politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s a good case for the man with NHS lapel badge
Comments
-
Not a huge amount of approval for Johnson in this focus group, which incidentally rated Nigel Farage:Yorkcity said:
Good afternoon Morris.To be honest , I am with HYFUD regarding Boris .In grand Prix terms Boris is a winner and popular , a bit like James Hunt back in 1976.I would never underestimate him.Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
Sensible PB articles for a happier bank balance
He [Johnson] comes across as being really silly doesn't he? But some of the things he says are actually quite good.
I think it would be worrying if Boris Johnson were Prime Minister considering that we got Trump on the other side of the Atlantic
I'd vote for Boris Johnson, because at least he's an idiot and we can have a laugh. I know he's probably completely out of touch and he is a bit of a buffoon. But he is quite smart, and I would much prefer him than anyone else I can think of.
Theresa May actually comes out a bit better:
I just don't like this Prime Minister. I just think she's totally out of touch with people. Just terrible! She just comes across as weirdly sinister.
I actually don’t mind Theresa May; I think she's actually quite nice.
She's been better than I thought she'd be. I thought she'd be the same old as Maggie Thatcher.
I think at least with Theresa May at least she was willing to take the job on. She seems to have a bit of backbone, don't she?
She's not the best of leaders but then again there's not that much around.0 -
If the EU decides that passporting is not available to our financial sector, would that not be reciprocated, denying access to their financial firms here?Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies.0 -
NoRichard_Nabavi said:Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?
The only thing she has been clear about is that she doesn't like any of the available options.
In restaurant, stating you don't like anything on the menu does not equate to clarity about what you might finally be eating (other than nothing, perhaps)0 -
Jammy bugger. It were 5p a tooth in my day. </yorkshire>Andy_Cooke said:
She's bloody dangerous, is what she is.Charles said:FPT
The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow148grss said:
The same goes for an infinite number of "all powerful" beings. If the "all powerful" tooth fairy can make us believe they don't exist, they might exist.TheJezziah said:
I can't actually understand a hard atheism stance, because if we take for example an explanation I heard for dinosaur fossils that God put them there to test our faith, because dinosaurs conflicted with his view of the age of the Earth.
If we apply that logic of an all powerful God that is prepared to trick people into believing things that aren't true then we cannot trust absolutely anything all our science could be a trick by God which he maintains by making all the things we use it for work as well so anything you used to disprove God could simply be a trick by God. Far fetched doesn't matter only possible and with an all powerful God anything is possible.
Things that we have no positive evidence for are equivalent to things that don't exist. Things that we can't know exist (the argument that god is unknowable to to mind of man) are practically equivalent to a thing that does not exist. If you cannot present evidence for a thing, why should I believe said thing? The argument of "we have no answer for x, therefore I propose a y that means x" just begs the question of "we have no answer for y". If you can have uncaused causes (which maybe we can), why can't the universe be such a thing? If you can't have uncaused causes, what caused god?
I once slept with my head under the pillow and woke up toothless. The thirty-two pound coins piled up beside me were scant consolation.0 -
Me personally no. Realistically, or semi realistically I could pick Mogg for his views, though he does come across very well, difficult to dislike personality. Gove seems hugely disliked, more so than maybe just left wingers, whether he could turn this around or not though I don't know.TOPPING said:
Would Corbyn supporters love him to be PM in the same way as Cons supporters wanted Corbyn to be leader of the Labour Party?
Boris is a bit of a wild card, could do well for the Tories and actually be a good pick, does have some very good qualities (in terms of vote winning at least) equally could help drive many away and into the arms of Labour, has that marmite quality. Though that did wonders for Labour with Corbyn so maybe it would do well again.
I don't think there is an obvious stand out terrible candidate to my mind, many with flaws that could be overcome.
Although Andrea Leadsome did just come to mind, again not stand out a whole lot worse than the rest but doesn't spring to my mind as a good pick.
Aside from Boris who could maybe go a number of ways I'd be more confident with Corbyn facing these than Hunt.0 -
Except that Europe isn't a restaurant and Europe isn't a la carte.Scott_P said:
NoRichard_Nabavi said:Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?
The only thing she has been clear about is that she doesn't like any of the available options.
In restaurant, stating you don't like anything on the menu does not equate to clarity about what you might finally be eating (other than nothing, perhaps)
Besides if you call a restaurant and say you'd like to regularly place an order for 100 people for many thousands of pounds a time but you don't want what's on the menu then many restaurants will happily do something off-menu for you.
Once we leave we will be the EU's #1 customer. Find a restaurant that doesn't try to look after their most valuable customer.0 -
That's double what I got (the traditional 6d. 2 1/2p after 1971.rpjs said:
Jammy bugger. It were 5p a tooth in my day. </yorkshire>Andy_Cooke said:
She's bloody dangerous, is what she is.Charles said:FPT
The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow148grss said:
The same goes for an infinite number of "all powerful" beings. If the "all powerful" tooth fairy can make us believe they don't exist, they might exist.TheJezziah said:
I can't actually understand a hard atheism stance, because if we take for example an explanation I heard for dinosaur fossils that God put them there to test our faith, because dinosaurs conflicted with his view of the age of the Earth.
If we apply that logic of an all powerful God that is prepared to trick people into believing things that aren't true then we cannot trust absolutely anything all our science could be a trick by God which he maintains by making all the things we use it for work as well so anything you used to disprove God could simply be a trick by God. Far fetched doesn't matter only possible and with an all powerful God anything is possible.
