I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
"DHSC ‘playbook’ orders trusts to describe big building projects as ‘new hospitals’
Building plan A communications ‘playbook’ for the government’s NHS building programme tells trusts that major refurbishments and new wings/units which are part of the scheme ‘must always be referred to as a new hospital’. "
This I don't get. Folk know if they have a new hospital. There is one where there wasn't before. A new unit is not that. If they hear there is one in Plymouth say (whether it is a real one or not), their reaction will be where is ours?
And when they are told a new one is coming to the town where they live and then they find out it is just a new toilet block - what we will they think?
Not sure i can tell the difference between this government's lies about public spending and a soviet commissioner's five year tractor plans.
But jesus fucking christ. We are facing a grave threat which has the potential to kill many of us.
And PB almost to a man (person) embraced then and is embracing now illiberal measures unprecedented in our own times. Yes it is an unprecedented pandemic but the way people on here are completely suspending their normal critical faculties is a sight to behold.
No one knows what long term effects the vaccine has but more important, you are all cheering mandatory vaccination. The government forcing people to inject something into their bodies.
Quite extraordinary.
Who is cheering that? Who has proposed it? How would it even work? There has never been compulsory vaccination of adults in this country, and I don't see it happening.
That's great and leaving aside the Covid Pass which allows people to participate in normal life, so why are you giving @contrarian such a hard time.
Because he's unvaccinated and sharing antivaxx memes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods.
He deserves a hard time for that does he not?
He has chosen not to let the government tell him what to put inside his body.
And questioned lockdown.
We absolutely need such voices.
You can question things without lying and bullshitting.
We don't need such voices.
I haven't checked out his lies. What was the most egregious of them?
He does so regularly, sharing antivaxx memes and lies.
In the past 24 hours he's claimed that the young are better off catching Covid than being vaccinated (not true) and that the risk to the young from Covid is less than being struck by lightning (completely wrong).
He's no better than Susan Michie.
Is it not the case that the risks to the young from Covid are sufficiently small such that there is a live debate about the relative merits of that vs getting the vaccine.
How is what @contrarian says so different from the JCVI position.
Contrarian says things that are palpably untrue and repeats them again and again after being called out. The JCVI don't.
Contrarian is just an antivaxx extreme equivalent of Michie. I do not see much praise on this website for her, every argument you use in favour of contrarian could be repeated for Michie. Both are questioning, uncompromising zealots who don't engage with reality.
When did you last praise Michie? Or anyone else from that extreme?
It is the scientific process. You need Michie and you need @contrarian.
Vigorous debate.
As I said, his position on vaxxing children is the same as that of the JCVI.
But he's just an idiot. We have seen footage from Italy and NYC and South America and India showing what out of control covid does. He's like someone at the tail end of the blitz insisting there's still no real evidence that getting people off the streets and into air raid shelters helps stop them being blown up. I was arguing vigorously this time last year that we were probably years away from even one workable vaccine, might not even get that, etc. The scientific method is about being shown to be wrong and admitting it.
You are a funny old sausage.
You have a guy who has questioned the government at every turn. I know you are a huge fan of Boris et al but the reaction to him ( @contrarian ) has been unmitigated opprobrium.
Society needs contrarians. Everyone agrees, right? But of course the defining characteristic of a contrarian is that no one believes what they say and, further, ridicules them with a near-religious certainty.
You believe that @contrarian is foolish, absurd and heretical. Fair enough.
@contrarian gets a lot of stick on here. I don’t agree necessarily with 100pc of the stuff - and I take a different view on the anti-vaxx front - but you need to challenge the orthodoxy sometimes and, by and large, I think he (is he a he?) puts across his points in a considered and argued manner.
The simple fact is no one can say for sure some of his points won’t be proved right down the line. I hope not but they could be. We are always told to not jump to short term conclusions. The potential unintended consequences of the vaccine rollout remain to be seen.
At the risk of going down the Godwin’s Law route, a certain Mr Winston S Churchill was considered a conspiracy crank for much of the 30s due to his comments on a certain Herr A Hitler.
There are zillions of examples of the orthodoxy being overturned. As I said it's obvious until it isn't obvious. But if no one asks the questions then nothing moves forward.
The key is to keep asking questions and be open to changing tack if the question is answered in a honest and forthright way. I think one of the mistakes being made with the anti-vaxxers is the tendency to shout “loon!” when they make a point. Better to explain your point of view (which if it is good enough should be enough and, if not, should make you question your assumptions).
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
It would be based about 5 miles from where I live. No thankyou. Having said that, Milford would be the easy option for the government, we've already got oil and gas terminals and a power station. A nuclear sub or two wont make much difference, will it?
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Too shallow.
On doing more research, looks like you’re right. 9 metres against 26 for Milford Haven and 40 for Gare Loch.
A shame though, as it would otherwise be perfect. Not only in situ and unused, but designed for nuclear materials.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
It would be based about 5 miles from where I live. No thankyou. Having said that, Milford would be the easy option for the government, we've already got oil and gas terminals and a power station. A nuclear sub or two wont make much difference, will it?
How far away were you from Wylfa power station?
Edit - on rereading your post, oops, I think you mean Milford Haven is 5 miles away.
Robert Reich @RBReich · 1h I fear we’re about to discover what happens when a horrendous hurricane rams into an area with low vaccination rates, high COVID, and already-full hospitals. Sadly, these are not unrelated.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
So Pen Farthing came back with all his animals but not all his staff.
Limited space? Presumably he had to prioritise.
Please tell me that isn't what happened.
Between Biden, the Taliban and our government his staff weren't allowed on.
All we need now is for it to be discovered that the animals all have notifiable diseases and have to be humanely destroyed (resulting, most likely, in another eighteen month legal battle, this time over the fate of 200 Afghan Geronimos,) and the fiasco will be complete.
Well, either that or the animals are all rehomed, and then one or more of them turns out to be off its rocker and random innocent members of the public are savaged to death. Rescue animals aren't all cute and cuddly, despite what Dogs Trust would have us believe.
Farthing's threatening phone call to the MoD official, followed by death threats presumably from 'supporters', was quite something.
I make it quarantine for the doggos will cost about £200k.
Speaking of extortionate costs and animals, did you get anywhere with that ridiculous cost to euthanase your rabbit? (I think it was you, although I have been dipping in and out and could be wrong.)
Not me.
I only eat rabbits, not keep them. My approach to euthanizing a rabbit would probably be a bit more direct.
I think I was probably giving an account of how someone I know with multiple - 8 or 9 - dogs reduces the cost of vets, which was another thread in the conversation.
I don't think Trump can really be blamed too much for this given even he told his supporters to get the vaccine
TBF to Trump he was banking on vaccine from the start. I am not sure he understood exactly what constitutes a vaccine, leading us down the road of ingesting household chemicals, but in this instance I think in very general terms he was always on the right track.
Mmmm....
Jan. 22, 2020 “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”
Feb. 2, 2020 “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”
Feb. 10, 2020 "Looks like by April, you know in theory when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”
Feb. 24, 2020 “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA… the Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
May 8, 2020 “This is going to go away without a vaccine. It is going to go away. We are not going to see it again.”
May 9, 2020 “This is going to go away without a vaccine.”
June 15, 2020 “At some point this stuff goes away and it’s going away.”
June 17, 2020 “It’s fading away. It’s going to fade away.”
Fair enough, but when the penny dropped he was desperate for a vaccine and as I recall was desperately disappointed not to get the credit when they were signed off by the FDA soon after the election.
The argument around the economic impact of a reduced labour market is complex and has many nuances.
To this observer, the most obvious impact is rising labour costs should be leading companies to invest in improving business processes through technology whether though improved business systems or even the use of robots. It's not a question of whether a robot can serve you coffee (probably could) but whether the current way the process of ordering, preparation and delivery can be made more efficient and improved.
The skilled worker will be at an advantage if the skills are transferrable - they can almost command a wage, either you pay me more or I'm off to a company that will.
The alternative approach is to look to outsource - in a sense, home or remote working is a form of outsourcing especially if organisations take the opportunity to reduce or re-configure their space away from the traditional banks of desks to something more useful. Obviously, the thorny old issue of sending it all to a business park in Bangalore will raise its head but are the savings that obvious?
We've already heard @rcs1000 claiming there'll be a new push for outsourcing - I doubt it. Companies and organisations who mange their property portfolios adroitly will realise some significant benefits.
As for unskilled workers, they too will be better off at least initially subject to them performing a function which can't be easily automated. The suspicion is future immigration policy will be focussed on bridging perceived or actual skills gaps or temporary requirements for unskilled workers.
The other aspect of home or remote working is the re-invigoration of commuter towns and dormitories during the day as places for home workers to go for lunch or entertainment. That may be to the detriment of the City centre but the small town or village and especially those with a few artisan or "unique" shops is going to prosper.
Outsourcing is perhaps the wrong word.
The point is that you no longer need to be in the office to do work. And that has been demonstrated in many, many businesses over the last 18 months.
And if you no longer need to be in London, why do you actually have to be in the UK?
Saying "oh it didn't work 20 years ago" misses the point. Two decades ago people didn't have 200mb/second internet at home, there was no Slack or Zoom. If you were at home you *might* have access to the file server via a VPN. But that was the preserve of Senior Management supported by a massive IT department.
We would never have considered remote employees a decade ago. Now we're contemplating not ever again getting a London office.
That's a pretty major shift.
Yes but I think there are some issues not factored in with remote working, some of which @TheScreamingEagles has occasionally mentioned. One is security; one-and-a-half is confidentiality. Then there is tax: if your employees each work in a different country, are you deducting (or not) income tax or the local equivalents correctly? And H&S legislation as it might affect their home offices? Then there is extra-territorial legislation like the Bribery Act or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or whatever is the Latvian equivalent – and by "or" I mean "and" because all might apply to the same transaction.
I expect you are right that WFH and foreign WFH will continue to grow but for some employers, there will be tears before bedtime.
Those are all solvable problems, though. And if the price is right (and the price is right), then they will be solved.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
So Pen Farthing came back with all his animals but not all his staff.
Limited space? Presumably he had to prioritise.
Please tell me that isn't what happened.
Between Biden, the Taliban and our government his staff weren't allowed on.
All we need now is for it to be discovered that the animals all have notifiable diseases and have to be humanely destroyed (resulting, most likely, in another eighteen month legal battle, this time over the fate of 200 Afghan Geronimos,) and the fiasco will be complete.
Well, either that or the animals are all rehomed, and then one or more of them turns out to be off its rocker and random innocent members of the public are savaged to death. Rescue animals aren't all cute and cuddly, despite what Dogs Trust would have us believe.
Farthing's threatening phone call to the MoD official, followed by death threats presumably from 'supporters', was quite something.
I make it quarantine for the doggos will cost about £200k.
Speaking of extortionate costs and animals, did you get anywhere with that ridiculous cost to euthanase your rabbit? (I think it was you, although I have been dipping in and out and could be wrong.)
Not me.
I only eat rabbits, not keep them.
My apologies.Who was it had to pay £300 to have the rabbit put down?
So Pen Farthing came back with all his animals but not all his staff.
Limited space? Presumably he had to prioritise.
Please tell me that isn't what happened.
Between Biden, the Taliban and our government his staff weren't allowed on.
All we need now is for it to be discovered that the animals all have notifiable diseases and have to be humanely destroyed (resulting, most likely, in another eighteen month legal battle, this time over the fate of 200 Afghan Geronimos,) and the fiasco will be complete.
Well, either that or the animals are all rehomed, and then one or more of them turns out to be off its rocker and random innocent members of the public are savaged to death. Rescue animals aren't all cute and cuddly, despite what Dogs Trust would have us believe.
Farthing's threatening phone call to the MoD official, followed by death threats presumably from 'supporters', was quite something.
I make it quarantine for the doggos will cost about £200k.
Does anyone know how much truth, if any, there is in the threatening phone call allegations?
I'm assuming that the cost of quarantine, at least, will fall upon the charity rather than the taxpayer? Although that said, to the extent that any donations to the charity have been gift aided, we'll all collectively be stumping up some of the costs indirectly.
It was on voicemail. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He could have waved his animals goodbye and stayed in Kabul...
After all his blathering, how he could have got on the transport when his staff were left behind is extraordinary.
Agreed Pen Farthing´s behaviour -as reported- is pretty terrible, but on the other hand he is clearly being set up to take some flack while Raab et al try and spread the heat from the unfolding catastophe. Mic Wright´s The Conquest of the Useless blog is, as usual, on the money for the smears emerging from the various press offices that are attempting to share the shit around a bit.
However, the truth is that the whole stramash is a fiasco qua non, and in the end the buck stops with Downing St... so good luck pushing any kind of accountability onto Worzel and still less the tenth rate cretins that comprise his cabinet.
Tom Tugendhat¨s speach may be yesterday´s chip wrapper, but there are plenty of Tory MPs who are in an existential despair at what is happening and Worzel will be in deep do-do if the remaining Brits (and protected Afghans) are indeed put to the sword.
An easily understood story of a guy taking up maybe 60 human seats with 200 dogs instead is manna from heaven for the dirty tricks brigade, but I am not sure that it will be sufficient distraction to save Clueless Raab or even Qinietiq Wallace once the butchers bill is in.
