OK but really it is quite simple. The GBP/USD is priced with a small spread so the buy and sell prices are fairly close together (the sell price is currently 1.29164). If you create and add it to a short watchlist it avoids having to search through lots of other trades when you want to take a position. Taking the position is as easy as it is on Betfair; just enter the stake and a couple of clicks.
The pricing is per 0.0001 so a stake of 1 is equivalent to buying about 12000 dollars. I am on City Index with a minimum stake size of 0.1 so you can effectively trade as little as 1200 dollars (equivalent). In reality the advantage is that you don't need to deposit anything like that amount - the margin requirements just ensure there is enough in the account to cover likely short-run fluctuations. The downside of not actually having to deposit the cash is that there's a small daily financing charge to maintain the position.
So many people are predicting further £ falls that my instinct is that we may be close to a floor, with further downside limited, at least until we get into the New Year and A50 starts to loom. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised to see some trading recovery meanwhile.
Thank you for the recommendation, but...sell at 1.29164 is a *small* spread? Today's midpoint is 1.225, yes? That's a spread of 6.5*2 (i.e. 13cents between buy and sell). Have I misunderstood you?
This spread thing is doing my head in. The smallest I've found is 6-8 cents (movement between a sterling account and dollar account in the same bank). Something like Tor or Tramonex is smaller but require a large minimum trading per year. Bureax de change is about 15 cents. The Halifax Clarity card is apparently spreadfree if Moneysupermarket is to be believed. Something to be looked into...
He mistyped 1.29164 he meant 1.21964 I think. His mind was elsewhere.
The boss of Tesco probably knows that. Does the Head of Unilever?
I suspect he does. Unilever owns Marmite!
Kraft Foods own Vegemite, but the slide in Sterling vs the Aus $ has been pretty steep, so up in cost by 18%, making good old British Marmite a bargain at just 10% up.
We know Unilever owns Marmite. It seems the head of Unilever is unaware it is made entirely in Britain and so is not subject to exchange rate pressures.
The boss of Tesco probably knows that. Does the Head of Unilever?
I suspect he does. Unilever owns Marmite!
Kraft Foods own Vegemite, but the slide in Sterling vs the Aus $ has been pretty steep, so up in cost by 18%, making good old British Marmite a bargain at just 10% up.
We know Unilever owns Marmite. It seems the head of Unilever is unaware it is made entirely in Britain and so is not subject to exchange rate pressures.
Marmite is just one of many Unilever (a British company in large part) brands. If Tesco refuse to accept price rises for other Unilever brands (many of which would have increased in cost by more than 10%) then this falls into the position of being a pawn in the negotiations between two big companies, one of which is a major seller of products around the world and particularly emerging markets.
Do you really not expect price inflation as a result of the slide in Sterling?
Of course there will be some price inflation. But certainly not 10% across the board as Unilever are claiming. I think the word you are looking for is profiteering.
The boss of Tesco probably knows that. Does the Head of Unilever?
I suspect he does. Unilever owns Marmite!
Kraft Foods own Vegemite, but the slide in Sterling vs the Aus $ has been pretty steep, so up in cost by 18%, making good old British Marmite a bargain at just 10% up.
We know Unilever owns Marmite. It seems the head of Unilever is unaware it is made entirely in Britain and so is not subject to exchange rate pressures.
That doesn't follow, unless the main ingredient of marmite is fresh English seaside air and their plants are powered by cockneys peddling little bicycles.
It follows when their main ingredient is a waste product from something else that is also made in this country.
The boss of Tesco probably knows that. Does the Head of Unilever?
I suspect he does. Unilever owns Marmite!
Kraft Foods own Vegemite, but the slide in Sterling vs the Aus $ has been pretty steep, so up in cost by 18%, making good old British Marmite a bargain at just 10% up.
We know Unilever owns Marmite. It seems the head of Unilever is unaware it is made entirely in Britain and so is not subject to exchange rate pressures.
That doesn't follow, unless the main ingredient of marmite is fresh English seaside air and their plants are powered by cockneys peddling little bicycles.
It follows when their main ingredient is a waste product from something else that is also made in this country. Any way you cut it Unilever are talking bollocks. And the CEO of Tesco knows this because he was at Unilever for 27 years.
The whole worlds supply is made in Burton Upon Trent from Yeast waste. Hard to see how the value of the Pound impacts this?
Some say Anderson Cooper deliberatly asked Trump about it on the debate because they had them ready.
yup, i thought that was what cooper was doing.
So that adds another problem, everyone expected that they will do this before hand.
Lack of credibility kills the story stone dead.
Lack of witnesses despite their claims of it being in an airplane and an elevator.
No other passengers saw it, no one else on the elevator saw it and no camera footage either from the elevator.
I think automaticallg insinuating they are lying is... unhelpful.
We also know how Trump acts. He told everyone.
I can go to the press and say X famous person touched me tommorow, but there would be zero proof and no witnesses.
But 619 would still post my allegation, even if it's untrue.
Unless there is evidence like a video of the event or like in Bill Clinton's case sperm, the lack of witnesses, the lack of evidence and the expectations of false accusations all kill this story.
Seriously if the HIllary camp doesn't have another damaging tape they are in trouble.
Called it....Cooper was overly insistent for a specific answer on that section of the debate compared to the rest.
I thought it was an obvious question. He's doing his job.
It was, but he was very very insistent for an answer. Other stuff, where Trump was waffling, Cooper was far less determined to nail him down to a specific answer.
You could say well its a serious allegation, he needs to hold him to account. But to me when I watched it, it had alarm bells ringing that they were setting it up I said it would go down something like this, although I thought it would be Monday or Tuesday.
The boss of Tesco probably knows that. Does the Head of Unilever?
I suspect he does. Unilever owns Marmite!
Kraft Foods own Vegemite, but the slide in Sterling vs the Aus $ has been pretty steep, so up in cost by 18%, making good old British Marmite a bargain at just 10% up.
We know Unilever owns Marmite. It seems the head of Unilever is unaware it is made entirely in Britain and so is not subject to exchange rate pressures.
That doesn't follow, unless the main ingredient of marmite is fresh English seaside air and their plants are powered by cockneys peddling little bicycles.
It follows when their main ingredient is a waste product from something else that is also made in this country. Any way you cut it Unilever are talking bollocks. And the CEO of Tesco knows this because he was at Unilever for 27 years.
The whole worlds supply is made in Burton Upon Trent from Yeast waste. Hard to see how the value of the Pound impacts this?
If you look at what's involved in making marmite and putting it in a little bottle and getting it to Tesco's you're likely to find various costs other than buying yeast and paying British people to stir big sticky vats.
I love this from Sky News: "The humble jar of Marmite looks set to bring home to British consumers how the vote to leave the EU is likely to drive up prices."
What does it matter that cucumbers are straighter than we'd like, if the alternative is to have our Marmite wrenched out of our hands or treble in price? English mustard, Branston pickle - forget about it all if you're hell-bent on leaving the EU.
Called it....Cooper was overly insistent for a specific answer on that section of the debate compared to the rest.
I thought it was an obvious question. He's doing his job.
It was, but he was very very insistent for an answer. Other stuff, where Trump was waffling, Cooper was far less determined to nail him down to a specific answer.