Things that we have no positive evidence for are equivalent to things that don't exist. Things that we can't know exist (the argument that god is unknowable to to mind of man) are practically equivalent to a thing that does not exist. If you cannot present evidence for a thing, why should I believe said thing? The argument of "we have no answer for x, therefore I propose a y that means x" just begs the question of "we have no answer for y". If you can have uncaused causes (which maybe we can), why can't the universe be such a thing? If you can't have uncaused causes, what caused god?
I once slept with my head under the pillow and woke up toothless. The thirty-two pound coins piled up beside me were scant consolation.0 -
We still have the Polish PM saying that we should have to pay to have unrestricted access to a market with whom we run an £82bn deficit. Talking about having your cake and eat it, jeez.Richard_Nabavi said:
Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?FF43 said:There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.
Moving on to the second point, how close will the final deal be to the clear position she has laid out as her goal? Well, as I said before, it's a negotiation, and we simply don't know what the final deal will be. There is not a single person on this earth who knows, that's the nature of a complex negotiation, especially when we are negotiating through Barnier and the Commission with 27 other countries. At the moment, I would say that it is extremely likely that we will get a comprehensive deal on goods. So the 'Canada' bit is, if not in the bag, at least the default worst-case outcome.
Will there be any 'Plus' or 'Plus Plus'? Hard to say, but I'm fairly optimistic. Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies. But neither I, nor Theresa May, nor anyone else, can provide perfect clarity. That's just the inevitable position when you enter a complex negotiation.
What's more, the lack of clarity is entirely on the EU side. What we want is clear. What they want isn't.0 -
To be clear (someone has to be), I don't agree Mrs May has been clear. She has deliberately obfuscated to serve her own purposes. I actually have some sympathy for her position. Brexit is a poisoned chalice. Holding off from drinking seems a good short term option. I also didn't shift to a different point.Richard_Nabavi said:
Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?FF43 said:There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.
Moving on to the second point, how close will the final deal be to the clear position she has laid out as her goal? Well, as I said before, it's a negotiation, and we simply don't know what the final deal will be. There is not a single person on this earth who knows, that's the nature of a complex negotiation, especially when we are negotiating through Barnier and the Commission with 27 other countries. At the moment, I would say that it is extremely likely that we will get a comprehensive deal on goods. So the 'Canada' bit is, if not in the bag, at least the default worst-case outcome.
Will there be any 'Plus' or 'Plus Plus'? Hard to say, but I'm fairly optimistic. Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies. But neither I, nor Theresa May, nor anyone else, can provide perfect clarity. That's just the inevitable position when you enter a complex negotiation.
What's more, the lack of clarity is entirely on the EU side. What we want is clear. What they want isn't.0 -
Link?Philip_Thompson said:Once we leave we will be the EU's #1 customer.
0 -
Well, quite. That point won't have escaped the CEOs of Deutsche Bank or BNP Paribas.geoffw said:
If the EU decides that passporting is not available to our financial sector, would that not be reciprocated, denying access to their financial firms here?Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies.0 -
Someone had better tell her that then...HYUFD said:
Hillary's political career ended at the last presidential electionPeterMannion said:
And Hillary...HYUFD said:
Good news for Biden, Sanders and Warren thenTissue_Price said:Fun while it lasted.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/9565241780306862080 -
https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-euScott_P said:
Link?Philip_Thompson said:Once we leave we will be the EU's #1 customer.
0 -
Never believe in anything political until its been officially denied?Tissue_Price said:Fun while it lasted.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/9565241780306862080 -
She hasn't obfuscated at all. At worst she's asking for something our EU friends won't accept, or won't accept in full. That's up to them, but it's not obfuscation on her part. What's more we don't know whether they'll accept it; that's kinda the idea of negotiating.FF43 said:To be clear (someone has to be), I don't agree Mrs May has been clear. She has deliberately obfuscated to serve her own purposes. I actually have some sympathy for her position. Brexit is a poisoned chalice. Holding off from drinking seems a good short term option. I also didn't shift to a different point.
0 -
The icing on the cake: Poland GETS PAID to have access to the single market!DavidL said:
We still have the Polish PM saying that we should have to pay to have unrestricted access to a market with whom we run an £82bn deficit. Talking about having your cake and eat it, jeez.Richard_Nabavi said:
Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?FF43 said:There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.
Moving on to the second point, how close will the final deal be to the clear position she has laid out as her goal? Well, as I said before, it's a negotiation, and we simply don't know what the final deal will be. There is not a single person on this earth who knows, that's the nature of a complex negotiation, especially when we are negotiating through Barnier and the Commission with 27 other countries. At the moment, I would say that it is extremely likely that we will get a comprehensive deal on goods. So the 'Canada' bit is, if not in the bag, at least the default worst-case outcome.
Will there be any 'Plus' or 'Plus Plus'? Hard to say, but I'm fairly optimistic. Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies. But neither I, nor Theresa May, nor anyone else, can provide perfect clarity. That's just the inevitable position when you enter a complex negotiation.
What's more, the lack of clarity is entirely on the EU side. What we want is clear. What they want isn't.0 -
This is brilliant if you're interested in US gerrymandering. Mandating compact districts (ideally algorithmic) would be a worthwhile constitutional amendment, imo.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/#Compact0 -
Doesn't prove it was the tooth fairy, the whole thing could be an elaborate hoax perpetrated by SantaCharles said:
The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow0 -
Well yes, I can see the attraction from their perspective. From ours, not so much.SandyRentool said:
The icing on the cake: Poland GETS PAID to have access to the single market!DavidL said:
We still have the Polish PM saying that we should have to pay to have unrestricted access to a market with whom we run an £82bn deficit. Talking about having your cake and eat it, jeez.Richard_Nabavi said:
Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?FF43 said:There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.