While the political decisions both at home and abroad have a lot to answer for, most of the fiasco has to be laid at the feet of our militaries and intelligence services. Sure, the evacuation has been successful over the last week, but that has been by the favour of the Taliban.
It is a sacred cow to criticise our troops, and even more so across the pond, and I am sure a lot individual bravery, but organisationally, and strategically a disaster.
A lot of sacred cows should be criticised. Not our troops imo but certainly the General Staff.
Other sacred cows that absolutely should be criticised? Perhaps some closer to home for you, @Foxy.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
But jesus fucking christ. We are facing a grave threat which has the potential to kill many of us.
And PB almost to a man (person) embraced then and is embracing now illiberal measures unprecedented in our own times. Yes it is an unprecedented pandemic but the way people on here are completely suspending their normal critical faculties is a sight to behold.
No one knows what long term effects the vaccine has but more important, you are all cheering mandatory vaccination. The government forcing people to inject something into their bodies.
Quite extraordinary.
Who is cheering that? Who has proposed it? How would it even work? There has never been compulsory vaccination of adults in this country, and I don't see it happening.
That's great and leaving aside the Covid Pass which allows people to participate in normal life, so why are you giving @contrarian such a hard time.
Because he's unvaccinated and sharing antivaxx memes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods.
He deserves a hard time for that does he not?
He has chosen not to let the government tell him what to put inside his body.
And questioned lockdown.
We absolutely need such voices.
You can question things without lying and bullshitting.
We don't need such voices.
I haven't checked out his lies. What was the most egregious of them?
He does so regularly, sharing antivaxx memes and lies.
In the past 24 hours he's claimed that the young are better off catching Covid than being vaccinated (not true) and that the risk to the young from Covid is less than being struck by lightning (completely wrong).
He's no better than Susan Michie.
Is it not the case that the risks to the young from Covid are sufficiently small such that there is a live debate about the relative merits of that vs getting the vaccine.
How is what @contrarian says so different from the JCVI position.
Contrarian says things that are palpably untrue and repeats them again and again after being called out. The JCVI don't.
Contrarian is just an antivaxx extreme equivalent of Michie. I do not see much praise on this website for her, every argument you use in favour of contrarian could be repeated for Michie. Both are questioning, uncompromising zealots who don't engage with reality.
When did you last praise Michie? Or anyone else from that extreme?
It is the scientific process. You need Michie and you need @contrarian.
Vigorous debate.
As I said, his position on vaxxing children is the same as that of the JCVI.
But he's just an idiot. We have seen footage from Italy and NYC and South America and India showing what out of control covid does. He's like someone at the tail end of the blitz insisting there's still no real evidence that getting people off the streets and into air raid shelters helps stop them being blown up. I was arguing vigorously this time last year that we were probably years away from even one workable vaccine, might not even get that, etc. The scientific method is about being shown to be wrong and admitting it.
You are a funny old sausage.
You have a guy who has questioned the government at every turn. I know you are a huge fan of Boris et al but the reaction to him ( @contrarian ) has been unmitigated opprobrium.
Society needs contrarians. Everyone agrees, right? But of course the defining characteristic of a contrarian is that no one believes what they say and, further, ridicules them with a near-religious certainty.
You believe that @contrarian is foolish, absurd and heretical. Fair enough.
@contrarian gets a lot of stick on here. I don’t agree necessarily with 100pc of the stuff - and I take a different view on the anti-vaxx front - but you need to challenge the orthodoxy sometimes and, by and large, I think he (is he a he?) puts across his points in a considered and argued manner.
The simple fact is no one can say for sure some of his points won’t be proved right down the line. I hope not but they could be. We are always told to not jump to short term conclusions. The potential unintended consequences of the vaccine rollout remain to be seen.
At the risk of going down the Godwin’s Law route, a certain Mr Winston S Churchill was considered a conspiracy crank for much of the 30s due to his comments on a certain Herr A Hitler.
Churchill was wrong about lots of things in the Wilderness Years and very unpopular in the Conservative Party. It was not just that he was seen as a treachorous warmonger, and had ratted and re-ratted to whichever party offered him the best chance of a government post, but he was also very active on the wrong side of the abdication crisis and Indian independence.
Absolutely. But when he came to Hitler, he was certainly seen as bordering on nut job territory
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
Thatcher would surely have endorsed Howard instead of Hague to be the stop Clarke candidate.
Though agree on Hague
I think that unlikely, because he was one of those who told her she couldn’t win (although not as acidly as Clarke) so was another of the ‘smiling traitors’she bore such a long grudge against.
Hague, however, was untainted. He had only been in Parliament eighteen months when she was removed and was chiefly known for *that* speech in 1977. The fact that he wasn’t involved must have made it easier for her to back him against Clarke.
But, I could easily be wrong and you right. She really did have a legacy of bitterness to Clarke and his friend Heseltine that may have overcome all else.
It was certainly Clarke and Heseltine she loathed, hence she told her supporters to back Major over Heseltine in 1990, she backed Hague over Clarke in 1997 and in 2001 she waited to see which of IDS or Portillo was in the final 2 and backed them over Clarke, in that case IDS in the end.
Had Portillo got just 1 more MP to back him in 2001 therefore he would likely have knocked out IDS, Thatcher would have endorsed him over Clarke and he would have become Tory leader
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
The UK cannot use them when they want to. The warheads are English, but the actual missiles are America’s.
But jesus fucking christ. We are facing a grave threat which has the potential to kill many of us.
And PB almost to a man (person) embraced then and is embracing now illiberal measures unprecedented in our own times. Yes it is an unprecedented pandemic but the way people on here are completely suspending their normal critical faculties is a sight to behold.
No one knows what long term effects the vaccine has but more important, you are all cheering mandatory vaccination. The government forcing people to inject something into their bodies.
Quite extraordinary.
Who is cheering that? Who has proposed it? How would it even work? There has never been compulsory vaccination of adults in this country, and I don't see it happening.
That's great and leaving aside the Covid Pass which allows people to participate in normal life, so why are you giving @contrarian such a hard time.
Because he's unvaccinated and sharing antivaxx memes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods.
He deserves a hard time for that does he not?
He has chosen not to let the government tell him what to put inside his body.
And questioned lockdown.
We absolutely need such voices.
You can question things without lying and bullshitting.
We don't need such voices.
I haven't checked out his lies. What was the most egregious of them?
He does so regularly, sharing antivaxx memes and lies.
In the past 24 hours he's claimed that the young are better off catching Covid than being vaccinated (not true) and that the risk to the young from Covid is less than being struck by lightning (completely wrong).
He's no better than Susan Michie.
Is it not the case that the risks to the young from Covid are sufficiently small such that there is a live debate about the relative merits of that vs getting the vaccine.
How is what @contrarian says so different from the JCVI position.
Contrarian says things that are palpably untrue and repeats them again and again after being called out. The JCVI don't.
Contrarian is just an antivaxx extreme equivalent of Michie. I do not see much praise on this website for her, every argument you use in favour of contrarian could be repeated for Michie. Both are questioning, uncompromising zealots who don't engage with reality.
When did you last praise Michie? Or anyone else from that extreme?
It is the scientific process. You need Michie and you need @contrarian.
Vigorous debate.
As I said, his position on vaxxing children is the same as that of the JCVI.
But he's just an idiot. We have seen footage from Italy and NYC and South America and India showing what out of control covid does. He's like someone at the tail end of the blitz insisting there's still no real evidence that getting people off the streets and into air raid shelters helps stop them being blown up. I was arguing vigorously this time last year that we were probably years away from even one workable vaccine, might not even get that, etc. The scientific method is about being shown to be wrong and admitting it.
You are a funny old sausage.
You have a guy who has questioned the government at every turn. I know you are a huge fan of Boris et al but the reaction to him ( @contrarian ) has been unmitigated opprobrium.
Society needs contrarians. Everyone agrees, right? But of course the defining characteristic of a contrarian is that no one believes what they say and, further, ridicules them with a near-religious certainty.
You believe that @contrarian is foolish, absurd and heretical. Fair enough.
@contrarian gets a lot of stick on here. I don’t agree necessarily with 100pc of the stuff - and I take a different view on the anti-vaxx front - but you need to challenge the orthodoxy sometimes and, by and large, I think he (is he a he?) puts across his points in a considered and argued manner.
The simple fact is no one can say for sure some of his points won’t be proved right down the line. I hope not but they could be. We are always told to not jump to short term conclusions. The potential unintended consequences of the vaccine rollout remain to be seen.
At the risk of going down the Godwin’s Law route, a certain Mr Winston S Churchill was considered a conspiracy crank for much of the 30s due to his comments on a certain Herr A Hitler.
There are zillions of examples of the orthodoxy being overturned. As I said it's obvious until it isn't obvious. But if no one asks the questions then nothing moves forward.
Asking questions is good.
Giving fraudulent answers to questions is not.
I think you're missing the wood for the trees.
Every dot and comma might not be impeccable but his general thrust is important. Of course there will be overshoot.
So you’re a fan of that guy who keeps pushing ivermectin?
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
Perhaps because of the location of the UK forces. We are both speculating on this front, and you cannot say for certain that there are no strategic reasons to keep them where they are.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Given the graphs above, I wonder if an effective political strategy for the Democrats is for their leading lights to make a renewed push for people to eat less red meat, drink less, stop smoking and to wear sun screen. These Trumpian idiots will quickly consume only bacon and vodka, chain smoke and go to tanning salons.
"DHSC ‘playbook’ orders trusts to describe big building projects as ‘new hospitals’
Building plan A communications ‘playbook’ for the government’s NHS building programme tells trusts that major refurbishments and new wings/units which are part of the scheme ‘must always be referred to as a new hospital’. "
This I don't get. Folk know if they have a new hospital. There is one where there wasn't before. A new unit is not that. If they hear there is one in Plymouth say (whether it is a real one or not), their reaction will be where is ours?
And when they are told a new one is coming to the town where they live and then they find out it is just a new toilet block - what we will they think?
Not sure i can tell the difference between this government's lies about public spending and a soviet commissioner's five year tractor plans.
It is reminiscent of the Major government's reassurances on the NHS when any visitor could see closed wards, and everyone knew of someone waiting for treatment. There is spin and there is crass gamesmanship and this tends to the latter.
But jesus fucking christ. We are facing a grave threat which has the potential to kill many of us.
And PB almost to a man (person) embraced then and is embracing now illiberal measures unprecedented in our own times. Yes it is an unprecedented pandemic but the way people on here are completely suspending their normal critical faculties is a sight to behold.
No one knows what long term effects the vaccine has but more important, you are all cheering mandatory vaccination. The government forcing people to inject something into their bodies.
Quite extraordinary.
Who is cheering that? Who has proposed it? How would it even work? There has never been compulsory vaccination of adults in this country, and I don't see it happening.
That's great and leaving aside the Covid Pass which allows people to participate in normal life, so why are you giving @contrarian such a hard time.
Because he's unvaccinated and sharing antivaxx memes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods.
He deserves a hard time for that does he not?
He has chosen not to let the government tell him what to put inside his body.
And questioned lockdown.
We absolutely need such voices.
You can question things without lying and bullshitting.
We don't need such voices.
I haven't checked out his lies. What was the most egregious of them?
He does so regularly, sharing antivaxx memes and lies.
In the past 24 hours he's claimed that the young are better off catching Covid than being vaccinated (not true) and that the risk to the young from Covid is less than being struck by lightning (completely wrong).
He's no better than Susan Michie.
Is it not the case that the risks to the young from Covid are sufficiently small such that there is a live debate about the relative merits of that vs getting the vaccine.
How is what @contrarian says so different from the JCVI position.
Contrarian says things that are palpably untrue and repeats them again and again after being called out. The JCVI don't.
Contrarian is just an antivaxx extreme equivalent of Michie. I do not see much praise on this website for her, every argument you use in favour of contrarian could be repeated for Michie. Both are questioning, uncompromising zealots who don't engage with reality.
When did you last praise Michie? Or anyone else from that extreme?
It is the scientific process. You need Michie and you need @contrarian.
Vigorous debate.
As I said, his position on vaxxing children is the same as that of the JCVI.
But he's just an idiot. We have seen footage from Italy and NYC and South America and India showing what out of control covid does. He's like someone at the tail end of the blitz insisting there's still no real evidence that getting people off the streets and into air raid shelters helps stop them being blown up. I was arguing vigorously this time last year that we were probably years away from even one workable vaccine, might not even get that, etc. The scientific method is about being shown to be wrong and admitting it.
You are a funny old sausage.
You have a guy who has questioned the government at every turn. I know you are a huge fan of Boris et al but the reaction to him ( @contrarian ) has been unmitigated opprobrium.
Society needs contrarians. Everyone agrees, right? But of course the defining characteristic of a contrarian is that no one believes what they say and, further, ridicules them with a near-religious certainty.
You believe that @contrarian is foolish, absurd and heretical. Fair enough.
@contrarian gets a lot of stick on here. I don’t agree necessarily with 100pc of the stuff - and I take a different view on the anti-vaxx front - but you need to challenge the orthodoxy sometimes and, by and large, I think he (is he a he?) puts across his points in a considered and argued manner.