You could say well its a serious allegation, he needs to hold him to account. But to me when I watched it, it had alarm bells ringing. I said it would go down something like this, although I thought it would be Monday or Tuesday.
its more than likely that cooper thought Trump would just say 'No of course not' rather than dodge the question twice. Also, Cooper was giving Trump a bit of rope.
Some say Anderson Cooper deliberatly asked Trump about it on the debate because they had them ready.
yup, i thought that was what cooper was doing.
So that adds another problem, everyone expected that they will do this before hand.
Lack of credibility kills the story stone dead.
Lack of witnesses despite their claims of it being in an airplane and an elevator.
No other passengers saw it, no one else on the elevator saw it and no camera footage either from the elevator.
I think automaticallg insinuating they are lying is... unhelpful.
We also know how Trump acts. He told everyone.
I can go to the press and say X famous person touched me tommorow, but there would be zero proof and no witnesses.
But 619 would still post my allegation, even if it's untrue.
Unless there is evidence like a video of the event or like in Bill Clinton's case sperm, the lack of witnesses, the lack of evidence and the expectations of false accusations all kill this story.
Seriously if the HIllary camp doesn't have another damaging tape they are in trouble.
They are not in trouble. Trump is the one in a tailspin. This story, mirroring what he said he does women dont forget, is not going to go down well.
It was, but he was very very insistent for an answer. Other stuff, where Trump was waffling, Cooper was far less determined to nail him down to a specific answer.
You could say well its a serious allegation, he needs to hold him to account. But to me when I watched it, it had alarm bells ringing that they were setting it up I said it would go down something like this, although I thought it would be Monday or Tuesday.
Of course it's a set up, it's so obvious that it instantly makes me think the allegations are lies, apart of course from the complete lack of evidence and witnesses of the events taking place.
It was, but he was very very insistent for an answer. Other stuff, where Trump was waffling, Cooper was far less determined to nail him down to a specific answer.
You could say well its a serious allegation, he needs to hold him to account. But to me when I watched it, it had alarm bells ringing that they were setting it up I said it would go down something like this, although I thought it would be Monday or Tuesday.
Of course it's a set up, it's so obvious that it instantly makes me think the allegations are lies, apart of course from the complete lack of evidence and witnesses of the events taking place.
I have no idea about the veracity of the allegations, but I am sure the past few weeks have been a carefully coordinated set of events. We know the tape p***sy-gate tape has been known about since late August.
It isn't exactly a shock that the Clinton political machine is extremely strong and well organized. And it is been done the way one would think is the best way to do it, drip drip drip, get denials, add a bit more, drip drip drip...and always have something as a safety incase a debate goes bad.
They are not in trouble. Trump is the one in a tailspin. This story, mirroring what he said he does women dont forget, is not going to go down well.
But the story lacks credibility and evidence, I read it and it set off alarm bells that they are lying. Just think when the tape story broke I instantly realized it's significance, this story though is a bunch of crap.
The problem with these kinds of stories is that it debases any real story that might be true. (Think if the Times published Daily Sport stories)
Trump would feel safer tonight if that is the only thing Hillary's team got.
They are not in trouble. Trump is the one in a tailspin. This story, mirroring what he said he does women dont forget, is not going to go down well.
But the story lacks credibility and evidence, I read it and it set off alarm bells that they are lying. Just think when the tape story broke I instantly realized it's significance, this story though is a bunch of crap.
The problem with these kinds of stories is that it debases any real story that might be true.
Trump would feel safer tonight if that is the only thing Hillary's team got.
If I was particularly devious and knowing Trumps character, you could put up some allegations knowing that they may or may not be true, but will get Trump to react and potentially say something stupid and box him in. And then drop the hammer.
Mike Cernovitch I can confirm rotten Hillary's 33,000 emails have been obtained. Word is it will be a "November surprise." Wow, something new every day!
It was, but he was very very insistent for an answer. Other stuff, where Trump was waffling, Cooper was far less determined to nail him down to a specific answer.
You could say well its a serious allegation, he needs to hold him to account. But to me when I watched it, it had alarm bells ringing that they were setting it up I said it would go down something like this, although I thought it would be Monday or Tuesday.
Of course it's a set up, it's so obvious that it instantly makes me think the allegations are lies, apart of course from the complete lack of evidence and witnesses of the events taking place.
I have no idea about the veracity of the allegations, but I am sure the past few weeks have been a carefully coordinated set of events. We know the tape p***sy-gate tape has been known about since late August.
It isn't exactly a shock that the Clinton political machine is extremely strong and well organized. And it is been done the way one would think is the best way to do it, drip drip drip, get denials, add a bit more, drip drip drip...and always have something as a safety incase a debate goes bad.
The problem is that people will start not believing the allegations if it's obvious that they are lies, basic PR stuff.
The tape was a different thing because it was Trump himself talking about unusually controversial sexual things at a time of his marriage, that was no unsubstantiated allegation it was proof.
They are not in trouble. Trump is the one in a tailspin. This story, mirroring what he said he does women dont forget, is not going to go down well.
But the story lacks credibility and evidence, I read it and it set off alarm bells that they are lying. Just think when the tape story broke I instantly realized it's significance, this story though is a bunch of crap.
The problem with these kinds of stories is that it debases any real story that might be true.
Trump would feel safer tonight if that is the only thing Hillary's team got.
If I was particularly devious and knowing Trumps character, you could put up some allegations knowing that they may or may not be true, but will get Trump to react and potentially say something stupid and box him in. And then drop the hammer.
The reason why all this doesn't stuck on Trump is because they are trying quantity over quality.
There are millions of allegations about Trump over 40 years, some may be real some may be fake, if you try to publish them all within a short time frame like the media does everyone will get use to it and debase them as false simply because most of them are probably false, like the NYT story today. Result:Teflon Don arrives.
But only one story stuck and that was the tape, because it was quality stuff.
'Old hack teaches young inexperienced leftie hack Faisal to do some research about Marmite.
Andrew Neil Retweeted Fredd Says @FreddSays 1.Multi-part tweets don't work.2. Main ingredient is yeast sludge from breweries.Not imported.Will you ever do your bloody homework?@afneil '
Smart arse Faisal looking a right prat, maybe he can be a replacement for Milne.
It was, but he was very very insistent for an answer. Other stuff, where Trump was waffling, Cooper was far less determined to nail him down to a specific answer.
You could say well its a serious allegation, he needs to hold him to account. But to me when I watched it, it had alarm bells ringing that they were setting it up I said it would go down something like this, although I thought it would be Monday or Tuesday.
Of course it's a set up, it's so obvious that it instantly makes me think the allegations are lies, apart of course from the complete lack of evidence and witnesses of the events taking place.
I have no idea about the veracity of the allegations, but I am sure the past few weeks have been a carefully coordinated set of events. We know the tape p***sy-gate tape has been known about since late August.
It isn't exactly a shock that the Clinton political machine is extremely strong and well organized. And it is been done the way one would think is the best way to do it, drip drip drip, get denials, add a bit more, drip drip drip...and always have something as a safety incase a debate goes bad.
The problem is that people will start not believing the allegations if it's obvious that they are lies, basic PR stuff.
