Not to mention my tip of Theresa May to be Home Sec at next GE... Advised at 8/11, now 3/10...
I suppose it is also responsible for the increased Arctic Ice cover this year and the near record summer ice extent in the Antarctic. Global warming apparently results in larger ice caps now.
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
Goodness gracious! A betting post on here, these days?? I'd almost forgotten that was supposedly the reason for this site's existence. Never mind, I'm sure 'Britain's most read Hotel blog' has a popular, albeit discrete, appeal.
I keep offering Nats a bet at evens that NO will win, yet they seem reluctant to make wagers, despite their apparent, bloviating certainty of a YES victory in September. Strange.
Your memory is playing tricks on you Mr Partridge. I remember you running a mile when decent odds (and not your joke odds) were given.
May be entering into a deal where a betting system I have devised is backed by a syndicate. They are going to soup up my program, fund the betting and we split the profits75/25... would it be reasonable of me to suggest once we hit a certain level of profit that the split is reviewed?
Goodness gracious! A betting post on here, these days?? I'd almost forgotten that was supposedly the reason for this site's existence. Never mind, I'm sure 'Britain's most read Hotel blog' has a popular, albeit discrete, appeal.
I keep offering Nats a bet at evens that NO will win, yet they seem reluctant to make wagers, despite their apparent, bloviating certainty of a YES victory in September. Strange.
Are you really stupid, 4-1 minimum at bookies , your evens is crap
Comments
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-hotel-4029660-hotel_gimmond_tokyo-i
But the claims that Norway's oil fund - which is what the UKIP plan is modelled on - is a form of nationalisation as SGA was claiming is simply farcical. That was the point I was answering.
As for policy websites, as I said the rest are a joke as well. Are you seriously suggesting that the total sum of Lib Dem education policy is to spend money to improve the lot of poor pupils? Nothing else? Of course not. And yet that is all that is mentioned on their website so that by your measure we should consider that the be all and end all of their education policy.
You have blind spot when it comes to UKIP in spite of your claimed libertarianism and skepticism. At least my criticisms of them are measured and constructive. Yours are little better than your Dad's claims about no one giving a Monkey's about the EU.
No I am ok with 25% for now, just if It really takes off, once initial costs are covered etc it should go 67/33 then 60/40 etc... a sliding scale basically
I think you are right and that's what I had in mind.. negotiate the change in split according to profit made, we start.
Meant to sort out the contract etc this week and I am absolutely useless/naïve in negotiations so thought Id seek advice... your thinking concurs with mine, so that's encouraging
Britain, despite sharing in the riches of the North Sea, is in a very different position. Instead of being used to build-up assets for the long-term benefit of the nation, our own oil and gas revenues have disappeared down the drain of current public expenditure.
Shale gas, however, could provide us with a second chance. By establishing a British sovereign wealth fund, our politicians might finally tear their attention away from tomorrow’s headlines and consider the needs of the future.
But what about our mountainous national debt? Surely we have to use any windfall from shale to pay it back?
Certainly we need to get on with the job of eliminating the deficit – but once we’ve stopped adding to the debt mountain, there’s a good reason why we shouldn’t try to reduce it. Right now there’s a strong feeling that our national debt has reached a level beyond which it is unsafe to go. This places a powerful constraint on the ability of future governments to return to the policies of borrow and spend. If, however, debt levels were to be significantly reduced, then all the old temptations would come rushing back. Like an overweight person getting back on the cake after losing a stone or two, a spendthrift government could easily undo the good work of a fiscally responsible predecessor.
A sovereign wealth fund, however, would allow budgetary surpluses to be safely locked away. Whereas public borrowing is under the control of the Chancellor and can be concealed by various sleights-of-hand, the money in an independently and transparently managed fund would have to be raided in full view.
Building up such a visible and inviolable national asset would also create confidence in the fundamental solvency of our nation. Thus, paradoxically, keeping our national debt levels at the upper limit of acceptability could reduce the interest we have to pay on them.
http://www.conservativehome.com/the-deep-end/2013/09/heresy-of-the-week-once-we-eliminate-the-deficit-we-should-not-pay-back-our-national-debt.html
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/news__events/news/december_2013/boroughs_schools_praised.aspx