The simple fact is no one can say for sure some of his points won’t be proved right down the line. I hope not but they could be. We are always told to not jump to short term conclusions. The potential unintended consequences of the vaccine rollout remain to be seen.
At the risk of going down the Godwin’s Law route, a certain Mr Winston S Churchill was considered a conspiracy crank for much of the 30s due to his comments on a certain Herr A Hitler.
There are zillions of examples of the orthodoxy being overturned. As I said it's obvious until it isn't obvious. But if no one asks the questions then nothing moves forward.
Asking questions is good.
Giving fraudulent answers to questions is not.
I think you're missing the wood for the trees.
Every dot and comma might not be impeccable but his general thrust is important. Of course there will be overshoot.
So you’re a fan of that guy who keeps pushing ivermectin?
I'm a fan of people who challenge the status quo. If it's rubbish it will be interrogated and determined to be rubbish.
The argument around the economic impact of a reduced labour market is complex and has many nuances.
To this observer, the most obvious impact is rising labour costs should be leading companies to invest in improving business processes through technology whether though improved business systems or even the use of robots. It's not a question of whether a robot can serve you coffee (probably could) but whether the current way the process of ordering, preparation and delivery can be made more efficient and improved.
The skilled worker will be at an advantage if the skills are transferrable - they can almost command a wage, either you pay me more or I'm off to a company that will.
The alternative approach is to look to outsource - in a sense, home or remote working is a form of outsourcing especially if organisations take the opportunity to reduce or re-configure their space away from the traditional banks of desks to something more useful. Obviously, the thorny old issue of sending it all to a business park in Bangalore will raise its head but are the savings that obvious?
We've already heard @rcs1000 claiming there'll be a new push for outsourcing - I doubt it. Companies and organisations who mange their property portfolios adroitly will realise some significant benefits.
As for unskilled workers, they too will be better off at least initially subject to them performing a function which can't be easily automated. The suspicion is future immigration policy will be focussed on bridging perceived or actual skills gaps or temporary requirements for unskilled workers.
The other aspect of home or remote working is the re-invigoration of commuter towns and dormitories during the day as places for home workers to go for lunch or entertainment. That may be to the detriment of the City centre but the small town or village and especially those with a few artisan or "unique" shops is going to prosper.
Outsourcing is perhaps the wrong word.
The point is that you no longer need to be in the office to do work. And that has been demonstrated in many, many businesses over the last 18 months.
And if you no longer need to be in London, why do you actually have to be in the UK?
Saying "oh it didn't work 20 years ago" misses the point. Two decades ago people didn't have 200mb/second internet at home, there was no Slack or Zoom. If you were at home you *might* have access to the file server via a VPN. But that was the preserve of Senior Management supported by a massive IT department.
We would never have considered remote employees a decade ago. Now we're contemplating not ever again getting a London office.
That's a pretty major shift.
Yes but I think there are some issues not factored in with remote working, some of which @TheScreamingEagles has occasionally mentioned. One is security; one-and-a-half is confidentiality. Then there is tax: if your employees each work in a different country, are you deducting (or not) income tax or the local equivalents correctly? And H&S legislation as it might affect their home offices? Then there is extra-territorial legislation like the Bribery Act or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or whatever is the Latvian equivalent – and by "or" I mean "and" because all might apply to the same transaction.
I expect you are right that WFH and foreign WFH will continue to grow but for some employers, there will be tears before bedtime.
Those are all solvable problems, though. And if the price is right (and the price is right), then they will be solved.
Security and confidentiality are far easier to fix than international tax especially when you have multiple different tax authorities claiming the money - it's very easy end up in a situation where both tax authorities may be correct.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
Perhaps because of the location of the UK forces. We are both speculating on this front, and you cannot say for certain that there are no strategic reasons to keep them where they are.
But neither can you. And the USN seems perfectly happy to base their boats a long way away.
One ohter factor is of course the huge decline in UK antisubmarine capability (discussed earlier today) and the UK submarine force, so much less scope or none for delousing the entry channels anyway.
Anyway. we'll have to leace it at that: goodnight, all.
But jesus fucking christ. We are facing a grave threat which has the potential to kill many of us.
And PB almost to a man (person) embraced then and is embracing now illiberal measures unprecedented in our own times. Yes it is an unprecedented pandemic but the way people on here are completely suspending their normal critical faculties is a sight to behold.
No one knows what long term effects the vaccine has but more important, you are all cheering mandatory vaccination. The government forcing people to inject something into their bodies.
Quite extraordinary.
Who is cheering that? Who has proposed it? How would it even work? There has never been compulsory vaccination of adults in this country, and I don't see it happening.
That's great and leaving aside the Covid Pass which allows people to participate in normal life, so why are you giving @contrarian such a hard time.
Because he's unvaccinated and sharing antivaxx memes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods.
He deserves a hard time for that does he not?
He has chosen not to let the government tell him what to put inside his body.
And questioned lockdown.
We absolutely need such voices.
You can question things without lying and bullshitting.
We don't need such voices.
I haven't checked out his lies. What was the most egregious of them?
He does so regularly, sharing antivaxx memes and lies.
In the past 24 hours he's claimed that the young are better off catching Covid than being vaccinated (not true) and that the risk to the young from Covid is less than being struck by lightning (completely wrong).
He's no better than Susan Michie.
Is it not the case that the risks to the young from Covid are sufficiently small such that there is a live debate about the relative merits of that vs getting the vaccine.
How is what @contrarian says so different from the JCVI position.
Contrarian says things that are palpably untrue and repeats them again and again after being called out. The JCVI don't.
Contrarian is just an antivaxx extreme equivalent of Michie. I do not see much praise on this website for her, every argument you use in favour of contrarian could be repeated for Michie. Both are questioning, uncompromising zealots who don't engage with reality.
When did you last praise Michie? Or anyone else from that extreme?
It is the scientific process. You need Michie and you need @contrarian.
Vigorous debate.
As I said, his position on vaxxing children is the same as that of the JCVI.
But he's just an idiot. We have seen footage from Italy and NYC and South America and India showing what out of control covid does. He's like someone at the tail end of the blitz insisting there's still no real evidence that getting people off the streets and into air raid shelters helps stop them being blown up. I was arguing vigorously this time last year that we were probably years away from even one workable vaccine, might not even get that, etc. The scientific method is about being shown to be wrong and admitting it.
You are a funny old sausage.
You have a guy who has questioned the government at every turn. I know you are a huge fan of Boris et al but the reaction to him ( @contrarian ) has been unmitigated opprobrium.
Society needs contrarians. Everyone agrees, right? But of course the defining characteristic of a contrarian is that no one believes what they say and, further, ridicules them with a near-religious certainty.
You believe that @contrarian is foolish, absurd and heretical. Fair enough.
@contrarian gets a lot of stick on here. I don’t agree necessarily with 100pc of the stuff - and I take a different view on the anti-vaxx front - but you need to challenge the orthodoxy sometimes and, by and large, I think he (is he a he?) puts across his points in a considered and argued manner.
The simple fact is no one can say for sure some of his points won’t be proved right down the line. I hope not but they could be. We are always told to not jump to short term conclusions. The potential unintended consequences of the vaccine rollout remain to be seen.
At the risk of going down the Godwin’s Law route, a certain Mr Winston S Churchill was considered a conspiracy crank for much of the 30s due to his comments on a certain Herr A Hitler.
There are zillions of examples of the orthodoxy being overturned. As I said it's obvious until it isn't obvious. But if no one asks the questions then nothing moves forward.
Asking questions is good.
Giving fraudulent answers to questions is not.
I think you're missing the wood for the trees.
Every dot and comma might not be impeccable but his general thrust is important. Of course there will be overshoot.
So you’re a fan of that guy who keeps pushing ivermectin?
I'm a fan of people who challenge the status quo. If it's rubbish it will be interrogated and determined to be rubbish.
Already has been to a significant degree. You'd think that there would be more substantial studies by now, 18 months on.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
It would be based about 5 miles from where I live. No thankyou. Having said that, Milford would be the easy option for the government, we've already got oil and gas terminals and a power station. A nuclear sub or two wont make much difference, will it?
How far away were you from Wylfa power station?
Edit - on rereading your post, oops, I think you mean Milford Haven is 5 miles away.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
Perhaps because of the location of the UK forces. We are both speculating on this front, and you cannot say for certain that there are no strategic reasons to keep them where they are.
But neither can you. And the USN seems perfectly happy to base their boats a long way away.
One ohter factor is of course the huge decline in UK antisubmarine capability (discussed earlier today) and the UK submarine force, so much less scope or none for delousing the entry channels anyway.
Anyway. we'll have to leace it at that: goodnight, all.
I'm not the one asserting, you are. For all we know the USN is happy with the current arrangement because of the distribution of the UK's assets, not in spite of.
So Pen Farthing came back with all his animals but not all his staff.
Limited space? Presumably he had to prioritise.
Please tell me that isn't what happened.
Between Biden, the Taliban and our government his staff weren't allowed on.
All we need now is for it to be discovered that the animals all have notifiable diseases and have to be humanely destroyed (resulting, most likely, in another eighteen month legal battle, this time over the fate of 200 Afghan Geronimos,) and the fiasco will be complete.
Well, either that or the animals are all rehomed, and then one or more of them turns out to be off its rocker and random innocent members of the public are savaged to death. Rescue animals aren't all cute and cuddly, despite what Dogs Trust would have us believe.
Farthing's threatening phone call to the MoD official, followed by death threats presumably from 'supporters', was quite something.
I make it quarantine for the doggos will cost about £200k.
Does anyone know how much truth, if any, there is in the threatening phone call allegations?
I'm assuming that the cost of quarantine, at least, will fall upon the charity rather than the taxpayer? Although that said, to the extent that any donations to the charity have been gift aided, we'll all collectively be stumping up some of the costs indirectly.
It was on voicemail. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He could have waved his animals goodbye and stayed in Kabul...
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
It would be based about 5 miles from where I live. No thankyou. Having said that, Milford would be the easy option for the government, we've already got oil and gas terminals and a power station. A nuclear sub or two wont make much difference, will it?
How far away were you from Wylfa power station?
Edit - on rereading your post, oops, I think you mean Milford Haven is 5 miles away.
Yes, I do.
I personally think MH would be a stupid place for a submarine base, for all sorts of reasons. Oil, gas, security, narrow channel etc.
But something being stupid hasn’t ever stopped a government from doing it.
The argument around the economic impact of a reduced labour market is complex and has many nuances.
To this observer, the most obvious impact is rising labour costs should be leading companies to invest in improving business processes through technology whether though improved business systems or even the use of robots. It's not a question of whether a robot can serve you coffee (probably could) but whether the current way the process of ordering, preparation and delivery can be made more efficient and improved.
The skilled worker will be at an advantage if the skills are transferrable - they can almost command a wage, either you pay me more or I'm off to a company that will.
The alternative approach is to look to outsource - in a sense, home or remote working is a form of outsourcing especially if organisations take the opportunity to reduce or re-configure their space away from the traditional banks of desks to something more useful. Obviously, the thorny old issue of sending it all to a business park in Bangalore will raise its head but are the savings that obvious?
We've already heard @rcs1000 claiming there'll be a new push for outsourcing - I doubt it. Companies and organisations who mange their property portfolios adroitly will realise some significant benefits.
As for unskilled workers, they too will be better off at least initially subject to them performing a function which can't be easily automated. The suspicion is future immigration policy will be focussed on bridging perceived or actual skills gaps or temporary requirements for unskilled workers.
The other aspect of home or remote working is the re-invigoration of commuter towns and dormitories during the day as places for home workers to go for lunch or entertainment. That may be to the detriment of the City centre but the small town or village and especially those with a few artisan or "unique" shops is going to prosper.
Outsourcing is perhaps the wrong word.
The point is that you no longer need to be in the office to do work. And that has been demonstrated in many, many businesses over the last 18 months.
And if you no longer need to be in London, why do you actually have to be in the UK?
Saying "oh it didn't work 20 years ago" misses the point. Two decades ago people didn't have 200mb/second internet at home, there was no Slack or Zoom. If you were at home you *might* have access to the file server via a VPN. But that was the preserve of Senior Management supported by a massive IT department.
We would never have considered remote employees a decade ago. Now we're contemplating not ever again getting a London office.
That's a pretty major shift.
Yes but I think there are some issues not factored in with remote working, some of which @TheScreamingEagles has occasionally mentioned. One is security; one-and-a-half is confidentiality. Then there is tax: if your employees each work in a different country, are you deducting (or not) income tax or the local equivalents correctly? And H&S legislation as it might affect their home offices? Then there is extra-territorial legislation like the Bribery Act or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or whatever is the Latvian equivalent – and by "or" I mean "and" because all might apply to the same transaction.
I expect you are right that WFH and foreign WFH will continue to grow but for some employers, there will be tears before bedtime.
Those are all solvable problems, though. And if the price is right (and the price is right), then they will be solved.
Security and confidentiality are far easier to fix than international tax..
International tax is a pot of piss.
A firm in Estonia will pop up. Your firm will have the relationship with the Estonian firm, and they will bill you. The Estonian firm will pay the Estonian remote employee.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 with a big majority and on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptic right would have split off and joined up with UKIP. The 1997 and indeed 2001 Tory leadership elections were hugely significant for that reason. It was not worth the few extra Tory seats Clarke might have got in 2001 or 2005 making him leader.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
The UK cannot use them when they want to. The warheads are English, but the actual missiles are America’s.