The tape was a different thing because it was Trump himself talking about unusually controversial sexual things at a time of his marriage, that was no unsubstantiated allegation it was proof.
But has anybody come forward saying they were groped?
'If you look at what's involved in making marmite and putting it in a little bottle and getting it to Tesco's you're likely to find various costs other than buying yeast and paying British people to stir big sticky vats.'
So the main raw material,, energy,logistics,packaging, A & P & selling all UK based costs ,what's the magic ingredient that jacks the price up by 10% ?
The boss of Tesco probably knows that. Does the Head of Unilever?
I suspect he does. Unilever owns Marmite!
Kraft Foods own Vegemite, but the slide in Sterling vs the Aus $ has been pretty steep, so up in cost by 18%, making good old British Marmite a bargain at just 10% up.
We know Unilever owns Marmite. It seems the head of Unilever is unaware it is made entirely in Britain and so is not subject to exchange rate pressures.
Kraft Foods own Vegemite, but the slide in Sterling vs the Aus $ has been pretty steep, so up in cost by 18%, making good old British Marmite a bargain at just 10% up.
We know Unilever owns Marmite. It seems the head of Unilever is unaware it is made entirely in Britain and so is not subject to exchange rate pressures.
Marmite is just one of many Unilever (a British company in large part) brands. If Tesco refuse to accept price rises for other Unilever brands (many of which would have increased in cost by more than 10%) then this falls into the position of being a pawn in the negotiations between two big companies, one of which is a major seller of products around the world and particularly emerging markets.
Do you really not expect price inflation as a result of the slide in Sterling?
I think the word you are looking for is profiteering.
No. Its 'cross border shipments'.
Unilever in the Netherlands, Belgium & so on will by now have a serious problem with wholesalers and some supermarkets buying from the UK & not from them - Unilever UK is booming, Unilever Europe is not.
Having been in this situation, Unilever is doing the right thing - you have to price back up to recover the lost revenue - but I'd have done it as two 5% increases 6 weeks apart, not one 10% rise......
'If you look at what's involved in making marmite and putting it in a little bottle and getting it to Tesco's you're likely to find various costs other than buying yeast and paying British people to stir big sticky vats.'
So the main raw material,, energy,logistics,packaging, A & P & selling all UK based costs ,what's the magic ingredient that jacks the price up by 10% ?
The magic ingredient seems to be Unilever having a monopoly on marmite.
Of course someone might want to make and sell Marmite but under a different name, you could name it Barmite or whatever.
Also there is a PPP poll of N.Hampshire out, but it's pre-debate so it's useless.
Unilever in the Netherlands, Belgium & so on will by now have a serious problem with wholesalers and some supermarkets buying from the UK & not from them - Unilever UK is booming, Unilever Europe is not.
Having been in this situation, Unilever is doing the right thing - you have to price back up to recover the lost revenue - but I'd have done it as two 5% increases 6 weeks apart, not one 10% rise......'
If that's true,& it's a big if, then it is a potential breech of EU competition regulations
Competition rules - EUROPA - Your Europe - Business europa.eu/youreurope/business/sell-abroad/free-competition/index_en.htm EUROPA - European rules ensuring fair competition between companies – penalties for illegal market practices like price fixing and market sharing.
'If you look at what's involved in making marmite and putting it in a little bottle and getting it to Tesco's you're likely to find various costs other than buying yeast and paying British people to stir big sticky vats.'
So the main raw material,, energy,logistics,packaging, A & P & selling all UK based costs ,what's the magic ingredient that jacks the price up by 10% ?
I've not been following this debate, but is all the barley UK sourced, and the hops and so on? If the cost of producing the beer goes up, marmite will too?
(I really haven't followed it, so apologies if barking entirely up a different kettle of fish)
Unilever in the Netherlands, Belgium & so on will by now have a serious problem with wholesalers and some supermarkets buying from the UK & not from them - Unilever UK is booming, Unilever Europe is not.
Having been in this situation, Unilever is doing the right thing - you have to price back up to recover the lost revenue - but I'd have done it as two 5% increases 6 weeks apart, not one 10% rise......'
If that's true,& it's a big if, then it is a potential breech of EU competition regulations
Competition rules - EUROPA - Your Europe - Business europa.eu/youreurope/business/sell-abroad/free-competition/index_en.htm EUROPA - European rules ensuring fair competition between companies – penalties for illegal market practices like price fixing and market sharing.
It's not price fixing between companies (Unilever-Colgate-P&G for example) - its pricing within one company Unilever (UK, Netherlands, Benelux)
Unilever can choose to sell Marmite at what ever price they like - if the market won't bear it, they'll have to rethink - but we don't have price controls.....
'I've not been following this debate, but is all the barley UK sourced, and the hops and so on? If the cost of producing the beer goes up, marmite will too?'
I don't think beer prices have gone up 10% in the past 3 months,however,the key ingredient for Marmite is apparently waste from the brewing process.
Going to be interesting to hear Unilever's explanation a 10% price hike to subsidize wholesalers in other countries is going to take some explaining.
I don't think beer prices have gone up 10% in the past 3 months,however,the key ingredient for Marmite is apparently waste from the brewing process.
Most of the beer price is tax tho, probably? If the hops are priced in euros, then they might have gone up 10%.
Probably Unilever can just do what they want- they have too many popular brands in too many sectors?
who knows how much is related to brexit, and how much opportunism/profiteering/free market economics...?
The pricing is related to sterling's depreciation - Unilever will have all their products similarly priced across Europe (the UK typically at the lower end of the range - so sterling's fall will likely have caused cross-border shipment issues) - the coverage is related to Brexit, as Unilever were strongly pro-Remain - so the Daily Mail, for example, is giving them both barrels:
David Cameron has been rated one of the worst prime ministers in modern history by political experts.
The former Conservative leader came third from bottom in the table of post-war leaders, faring worse than Labour's Gordon Brown, in the survey of academics who specialise in politics and contemporary British history.
David Cameron has been rated one of the worst prime ministers in modern history by political experts.
The former Conservative leader came third from bottom in the table of post-war leaders, faring worse than Labour's Gordon Brown, in the survey of academics who specialise in politics and contemporary British history.
Harsh, I'd say. First term was largely successful - and he won a second - unlike Brown or Heath......
Failed to implement voting reform which would have cemented his brand of "liberal con" in power for generations. Instead, went for a disastrous referendum, aimed at keeping the headbangers in his party in check. result being the headbangers are now in charge of the country. He is lucky he had to leave otherwise he might have been the one who lost scotland and the C of E as well as the EU.
David Cameron has been rated one of the worst prime ministers in modern history by political experts.
The former Conservative leader came third from bottom in the table of post-war leaders, faring worse than Labour's Gordon Brown, in the survey of academics who specialise in politics and contemporary British history.
Harsh, I'd say. First term was largely successful - and he won a second - unlike Brown or Heath......
Failed to implement voting reform which would have cemented his brand of "liberal con" in power for generations. Instead, went for a disastrous referendum, aimed at keeping the headbangers in his party in check. result being the headbangers are now in charge of the country. He is lucky he had to leave otherwise he might have been the one who lost scotland and the C of E as well as the EU.