Moving on to the second point, how close will the final deal be to the clear position she has laid out as her goal? Well, as I said before, it's a negotiation, and we simply don't know what the final deal will be. There is not a single person on this earth who knows, that's the nature of a complex negotiation, especially when we are negotiating through Barnier and the Commission with 27 other countries. At the moment, I would say that it is extremely likely that we will get a comprehensive deal on goods. So the 'Canada' bit is, if not in the bag, at least the default worst-case outcome.
Will there be any 'Plus' or 'Plus Plus'? Hard to say, but I'm fairly optimistic. Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies. But neither I, nor Theresa May, nor anyone else, can provide perfect clarity. That's just the inevitable position when you enter a complex negotiation.
What's more, the lack of clarity is entirely on the EU side. What we want is clear. What they want isn't.0 -
So, the Tories are now the party of the Magic Money Tree?Philip_Thompson said:
Simple. Pledge to do it in his leadership campaign, don't call an early election and by 2022 ACTUALLY DO IT.Danny565 said:
Do you not think people would ask "why would we believe you now if you've not done it in the [x] years you've been in government"?Philip_Thompson said:
If Hunt pledges £350mn a week for the NHS he would win lots of votes.HYUFD said:
Would you consider voting for him though? The ideal Tory leader would hold all the 2017 Tory vote and won over some voters who voted Labour or LD last time toorkrkrk said:Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.
He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.
When he seeks re-election in 2022 he'd have a record to be believed. He can say we have delivered £350mn more like I promised and next term we will [insert pledge here].0 -
No, tue BoE hast guaranteed their access to London, at least during any transition period, I think the government are minded to keep that open ended. Why would they turn down business?Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. That point won't have escaped the CEOs of Deutsche Bank or BNP Paribas.geoffw said:
If the EU decides that passporting is not available to our financial sector, would that not be reciprocated, denying access to their financial firms here?Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies.
The issue will be on their side, they can't on the one hand say London can't clear EUR denominated trades, but let NYC do it, under MFN rules they have to let both of us do it or neither. If they try and stop NYC the Trump will lock every EU bank out of the US market overnight. The idea that the EU can single out the UK for punishment without pissing off the rest of the world is completely stupid. In addition they would introduce a whole bunch of cracks in a system that works with cross border transactions if any of a chain is EUR denominated.
They are out on their own with this, London clears more than just EUR and GBP trades, the other countries don't care, just the French because they are basically jealous of London's success.0 -
No. With growth, inflation and the Brexit Dividend its entirely possible.logical_song said:
So, the Tories are now the party of the Magic Money Tree?Philip_Thompson said:
Simple. Pledge to do it in his leadership campaign, don't call an early election and by 2022 ACTUALLY DO IT.Danny565 said:
Do you not think people would ask "why would we believe you now if you've not done it in the [x] years you've been in government"?Philip_Thompson said:
If Hunt pledges £350mn a week for the NHS he would win lots of votes.HYUFD said:
Would you consider voting for him though? The ideal Tory leader would hold all the 2017 Tory vote and won over some voters who voted Labour or LD last time toorkrkrk said:Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.
He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.
When he seeks re-election in 2022 he'd have a record to be believed. He can say we have delivered £350mn more like I promised and next term we will [insert pledge here].
EDIT: You'll need to control spending in other departments of course. That's the difference between Tories and the fantasists.0 -
My theory is that leaders are successful when they sound and feel like your boss. There are exceptions - Donald Trump is a clear one. David Cameron certainly could be be your boss - there's something of the David Brent about him. Nicola Sturgeon is another - she could have come out of SNP central casting as a middle-Scotland middle manager. Theresa May is conceivably your boss. Moving onto the prospects, Jeremy Corbyn isn't your boss, neither is Boris Johnson. Jeremy Hunt is plausible.TheJezziah said:
@TOPPING: Would Corbyn supporters love him to be PM in the same way as Cons supporters wanted Corbyn to be leader of the Labour Party?
Me personally no. Realistically, or semi realistically I could pick Mogg for his views, though he does come across very well, difficult to dislike personality. Gove seems hugely disliked, more so than maybe just left wingers, whether he could turn this around or not though I don't know.
Boris is a bit of a wild card, could do well for the Tories and actually be a good pick, does have some very good qualities (in terms of vote winning at least) equally could help drive many away and into the arms of Labour, has that marmite quality. Though that did wonders for Labour with Corbyn so maybe it would do well again.
I don't think there is an obvious stand out terrible candidate to my mind, many with flaws that could be overcome.
Although Andrea Leadsome did just come to mind, again not stand out a whole lot worse than the rest but doesn't spring to my mind as a good pick.
Aside from Boris who could maybe go a number of ways I'd be more confident with Corbyn facing these than Hunt.
0 -
With good cause:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. City, Boris is conceited, brimming with self-regard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3jqS_FOXX40 -
By contrast, the Finns (net contributors) are saying that EU spending will have to be cut to make up the shortfall when we leave.DavidL said:
We still have the Polish PM saying that we should have to pay to have unrestricted access to a market with whom we run an £82bn deficit. Talking about having your cake and eat it, jeez.Richard_Nabavi said:
Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?FF43 said:There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.