Yes, the UK can independently bulid a nuclear explosive, but the ICBM delivery system is wholly dependent on the US, something which most people seem to ignore.
Considering the French are able to manage without America, and speaking as someone who thinks we shoudn't even have nuclear weapons, if we're going to have them, I really don't understand why we don't do the same and make our own ICMBs. Oh well
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptiic right would have split off.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Or, more likely, the Euro would have collapsed in 2007 as bailing out Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK all at once would have been too much for it.
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Worth remembering that Clarke promised Portillo that the UK would only join the Euro following a referendum. I can't see him going back on that, so he might have been supportive, but he wasn't going to back it without a referendum.
And Blair never cared that much, especially as it would have involved a row with Brown.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Worth remembering that Clarke promised Portillo that the UK would only join the Euro following a referendum. I can't see him going back on that, so he might have been supportive, but he wasn't going to back it without a referendum.
And Blair never cared that much, especially as it would have involved a row with Brown.
It would have been politically impossible to join without one I think. And hindsight tells us it was an unwinnable referendum.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptiic right would have split off.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Or, more likely, the Euro would have collapsed in 2007 as bailing out Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK all at once would have been too much for it.
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
Wow. It would have collapsed before (but because of) the Global Financial Crisis. That's a gutsy call.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
The UK cannot use them when they want to. The warheads are English, but the actual missiles are America’s.
Yes, the UK can independently bulid a nuclear explosive, but the ICBM delivery system is wholly dependent on the US, something which most people seem to ignore.
Considering the French are able to manage without America, and speaking as someone who thinks we shoudn't even have nuclear weapons, if we're going to have them, I really don't understand why we don't do the same and make our own ICMBs. Oh well
We did. It's in the National Museum of Flight near Edinburgh, and the Space Centre in Leicester.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptiic right would have split off.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Or, more likely, the Euro would have collapsed in 2007 as bailing out Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK all at once would have been too much for it.
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
Wow. It would have collapsed before (but because of) the Global Financial Crisis. That's a gutsy call.
There are two possible explanations for this paradox:
1) the strains would have been more severe and apparent earlier;
2) I hit the wrong key and meant 2009.
I leave it to the reader as to which explanation is correct.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
The UK cannot use them when they want to. The warheads are English, but the actual missiles are America’s.
Yes, the UK can independently bulid a nuclear explosive, but the ICBM delivery system is wholly dependent on the US, something which most people seem to ignore.
Considering the French are able to manage without America, and speaking as someone who thinks we shoudn't even have nuclear weapons, if we're going to have them, I really don't understand why we don't do the same and make our own ICMBs. Oh well
If the United Kingdom is going to maintain a token nuclear deterrent then it doesn't need Trident at all. The Israelis manage without a fleet of ballistic missile submarines, after all. The Government doesn't even need to wet itself worrying about making a load of workers redundant in Barrow - the Navy could probably do with equipping with submarines that are useful for something else.
With reference to the remark prior to yours, unless or until the political situation changes the warheads are British, not English, and no amount of either magical thinking or pretty obvious Anglophobia can wish the fact away.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Worth remembering that Clarke promised Portillo that the UK would only join the Euro following a referendum. I can't see him going back on that, so he might have been supportive, but he wasn't going to back it without a referendum.
And Blair never cared that much, especially as it would have involved a row with Brown.
It would have been politically impossible to join without one I think. And hindsight tells us it was an unwinnable referendum.
Agreed.
That being said, I wonder what the consequences of the referendum would hang been.
An alternative take on Brexit-induced worker shortages:
Employers have only a limited range of options if they find themselves short of staff and it is not possible to call up reinforcements from overseas. They can invest more in labour-saving equipment; they can invest more in training to raise skill levels; or they can pay more in order to attract staff. It is not immediately obvious why any of these should be either impossible or undesirable.
Naturally, companies cannot solve immediate labour shortage issues by ramping up training or buying new kit. Both take time to organise and to have any real impact. That only really leaves the option of paying higher wages, which explains why Tesco is offering a £1,000 sign-on bonus for new lorry drivers.
...
Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that Brexit divided the nation in the way it did. If you were in a relatively well-paid job and not at risk of being replaced or undercut by a worker from overseas, you were likely to vote remain. The Polish plumber was cheaper, the Lithuanian nanny was better educated, so what was not to like?
If, on the other hand, you were part of Britain’s casualised workforce, needing two or more part-time jobs to get by, you were much more likely to vote leave, on the grounds that tougher controls on migration would lead to a tighter labour market, which in turn would push up wages.
For those who have nothing to fear from open borders, labour shortages are evidence Brexit is flawed. For those not so fortunate, it is doing what it was supposed to do.
In a globalised world, is it easier to take the jobs overseas, or to train up the people here?
Offshoring is unnecessary on labour shortage grounds in better paid sectors, where companies will be able to bring workers in from abroad if they need to: the main point of regaining control of the borders is to cut off the limitless flow of coffee shop baristas and chancers looking for casual labour on building sites or in hand car washes, not to exclude computer programmers. OTOH it's mostly an empty threat to low-paid work. You can't offshore supermarket shelf stacking or wiping the arses of the demented.
So,
I'm going to disagree incredibly vehemently with you.
Off-shoring: first they came for the textiles staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the call center staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the transcription staff, and I said nothing.
You know what's coming next - accelerated by Covid and working from home - a whole ton of professional industries.
Take my business (Just). Pre-covid, we had a dozen staff in the UK, of which 4 or 5 were immigrants. We now have maybe 16 people working for the UK entity. But there's no London office any more.
Our designer has relocated back to Portugal, because she can earn near London wages, but live in her own apartment rather than a house share. One developer returned to Oz. Two new developers are working from Poland. And our head of software engineering can't decide whether to stay in an apartment in London with his wife and small child, or head back to Latvia.
That's a massive shift. If we don't need people to work from London any more, then we can have all the advantages of a pan European labour pool but without the expensive London real estate. Great for us, great for people who need to pay rent in London, but not actually great for the pay rates of developers in London. They are now competing with people who have much lower costs of living.
The same is happening with things like accounting. Why have a bookkeeper based in London? Invoices are all electronic these days, and I can probably get somebody for 70 or 80% less in India or Malaysia.
What next? What about conveyancing and other bread-and-butter legal services. If a man with an English law degree can do it in Bangalore, why not? Law firms increasingly become brass plates, with all the work done by those overseas.
At Morgan Stanley, they're hiring MBAs from the best business schools in India, and putting them together as analyst support. So, instead of a senior US analyst having two American MBAs at $500,000 apiece working for them, they have three Indians at $100,000.
It starts in support roles, and then those offshore people will move to the main roles. One of those Indian MBAs will write such good research, that it won't make sense replacing the American with another expensive Stanford MBA - not when the man from Bangalore only wants a quarter of his salary.
Covid is accelerating a trend that high end work - thought work, professional work - can be delivered by people with funny names in places with much lower costs.
Off shoring is coming for all of us.
In which case we're all doomed anyway*, so what difference the immigration regime will make I don't know. It would still be cheaper for your remote worker in Portugal to keep on working remotely from Portugal even if we were still in the EU and therefore had a completely open border with Portugal.
*Well, most of us are doomed. Amongst the saved are those in niche high-end manufacturing that's too difficult to uproot/not worth the upheaval of moving somewhere with lower labour costs. (Buffs nails.)
We're not doomed.
It's just that those of us born in the UK or the US or Australia or wherever, well we got the Charlie Bucket golden ticket. We got to be better educated than people in the rest of the world, and we got to be paid more for our level of education and intelligence than we would get paid elsewhere in the world.
Of course we attracted immigrants! If you can earn more washing cars in Acton than as an accountant in Albania, then it's pretty logical to try and get to London.
But the world is changing. Technology means that education is going to be available to more people than ever before; and it means that someone can probably do your job for less, and without having to move country.
This doesn't mean we're doomed. It merely means that we'll receive the same reward for a piece of work as someone in Karachi, not a massive multiple based on the lottery of place of birth.
That'll be a hard pill for those in the West to swallow. But it'll be an incredibly opportunity for those in poorer parts of the world.
I asked back in 2009:
How do we compete against other countries which are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder for lower cost and with fewer restrictions ?
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Worth remembering that Clarke promised Portillo that the UK would only join the Euro following a referendum. I can't see him going back on that, so he might have been supportive, but he wasn't going to back it without a referendum.
And Blair never cared that much, especially as it would have involved a row with Brown.
It would have been politically impossible to join without one I think. And hindsight tells us it was an unwinnable referendum.
Agreed.
That being said, I wonder what the consequences of the referendum would hang been.
Hard to say. The pressure valve that took the steam out of euroscepticism? Or a moment that focused attention on everything people didn’t like about the EU and poured flames on the fire? This was all pre accession for the 10 as well which makes it harder to retropredict
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptiic right would have split off.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Or, more likely, the Euro would have collapsed in 2007 as bailing out Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK all at once would have been too much for it.
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
Had Clarke won the Tory leadership in 1997, Blair would likely have felt confident enough to join the Euro without a referendum and we would have joined the Eurozone in the first wave with France, Germany and Spain and Italy in 1999, none of whom had referendums on joining the Euro either.
Only Sweden and Denmark did and they both rejected Euro membership
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
Perhaps because of the location of the UK forces. We are both speculating on this front, and you cannot say for certain that there are no strategic reasons to keep them where they are.
But neither can you. And the USN seems perfectly happy to base their boats a long way away.
One ohter factor is of course the huge decline in UK antisubmarine capability (discussed earlier today) and the UK submarine force, so much less scope or none for delousing the entry channels anyway.
Anyway. we'll have to leace it at that: goodnight, all.
Good drama on a nuclear submarine, Vigil, tonight and tomorrow evening on BBC1
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptiic right would have split off.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Or, more likely, the Euro would have collapsed in 2007 as bailing out Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK all at once would have been too much for it.
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
Had Clarke won the Tory leadership in 1997, Blair would likely have felt confident enough to join the Euro without a referendum and we would have joined the Eurozone in the first wave with France, Germany and Spain and Italy in 1999, none of whom had referendums on joining the Euro either.
Only Sweden and Denmark did and they both rejected Euro membership
An alternative take on Brexit-induced worker shortages:
Employers have only a limited range of options if they find themselves short of staff and it is not possible to call up reinforcements from overseas. They can invest more in labour-saving equipment; they can invest more in training to raise skill levels; or they can pay more in order to attract staff. It is not immediately obvious why any of these should be either impossible or undesirable.
Naturally, companies cannot solve immediate labour shortage issues by ramping up training or buying new kit. Both take time to organise and to have any real impact. That only really leaves the option of paying higher wages, which explains why Tesco is offering a £1,000 sign-on bonus for new lorry drivers.
...
Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that Brexit divided the nation in the way it did. If you were in a relatively well-paid job and not at risk of being replaced or undercut by a worker from overseas, you were likely to vote remain. The Polish plumber was cheaper, the Lithuanian nanny was better educated, so what was not to like?
If, on the other hand, you were part of Britain’s casualised workforce, needing two or more part-time jobs to get by, you were much more likely to vote leave, on the grounds that tougher controls on migration would lead to a tighter labour market, which in turn would push up wages.
For those who have nothing to fear from open borders, labour shortages are evidence Brexit is flawed. For those not so fortunate, it is doing what it was supposed to do.
In a globalised world, is it easier to take the jobs overseas, or to train up the people here?
Offshoring is unnecessary on labour shortage grounds in better paid sectors, where companies will be able to bring workers in from abroad if they need to: the main point of regaining control of the borders is to cut off the limitless flow of coffee shop baristas and chancers looking for casual labour on building sites or in hand car washes, not to exclude computer programmers. OTOH it's mostly an empty threat to low-paid work. You can't offshore supermarket shelf stacking or wiping the arses of the demented.
So,
I'm going to disagree incredibly vehemently with you.
Off-shoring: first they came for the textiles staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the call center staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the transcription staff, and I said nothing.
You know what's coming next - accelerated by Covid and working from home - a whole ton of professional industries.
Take my business (Just). Pre-covid, we had a dozen staff in the UK, of which 4 or 5 were immigrants. We now have maybe 16 people working for the UK entity. But there's no London office any more.
Our designer has relocated back to Portugal, because she can earn near London wages, but live in her own apartment rather than a house share. One developer returned to Oz. Two new developers are working from Poland. And our head of software engineering can't decide whether to stay in an apartment in London with his wife and small child, or head back to Latvia.
That's a massive shift. If we don't need people to work from London any more, then we can have all the advantages of a pan European labour pool but without the expensive London real estate. Great for us, great for people who need to pay rent in London, but not actually great for the pay rates of developers in London. They are now competing with people who have much lower costs of living.
The same is happening with things like accounting. Why have a bookkeeper based in London? Invoices are all electronic these days, and I can probably get somebody for 70 or 80% less in India or Malaysia.
What next? What about conveyancing and other bread-and-butter legal services. If a man with an English law degree can do it in Bangalore, why not? Law firms increasingly become brass plates, with all the work done by those overseas.