"I think I'd be rather good at it"
FWIW, I'd divvy post-WWII PMs up:
'League of their Own' - Attlee & Thatcher
'Pretty Good' - Blair & Wilson (multiple election wins)
'Middling' - Churchill, Macmillan, Major, Heath, Cameron (won elections, or for Heath a 'big win')
Poor - Brown, Eden, Doulas Home, Callaghan (in fairness to Callaghan he was dealt an atrocious hand)
I guess the question on Cameron (which we're many years away from being able to answer) is does his Brexit "failure' (sic) outweigh his other successes.....
I guess the question on Cameron (which we're many years away from being able to answer) is does his Brexit "failure' (sic) outweigh his other successes.....
LOL at the "middling Churchill" trollement" (EDIT: Ah, OK missed the 'post-war' bit)
what are Cameron's successes? Didn't break anything too badly during the first term when Nick was helping him?
I guess the question on Cameron (which we're many years away from being able to answer) is does his Brexit "failure' (sic) outweigh his other successes.....
LOL at the "middling Churchill" trollement" (EDIT: Ah, OK missed the 'post-war' bit)
what are Cameron's successes? Didn't break anything too badly during the first term when Nick was helping him?
I'd list Cameron's successes as:
- Creating and running a stable coalition government that went to full term (recall how this site was thick with 'Govt will fall by October 2010' predictions)
- Getting the economy moving and starting to bring the public finances under control
- SindyRef & AV
- Winning a second term.
Of course if BREXIT is the unmitigated disaster the remoaners wish for would have us believe, then all of these are overshadowed - but I think that is what has weighed heavily in the academics' estimation of him.....
I guess the question on Cameron (which we're many years away from being able to answer) is does his Brexit "failure' (sic) outweigh his other successes.....
LOL at the "middling Churchill" trollement" (EDIT: Ah, OK missed the 'post-war' bit)
what are Cameron's successes? Didn't break anything too badly during the first term when Nick was helping him?
I'd list Cameron's successes as:
- Creating and running a stable coalition government that went to full term (recall how this site was thick with 'Govt will fall by October 2010' predictions)
- Getting the economy moving and starting to bring the public finances under control
- SindyRef & AV
- Winning a second term.
Of course if BREXIT is the unmitigated disaster the remoaners wish for would have us believe, then all of these are overshadowed - but I think that is what has weighed heavily in the academics' estimation of him.....
and the "big society" of course
it all adds up to "utterly unremarkable, apart from breaking the EU"
I guess the question on Cameron (which we're many years away from being able to answer) is does his Brexit "failure' (sic) outweigh his other successes.....
LOL at the "middling Churchill" trollement" (EDIT: Ah, OK missed the 'post-war' bit)
what are Cameron's successes? Didn't break anything too badly during the first term when Nick was helping him?
I'd list Cameron's successes as:
- Creating and running a stable coalition government that went to full term (recall how this site was thick with 'Govt will fall by October 2010' predictions)
- Getting the economy moving and starting to bring the public finances under control
- SindyRef & AV
- Winning a second term.
Of course if BREXIT is the unmitigated disaster the remoaners wish for would have us believe, then all of these are overshadowed - but I think that is what has weighed heavily in the academics' estimation of him.....
Surely what is weighing in their assessments is that he fought tooth and nail against it, therefore he failed to impose his vision.
Arguably Attlee's successes were failures, but he gets a pass because his government left the mark it chose on the country.
1h Matt McDermott @mattmfm New Fox News battleground map has Clinton at 307 electoral votes with Utah and Arizona as tossup states. pic.twitter.com/VKxQdANaC8 (((Harry Enten))) (((Harry Enten))) – Verified account @ForecasterEnten
They are not in trouble. Trump is the one in a tailspin. This story, mirroring what he said he does women dont forget, is not going to go down well.
But the story lacks credibility and evidence, I read it and it set off alarm bells that they are lying. Just think when the tape story broke I instantly realized it's significance, this story though is a bunch of crap.
The problem with these kinds of stories is that it debases any real story that might be true. (Think if the Times published Daily Sport stories)
Trump would feel safer tonight if that is the only thing Hillary's team got.
Its NYT not Clinton. No evidence otherwise!
These are facts: 1. The man said it on tape. 2. He mentionesd multiple women.
I guess the question on Cameron (which we're many years away from being able to answer) is does his Brexit "failure' (sic) outweigh his other successes.....
LOL at the "middling Churchill" trollement" (EDIT: Ah, OK missed the 'post-war' bit)
what are Cameron's successes? Didn't break anything too badly during the first term when Nick was helping him?
I'd list Cameron's successes as:
- Creating and running a stable coalition government that went to full term (recall how this site was thick with 'Govt will fall by October 2010' predictions)
- Getting the economy moving and starting to bring the public finances under control
- SindyRef & AV
- Winning a second term.
Of course if BREXIT is the unmitigated disaster the remoaners wish for would have us believe, then all of these are overshadowed - but I think that is what has weighed heavily in the academics' estimation of him.....
Arguably Attlee's successes were failures, but he gets a pass because his government left the mark it chose on the country.
One may not agree with what either Attlee or Thatcher did, but it is difficult to argue they didn't leave a changed country behind them.....
'If you look at what's involved in making marmite and putting it in a little bottle and getting it to Tesco's you're likely to find various costs other than buying yeast and paying British people to stir big sticky vats.'
So the main raw material,, energy,logistics,packaging, A & P & selling all UK based costs ,what's the magic ingredient that jacks the price up by 10% ?
The magic ingredient seems to be Unilever having a monopoly on marmite.
Of course someone might want to make and sell Marmite but under a different name, you could name it Barmite or whatever.
Also there is a PPP poll of N.Hampshire out, but it's pre-debate so it's useless.
Goodnight.
Sainsbury's yeast extract? If they still make it. My mother tried to torment me with it as a child.
OK but really it is quite simple. The GBP/USD is priced with a small spread so the buy and sell prices are fairly close together (the sell price is currently 1.29164). If you create and add it to a short watchlist it avoids having to search through lots of other trades when you want to take a position. Taking the position is as easy as it is on Betfair; just enter the stake and a couple of clicks.
The pricing is per 0.0001 so a stake of 1 is equivalent to buying about 12000 dollars. I am on City Index with a minimum stake size of 0.1 so you can effectively trade as little as 1200 dollars (equivalent). In reality the advantage is that you don't need to deposit anything like that amount - the margin requirements just ensure there is enough in the account to cover likely short-run fluctuations. The downside of not actually having to deposit the cash is that there's a small daily financing charge to maintain the position.
So many people are predicting further £ falls that my instinct is that we may be close to a floor, with further downside limited, at least until we get into the New Year and A50 starts to loom. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised to see some trading recovery meanwhile.
Thank you for the recommendation, but...sell at 1.29164 is a *small* spread? Today's midpoint is 1.225, yes? That's a spread of 6.5*2 (i.e. 13cents between buy and sell). Have I misunderstood you?
This spread thing is doing my head in. The smallest I've found is 6-8 cents (movement between a sterling account and dollar account in the same bank). Something like Tor or Tramonex is smaller but require a large minimum trading per year. Bureax de change is about 15 cents. The Halifax Clarity card is apparently spreadfree if Moneysupermarket is to be believed. Something to be looked into...