Moving on to the second point, how close will the final deal be to the clear position she has laid out as her goal? Well, as I said before, it's a negotiation, and we simply don't know what the final deal will be. There is not a single person on this earth who knows, that's the nature of a complex negotiation, especially when we are negotiating through Barnier and the Commission with 27 other countries. At the moment, I would say that it is extremely likely that we will get a comprehensive deal on goods. So the 'Canada' bit is, if not in the bag, at least the default worst-case outcome.
Will there be any 'Plus' or 'Plus Plus'? Hard to say, but I'm fairly optimistic. Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies. But neither I, nor Theresa May, nor anyone else, can provide perfect clarity. That's just the inevitable position when you enter a complex negotiation.
What's more, the lack of clarity is entirely on the EU side. What we want is clear. What they want isn't.0 -
Mr. Mark, a perfect example of blind luck being attributed to skill.0
-
A cynic might suggest there was a connection between those 2 positions.geoffw said:
By contrast, the Finns (net contributors) are saying that EU spending will have to be cut to make up the shortfall when we leave.DavidL said:
We still have the Polish PM saying that we should have to pay to have unrestricted access to a market with whom we run an £82bn deficit. Talking about having your cake and eat it, jeez.Richard_Nabavi said:
Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?FF43 said:There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.
Moving on to the second point, how close will the final deal be to the clear position she has laid out as her goal? Well, as I said before, it's a negotiation, and we simply don't know what the final deal will be. There is not a single person on this earth who knows, that's the nature of a complex negotiation, especially when we are negotiating through Barnier and the Commission with 27 other countries. At the moment, I would say that it is extremely likely that we will get a comprehensive deal on goods. So the 'Canada' bit is, if not in the bag, at least the default worst-case outcome.
Will there be any 'Plus' or 'Plus Plus'? Hard to say, but I'm fairly optimistic. Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies. But neither I, nor Theresa May, nor anyone else, can provide perfect clarity. That's just the inevitable position when you enter a complex negotiation.
What's more, the lack of clarity is entirely on the EU side. What we want is clear. What they want isn't.0 -
Or editing. We didn't see the 76 earlier examples, which included knocking a small child into the Thames and demolishing one pillar of Tower Bridge....!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Mark, a perfect example of blind luck being attributed to skill.
EDIT: But what was it that Napoleon said about lucky generals....?0 -
Mr. Mark, quite. Never underestimate the power of editing.0
-
You may be right but I wonder if that was the rule rather than still being the rule, you could argue a chain of boss types Major, Blair and Cameron (little bit of Brown but no election win) which is probably why David Milliband was seen as the favourite to take over Labour. A lot on the left have possibly rejected this type, maybe some of the non voters that were recently attracted in as well, whether voters have overall is another question, or could this is maybe another generation thing with older voters preferring boss types.0
-
-
Yes, I agree with most of that. That's why I think that when push comes to shove we'll get most of the 'Plus' we want in addition to a Canada-style deal. Of course it will have to be fudged in some way for domestic purposes so that all sides can claim victory, but no one ever accused the EU Commission of a lack of ability to fudge things.MaxPB said:
No, tue BoE hast guaranteed their access to London, at least during any transition period, I think the government are minded to keep that open ended. Why would they turn down business?Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. That point won't have escaped the CEOs of Deutsche Bank or BNP Paribas.geoffw said:
If the EU decides that passporting is not available to our financial sector, would that not be reciprocated, denying access to their financial firms here?Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies.
The issue will be on their side, they can't on the one hand say London can't clear EUR denominated trades, but let NYC do it, under MFN rules they have to let both of us do it or neither. If they try and stop NYC the Trump will lock every EU bank out of the US market overnight. The idea that the EU can single out the UK for punishment without pissing off the rest of the world is completely stupid. In addition they would introduce a whole bunch of cracks in a system that works with cross border transactions if any of a chain is EUR denominated.
They are out on their own with this, London clears more than just EUR and GBP trades, the other countries don't care, just the French because they are basically jealous of London's success.0 -
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
Passporting allows institutions outside your territory to offer business inside it on the same terms and with the same protections. A lack of passporting isn't the same as being barred. It's just that your internally based competition has advantages that may be critical ones to your foreign market, that you don't have from the outside.MaxPB said:
No, tue BoE hast guaranteed their access to London, at least during any transition period, I think the government are minded to keep that open ended. Why would they turn down business?Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. That point won't have escaped the CEOs of Deutsche Bank or BNP Paribas.geoffw said:
If the EU decides that passporting is not available to our financial sector, would that not be reciprocated, denying access to their financial firms here?Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies.
The issue will be on their side, they can't on the one hand say London can't clear EUR denominated trades, but let NYC do it, under MFN rules they have to let both of us do it or neither. If they try and stop NYC the Trump will lock every EU bank out of the US market overnight. The idea that the EU can single out the UK for punishment without pissing off the rest of the world is completely stupid. In addition they would introduce a whole bunch of cracks in a system that works with cross border transactions if any of a chain is EUR denominated.
They are out on their own with this, London clears more than just EUR and GBP trades, the other countries don't care, just the French because they are basically jealous of London's success.0 -
Just a shame that he exemplifies why both of those qualities are not always a blessing.HYUFD said:
Say what you like about Boris at least he has charisma and dynamismstevef said:
That lonhg honeymoon would only be useful if an election were imminent. But one is not due for a four and a half years. The honeymoon would have worn off by then. Of course Corbyn supporters would love him to be PM. They imagine that he will help their man.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes. Hunt should be the Tory the Left fears. He would be the closest the Tories get to their own Tony Blair (Dave tried it but could never quite shake off a slightly supercilious air of high breeding). With his dimply smile and pert chin, Hunt is the antidote to the stony, hard-faced politics of May, Trump, Farage etc.AlastairMeeks said:Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.