At Morgan Stanley, they're hiring MBAs from the best business schools in India, and putting them together as analyst support. So, instead of a senior US analyst having two American MBAs at $500,000 apiece working for them, they have three Indians at $100,000.
It starts in support roles, and then those offshore people will move to the main roles. One of those Indian MBAs will write such good research, that it won't make sense replacing the American with another expensive Stanford MBA - not when the man from Bangalore only wants a quarter of his salary.
Covid is accelerating a trend that high end work - thought work, professional work - can be delivered by people with funny names in places with much lower costs.
Off shoring is coming for all of us.
In which case we're all doomed anyway*, so what difference the immigration regime will make I don't know. It would still be cheaper for your remote worker in Portugal to keep on working remotely from Portugal even if we were still in the EU and therefore had a completely open border with Portugal.
*Well, most of us are doomed. Amongst the saved are those in niche high-end manufacturing that's too difficult to uproot/not worth the upheaval of moving somewhere with lower labour costs. (Buffs nails.)
We're not doomed.
It's just that those of us born in the UK or the US or Australia or wherever, well we got the Charlie Bucket golden ticket. We got to be better educated than people in the rest of the world, and we got to be paid more for our level of education and intelligence than we would get paid elsewhere in the world.
Of course we attracted immigrants! If you can earn more washing cars in Acton than as an accountant in Albania, then it's pretty logical to try and get to London.
But the world is changing. Technology means that education is going to be available to more people than ever before; and it means that someone can probably do your job for less, and without having to move country.
This doesn't mean we're doomed. It merely means that we'll receive the same reward for a piece of work as someone in Karachi, not a massive multiple based on the lottery of place of birth.
That'll be a hard pill for those in the West to swallow. But it'll be an incredibly opportunity for those in poorer parts of the world.
I asked back in 2009:
How do we compete against other countries which are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder for lower cost and with fewer restrictions ?
Apart from in the Far East and at a push urban India I don't think there are any countries in the non western world who have or will have a population of higher average intelligence than ours.
The argument around the economic impact of a reduced labour market is complex and has many nuances.
To this observer, the most obvious impact is rising labour costs should be leading companies to invest in improving business processes through technology whether though improved business systems or even the use of robots. It's not a question of whether a robot can serve you coffee (probably could) but whether the current way the process of ordering, preparation and delivery can be made more efficient and improved.
The skilled worker will be at an advantage if the skills are transferrable - they can almost command a wage, either you pay me more or I'm off to a company that will.
The alternative approach is to look to outsource - in a sense, home or remote working is a form of outsourcing especially if organisations take the opportunity to reduce or re-configure their space away from the traditional banks of desks to something more useful. Obviously, the thorny old issue of sending it all to a business park in Bangalore will raise its head but are the savings that obvious?
We've already heard @rcs1000 claiming there'll be a new push for outsourcing - I doubt it. Companies and organisations who mange their property portfolios adroitly will realise some significant benefits.
As for unskilled workers, they too will be better off at least initially subject to them performing a function which can't be easily automated. The suspicion is future immigration policy will be focussed on bridging perceived or actual skills gaps or temporary requirements for unskilled workers.
The other aspect of home or remote working is the re-invigoration of commuter towns and dormitories during the day as places for home workers to go for lunch or entertainment. That may be to the detriment of the City centre but the small town or village and especially those with a few artisan or "unique" shops is going to prosper.
Outsourcing is perhaps the wrong word.
The point is that you no longer need to be in the office to do work. And that has been demonstrated in many, many businesses over the last 18 months.
And if you no longer need to be in London, why do you actually have to be in the UK?
Saying "oh it didn't work 20 years ago" misses the point. Two decades ago people didn't have 200mb/second internet at home, there was no Slack or Zoom. If you were at home you *might* have access to the file server via a VPN. But that was the preserve of Senior Management supported by a massive IT department.
We would never have considered remote employees a decade ago. Now we're contemplating not ever again getting a London office.
That's a pretty major shift.
Yes but I think there are some issues not factored in with remote working, some of which @TheScreamingEagles has occasionally mentioned. One is security; one-and-a-half is confidentiality. Then there is tax: if your employees each work in a different country, are you deducting (or not) income tax or the local equivalents correctly? And H&S legislation as it might affect their home offices? Then there is extra-territorial legislation like the Bribery Act or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or whatever is the Latvian equivalent – and by "or" I mean "and" because all might apply to the same transaction.
I expect you are right that WFH and foreign WFH will continue to grow but for some employers, there will be tears before bedtime.
Those are all solvable problems, though. And if the price is right (and the price is right), then they will be solved.
Security and confidentiality are far easier to fix than international tax..
International tax is a pot of piss.
A firm in Estonia will pop up. Your firm will have the relationship with the Estonian firm, and they will bill you. The Estonian firm will pay the Estonian remote employee.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptiic right would have split off.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Or, more likely, the Euro would have collapsed in 2007 as bailing out Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK all at once would have been too much for it.
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
Had Clarke won the Tory leadership in 1997, Blair would likely have felt confident enough to join the Euro without a referendum and we would have joined the Eurozone in the first wave with France, Germany and Spain and Italy in 1999, none of whom had referendums on joining the Euro either.
Only Sweden and Denmark did and they both rejected Euro membership
France did hold a referendum on Maastricht
Yes and it was so close, just 51% Yes, the French government refused to hold a referendum on joining the Euro
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
Perhaps because of the location of the UK forces. We are both speculating on this front, and you cannot say for certain that there are no strategic reasons to keep them where they are.
But neither can you. And the USN seems perfectly happy to base their boats a long way away.
One ohter factor is of course the huge decline in UK antisubmarine capability (discussed earlier today) and the UK submarine force, so much less scope or none for delousing the entry channels anyway.
Anyway. we'll have to leace it at that: goodnight, all.
Good drama on a nuclear submarine, Vigil, tonight and tomorrow evening on BBC1
And for the next few weeks... six parts in all I believe.
An alternative take on Brexit-induced worker shortages:
Employers have only a limited range of options if they find themselves short of staff and it is not possible to call up reinforcements from overseas. They can invest more in labour-saving equipment; they can invest more in training to raise skill levels; or they can pay more in order to attract staff. It is not immediately obvious why any of these should be either impossible or undesirable.
Naturally, companies cannot solve immediate labour shortage issues by ramping up training or buying new kit. Both take time to organise and to have any real impact. That only really leaves the option of paying higher wages, which explains why Tesco is offering a £1,000 sign-on bonus for new lorry drivers.
...
Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that Brexit divided the nation in the way it did. If you were in a relatively well-paid job and not at risk of being replaced or undercut by a worker from overseas, you were likely to vote remain. The Polish plumber was cheaper, the Lithuanian nanny was better educated, so what was not to like?
If, on the other hand, you were part of Britain’s casualised workforce, needing two or more part-time jobs to get by, you were much more likely to vote leave, on the grounds that tougher controls on migration would lead to a tighter labour market, which in turn would push up wages.
For those who have nothing to fear from open borders, labour shortages are evidence Brexit is flawed. For those not so fortunate, it is doing what it was supposed to do.
In a globalised world, is it easier to take the jobs overseas, or to train up the people here?
Offshoring is unnecessary on labour shortage grounds in better paid sectors, where companies will be able to bring workers in from abroad if they need to: the main point of regaining control of the borders is to cut off the limitless flow of coffee shop baristas and chancers looking for casual labour on building sites or in hand car washes, not to exclude computer programmers. OTOH it's mostly an empty threat to low-paid work. You can't offshore supermarket shelf stacking or wiping the arses of the demented.
So,
I'm going to disagree incredibly vehemently with you.
Off-shoring: first they came for the textiles staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the call center staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the transcription staff, and I said nothing.
You know what's coming next - accelerated by Covid and working from home - a whole ton of professional industries.
Take my business (Just). Pre-covid, we had a dozen staff in the UK, of which 4 or 5 were immigrants. We now have maybe 16 people working for the UK entity. But there's no London office any more.
Our designer has relocated back to Portugal, because she can earn near London wages, but live in her own apartment rather than a house share. One developer returned to Oz. Two new developers are working from Poland. And our head of software engineering can't decide whether to stay in an apartment in London with his wife and small child, or head back to Latvia.
That's a massive shift. If we don't need people to work from London any more, then we can have all the advantages of a pan European labour pool but without the expensive London real estate. Great for us, great for people who need to pay rent in London, but not actually great for the pay rates of developers in London. They are now competing with people who have much lower costs of living.
The same is happening with things like accounting. Why have a bookkeeper based in London? Invoices are all electronic these days, and I can probably get somebody for 70 or 80% less in India or Malaysia.
What next? What about conveyancing and other bread-and-butter legal services. If a man with an English law degree can do it in Bangalore, why not? Law firms increasingly become brass plates, with all the work done by those overseas.
At Morgan Stanley, they're hiring MBAs from the best business schools in India, and putting them together as analyst support. So, instead of a senior US analyst having two American MBAs at $500,000 apiece working for them, they have three Indians at $100,000.
It starts in support roles, and then those offshore people will move to the main roles. One of those Indian MBAs will write such good research, that it won't make sense replacing the American with another expensive Stanford MBA - not when the man from Bangalore only wants a quarter of his salary.
Covid is accelerating a trend that high end work - thought work, professional work - can be delivered by people with funny names in places with much lower costs.
Off shoring is coming for all of us.
In which case we're all doomed anyway*, so what difference the immigration regime will make I don't know. It would still be cheaper for your remote worker in Portugal to keep on working remotely from Portugal even if we were still in the EU and therefore had a completely open border with Portugal.
*Well, most of us are doomed. Amongst the saved are those in niche high-end manufacturing that's too difficult to uproot/not worth the upheaval of moving somewhere with lower labour costs. (Buffs nails.)
We're not doomed.
It's just that those of us born in the UK or the US or Australia or wherever, well we got the Charlie Bucket golden ticket. We got to be better educated than people in the rest of the world, and we got to be paid more for our level of education and intelligence than we would get paid elsewhere in the world.
Of course we attracted immigrants! If you can earn more washing cars in Acton than as an accountant in Albania, then it's pretty logical to try and get to London.
But the world is changing. Technology means that education is going to be available to more people than ever before; and it means that someone can probably do your job for less, and without having to move country.
This doesn't mean we're doomed. It merely means that we'll receive the same reward for a piece of work as someone in Karachi, not a massive multiple based on the lottery of place of birth.
That'll be a hard pill for those in the West to swallow. But it'll be an incredibly opportunity for those in poorer parts of the world.
I asked back in 2009:
How do we compete against other countries which are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder for lower cost and with fewer restrictions ?
Apart from in the Far East and at a push urban India I don't think there are any countries in the non western world who have or will have a population of higher average intelligence than ours.
They don't need to be of higher average intelligence. They just need to be of higher intelligence.
It's good to be working in a field not easily outsourced.
An alternative take on Brexit-induced worker shortages:
Employers have only a limited range of options if they find themselves short of staff and it is not possible to call up reinforcements from overseas. They can invest more in labour-saving equipment; they can invest more in training to raise skill levels; or they can pay more in order to attract staff. It is not immediately obvious why any of these should be either impossible or undesirable.
Naturally, companies cannot solve immediate labour shortage issues by ramping up training or buying new kit. Both take time to organise and to have any real impact. That only really leaves the option of paying higher wages, which explains why Tesco is offering a £1,000 sign-on bonus for new lorry drivers.
...
Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that Brexit divided the nation in the way it did. If you were in a relatively well-paid job and not at risk of being replaced or undercut by a worker from overseas, you were likely to vote remain. The Polish plumber was cheaper, the Lithuanian nanny was better educated, so what was not to like?
If, on the other hand, you were part of Britain’s casualised workforce, needing two or more part-time jobs to get by, you were much more likely to vote leave, on the grounds that tougher controls on migration would lead to a tighter labour market, which in turn would push up wages.
For those who have nothing to fear from open borders, labour shortages are evidence Brexit is flawed. For those not so fortunate, it is doing what it was supposed to do.
In a globalised world, is it easier to take the jobs overseas, or to train up the people here?
Offshoring is unnecessary on labour shortage grounds in better paid sectors, where companies will be able to bring workers in from abroad if they need to: the main point of regaining control of the borders is to cut off the limitless flow of coffee shop baristas and chancers looking for casual labour on building sites or in hand car washes, not to exclude computer programmers. OTOH it's mostly an empty threat to low-paid work. You can't offshore supermarket shelf stacking or wiping the arses of the demented.
So,
I'm going to disagree incredibly vehemently with you.
Off-shoring: first they came for the textiles staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the call center staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the transcription staff, and I said nothing.
You know what's coming next - accelerated by Covid and working from home - a whole ton of professional industries.
Take my business (Just). Pre-covid, we had a dozen staff in the UK, of which 4 or 5 were immigrants. We now have maybe 16 people working for the UK entity. But there's no London office any more.
Our designer has relocated back to Portugal, because she can earn near London wages, but live in her own apartment rather than a house share. One developer returned to Oz. Two new developers are working from Poland. And our head of software engineering can't decide whether to stay in an apartment in London with his wife and small child, or head back to Latvia.