He mistyped 1.29164 he meant 1.21964 I think. His mind was elsewhere.
Yes you are right, sorry. It was all the talk about Soubry, as I expect you realised.
The boss of Tesco probably knows that. Does the Head of Unilever?
I suspect he does. Unilever owns Marmite
We know Unilever owns Marmite. It seems the head of Unilever is unaware it is made entirely in Britain and so is not subject to exchange rate pressures.
That doesn't follow, unless the main ingredient of marmite is fresh English seaside air and their plants are powered by cockneys peddling little bicycles.
It follows when their main ingredient is a waste product from something else that is also made in this country. Any way you cut it Unilever are talking bollocks. And the CEO of Tesco knows this because he was at Unilever for 27 years.
I suspect this story takes us interestingly into the world of food retail pricing.
As I remember from business school many years ago, optimal pricing does not depend solely on working from costs (although many firms have a rough margin in mind as a rule of thumb, in order to ensure profitability), but also on the price elasticity of the product and so what people will pay. The cost side is also not straightforward as the cost of production per jar will vary depending on the amount produced.
If, as looks likely, the cost of food and drink is going up significantly, it probably makes sense, in the short term at least, for this to be spread relatively evenly over all products, taking a hit in the margin of those where costs have risen more sharply and making more money on those, like marmite, where it hasn't. The alternative - pricing solely from cost - could significantly change people's purchasing patterns - crudely a surge in domestically produced items like Marmite at the expense of foreign food - which would change the costs of production and may also be demand that they cannot meet (without talking to suppliers and their asssesing factory and staffing changes etc.).
I suspect the potential complexity of changes in purchasing habits and of costs of production are sufficiently wide-ranging that Unilver would rather take the simpler route in the short term and worry about the difficult stuff once we see where the £ eventually settles.
All this makes sense from the producers' and retailers' point of view, but has of course handed the press a great story and stick to beat them with....
I'd say the list was pretty fair - you can argue the toss between Attlee & Thatcher, but clearly both belong in the top 2.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
If Brexit is anything other than a huge success then Cameron will have to be below Eden. Although possibly Theresa May would be the one to deserve that ignoble position.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
If Brexit is anything other than a huge success then Cameron will have to be below Eden. Although possibly Theresa May would be the one to deserve that ignoble position.
If Brexit is a huge success would you rank Cameron ahead of Blair?
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
If Brexit is anything other than a huge success then Cameron will have to be below Eden. Although possibly Theresa May would be the one to deserve that ignoble position.
If Brexit is a huge success would you rank Cameron ahead of Blair?
For (being forced into) delivering a huge success by accident against your own judgement? Obviously not - which is why in a sense you can rate Cameron now without knowing how Brexit turns out; it's lose-lose for him either way.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
If Brexit is anything other than a huge success then Cameron will have to be below Eden. Although possibly Theresa May would be the one to deserve that ignoble position.
only to the extent that she is judged responsible for the outcome. History might take the view that she had a poisoned inheritance and therefore it'll be how she responded to it that determines the (eventual) verdict, even if the electorate won't be so forgiving meantime.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
If Brexit is anything other than a huge success then Cameron will have to be below Eden. Although possibly Theresa May would be the one to deserve that ignoble position.
If Brexit is a huge success would you rank Cameron ahead of Blair?
They're very difficult to compare. Blair's premiership was a wasted opportunity, whereas Cameron's was an opportunistic waste, both punctuated by a huge error of judgement.
I'd say the list was pretty fair - you can argue the toss between Attlee & Thatcher, but clearly both belong in the top 2.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
Of those who went to university, all bar Gordon Brown studied at Oxford; Churchill, Callaghan and Major did not go to university.
Three old Etonians at the bottom of the list, though Supermac at number 4 holds up the honour of the old school.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
If Brexit is anything other than a huge success then Cameron will have to be below Eden. Although possibly Theresa May would be the one to deserve that ignoble position.
If Brexit is a huge success would you rank Cameron ahead of Blair?
They're very difficult to compare. Blair's premiership was a wasted opportunity, whereas Cameron's was an opportunistic waste, both punctuated by a huge error of judgement.
Some of Blair's legacy is negative (foreign affairs) and some has failed (changing labour) but he has shifted the narrative in what appears to be an enduring way in some areas - devolution, minimum wage, (arguably) our attitudes toward investing in public services.
Cameron rose to some short term challenges and handled the tactics of coalition well (from his own party's perspective) but it is hard to point to anything that historians will see as a lasting change? And the LibDems deserve the credit for some of the peripheral changes such as equal marriage, pension reform, reducing tax for lower earners, and at least the start of some localism. Even the post-2010 austerity drive was foreshadowed in Labour's spending plans after the 2008 crisis. Cameron's real failure was that, having achieved majority power after four years of coalition, there was pretty much nothing there that he or his party wanted to do.
'If you look at what's involved in making marmite and putting it in a little bottle and getting it to Tesco's you're likely to find various costs other than buying yeast and paying British people to stir big sticky vats.'
So the main raw material,, energy,logistics,packaging, A & P & selling all UK based costs ,what's the magic ingredient that jacks the price up by 10% ?
The magic ingredient seems to be Unilever having a monopoly on marmite.
Of course someone might want to make and sell Marmite but under a different name, you could name it Barmite or whatever.
Also there is a PPP poll of N.Hampshire out, but it's pre-debate so it's useless.
Goodnight.
Sainsbury's yeast extract? If they still make it. My mother tried to torment me with it as a child.
Only weirdos don't like yeast extract, lol! The own-brand yeast extracts labelled by Sainsbury, Tesco and Asda are all basically the same product, slightly different from Marmite in taste and consistency. Personally I prefer the own-brand version, but enjoy having Marmite for a change in hotels and so on. I can't remember the last day I didn't consume any.
Unilever brands include Comfort, Domestos, Dove, Flora, Knorr, Lipton, Hellman's, Persil, Sure, Surf, Ben and Jerry's, Carte d'Or, Cif, Cornetto, I can't believe it's not Butter, Impulse, Radox, Simple, Stork, Timotei, Wall's, Bovril, Colman's, Lyons, PG Tips and Pot Noodle.
In any case, if it's true that all Marmite in the world is produced in Burton upon Trent, does someone know where the own-brand versions are produced? Surely they must all come from the same place too?
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
Cameron's downfall was largely of his own making; Brown was more the victim of events. If we go back slightly further for comparison, Cameron is Eden to Brown's Neville Chamberlain.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
If Brexit is anything other than a huge success then Cameron will have to be below Eden. Although possibly Theresa May would be the one to deserve that ignoble position.
If Brexit is a huge success would you rank Cameron ahead of Blair?
They're very difficult to compare. Blair's premiership was a wasted opportunity, whereas Cameron's was an opportunistic waste, both punctuated by a huge error of judgement.
Some of Blair's legacy is negative (foreign affairs) and some has failed (changing labour) but he has shifted the narrative in what appears to be an enduring way in some areas - devolution, minimum wage, (arguably) our attitudes toward investing in public services.