He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.
Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.
For as long as Corbyn is around the Tories are guaranteed power But AaHunt premiership would result in another hung parliament with the Tories again the largest party, as now, but without a majority.If the Tories want a majority, they need someone with a dynamic vision and style.0 -
That's where the debate is or should be: pointless damage limitation versus meaningful destruction.williamglenn said:0 -
The biggest issue is EUR clearing, offering services will just be done via a local subsidiary in Dublin with 20 employees. Their stance on clearing is not consistent with accepted trade rules, at least if they only intend to block London and not NYC/Singapore.FF43 said:
Passporting allows institutions outside your territory to offer business inside it on the same terms and with the same protections. A lack of passporting isn't the same as being barred. It's just that your internally based competition has advantages that may be critical ones to your foreign market, that you don't have from the outside.MaxPB said:
No, tue BoE hast guaranteed their access to London, at least during any transition period, I think the government are minded to keep that open ended. Why would they turn down business?Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. That point won't have escaped the CEOs of Deutsche Bank or BNP Paribas.geoffw said:
If the EU decides that passporting is not available to our financial sector, would that not be reciprocated, denying access to their financial firms here?Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies.
The issue will be on their side, they can't on the one hand say London can't clear EUR denominated trades, but let NYC do it, under MFN rules they have to let both of us do it or neither. If they try and stop NYC the Trump will lock every EU bank out of the US market overnight. The idea that the EU can single out the UK for punishment without pissing off the rest of the world is completely stupid. In addition they would introduce a whole bunch of cracks in a system that works with cross border transactions if any of a chain is EUR denominated.
They are out on their own with this, London clears more than just EUR and GBP trades, the other countries don't care, just the French because they are basically jealous of London's success.0 -
Monte Carlo Rally: saw a tip online. Got on it late, 29 (with boost) on Ladbrokes rather than 51, but backed Bouffier a little anyway. Sadly, each way not available. Race is 25-28 January.
Anyway, we'll see how it turns out and I thought I'd mention it. So I have.0 -
"Management of decline" could be a rallying cry for the dries with its echos of the 60s and 70s about it.0
-
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
duplicate sorry
0 -
The EU tends to be hard-edged on external relations but fudge internally. That's because they are (a) legalistic and (b) operate by consensus and you can't achieve consensus between 27/28 countries without helpings of fudge. The outcome will either be a very locked down treaty running to a thousand pages plus of requirements (Canada) or submission to their system of laws (Norway).Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, I agree with most of that. That's why I think that when push comes to shove we'll get most of the 'Plus' we want in addition to a Canada-style deal. Of course it will have to be fudged in some way for domestic purposes so that all sides can claim victory, but no one ever accused the EU Commission of a lack of ability to fudge things.MaxPB said:
No, tue BoE hast guaranteed their access to London, at least during any transition period, I think the government are minded to keep that open ended. Why would they turn down business?Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. That point won't have escaped the CEOs of Deutsche Bank or BNP Paribas.geoffw said:
If the EU decides that passporting is not available to our financial sector, would that not be reciprocated, denying access to their financial firms here?Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies.
The issue will be on their side, they can't on the one hand say London can't clear EUR denominated trades, but let NYC do it, under MFN rules they have to let both of us do it or neither. If they try and stop NYC the Trump will lock every EU bank out of the US market overnight. The idea that the EU can single out the UK for punishment without pissing off the rest of the world is completely stupid. In addition they would introduce a whole bunch of cracks in a system that works with cross border transactions if any of a chain is EUR denominated.
They are out on their own with this, London clears more than just EUR and GBP trades, the other countries don't care, just the French because they are basically jealous of London's success.0 -
It is hard to figure out which is the greater vote loser in the short/medium term....FF43 said:
That's where the debate is or should be: pointless damage limitation versus meaningful destruction.williamglenn said:0 -
No one who models himself on an Edwardian gentleman would split an infinitive like that. Rees-Mogg is a fraud!williamglenn said:0 -
Perhaps he's consciously playing a role in guiding the Tory party towards an exit from Brexit. If the Brexit that was sold to people is not deliverable, why accept managed decline or vassal status when we could just be honest about it and reverse course.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
You don't really think that's what Rees-Mogg is advocating? (Actually, maybe you do. To be clear: he's not).williamglenn said:
Perhaps he's consciously playing a role in guiding the Tory party towards an exit from Brexit. If the Brexit that was sold to people is not deliverable, why accept managed decline or vassal status when we could just be honest about it and reverse course.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
He's smart. He just doesn't do the politics of the 21st century.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
I think we have reach peak Brexit delusion in the notion that the Moggster might advocate Remain!david_herdson said:
You don't really think that's what Rees-Mogg is advocating? (Actually, maybe you do. To be clear: he's not).williamglenn said:
Perhaps he's consciously playing a role in guiding the Tory party towards an exit from Brexit. If the Brexit that was sold to people is not deliverable, why accept managed decline or vassal status when we could just be honest about it and reverse course.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
On that we disagree. I mean, Rees-Mogg knows what he is doing.david_herdson said:
He's smart. He just doesn't do the politics of the 21st century.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
If anything could clearly and succinctly show that williamglenn isn't to be taken seriously it is that.SandyRentool said:
I think we have reach peak Brexit delusion in the notion that the Moggster might advocate Remain!david_herdson said:
You don't really think that's what Rees-Mogg is advocating? (Actually, maybe you do. To be clear: he's not).williamglenn said:
Perhaps he's consciously playing a role in guiding the Tory party towards an exit from Brexit. If the Brexit that was sold to people is not deliverable, why accept managed decline or vassal status when we could just be honest about it and reverse course.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
-
No. Brexit is above all an exercise in rhetoric. Leavers (mostly - and these are the people Rees-Mogg is pitching to) care about the idea of sovereignty. They have no interest in "delivery" or "status" or making choices between different concrete outcomes, which is what sovereignty means, of course*. So when he says the government's tone must change he means it literally. The tone matters; the outcomes don't.williamglenn said:
Perhaps he's consciously playing a role in guiding the Tory party towards an exit from Brexit. If the Brexit that was sold to people is not deliverable, why accept managed decline or vassal status when we could just be honest about it and reverse course.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:
* Edit. Which is why Brexit will happen. People won't notice the "managed decline". We will be "sovereign" and we will have British trade deals with union flags on them.0 -
Nope.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:
To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
If you open up the patient, remove the cancer and close them up again then you can claim to have completed successful operation. If you open them up, poke around aimlessly without actually removing the cancer because you dont know what you are doing and then close them up again but using really nice stitches whilst claiming success then that is what JRM feels May is attempting.0 -
Mr. P, I wonder if May's reaction or lack thereof may trigger her own downfall.0
-
Except it was unnecessary but wanted by JRM and his fellow travellers. It is cosmetic in that sense.Richard_Tyndall said:To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
He wanted bigger tits, and we voted for them...0 -
You do sound like the ladbible or the indy. perhaps you could label all your posts as 'significant' or 'interesting' or even 'wow, you won't believe this!'williamglenn said:0 -
Or then again, just a thought, perhaps he's not.williamglenn said:
Perhaps he's consciously playing a role in guiding the Tory party towards an exit from Brexit. If the Brexit that was sold to people is not deliverable, why accept managed decline or vassal status when we could just be honest about it and reverse course.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:0 -
Oh FFS tories...what are you doing now?0
-
What's wrong now - been out this pmSlackbladder said:Oh FFS tories...what are you doing now?
0 -
On Hunts and Rudds and Mays watch
You just couldn't make it up, Senior doctors from overseas who have been appointed to fill key roles in hospitals around the UK are being blocked from taking up their jobs by the Home Office because their NHS salaries are too low under immigration rules!0 -
williamglenn said:
The political decisions to Brexit have been made. Those who don't accept that are beginning to sound like the last Japanese soldier on a Pacific island...williamglenn said:0 -
Oh that's a very different point. Yours is about substance - little doubt you are right on his views, I can't quite believe williamglenn's theory that he's a Remainer plant. Mine is presentation. I think a better operator would be talking about missed opportunities, realising the potential of Brexit etc - as soon as you talk about Brexit being about managing decline he is filling opposition leaflets for them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:
To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
If you open up the patient, remove the cancer and close them up again then you can claim to have completed successful operation. If you open them up, poke around aimlessly without actually removing the cancer because you dont know what you are doing and then close them up again but using really nice stitches whilst claiming success then that is what JRM feels May is attempting.0 -
JRM: "The EU-funded CBI"
I think he's losing it.0 -
Hunt's not responsible for the Home Office but maybe he could fix that mess.bigjohnowls said:On Hunts and Rudds and Mays watch
You just couldn't make it up, Senior doctors from overseas who have been appointed to fill key roles in hospitals around the UK are being blocked from taking up their jobs by the Home Office because their NHS salaries are too low under immigration rules!0 -
Well he's not wrong: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cbi-accused-of-bias-over-european-cash-cg9s2jqdzspTOPPING said:JRM: "The EU-funded CBI"
I think he's losing it.0 -
It seems absurd and Rudd needs to get a gripbigjohnowls said:On Hunts and Rudds and Mays watch
You just couldn't make it up, Senior doctors from overseas who have been appointed to fill key roles in hospitals around the UK are being blocked from taking up their jobs by the Home Office because their NHS salaries are too low under immigration rules!0 -
-
It should be possible to get an NHS visa.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It seems absurd and Rudd needs to get a gripbigjohnowls said:On Hunts and Rudds and Mays watch
You just couldn't make it up, Senior doctors from overseas who have been appointed to fill key roles in hospitals around the UK are being blocked from taking up their jobs by the Home Office because their NHS salaries are too low under immigration rules!
There are I believe specific visa rules for Professional Footballers, so why not medics? Get a job offer from the NHS, get a visa - simples.0 -
I think the Guv'nor has stated publicly that we welcome European banks continuing to base themselves here and that we regard European regulation as being of a suitably high standardgeoffw said:
If the EU decides that passporting is not available to our financial sector, would that not be reciprocated, denying access to their financial firms here?Richard_Nabavi said:
Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies.0 -
Or alternatively, the date for the removal vans to turn up at 10 & 11 Downing St has just been brought forward.Scott_P said:0 -
Wouldn't that undercut the local workforce?Philip_Thompson said:
It should be possible to get an NHS visa.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It seems absurd and Rudd needs to get a gripbigjohnowls said:On Hunts and Rudds and Mays watch
You just couldn't make it up, Senior doctors from overseas who have been appointed to fill key roles in hospitals around the UK are being blocked from taking up their jobs by the Home Office because their NHS salaries are too low under immigration rules!
There are I believe specific visa rules for Professional Footballers, so why not medics? Get a job offer from the NHS, get a visa - simples.0 -
'Senior doctors' paid less than £30K a year, or the appropriate NHS band payment where applicable.bigjohnowls said:On Hunts and Rudds and Mays watch
You just couldn't make it up, Senior doctors from overseas who have been appointed to fill key roles in hospitals around the UK are being blocked from taking up their jobs by the Home Office because their NHS salaries are too low under immigration rules!