That's a massive shift. If we don't need people to work from London any more, then we can have all the advantages of a pan European labour pool but without the expensive London real estate. Great for us, great for people who need to pay rent in London, but not actually great for the pay rates of developers in London. They are now competing with people who have much lower costs of living.
The same is happening with things like accounting. Why have a bookkeeper based in London? Invoices are all electronic these days, and I can probably get somebody for 70 or 80% less in India or Malaysia.
What next? What about conveyancing and other bread-and-butter legal services. If a man with an English law degree can do it in Bangalore, why not? Law firms increasingly become brass plates, with all the work done by those overseas.
At Morgan Stanley, they're hiring MBAs from the best business schools in India, and putting them together as analyst support. So, instead of a senior US analyst having two American MBAs at $500,000 apiece working for them, they have three Indians at $100,000.
It starts in support roles, and then those offshore people will move to the main roles. One of those Indian MBAs will write such good research, that it won't make sense replacing the American with another expensive Stanford MBA - not when the man from Bangalore only wants a quarter of his salary.
Covid is accelerating a trend that high end work - thought work, professional work - can be delivered by people with funny names in places with much lower costs.
Off shoring is coming for all of us.
In which case we're all doomed anyway*, so what difference the immigration regime will make I don't know. It would still be cheaper for your remote worker in Portugal to keep on working remotely from Portugal even if we were still in the EU and therefore had a completely open border with Portugal.
*Well, most of us are doomed. Amongst the saved are those in niche high-end manufacturing that's too difficult to uproot/not worth the upheaval of moving somewhere with lower labour costs. (Buffs nails.)
We're not doomed.
It's just that those of us born in the UK or the US or Australia or wherever, well we got the Charlie Bucket golden ticket. We got to be better educated than people in the rest of the world, and we got to be paid more for our level of education and intelligence than we would get paid elsewhere in the world.
Of course we attracted immigrants! If you can earn more washing cars in Acton than as an accountant in Albania, then it's pretty logical to try and get to London.
But the world is changing. Technology means that education is going to be available to more people than ever before; and it means that someone can probably do your job for less, and without having to move country.
This doesn't mean we're doomed. It merely means that we'll receive the same reward for a piece of work as someone in Karachi, not a massive multiple based on the lottery of place of birth.
That'll be a hard pill for those in the West to swallow. But it'll be an incredibly opportunity for those in poorer parts of the world.
I asked back in 2009:
How do we compete against other countries which are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder for lower cost and with fewer restrictions ?
Apart from in the Far East and at a push urban India I don't think there are any countries in the non western world who have or will have a population of higher average intelligence than ours.
Er, sorry?? On what possible basis would Britons be any more intelligent on average than any other country in the world?
Educated, maybe, but intelligence? Are you suggesting we are genetically more intelligent?
One of your barmier ideas (which is saying something!)
An alternative take on Brexit-induced worker shortages:
Employers have only a limited range of options if they find themselves short of staff and it is not possible to call up reinforcements from overseas. They can invest more in labour-saving equipment; they can invest more in training to raise skill levels; or they can pay more in order to attract staff. It is not immediately obvious why any of these should be either impossible or undesirable.
Naturally, companies cannot solve immediate labour shortage issues by ramping up training or buying new kit. Both take time to organise and to have any real impact. That only really leaves the option of paying higher wages, which explains why Tesco is offering a £1,000 sign-on bonus for new lorry drivers.
...
Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that Brexit divided the nation in the way it did. If you were in a relatively well-paid job and not at risk of being replaced or undercut by a worker from overseas, you were likely to vote remain. The Polish plumber was cheaper, the Lithuanian nanny was better educated, so what was not to like?
If, on the other hand, you were part of Britain’s casualised workforce, needing two or more part-time jobs to get by, you were much more likely to vote leave, on the grounds that tougher controls on migration would lead to a tighter labour market, which in turn would push up wages.
For those who have nothing to fear from open borders, labour shortages are evidence Brexit is flawed. For those not so fortunate, it is doing what it was supposed to do.
In a globalised world, is it easier to take the jobs overseas, or to train up the people here?
Offshoring is unnecessary on labour shortage grounds in better paid sectors, where companies will be able to bring workers in from abroad if they need to: the main point of regaining control of the borders is to cut off the limitless flow of coffee shop baristas and chancers looking for casual labour on building sites or in hand car washes, not to exclude computer programmers. OTOH it's mostly an empty threat to low-paid work. You can't offshore supermarket shelf stacking or wiping the arses of the demented.
So,
I'm going to disagree incredibly vehemently with you.
Off-shoring: first they came for the textiles staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the call center staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the transcription staff, and I said nothing.
You know what's coming next - accelerated by Covid and working from home - a whole ton of professional industries.
Take my business (Just). Pre-covid, we had a dozen staff in the UK, of which 4 or 5 were immigrants. We now have maybe 16 people working for the UK entity. But there's no London office any more.
Our designer has relocated back to Portugal, because she can earn near London wages, but live in her own apartment rather than a house share. One developer returned to Oz. Two new developers are working from Poland. And our head of software engineering can't decide whether to stay in an apartment in London with his wife and small child, or head back to Latvia.
That's a massive shift. If we don't need people to work from London any more, then we can have all the advantages of a pan European labour pool but without the expensive London real estate. Great for us, great for people who need to pay rent in London, but not actually great for the pay rates of developers in London. They are now competing with people who have much lower costs of living.
The same is happening with things like accounting. Why have a bookkeeper based in London? Invoices are all electronic these days, and I can probably get somebody for 70 or 80% less in India or Malaysia.
What next? What about conveyancing and other bread-and-butter legal services. If a man with an English law degree can do it in Bangalore, why not? Law firms increasingly become brass plates, with all the work done by those overseas.
At Morgan Stanley, they're hiring MBAs from the best business schools in India, and putting them together as analyst support. So, instead of a senior US analyst having two American MBAs at $500,000 apiece working for them, they have three Indians at $100,000.
It starts in support roles, and then those offshore people will move to the main roles. One of those Indian MBAs will write such good research, that it won't make sense replacing the American with another expensive Stanford MBA - not when the man from Bangalore only wants a quarter of his salary.
Covid is accelerating a trend that high end work - thought work, professional work - can be delivered by people with funny names in places with much lower costs.
Off shoring is coming for all of us.
In which case we're all doomed anyway*, so what difference the immigration regime will make I don't know. It would still be cheaper for your remote worker in Portugal to keep on working remotely from Portugal even if we were still in the EU and therefore had a completely open border with Portugal.
*Well, most of us are doomed. Amongst the saved are those in niche high-end manufacturing that's too difficult to uproot/not worth the upheaval of moving somewhere with lower labour costs. (Buffs nails.)
We're not doomed.
It's just that those of us born in the UK or the US or Australia or wherever, well we got the Charlie Bucket golden ticket. We got to be better educated than people in the rest of the world, and we got to be paid more for our level of education and intelligence than we would get paid elsewhere in the world.
Of course we attracted immigrants! If you can earn more washing cars in Acton than as an accountant in Albania, then it's pretty logical to try and get to London.
But the world is changing. Technology means that education is going to be available to more people than ever before; and it means that someone can probably do your job for less, and without having to move country.
This doesn't mean we're doomed. It merely means that we'll receive the same reward for a piece of work as someone in Karachi, not a massive multiple based on the lottery of place of birth.
That'll be a hard pill for those in the West to swallow. But it'll be an incredibly opportunity for those in poorer parts of the world.
I asked back in 2009:
How do we compete against other countries which are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder for lower cost and with fewer restrictions ?
Apart from in the Far East and at a push urban India I don't think there are any countries in the non western world who have or will have a population of higher average intelligence than ours.
They don't need to be of higher average intelligence. They just need to be of higher intelligence.
It's good to be working in a field not easily outsourced.
Some overseas may be of higher intelligence, which means more competition admittedly in fields which can be delivered remotely or where goods can be produced abroad and imported. However if the average are less intelligent there will still be plenty of jobs in that field for those workers here
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptiic right would have split off.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Or, more likely, the Euro would have collapsed in 2007 as bailing out Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK all at once would have been too much for it.
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
Had Clarke won the Tory leadership in 1997, Blair would likely have felt confident enough to join the Euro without a referendum and we would have joined the Eurozone in the first wave with France, Germany and Spain and Italy in 1999, none of whom had referendums on joining the Euro either.
Only Sweden and Denmark did and they both rejected Euro membership
France did hold a referendum on Maastricht
Yes and it was so close, just 51% Yes, the French government refused to hold a referendum on joining the Euro
Why should they when Maastricht committed them to joining the Euro so a referendum on Maastricht served as a referendum on the Euro.
Maastricht only gave the UK and Denmark opt-outs from the Euro. Every other EEC/EU nation was committed to the Euro by ratifying Maastricht.
Sweden holding a referendum on the Euro having joined with Maastricht as part of the acquis communitaire they'd signed up to was dodgy not something others should have done.
But jesus fucking christ. We are facing a grave threat which has the potential to kill many of us.
And PB almost to a man (person) embraced then and is embracing now illiberal measures unprecedented in our own times. Yes it is an unprecedented pandemic but the way people on here are completely suspending their normal critical faculties is a sight to behold.
No one knows what long term effects the vaccine has but more important, you are all cheering mandatory vaccination. The government forcing people to inject something into their bodies.
Quite extraordinary.
Who is cheering that? Who has proposed it? How would it even work? There has never been compulsory vaccination of adults in this country, and I don't see it happening.
That's great and leaving aside the Covid Pass which allows people to participate in normal life, so why are you giving @contrarian such a hard time.
Because he's unvaccinated and sharing antivaxx memes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods.
He deserves a hard time for that does he not?
He has chosen not to let the government tell him what to put inside his body.
And questioned lockdown.
We absolutely need such voices.
You can question things without lying and bullshitting.
We don't need such voices.
I haven't checked out his lies. What was the most egregious of them?
He does so regularly, sharing antivaxx memes and lies.
In the past 24 hours he's claimed that the young are better off catching Covid than being vaccinated (not true) and that the risk to the young from Covid is less than being struck by lightning (completely wrong).
He's no better than Susan Michie.
Is it not the case that the risks to the young from Covid are sufficiently small such that there is a live debate about the relative merits of that vs getting the vaccine.
How is what @contrarian says so different from the JCVI position.
Contrarian says things that are palpably untrue and repeats them again and again after being called out. The JCVI don't.
Contrarian is just an antivaxx extreme equivalent of Michie. I do not see much praise on this website for her, every argument you use in favour of contrarian could be repeated for Michie. Both are questioning, uncompromising zealots who don't engage with reality.
When did you last praise Michie? Or anyone else from that extreme?
It is the scientific process. You need Michie and you need @contrarian.
Vigorous debate.
As I said, his position on vaxxing children is the same as that of the JCVI.
But he's just an idiot. We have seen footage from Italy and NYC and South America and India showing what out of control covid does. He's like someone at the tail end of the blitz insisting there's still no real evidence that getting people off the streets and into air raid shelters helps stop them being blown up. I was arguing vigorously this time last year that we were probably years away from even one workable vaccine, might not even get that, etc. The scientific method is about being shown to be wrong and admitting it.
You are a funny old sausage.
You have a guy who has questioned the government at every turn. I know you are a huge fan of Boris et al but the reaction to him ( @contrarian ) has been unmitigated opprobrium.
Society needs contrarians. Everyone agrees, right? But of course the defining characteristic of a contrarian is that no one believes what they say and, further, ridicules them with a near-religious certainty.
You believe that @contrarian is foolish, absurd and heretical. Fair enough.
We need contrarians but not contrarian. He's not a moron though. He's a troll who's having a good time on here. Like you.
I know the discussion is relatively complex but that was embarrassing by any measure.
Except not because I'm right. Contrarian posts in jest mostly about Covid. He'll be chuckling as much at your ardent defence of him as 'plucky voice in the wilderness' as at those who write reams to rebut his complete and utter tosh. I know these things. It's my gift and my curse.
Yes you are right. I have understood for quite some time how important it is for you to believe that so here it is from me, and I know if it doesn't come from me it's not that important for you: You are right. Great analysis.
You're taking both yourself and contrarian's arrant nonsense far too seriously. It's an odd spectacle.
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
Perhaps because of the location of the UK forces. We are both speculating on this front, and you cannot say for certain that there are no strategic reasons to keep them where they are.
But neither can you. And the USN seems perfectly happy to base their boats a long way away.
One ohter factor is of course the huge decline in UK antisubmarine capability (discussed earlier today) and the UK submarine force, so much less scope or none for delousing the entry channels anyway.
Anyway. we'll have to leace it at that: goodnight, all.
Good drama on a nuclear submarine, Vigil, tonight and tomorrow evening on BBC1
Great touch from the Line of Duty people. Heavily trail Martin Compston (Steve Arnott) as one of the stars. Then have him dead after 15 mins. Can't decide whether I liked it or not. Claustrophobic and atmospheric, but desperately slow. Will give it tomorrow to get above a saunter.
The argument around the economic impact of a reduced labour market is complex and has many nuances.
To this observer, the most obvious impact is rising labour costs should be leading companies to invest in improving business processes through technology whether though improved business systems or even the use of robots. It's not a question of whether a robot can serve you coffee (probably could) but whether the current way the process of ordering, preparation and delivery can be made more efficient and improved.