Cameron rose to some short term challenges and handled the tactics of coalition well (from his own party's perspective) but it is hard to point to anything that historians will see as a lasting change? And the LibDems deserve the credit for some of the peripheral changes such as equal marriage, pension reform, and at least the start of more localism. Even the post-2010 austerity drive was foreshadowed in Labour's spending plans after the 2008 crisis. Cameron's real failure was that, having achieved majority power after four years of coalition, there was pretty much nothing there that he or his party wanted to do.
Its far too early to tell on Cameron. Your verdict on Blair's legacy would have looked very different a few months into Brown's premiership.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
Cameron's downfall was largely of his own making; Brown was more the victim of events. If we go back slightly further for comparison, Cameron is Eden to Brown's Neville Chamberlain.
Cameron won General Elections - which is more than Brown ever did....a non-trivial part of the PM's job....
Depending on how pro EU you are, I'd argue that if you quite liked the way things were in this country circa 2002-04, then I think you should rank Blair last. He allowed the EU to expand and then didn't put in transition controls on migration. He sowed the seeds of Brexit.
French Presidential update (now including Macron and new polls)
Probability of winning: Juppé 62% Le Pen 13.5 Sarkozy 12.5 Hollande 3 Montebourg 2.5 Marcon 6.5
There's been a big move away from Sarkozy in the Les Republicains primary polls. He's now more than 20 points behind Juppe in the second round. The problem Sarkozy has in the LR primaries is exactly the same as Le Pen has in the Presidential poll, she is extremely transfer unfriendly.
Cameron rose to some short term challenges and handled the tactics of coalition well (from his own party's perspective) but it is hard to point to anything that historians will see as a lasting change?
Perhaps his saving grace will be that if Brexit leads to a very significant and lasting revival in the Lib Dems' position, to the point where they become a party of government, his skill in pulling the coalition together will be seen as an important step in the road.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
If Brexit is anything other than a huge success then Cameron will have to be below Eden. Although possibly Theresa May would be the one to deserve that ignoble position.
If Brexit is a huge success would you rank Cameron ahead of Blair?
They're very difficult to compare. Blair's premiership was a wasted opportunity, whereas Cameron's was an opportunistic waste, both punctuated by a huge error of judgement.
Some of Blair's legacy is negative (foreign affairs) and some has failed (changing labour) but he has shifted the narrative in what appears to be an enduring way in some areas - devolution, minimum wage, (arguably) our attitudes toward investing in public services.
Cameron rose to some short term challenges and handled the tactics of coalition well (from his own party's perspective) but it is hard to point to anything that historians will see as a lasting change? And the LibDems deserve the credit for some of the peripheral changes such as equal marriage, pension reform, and at least the start of more localism. Even the post-2010 austerity drive was foreshadowed in Labour's spending plans after the 2008 crisis. Cameron's real failure was that, having achieved majority power after four years of coalition, there was pretty much nothing there that he or his party wanted to do.
Its far too early to tell on Cameron. Your verdict on Blair's legacy would have looked very different a few months into Brown's premiership.
Not so sure. When Blair went we could have listed out the potential legacy, but not known that a few (more) items would go sour. With Cameron (like Blair) the big blunder is already obvious, but I don't see much of a list of achievements to submit to history's verdict?. Particularly given the LibDems' rightful claim to most of the more obvious smaller items.
The best you can say about Cameron would be to start from the view that good politics should be about managing well rather than changing things for change's sake, and then argue that he kept the plates spinning through difficult times. Which takes us back to the moment when, potentially, all the plates fell off. But in reality he meddled with the NHS, with schools, and with welfare benefits, in ways that it is hard to see becoming of lasting benefit.
But the pace of history is such that, across six years, surely a PM would expect to have driven some big change that could be attached to their name?
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
As someone who got in - I'd agree with that entirely - I think I ended up being accepted because half way through the interview I thought 'sod this, they're not going to take me' - so I started arguing with them - I suspect they thought 'not brilliant, but at least it won't be dull!'.....
The best scenario I can see for future Cameron historians is this: Brexit fails (so at least he was a heroic failure) discrediting his party opponents, and corbynism can't win alone; eventually some sort of centre-left coalition comes to power that delivers voting reform and ushers in a more continental style of politics for the UK. In time historians might then look back at Cameron and say that his success in showing that coalition government could work paved the way for the end of Britian's adversarial majoritarian approach to government.
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
I applied to Cambridge in 1991 (25 years ago!), and went up in 1992. The Cambridge entrance exam was no more - which was one of the reasons I preferred it to Oxford - although you could still be asked to sit STEPs alongside your A-Levels.
The other reason I applied to Cambridge was that no-one from my school had ever gotten into before (loads had been to Oxford), and so I reckoned that if I was rejected I could just blame it on the irrational prejudice of the institution.
The best scenario I can see for future Cameron historians is this: Brexit fails (so at least he was a heroic failure) discrediting his party opponents, and corbynism can't win alone; eventually some sort of centre-left coalition comes to power that delivers voting reform and ushers in a more continental style of politics for the UK. In time historians might then look back at Cameron and say that his success in showing that coalition government could work paved the way in ending Britian's adversarial majoritarian approach to policies.
The problem with this scenario is that even then you would look back at the big decisions that Cameron flunked on constitutional reform and conclude that his role was minimal.
At the moment it's difficult to see his career as anything other than a tragedy, in which every small success was simply a necessary step on the way to his great failure.
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
I applied to Cambridge in 1991 (25 years ago!), and went up in 1992. The Cambridge entrance exam was no more - which was one of the reasons I preferred it to Oxford - although you could still be asked to sit STEPs alongside your A-Levels.
Ten years earlier my college was a trail-blazer in not using the entrance exam, but most Cambridge colleges still did (although you could see even then the way the wind was blowing; the last all-male colleges were falling as well).
The best scenario I can see for future Cameron historians is this: Brexit fails (so at least he was a heroic failure) discrediting his party opponents, and corbynism can't win alone; eventually some sort of centre-left coalition comes to power that delivers voting reform and ushers in a more continental style of politics for the UK. In time historians might then look back at Cameron and say that his success in showing that coalition government could work paved the way in ending Britian's adversarial majoritarian approach to policies.
The problem with this scenario is that even then you would look back at the big decisions that Cameron flunked on constitutional reform and conclude that his role was minimal.
At the moment it's difficult to see his career as anything other than a tragedy, in which every small success was simply a necessary step on the way to his great failure.
I agree; I was just trying out the other side of the argument for size. And dreaming a little about an eventually better world.
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
I applied to Cambridge in 1991 (25 years ago!), and went up in 1992. The Cambridge entrance exam was no more - which was one of the reasons I preferred it to Oxford - although you could still be asked to sit STEPs alongside your A-Levels.
Ten years earlier my college was a trail-blazer in not using the entrance exam, but most Cambridge colleges still did (although you could see even then the way the wind was blowing; the last all-male colleges were falling as well).
My college still had an entrance exam in the mid 90s and I would have assumed they still do. It must be subject specific.
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
I applied to Cambridge in 1991 (25 years ago!), and went up in 1992. The Cambridge entrance exam was no more - which was one of the reasons I preferred it to Oxford - although you could still be asked to sit STEPs alongside your A-Levels.