Yeah, right. You wouldn't bother to make it up, would you?
Edit: And isn't Labour always going on about unscrupulous employers not paying the rate for the job?0 -
It's all a bit baroque. This is just the page on coming to work or invest in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration/work-visas
It needs to be slicker. I'd put more responsibility on the hiring organisation.0 -
-
Well he does have to smooth out the seasonal peaks in his business model.edmundintokyo said:
Doesn't prove it was the tooth fairy, the whole thing could be an elaborate hoax perpetrated by SantaCharles said:
The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow
I'm told that he recently bought the Easter Bunny franchise as well.0 -
What's wrong with the page? I thought the gov.uk website had been praised for its design.John_M said:It's all a bit baroque. This is just the page on coming to work or invest in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration/work-visas
It needs to be slicker. I'd put more responsibility on the hiring organisation.0 -
Dollar at 1.43 and Euro at 1.14 may indicate the markets believe a softer deal is on the waySandyRentool said:
Or alternatively, the date for the removal vans to turn up at 10 & 11 Downing St has just been brought forward.Scott_P said:
Also
Breaking news
Theresa May and Donald Trump confirm that their officials are working on his state visit for later this year
And that is the right thing to do0 -
Fair enough. I will admit that this is one subject where a politician on either side using even a single word out of place is going to be jumped on by the other side.tpfkar said:
Oh that's a very different point. Yours is about substance - little doubt you are right on his views, I can't quite believe williamglenn's theory that he's a Remainer plant. Mine is presentation. I think a better operator would be talking about missed opportunities, realising the potential of Brexit etc - as soon as you talk about Brexit being about managing decline he is filling opposition leaflets for them.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope.tpfkar said:
This is the rookie mistake of repeating your opponent's attack lines. We're now talking about Brexit as management of decline. Perhaps the young Obi-Wan is not quite as smart as he likes to think.logical_song said:
It is a damage limitation exercise. Is JRM in favour of greater damage?williamglenn said:
To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
If you open up the patient, remove the cancer and close them up again then you can claim to have completed successful operation. If you open them up, poke around aimlessly without actually removing the cancer because you dont know what you are doing and then close them up again but using really nice stitches whilst claiming success then that is what JRM feels May is attempting.0 -
Member of public takes politician at face value shock. Well I think his intention was to imply that as a result it was batting for the EU, rather than British Industry.MaxPB said:0 -
No it was very necessary. It is a cancer that had been growing since 1973 and the longer we have left it the more difficult the surgery has become.Scott_P said:
Except it was unnecessary but wanted by JRM and his fellow travellers. It is cosmetic in that sense.Richard_Tyndall said:To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
He wanted bigger tits, and we voted for them...0 -
Be afraid if he buys Halloween.Charles said:
Well he does have to smooth out the seasonal peaks in his business model.edmundintokyo said:
Doesn't prove it was the tooth fairy, the whole thing could be an elaborate hoax perpetrated by SantaCharles said:
The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow
I'm told that he recently bought the Easter Bunny franchise as well.
He knows where you live.0 -
Today's dead cat has just landed on the table.Scott_P said:0 -
Jeez what is it about Brexiters. Cancer, eh?Richard_Tyndall said:
No it was very necessary. It is a cancer that had been growing since 1973 and the longer we have left it the more difficult the surgery has become.Scott_P said:
Except it was unnecessary but wanted by JRM and his fellow travellers. It is cosmetic in that sense.Richard_Tyndall said:To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
He wanted bigger tits, and we voted for them...0 -
TOPPING said:
Jeez what is it about Brexiters. Cancer, eh?Richard_Tyndall said:
No it was very necessary. It is a cancer that had been growing since 1973 and the longer we have left it the more difficult the surgery has become.Scott_P said:
Except it was unnecessary but wanted by JRM and his fellow travellers. It is cosmetic in that sense.Richard_Tyndall said:To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
He wanted bigger tits, and we voted for them...
Yep. An extremely good analogy.TOPPING said:
Jeez what is it about Brexiters. Cancer, eh?Richard_Tyndall said:
No it was very necessary. It is a cancer that had been growing since 1973 and the longer we have left it the more difficult the surgery has become.Scott_P said:
Except it was unnecessary but wanted by JRM and his fellow travellers. It is cosmetic in that sense.Richard_Tyndall said:To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
He wanted bigger tits, and we voted for them...0 -
And he knows a way in.MarqueeMark said:
Be afraid if he buys Halloween.Charles said:
Well he does have to smooth out the seasonal peaks in his business model.edmundintokyo said:
Doesn't prove it was the tooth fairy, the whole thing could be an elaborate hoax perpetrated by SantaCharles said:
The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow
I'm told that he recently bought the Easter Bunny franchise as well.
He knows where you live.
You might have to use one of these:
http://www.apotropaios.co.uk/protection-marks.html0 -
We have more different types of visa than you can shake a stick at. Why? Thoreau tells us to simplify, simplify.RobD said:
What's wrong with the page? I thought the gov.uk website had been praised for its design.John_M said:It's all a bit baroque. This is just the page on coming to work or invest in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration/work-visas
It needs to be slicker. I'd put more responsibility on the hiring organisation.
Before long you're wading in a morass of employment SOC codes:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-k-shortage-occupation-list
It's all just too complex, which means more edge cases, longer processing times and more error prone.