The skilled worker will be at an advantage if the skills are transferrable - they can almost command a wage, either you pay me more or I'm off to a company that will.
The alternative approach is to look to outsource - in a sense, home or remote working is a form of outsourcing especially if organisations take the opportunity to reduce or re-configure their space away from the traditional banks of desks to something more useful. Obviously, the thorny old issue of sending it all to a business park in Bangalore will raise its head but are the savings that obvious?
We've already heard @rcs1000 claiming there'll be a new push for outsourcing - I doubt it. Companies and organisations who mange their property portfolios adroitly will realise some significant benefits.
As for unskilled workers, they too will be better off at least initially subject to them performing a function which can't be easily automated. The suspicion is future immigration policy will be focussed on bridging perceived or actual skills gaps or temporary requirements for unskilled workers.
The other aspect of home or remote working is the re-invigoration of commuter towns and dormitories during the day as places for home workers to go for lunch or entertainment. That may be to the detriment of the City centre but the small town or village and especially those with a few artisan or "unique" shops is going to prosper.
Outsourcing is perhaps the wrong word.
The point is that you no longer need to be in the office to do work. And that has been demonstrated in many, many businesses over the last 18 months.
And if you no longer need to be in London, why do you actually have to be in the UK?
Saying "oh it didn't work 20 years ago" misses the point. Two decades ago people didn't have 200mb/second internet at home, there was no Slack or Zoom. If you were at home you *might* have access to the file server via a VPN. But that was the preserve of Senior Management supported by a massive IT department.
We would never have considered remote employees a decade ago. Now we're contemplating not ever again getting a London office.
That's a pretty major shift.
Yes but I think there are some issues not factored in with remote working, some of which @TheScreamingEagles has occasionally mentioned. One is security; one-and-a-half is confidentiality. Then there is tax: if your employees each work in a different country, are you deducting (or not) income tax or the local equivalents correctly? And H&S legislation as it might affect their home offices? Then there is extra-territorial legislation like the Bribery Act or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or whatever is the Latvian equivalent – and by "or" I mean "and" because all might apply to the same transaction.
I expect you are right that WFH and foreign WFH will continue to grow but for some employers, there will be tears before bedtime.
Those are all solvable problems, though. And if the price is right (and the price is right), then they will be solved.
Security and confidentiality are far easier to fix than international tax..
International tax is a pot of piss.
A firm in Estonia will pop up. Your firm will have the relationship with the Estonian firm, and they will bill you. The Estonian firm will pay the Estonian remote employee.
Supposedly such PEO already exist - it's remarkable how many of them have turned to tax fraud within in the UK to make extra money (hint offering transparency in that market is where I make some of my money).
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
Perhaps because of the location of the UK forces. We are both speculating on this front, and you cannot say for certain that there are no strategic reasons to keep them where they are.
But neither can you. And the USN seems perfectly happy to base their boats a long way away.
One ohter factor is of course the huge decline in UK antisubmarine capability (discussed earlier today) and the UK submarine force, so much less scope or none for delousing the entry channels anyway.
Anyway. we'll have to leace it at that: goodnight, all.
Good drama on a nuclear submarine, Vigil, tonight and tomorrow evening on BBC1
Great touch from the Line of Duty people. Heavily trail Martin Compston (Steve Arnott) as one of the stars. Then have him dead after 15 mins. Can't decide whether I liked it or not. Claustrophobic and atmospheric, but desperately slow. Will give it tomorrow to get above a saunter.
Canada poll tracker tonight has the Conservatives ahead in the popular vote on average by 32.9% to 31.8% for the Liberals with the NDP on 20%.
Yet the Liberals are projected to still win most seats, 143 to 129 for the Conservatives. However that will be entirely down to Quebec with the Liberals projected to win 34-44 seats there to just 9-13 for the Conservatives
It would be the first time Quebec has made the difference in a Canadian election since Justin Trudeau's father Pierre's Liberals narrowly beat Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives in 1980
Trudeau currently muttering about it all going to she...ite...
The argument around the economic impact of a reduced labour market is complex and has many nuances.
To this observer, the most obvious impact is rising labour costs should be leading companies to invest in improving business processes through technology whether though improved business systems or even the use of robots. It's not a question of whether a robot can serve you coffee (probably could) but whether the current way the process of ordering, preparation and delivery can be made more efficient and improved.
The skilled worker will be at an advantage if the skills are transferrable - they can almost command a wage, either you pay me more or I'm off to a company that will.
The alternative approach is to look to outsource - in a sense, home or remote working is a form of outsourcing especially if organisations take the opportunity to reduce or re-configure their space away from the traditional banks of desks to something more useful. Obviously, the thorny old issue of sending it all to a business park in Bangalore will raise its head but are the savings that obvious?
We've already heard @rcs1000 claiming there'll be a new push for outsourcing - I doubt it. Companies and organisations who mange their property portfolios adroitly will realise some significant benefits.
As for unskilled workers, they too will be better off at least initially subject to them performing a function which can't be easily automated. The suspicion is future immigration policy will be focussed on bridging perceived or actual skills gaps or temporary requirements for unskilled workers.
The other aspect of home or remote working is the re-invigoration of commuter towns and dormitories during the day as places for home workers to go for lunch or entertainment. That may be to the detriment of the City centre but the small town or village and especially those with a few artisan or "unique" shops is going to prosper.
Outsourcing is perhaps the wrong word.
The point is that you no longer need to be in the office to do work. And that has been demonstrated in many, many businesses over the last 18 months.
And if you no longer need to be in London, why do you actually have to be in the UK?
Saying "oh it didn't work 20 years ago" misses the point. Two decades ago people didn't have 200mb/second internet at home, there was no Slack or Zoom. If you were at home you *might* have access to the file server via a VPN. But that was the preserve of Senior Management supported by a massive IT department.
We would never have considered remote employees a decade ago. Now we're contemplating not ever again getting a London office.
That's a pretty major shift.
Yes but I think there are some issues not factored in with remote working, some of which @TheScreamingEagles has occasionally mentioned. One is security; one-and-a-half is confidentiality. Then there is tax: if your employees each work in a different country, are you deducting (or not) income tax or the local equivalents correctly? And H&S legislation as it might affect their home offices? Then there is extra-territorial legislation like the Bribery Act or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or whatever is the Latvian equivalent – and by "or" I mean "and" because all might apply to the same transaction.
I expect you are right that WFH and foreign WFH will continue to grow but for some employers, there will be tears before bedtime.
Those are all solvable problems, though. And if the price is right (and the price is right), then they will be solved.
Security and confidentiality are far easier to fix than international tax..
International tax is a pot of piss.
A firm in Estonia will pop up. Your firm will have the relationship with the Estonian firm, and they will bill you. The Estonian firm will pay the Estonian remote employee.
How does that fit with IR35?
It doesn't - I know the scenario is slightly different but I know agencies are insisting on either UK contractors (inside IR35) or for the contractor to use a UK limited company if outside.
The latter case is enough to open real worlds of pain as the combination of that limited company and agency reporting requirements means HMRC assume appropriate UK levels of tax are paid to the annoyance of the appropriate local HMRC equivalent
An alternative take on Brexit-induced worker shortages:
Employers have only a limited range of options if they find themselves short of staff and it is not possible to call up reinforcements from overseas. They can invest more in labour-saving equipment; they can invest more in training to raise skill levels; or they can pay more in order to attract staff. It is not immediately obvious why any of these should be either impossible or undesirable.
Naturally, companies cannot solve immediate labour shortage issues by ramping up training or buying new kit. Both take time to organise and to have any real impact. That only really leaves the option of paying higher wages, which explains why Tesco is offering a £1,000 sign-on bonus for new lorry drivers.
...
Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising that Brexit divided the nation in the way it did. If you were in a relatively well-paid job and not at risk of being replaced or undercut by a worker from overseas, you were likely to vote remain. The Polish plumber was cheaper, the Lithuanian nanny was better educated, so what was not to like?
If, on the other hand, you were part of Britain’s casualised workforce, needing two or more part-time jobs to get by, you were much more likely to vote leave, on the grounds that tougher controls on migration would lead to a tighter labour market, which in turn would push up wages.
For those who have nothing to fear from open borders, labour shortages are evidence Brexit is flawed. For those not so fortunate, it is doing what it was supposed to do.
In a globalised world, is it easier to take the jobs overseas, or to train up the people here?
Offshoring is unnecessary on labour shortage grounds in better paid sectors, where companies will be able to bring workers in from abroad if they need to: the main point of regaining control of the borders is to cut off the limitless flow of coffee shop baristas and chancers looking for casual labour on building sites or in hand car washes, not to exclude computer programmers. OTOH it's mostly an empty threat to low-paid work. You can't offshore supermarket shelf stacking or wiping the arses of the demented.
So,
I'm going to disagree incredibly vehemently with you.
Off-shoring: first they came for the textiles staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the call center staff, and I said nothing. Then they came for the transcription staff, and I said nothing.
You know what's coming next - accelerated by Covid and working from home - a whole ton of professional industries.
Take my business (Just). Pre-covid, we had a dozen staff in the UK, of which 4 or 5 were immigrants. We now have maybe 16 people working for the UK entity. But there's no London office any more.
Our designer has relocated back to Portugal, because she can earn near London wages, but live in her own apartment rather than a house share. One developer returned to Oz. Two new developers are working from Poland. And our head of software engineering can't decide whether to stay in an apartment in London with his wife and small child, or head back to Latvia.
That's a massive shift. If we don't need people to work from London any more, then we can have all the advantages of a pan European labour pool but without the expensive London real estate. Great for us, great for people who need to pay rent in London, but not actually great for the pay rates of developers in London. They are now competing with people who have much lower costs of living.
The same is happening with things like accounting. Why have a bookkeeper based in London? Invoices are all electronic these days, and I can probably get somebody for 70 or 80% less in India or Malaysia.
What next? What about conveyancing and other bread-and-butter legal services. If a man with an English law degree can do it in Bangalore, why not? Law firms increasingly become brass plates, with all the work done by those overseas.
At Morgan Stanley, they're hiring MBAs from the best business schools in India, and putting them together as analyst support. So, instead of a senior US analyst having two American MBAs at $500,000 apiece working for them, they have three Indians at $100,000.
It starts in support roles, and then those offshore people will move to the main roles. One of those Indian MBAs will write such good research, that it won't make sense replacing the American with another expensive Stanford MBA - not when the man from Bangalore only wants a quarter of his salary.
Covid is accelerating a trend that high end work - thought work, professional work - can be delivered by people with funny names in places with much lower costs.
Off shoring is coming for all of us.
In which case we're all doomed anyway*, so what difference the immigration regime will make I don't know. It would still be cheaper for your remote worker in Portugal to keep on working remotely from Portugal even if we were still in the EU and therefore had a completely open border with Portugal.
*Well, most of us are doomed. Amongst the saved are those in niche high-end manufacturing that's too difficult to uproot/not worth the upheaval of moving somewhere with lower labour costs. (Buffs nails.)
We're not doomed.
It's just that those of us born in the UK or the US or Australia or wherever, well we got the Charlie Bucket golden ticket. We got to be better educated than people in the rest of the world, and we got to be paid more for our level of education and intelligence than we would get paid elsewhere in the world.
Of course we attracted immigrants! If you can earn more washing cars in Acton than as an accountant in Albania, then it's pretty logical to try and get to London.
But the world is changing. Technology means that education is going to be available to more people than ever before; and it means that someone can probably do your job for less, and without having to move country.
This doesn't mean we're doomed. It merely means that we'll receive the same reward for a piece of work as someone in Karachi, not a massive multiple based on the lottery of place of birth.
That'll be a hard pill for those in the West to swallow. But it'll be an incredibly opportunity for those in poorer parts of the world.
I asked back in 2009:
How do we compete against other countries which are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder for lower cost and with fewer restrictions ?
Apart from in the Far East and at a push urban India I don't think there are any countries in the non western world who have or will have a population of higher average intelligence than ours.
Er, sorry?? On what possible basis would Britons be any more intelligent on average than any other country in the world?
Educated, maybe, but intelligence? Are you suggesting we are genetically more intelligent?
One of your barmier ideas (which is saying something!)
IQ of nations, the UK has the 16th highest average IQ out of 98 nations surveyed.
The only nations with a higher average IQ than the UK are Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Iceland, Finland and Canada https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php
I do not understand the attraction of Milford Haven when Holyhead would love to have them, and even has a load of empty docking facilities that would take them.
Nearer to the Western Approaches, AIUI.
Basically only one way out from Plymouth into deep water so rUK SSBNs would be far easier to find and track than if they can lurk and choose a variety of different routes out once they hear that the coast is clear. Bear in mind that the US/UK OPLAN wants very little warning of launch against Russia, so target area of operations is North of GB not SW. Its why Faslane is a good place to base the strike force. The Ruskies need several Hunters to cover the routes out of the Clyde, and this increases the risks for them.
But they are no longer Polaris but Trident boats, using the same missile the USN does, and the USN no longer bases forward at Holy Loch/Rota. So if the USN don't see the need .,..
Why would they need to if the UK does?
In which case it is not an independent deterrent?