Ten years earlier my college was a trail-blazer in not using the entrance exam, but most Cambridge colleges still did (although you could see even then the way the wind was blowing; the last all-male colleges were falling as well).
My college still had an entrance exam in the mid 90s and I would have assumed they still do. It must be subject specific.
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
I applied to Cambridge in 1991 (25 years ago!), and went up in 1992. The Cambridge entrance exam was no more - which was one of the reasons I preferred it to Oxford - although you could still be asked to sit STEPs alongside your A-Levels.
Ten years earlier my college was a trail-blazer in not using the entrance exam, but most Cambridge colleges still did (although you could see even then the way the wind was blowing; the last all-male colleges were falling as well).
My college still had an entrance exam in the mid 90s and I would have assumed they still do. It must be subject specific.
More likely college-specific; admissions are decided by colleges rather than faculty.
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
By coincidence, just a few hours ago I was flipping through one of those "how to pass exam" guides which included an appendix on applying to Oxbridge. Its advice was that no-one should be put off by the common belief you have to be incredibly smart -- there is a huge amount of luck involved but the author's experience was that he'd met maybe 3 or 4 potential geniuses and hundreds of ordinary intelligent and hardworking students.
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
When I applied to Oxbridge thirty years ago the majority of applicants got there through oxbridge's own entrance exam, backed by an interview. Nowadays the majority is by interview leading to conditional offer based on A level results. In theory at least that should have levelled the playing field since the private schools always had an edge in tutoring people for Oxbridge's rather unusual examination.
I applied to Cambridge in 1991 (25 years ago!), and went up in 1992. The Cambridge entrance exam was no more - which was one of the reasons I preferred it to Oxford - although you could still be asked to sit STEPs alongside your A-Levels.
Ten years earlier my college was a trail-blazer in not using the entrance exam, but most Cambridge colleges still did (although you could see even then the way the wind was blowing; the last all-male colleges were falling as well).
My college still had an entrance exam in the mid 90s and I would have assumed they still do. It must be subject specific.
Comments
But 619 would still post my allegation, even if it's untrue.
Unless there is evidence like a video of the event or like in Bill Clinton's case sperm, the lack of witnesses, the lack of evidence and the expectations of false accusations all kill this story.
Seriously if the HIllary camp doesn't have another damaging tape they are in trouble.
You could say well its a serious allegation, he needs to hold him to account. But to me when I watched it, it had alarm bells ringing that they were setting it up I said it would go down something like this, although I thought it would be Monday or Tuesday.
What does it matter that cucumbers are straighter than we'd like, if the alternative is to have our Marmite wrenched out of our hands or treble in price? English mustard, Branston pickle - forget about it all if you're hell-bent on leaving the EU.
RROOFFLL!!
As I said if the Hillary camp don't have other damaging tapes they are in trouble.
That is all........
It isn't exactly a shock that the Clinton political machine is extremely strong and well organized. And it is been done the way one would think is the best way to do it, drip drip drip, get denials, add a bit more, drip drip drip...and always have something as a safety incase a debate goes bad.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-3023880/One-Midlands-factory-makes-world-s-Marmite-intrepid-reporter-loathes-stuff-astonished-there.html
Just think when the tape story broke I instantly realized it's significance, this story though is a bunch of crap.
The problem with these kinds of stories is that it debases any real story that might be true. (Think if the Times published Daily Sport stories)
Trump would feel safer tonight if that is the only thing Hillary's team got.
I can confirm rotten Hillary's 33,000 emails have been obtained. Word is it will be a "November surprise." Wow, something new every day!
The tape was a different thing because it was Trump himself talking about unusually controversial sexual things at a time of his marriage, that was no unsubstantiated allegation it was proof.
Paul Joseph Watson
Racist Hillary tape 100 times worse than Trump's?
Normally when it looks too good to be true, it isn't true. https://t.co/8soAsCmji9
There are millions of allegations about Trump over 40 years, some may be real some may be fake, if you try to publish them all within a short time frame like the media does everyone will get use to it and debase them as false simply because most of them are probably false, like the NYT story today.
Result:Teflon Don arrives.
But only one story stuck and that was the tape, because it was quality stuff.
'Old hack teaches young inexperienced leftie hack Faisal to do some research about Marmite.
Andrew Neil Retweeted
Fredd Says @FreddSays
1.Multi-part tweets don't work.2. Main ingredient is yeast sludge from breweries.Not imported.Will you ever do your bloody homework?@afneil '
Smart arse Faisal looking a right prat, maybe he can be a replacement for Milne.
Oliver D'Arcy
Looks like Clinton campaign chairman @johnpodesta has been hacked (or he’s suddenly decided to vote for Trump) https://t.co/QT257N7ar0
'If you look at what's involved in making marmite and putting it in a little bottle and getting it to Tesco's you're likely to find various costs other than buying yeast and paying British people to stir big sticky vats.'
So the main raw material,, energy,logistics,packaging, A & P & selling all UK based costs ,what's the magic ingredient that jacks the price up by 10% ?
Unilever in the Netherlands, Belgium & so on will by now have a serious problem with wholesalers and some supermarkets buying from the UK & not from them - Unilever UK is booming, Unilever Europe is not.
Having been in this situation, Unilever is doing the right thing - you have to price back up to recover the lost revenue - but I'd have done it as two 5% increases 6 weeks apart, not one 10% rise......
Of course someone might want to make and sell Marmite but under a different name, you could name it Barmite or whatever.
Also there is a PPP poll of N.Hampshire out, but it's pre-debate so it's useless.
Goodnight.
'No. Its 'cross border shipments'.
Unilever in the Netherlands, Belgium & so on will by now have a serious problem with wholesalers and some supermarkets buying from the UK & not from them - Unilever UK is booming, Unilever Europe is not.
Having been in this situation, Unilever is doing the right thing - you have to price back up to recover the lost revenue - but I'd have done it as two 5% increases 6 weeks apart, not one 10% rise......'
If that's true,& it's a big if, then it is a potential breech of EU competition regulations
Competition rules - EUROPA - Your Europe - Business
europa.eu/youreurope/business/sell-abroad/free-competition/index_en.htm
EUROPA - European rules ensuring fair competition between companies – penalties for illegal market practices like price fixing and market sharing.
(I really haven't followed it, so apologies if barking entirely up a different kettle of fish)
Unilever can choose to sell Marmite at what ever price they like - if the market won't bear it, they'll have to rethink - but we don't have price controls.....
Probability of winning:
Juppé 62%
Le Pen 13.5
Sarkozy 12.5
Hollande 3
Montebourg 2.5
Marcon 6.5
'I've not been following this debate, but is all the barley UK sourced, and the hops and so on? If the cost of producing the beer goes up, marmite will too?'
I don't think beer prices have gone up 10% in the past 3 months,however,the key ingredient for Marmite is apparently waste from the brewing process.