Also, in my opinion, Carthage must be destroyed.
/endpolemic0 -
Is your mouth actually frothing while you are typing?Richard_Tyndall said:TOPPING said:
Jeez what is it about Brexiters. Cancer, eh?Richard_Tyndall said:
No it was very necessary. It is a cancer that had been growing since 1973 and the longer we have left it the more difficult the surgery has become.Scott_P said:
Except it was unnecessary but wanted by JRM and his fellow travellers. It is cosmetic in that sense.Richard_Tyndall said:To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
He wanted bigger tits, and we voted for them...
Yep. An extremely good analogy.TOPPING said:
Jeez what is it about Brexiters. Cancer, eh?Richard_Tyndall said:
No it was very necessary. It is a cancer that had been growing since 1973 and the longer we have left it the more difficult the surgery has become.Scott_P said:
Except it was unnecessary but wanted by JRM and his fellow travellers. It is cosmetic in that sense.Richard_Tyndall said:To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
He wanted bigger tits, and we voted for them...0 -
Hmmh... lots of sweets ... creates business for the Tooth Fairy.MarqueeMark said:
Be afraid if he buys Halloween.Charles said:
Well he does have to smooth out the seasonal peaks in his business model.edmundintokyo said:
Doesn't prove it was the tooth fairy, the whole thing could be an elaborate hoax perpetrated by SantaCharles said:
The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow
I'm told that he recently bought the Easter Bunny franchise as well.
He knows where you live.
I can see the synergies...0 -
Sorry, you were referring to the visa system needing to be slicker, not the page itself! I don't think the number of visa categories is particularly unusual from an international standpoint. I suspect they have good reason for having several different kinds.John_M said:
We have more different types of visa than you can shake a stick at. Why? Thoreau tells us to simplify, simplify.RobD said:
What's wrong with the page? I thought the gov.uk website had been praised for its design.John_M said:It's all a bit baroque. This is just the page on coming to work or invest in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration/work-visas
It needs to be slicker. I'd put more responsibility on the hiring organisation.
Before long you're wading in a morass of employment SOC codes:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-k-shortage-occupation-list
It's all just too complex, which means more edge cases, longer processing times and more error prone.
Also, in my opinion, Carthage must be destroyed.
/endpolemic0 -
Yep. An extremely good analogy.TOPPING said:
Jeez what is it about Brexiters. Cancer, eh?Richard_Tyndall said:
No it was very necessary. It is a cancer that had been growing since 1973 and the longer we have left it the more difficult the surgery has become.Scott_P said:
Except it was unnecessary but wanted by JRM and his fellow travellers. It is cosmetic in that sense.Richard_Tyndall said:To understand JRMs position you need to regard Brexit as unwanted but necessary surgery.
He wanted bigger tits, and we voted for them...
Is your mouth actually frothing while you are typing?
Not at all. It is only the Eurofanatics like yourself who think the EU has been a force for good in Britain. You are the lunatic fringe with the green pencils.0 -
Thus raising the question, why should NHS have special rules? Why not any other business or government agency?Philip_Thompson said:
It should be possible to get an NHS visa.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It seems absurd and Rudd needs to get a gripbigjohnowls said:On Hunts and Rudds and Mays watch
You just couldn't make it up, Senior doctors from overseas who have been appointed to fill key roles in hospitals around the UK are being blocked from taking up their jobs by the Home Office because their NHS salaries are too low under immigration rules!
There are I believe specific visa rules for Professional Footballers, so why not medics? Get a job offer from the NHS, get a visa - simples.
The fundamental problem is the arbitrary salary cap. Shortages need to be filled. We are at full employment already.0 -
Jeez you lot. What level of fear and loathing have you been living with these years to be so terrified of the all powerful EU? What a lack of confidence in the UK to hold its own amongst this cancer, and manipulator of our institutions.MaxPB said:
Amazing.
(I appreciate you have f*cked off and are well out of it, but the Lincs branch of the Hiding Behind the Sofa Group are all a quiver today.)0 -
I have often wondered about children who at some point presumably are likely to believe in the following:Charles said:
Hmmh... lots of sweets ... creates business for the Tooth Fairy.MarqueeMark said:
Be afraid if he buys Halloween.Charles said:
Well he does have to smooth out the seasonal peaks in his business model.edmundintokyo said:
Doesn't prove it was the tooth fairy, the whole thing could be an elaborate hoax perpetrated by SantaCharles said:
The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow
I'm told that he recently bought the Easter Bunny franchise as well.
He knows where you live.
I can see the synergies...
1. Santa Claus
2. The Tooth Fairy
3. God
It's interesting how and when they lose some and not others of such beliefs.0 -
Because the EU is on a relentless march towards a single state.TOPPING said:
Jeez you lot. What level of fear and loathing have you been living with these years to be so terrified of the all powerful EU? What a lack of confidence in the UK to hold its own amongst this cancer, and manipulator of our institutions.MaxPB said:
Amazing.
(I appreciate you have f*cked off and are well out of it, but the Lincs branch of the Hiding Behind the Sofa Group are all a quiver today.)0 -
Not terrified at all. Just honest and realistic. Unlike yourself.TOPPING said:
Jeez you lot. What level of fear and loathing have you been living with these years to be so terrified of the all powerful EU? What a lack of confidence in the UK to hold its own amongst this cancer, and manipulator of our institutions.MaxPB said:
Amazing.
(I appreciate you have f*cked off and are well out of it, but the Lincs branch of the Hiding Behind the Sofa Group are all a quiver today.)0