I don't follow. Being an independent means you can use it whenever you want, not that it can't be part of a coordinated plan with other states.
Even so, if the USN are happy with it, then whether it is Plymouth or Faslane for basing the UK Trident can;t make any significant difference in practice range-wise.
You don't know that for certain. They might only be happy with the current situation because of where it is located.
No, I mean, the USN's own boats are based much further away. So the range issue can't be that sensitive.
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
Perhaps because of the location of the UK forces. We are both speculating on this front, and you cannot say for certain that there are no strategic reasons to keep them where they are.
But neither can you. And the USN seems perfectly happy to base their boats a long way away.
One ohter factor is of course the huge decline in UK antisubmarine capability (discussed earlier today) and the UK submarine force, so much less scope or none for delousing the entry channels anyway.
Anyway. we'll have to leace it at that: goodnight, all.
Good drama on a nuclear submarine, Vigil, tonight and tomorrow evening on BBC1
Great touch from the Line of Duty people. Heavily trail Martin Compston (Steve Arnott) as one of the stars. Then have him dead after 15 mins. Can't decide whether I liked it or not. Claustrophobic and atmospheric, but desperately slow. Will give it tomorrow to get above a saunter.
Spoiler alert?? (I'm recording it.)
Yeah. Considered that. He is dead before the story really starts.
But jesus fucking christ. We are facing a grave threat which has the potential to kill many of us.
And PB almost to a man (person) embraced then and is embracing now illiberal measures unprecedented in our own times. Yes it is an unprecedented pandemic but the way people on here are completely suspending their normal critical faculties is a sight to behold.
No one knows what long term effects the vaccine has but more important, you are all cheering mandatory vaccination. The government forcing people to inject something into their bodies.
Quite extraordinary.
Who is cheering that? Who has proposed it? How would it even work? There has never been compulsory vaccination of adults in this country, and I don't see it happening.
That's great and leaving aside the Covid Pass which allows people to participate in normal life, so why are you giving @contrarian such a hard time.
Because he's unvaccinated and sharing antivaxx memes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods.
He deserves a hard time for that does he not?
He has chosen not to let the government tell him what to put inside his body.
And questioned lockdown.
We absolutely need such voices.
You can question things without lying and bullshitting.
We don't need such voices.
I haven't checked out his lies. What was the most egregious of them?
He does so regularly, sharing antivaxx memes and lies.
In the past 24 hours he's claimed that the young are better off catching Covid than being vaccinated (not true) and that the risk to the young from Covid is less than being struck by lightning (completely wrong).
He's no better than Susan Michie.
Is it not the case that the risks to the young from Covid are sufficiently small such that there is a live debate about the relative merits of that vs getting the vaccine.
How is what @contrarian says so different from the JCVI position.
Contrarian says things that are palpably untrue and repeats them again and again after being called out. The JCVI don't.
Contrarian is just an antivaxx extreme equivalent of Michie. I do not see much praise on this website for her, every argument you use in favour of contrarian could be repeated for Michie. Both are questioning, uncompromising zealots who don't engage with reality.
When did you last praise Michie? Or anyone else from that extreme?
It is the scientific process. You need Michie and you need @contrarian.
Vigorous debate.
As I said, his position on vaxxing children is the same as that of the JCVI.
But he's just an idiot. We have seen footage from Italy and NYC and South America and India showing what out of control covid does. He's like someone at the tail end of the blitz insisting there's still no real evidence that getting people off the streets and into air raid shelters helps stop them being blown up. I was arguing vigorously this time last year that we were probably years away from even one workable vaccine, might not even get that, etc. The scientific method is about being shown to be wrong and admitting it.
You are a funny old sausage.
You have a guy who has questioned the government at every turn. I know you are a huge fan of Boris et al but the reaction to him ( @contrarian ) has been unmitigated opprobrium.
Society needs contrarians. Everyone agrees, right? But of course the defining characteristic of a contrarian is that no one believes what they say and, further, ridicules them with a near-religious certainty.
You believe that @contrarian is foolish, absurd and heretical. Fair enough.
We need contrarians but not contrarian. He's not a moron though. He's a troll who's having a good time on here. Like you.
I know the discussion is relatively complex but that was embarrassing by any measure.
Except not because I'm right. Contrarian posts in jest mostly about Covid. He'll be chuckling as much at your ardent defence of him as 'plucky voice in the wilderness' as at those who write reams to rebut his complete and utter tosh. I know these things. It's my gift and my curse.
Yes you are right. I have understood for quite some time how important it is for you to believe that so here it is from me, and I know if it doesn't come from me it's not that important for you: You are right. Great analysis.
You're taking both yourself and contrarian's arrant nonsense far too seriously. It's an odd spectacle.
Jeez trying to agree with you here. Please take yes for an answer.
Canada poll tracker tonight has the Conservatives ahead in the popular vote on average by 32.9% to 31.8% for the Liberals with the NDP on 20%.
Yet the Liberals are projected to still win most seats, 143 to 129 for the Conservatives. However that will be entirely down to Quebec with the Liberals projected to win 34-44 seats there to just 9-13 for the Conservatives
It would be the first time Quebec has made the difference in a Canadian election since Justin Trudeau's father Pierre's Liberals narrowly beat Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives in 1980
Trudeau currently muttering about it all going to she...ite...
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Worth remembering that Clarke promised Portillo that the UK would only join the Euro following a referendum. I can't see him going back on that, so he might have been supportive, but he wasn't going to back it without a referendum.
And Blair never cared that much, especially as it would have involved a row with Brown.
It would have been politically impossible to join without one I think. And hindsight tells us it was an unwinnable referendum.
I think it might have got a Yes if backed by Blair and Brown in their Cool Britannia prime. Trouble is that was before it was born.
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Had Blair taken the UK into the Euro pre 2001 on the back of Clarke's support as opposition leader it would likely have split the Tories for good, the Eurosceptiic right would have split off.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Or, more likely, the Euro would have collapsed in 2007 as bailing out Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and the UK all at once would have been too much for it.
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
Had Clarke won the Tory leadership in 1997, Blair would likely have felt confident enough to join the Euro without a referendum and we would have joined the Eurozone in the first wave with France, Germany and Spain and Italy in 1999, none of whom had referendums on joining the Euro either.
Only Sweden and Denmark did and they both rejected Euro membership
What is he actually doing these days? He was only 55/6when he left the Commons - surely too young to retire?
Well he is a member of the Lords and is chairman of the Royal Foundation, a charity under the auspices of the Cambridges and is VP of Friends of the British Library.
Otherwise he lives in £2.5 m Cyfronydd Hall in Powys with Ffion
Well, there are worse fates in life I suppose.
He made one terrible mistake. He stood for the Tory leadership in 1997.
Imagine him as Tory leader in 2005 with Osborne as Shadow Chancellor and Cameron as SFS.
That would have been much better all around than what happened.
Yes his mistake was not sticking to his agreement to back Howard for leader in 1997. Then Howard would have beaten Clarke but lost to Blair in 2001 and Hague would have been ideally placed to win the 2001 leadership election rather than IDS and he would have made the gains Howard did in 2005 after Iraq while still being young enough unlike Howard to stay leader.
It could then have been Hague who won most seats in 2010 over Brown not Cameron. All because he could not wait to run for leader
Had he not stood, Clarke (not Howard) would have won. But that couldn’t possibly have been worse than Hague’s leadership which just oozed inexperience from every pore. At least Clarke would have been a credible voice on the economy.
Howard might have won a leadership contest in 2001, and then Hague could have taken over in 2005.
And that would have been the right time. Hague vs Brown would surely have been a small overall majority for the Tories.
Howard I think would have beaten Clarke as the Eurosceptic candidate in the final round in 1997 but yes I agree Hague v Brown would surely have seen Hague in No 10
I don’t agree - because actually I think the Eurosceptic vote would, like Redwood himself, have broken for Clarke had Thatcher not intervened as a late revenge for Clarke’s role in her ousting, simply on the basis of a Clarke’s talent and appeal - but ultimately that would be a sterile discussion. We can’t know who would have won, however much we might read the tea leaves.
All we can say is that Hague despite his many qualities that could have made him an excellent PM at the right time wasn’t ready. And I think - for once! - we’re all on PB on common ground here.
The Conservatives should have elected Clarke in 1997. He would have led the Conservatives to defeat in 2001, but he'd also have done much better than Hague. New Conservative talent in 2001 (rather that 2005) might have made 2010 a very different election.
If Clarke had been Tory leader after 97, would he have backed Blair for euro membership? If so, could be that he wouldn’t have survived the back bench fury to fight the 2001 election. And IDS would have fought an election lol
Worth remembering that Clarke promised Portillo that the UK would only join the Euro following a referendum. I can't see him going back on that, so he might have been supportive, but he wasn't going to back it without a referendum.
And Blair never cared that much, especially as it would have involved a row with Brown.
It would have been politically impossible to join without one I think. And hindsight tells us it was an unwinnable referendum.
I think it might have got a Yes if backed by Blair and Brown in their Cool Britannia prime. Trouble is that was before it was born.
Thank goodness that never happened then or look where we'd be now.
Comments
Not sure i can tell the difference between this government's lies about public spending and a soviet commissioner's five year tractor plans.
Having said that, Milford would be the easy option for the government, we've already got oil and gas terminals and a power station.
A nuclear sub or two wont make much difference, will it?
A shame though, as it would otherwise be perfect. Not only in situ and unused, but designed for nuclear materials.
Edit - on rereading your post, oops, I think you mean Milford Haven is 5 miles away.
Robert Reich
@RBReich
·
1h
I fear we’re about to discover what happens when a horrendous hurricane rams into an area with low vaccination rates, high COVID, and already-full hospitals. Sadly, these are not unrelated.
I only eat rabbits, not keep them. My approach to euthanizing a rabbit would probably be a bit more direct.
I think I was probably giving an account of how someone I know with multiple - 8 or 9 - dogs reduces the cost of vets, which was another thread in the conversation.
Other sacred cows that absolutely should be criticised? Perhaps some closer to home for you, @Foxy.
"We want to create events for everyone, even if we may disagree with most of what they stand for.“
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/michael-gove-tried-avoid-paying-24863233.amp
Had Portillo got just 1 more MP to back him in 2001 therefore he would likely have knocked out IDS, Thatcher would have endorsed him over Clarke and he would have become Tory leader
Just so I could say, ‘well, in that case we’ll do a special rate. It’s not five pounds but five grand.’
In any case, is the RN that subordinate to the US that it has to take orders as to where the boats are based?
One ohter factor is of course the huge decline in UK antisubmarine capability (discussed earlier today) and the UK submarine force, so much less scope or none for delousing the entry channels anyway.
Anyway. we'll have to leace it at that: goodnight, all.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full
https://metro.co.uk/2021/08/29/afghanistan-pen-farthing-threatened-to-fing-destroy-official-15170715/
But something being stupid hasn’t ever stopped a government from doing it.
A firm in Estonia will pop up. Your firm will have the relationship with the Estonian firm, and they will bill you. The Estonian firm will pay the Estonian remote employee.
If the UK was in the Euro Brexit would also have been impossible, we would be well on the way now to becoming a mere state of the EU superstate.
Considering the French are able to manage without America, and speaking as someone who thinks we shoudn't even have nuclear weapons, if we're going to have them, I really don't understand why we don't do the same and make our own ICMBs. Oh well
Clarke however seemed to be willing to soft pedal his Euro enthusiasm in exchange for the party leadership, as seen by his offer to make Redwood shadow Chancellor. Paris is worth a mass, after all. Arguably that was a bad tactical error - he should have made the offer, much earlier, to William Hague.
And Blair never cared that much, especially as it would have involved a row with Brown.
Been there myself, albeit not much above the age of 30.
1) the strains would have been more severe and apparent earlier;
2) I hit the wrong key and meant 2009.
I leave it to the reader as to which explanation is correct.
Good night.
With reference to the remark prior to yours, unless or until the political situation changes the warheads are British, not English, and no amount of either magical thinking or pretty obvious Anglophobia can wish the fact away.
That being said, I wonder what the consequences of the referendum would hang been.
How do we compete against other countries which are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder for lower cost and with fewer restrictions ?
Only Sweden and Denmark did and they both rejected Euro membership
https://twitter.com/tejmuk/status/1432088967017635846?s=20
It's good to be working in a field not easily outsourced.
Educated, maybe, but intelligence? Are you suggesting we are genetically more intelligent?
One of your barmier ideas (which is saying something!)
Maastricht only gave the UK and Denmark opt-outs from the Euro. Every other EEC/EU nation was committed to the Euro by ratifying Maastricht.
Sweden holding a referendum on the Euro having joined with Maastricht as part of the acquis communitaire they'd signed up to was dodgy not something others should have done.
Then have him dead after 15 mins.
Can't decide whether I liked it or not. Claustrophobic and atmospheric, but desperately slow. Will give it tomorrow to get above a saunter.
It may look easy but trust me it actually isn't
The latter case is enough to open real worlds of pain as the combination of that limited company and agency reporting requirements means HMRC assume appropriate UK levels of tax are paid to the annoyance of the appropriate local HMRC equivalent
The only nations with a higher average IQ than the UK are Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Iceland, Finland and Canada
https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php