Going to be interesting to hear Unilever's explanation a 10% price hike to subsidize wholesalers in other countries is going to take some explaining.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/why-most-important-person-british-politics-marine-le-pen
Probably Unilever can just do what they want- they have too many popular brands in too many sectors?
who knows how much is related to brexit, and how much opportunism/profiteering/free market economics...?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835455/Unilever-negatively-impacted-UK-leave-EU-Ten-days-Brexit-company-s-boss-three-predecessors-told-staff-crucial-stay-Europe.html
The former Conservative leader came third from bottom in the table of post-war leaders, faring worse than Labour's Gordon Brown, in the survey of academics who specialise in politics and contemporary British history.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-13/david-cameron-rated-one-of-the-worst-prime-ministers-in-modern-history/
Harsh, I'd say. First term was largely successful - and he won a second - unlike Brown or Heath......
my brother pointed me to this footage of amazon/kiva stock picking robots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quWFjS3Ci7A
where is our promised life of leisure, given all this automation?
"I think I'd be rather good at it"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835226/President-Obama-mocks-far-right-conspiracy-theorist-called-demon-smells-like-sulfur-jokingly-sniffing-arm.html
'League of their Own' - Attlee & Thatcher
'Pretty Good' - Blair & Wilson (multiple election wins)
'Middling' - Churchill, Macmillan, Major, Heath, Cameron (won elections, or for Heath a 'big win')
Poor - Brown, Eden, Doulas Home, Callaghan (in fairness to Callaghan he was dealt an atrocious hand)
I guess the question on Cameron (which we're many years away from being able to answer) is does his Brexit "failure' (sic) outweigh his other successes.....
what are Cameron's successes? Didn't break anything too badly during the first term when Nick was helping him?
- Creating and running a stable coalition government that went to full term (recall how this site was thick with 'Govt will fall by October 2010' predictions)
- Getting the economy moving and starting to bring the public finances under control
- SindyRef & AV
- Winning a second term.
Of course if BREXIT is the unmitigated disaster the remoaners wish for would have us believe, then all of these are overshadowed - but I think that is what has weighed heavily in the academics' estimation of him.....
it all adds up to "utterly unremarkable, apart from breaking the EU"
Arguably Attlee's successes were failures, but he gets a pass because his government left the mark it chose on the country.
Matt McDermott @mattmfm
New Fox News battleground map has Clinton at 307 electoral votes with Utah and Arizona as tossup states. pic.twitter.com/VKxQdANaC8
(((Harry Enten)))
(((Harry Enten))) – Verified account @ForecasterEnten
@mattmfm Yikes.
Good night.
These are facts: 1. The man said it on tape. 2. He mentionesd multiple women.
http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-attacked-people-writer/#pt0-832950
http://thequietus.com/articles/21112-depeche-mode-announce-new-album
As I remember from business school many years ago, optimal pricing does not depend solely on working from costs (although many firms have a rough margin in mind as a rule of thumb, in order to ensure profitability), but also on the price elasticity of the product and so what people will pay. The cost side is also not straightforward as the cost of production per jar will vary depending on the amount produced.
If, as looks likely, the cost of food and drink is going up significantly, it probably makes sense, in the short term at least, for this to be spread relatively evenly over all products, taking a hit in the margin of those where costs have risen more sharply and making more money on those, like marmite, where it hasn't. The alternative - pricing solely from cost - could significantly change people's purchasing patterns - crudely a surge in domestically produced items like Marmite at the expense of foreign food - which would change the costs of production and may also be demand that they cannot meet (without talking to suppliers and their asssesing factory and staffing changes etc.).
I suspect the potential complexity of changes in purchasing habits and of costs of production are sufficiently wide-ranging that Unilver would rather take the simpler route in the short term and worry about the difficult stuff once we see where the £ eventually settles.
All this makes sense from the producers' and retailers' point of view, but has of course handed the press a great story and stick to beat them with....
The post-war league table of Prime Ministers
1. Clement Atlee, Labour 1945-51
2. Margaret Thatcher, Conservative 1979-90
3. Tony Blair, Labour 1997-2007
4. Harold Macmillan, Conservative 1857-63
5. Harold Wilson, Labour 1964-70 and 74-76
6. John Major, Conservative 1990-97
7. Winston Churchill, Conservative 1951-55
8. James Callaghan, Labour 1976-79
9. Edward Heath, Conservative 1970-74
10. Gordon Brown, Labour 2007-10
11. David Cameron, Conservative 2010-16
12. Alec Douglas-Home, Conservative 1963-64
13. Anthony Eden, Conservative 1955-57
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-worst-prime-minister-ranking-third-since-ww2-a7358171.html
I know SuperMac was old....
I'd say the list was pretty fair - you can argue the toss between Attlee & Thatcher, but clearly both belong in the top 2.
Blair no 3? I guess the unfolding Middle East situation may move that down over time.....and despite Brexit, I wouldn't rank Brown ahead of Cameron.....
Three old Etonians at the bottom of the list, though Supermac at number 4 holds up the honour of the old school.
Cameron rose to some short term challenges and handled the tactics of coalition well (from his own party's perspective) but it is hard to point to anything that historians will see as a lasting change? And the LibDems deserve the credit for some of the peripheral changes such as equal marriage, pension reform, reducing tax for lower earners, and at least the start of some localism. Even the post-2010 austerity drive was foreshadowed in Labour's spending plans after the 2008 crisis. Cameron's real failure was that, having achieved majority power after four years of coalition, there was pretty much nothing there that he or his party wanted to do.
Unilever brands include Comfort, Domestos, Dove, Flora, Knorr, Lipton, Hellman's, Persil, Sure, Surf, Ben and Jerry's, Carte d'Or, Cif, Cornetto, I can't believe it's not Butter, Impulse, Radox, Simple, Stork, Timotei, Wall's, Bovril, Colman's, Lyons, PG Tips and Pot Noodle.
In any case, if it's true that all Marmite in the world is produced in Burton upon Trent, does someone know where the own-brand versions are produced? Surely they must all come from the same place too?
The Sutton Trust found that more than 40% of state secondary school teachers rarely or never advised their brightest pupils to apply to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge – in some cases because they thought their students would be unhappy there
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/13/oxbridge-fails-persuade-state-teachers-send-pupils-interview
Forty years ago my state secondary school was very supportive in getting me to apply to Oxford.....
The best you can say about Cameron would be to start from the view that good politics should be about managing well rather than changing things for change's sake, and then argue that he kept the plates spinning through difficult times. Which takes us back to the moment when, potentially, all the plates fell off. But in reality he meddled with the NHS, with schools, and with welfare benefits, in ways that it is hard to see becoming of lasting benefit.
But the pace of history is such that, across six years, surely a PM would expect to have driven some big change that could be attached to their name?
He has a point, I think. Oxbridge seems out of reach for many; the flip side of this is that its graduates benefit enormously in the jobs market from the same inflated reputation.
"Saudi Arabia!"
The other reason I applied to Cambridge was that no-one from my school had ever gotten into before (loads had been to Oxford), and so I reckoned that if I was rejected I could just blame it on the irrational prejudice of the institution.
At the moment it's difficult to see his career as anything other than a tragedy, in which every small success was simply a necessary step on the way to his great failure.
Keep handy
1920 Cox 34.1%
1936 Landon 36.5%
1992 Bush 37.4%
1972 McGovern 37.5%
1964 Goldwater 38.4%
1984 Mondale 40.6%
1928 Smith 40.8%