politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s general election plan on Brexit- it looks as though t
Options
Comments
-
Putting the recent Opinium, YouGov and ComRes polls into the EMA gives:Scott_P said:
Con 32% Lab 24% LD 19%
Average of Baxter and Flavible gives:
Con 335 Lab 199 LD 43
My tactical voting model with "reasonable" assumptions about tactical voting behaviour gives:
Con 296 Lab 231 LD 530 -
HYUFD will pipe down for a couple of days. But then you will never hear the end of this from Mike. Meanwhile, Labour………….Man U...………..StuartDickson said:
0 -
You have added a decimal point, this poll did not, so as I said the 2% lead the Tories had in 2017 (actually 2.4%) remains unchanged on Comresjustin124 said:
The Tory lead was 2.5% in 2017. Labour would gain Southampton Itchen on this data.HYUFD said:
The poll has the Tory lead over Labour at 2%, ie exactly the same as in 2017 as it does not go to decimal points so there would be no seat change between the Tories and Labour though both parties would lose seats to the LDs and SNP on this polljustin124 said:
That would be a swing from Con to Lab of 0.25% and would imply 1 Labour gain from the Tories offset by losses to SNP and to LDs giving Labour circa 250 seats or so. The Tories would also lose 21 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to leave a total of circa 285 seats.CatMan said:0 -
Never apologise for being interested in something.Cyclefree said:
I think we are in agreement.Noo said:
I absolutely agree. I'm trying -- clumsily -- to say that law is an imperfect mapping from morality. Naturally, laws can be utterly wrong.Cyclefree said:
Rules in common - yes I agree.Noo said:
There's a sophistic turn in your second paragraph which misrepresents what I said. I did not say equals.Cyclefree said:
Legislation is not based on morality. Nor is politics about ethics. Politics is about making a space in which people can disagree and find a way to resolve those disagreements without violence. There is an ethical component.Noo said:
Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.alex. said:Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.
If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
But the idea that morality = politics = law is one which suited an earlier age and which can be found now in the sort of countries in which most of us would hate to live.
And now: dinner!
And of course legislation is based on morality. All law is ultimately "this is wrong and must be stopped" or "this is right and should be protected". I do not, of course, intend to flatten the academic richness and the intricate layers that years of wisdom have built in modern legal systems. But the source of all of it is that one concern: what are the rules we should have in common?
But what is lawful may not be moral. One should always oneself not just: "Is this legal?" But also: "Is it right?" The two are not the same.
I said that law is intellectually fascinating. The interplay between law, politics and morality is one that has interested me since I started studying it at university (where I did not do law).
I know, I know: I should get a life......0 -
I meant the speculation about what it means for the ruling. Perhaps they are spending their time arguing about whether it is justiciable or not?nico67 said:
Informed speculation ! Joshua Rozenberg who is as good as they get . The delay means at least on justiciable the court will agree that it does .RobD said:
Is that speculation or informed speculation?nico67 said:No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.
It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
If they ruled against they wouldn’t need this long to compile the majority opinion , because aswell as this they wouldn’t have to deal with any of the arguments about lawfulness .0 -
Apparently not, but it presumably hasn’t helped. Or more specifically the uncertainty created making people reluctant to plan foreign travel around Brexit dates and related collapse in the £.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
0 -
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.0 -
Good point. But awareness is a good first step.alex. said:
Hardly good news since we have no remedy for fixing them. “A written constitution” you say? Who’s going to write it? Not Parliament I hope given what a horlicks have been made of various constitutional reforms since 1997? Can any one of them be seriously said to have been a success, or (perhaps more neutrally) be said to have achieved the declared aims of its proponents?Noo said:
Good news that the gaps in our constitution are being highlighted. Wouldn't have thought a few years ago it would be the Cons who drew attention to them, but it's good that we're collectively now reaching a level of awareness that there are problems.StuartDickson said:
Looks like this is going to go against HMG.nico67 said:No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.
It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
HMG lied to HM, and she let them.
That doesn’t just cripple HMG, it fundamentally weakens HM and the entire system.
She has had a good run, but her reign is not going to end well. Cheers Dave.0 -
Tories actually up 1% as are LDs with Labour unchanged on tonight's Comressurbiton19 said:
HYUFD will pipe down for a couple of days. But then you will never hear the end of this from Mike. Meanwhile, Labour………….Man U...………..StuartDickson said:0 -
I will go along with yours. In fact, I should do a spreadsheet out of it.Barnesian said:
Putting the recent Opinium, YouGov and ComRes polls into the EMA gives:Scott_P said:
Con 32% Lab 24% LD 19%
Average of Baxter and Flavible gives:
Con 335 Lab 199 LD 43
My tactical voting model with "reasonable" assumptions about tactical voting behaviour gives:
Con 296 Lab 231 LD 53
0 -
Now that Thomas Cook has gone it will be a very odd media week indeed if the noises coming out of the Supreme Court are confirmed. I imagine neither were on the Grid.0
-
Hmmm.... The Last Jedi got an "official" 91% but an audience 44%...Barnesian said:
83% from reviewers. 45% and a sick bucket from audiences.Sunil_Prasannan said:
83% on Rotten TomatoesBarnesian said:
The initial reviews for Ad Astra gave it five or four stars. "A great film". "A masterpiece". The initial Guardian review was five stars, then four stars, then Kermode's three stars as the public comments came in. It will end up on two or one star. How did that happen? What were the reviewers thinking?Stuartinromford said:
Heavily advertised? Not worth it? Are we talking about Ad Astra or Brexit?Noo said:
It wasn't me, but I did chime in with the opinion that anything that's heavily advertised it probably not going to be worthwhile. Haven't seen it (yet).kle4 said:Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/ad-astra-review-brad-pitt-james-gray#comment-133401304
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ad_astra
Illustrates my point. I suspect herding from reviewers. Following the first few five star reviews, reviewers didn't want to step too much out of line. The audiences have no such qualms.0 -
Leave = 42% is the story here. I hope someone is letting Corbyn know.HYUFD said:
Tories actually up 1% as are LDs with Labour unchanged on tonight's Comressurbiton19 said:
HYUFD will pipe down for a couple of days. But then you will never hear the end of this from Mike. Meanwhile, Labour………….Man U...………..StuartDickson said:
0 -
I am simply being specific!HYUFD said:
You have added a decimal point, this poll did not, so as I said the 2% lead the Tories had in 2017 (actually 2.4%) remains unchanged on Comresjustin124 said:
The Tory lead was 2.5% in 2017. Labour would gain Southampton Itchen on this data.HYUFD said:
The poll has the Tory lead over Labour at 2%, ie exactly the same as in 2017 as it does not go to decimal points so there would be no seat change between the Tories and Labour though both parties would lose seats to the LDs and SNP on this polljustin124 said:
That would be a swing from Con to Lab of 0.25% and would imply 1 Labour gain from the Tories offset by losses to SNP and to LDs giving Labour circa 250 seats or so. The Tories would also lose 21 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to leave a total of circa 285 seats.CatMan said:0 -
No . They would have formed their opinions quite early there , you’ll note none of their questions directed towards Lord Pannick in the final argument we’re talking about that, just remedies .RobD said:
I meant the speculation about what it means for the ruling. Perhaps they are spending their time arguing about whether it is justiciable or not?nico67 said:
Informed speculation ! Joshua Rozenberg who is as good as they get . The delay means at least on justiciable the court will agree that it does .RobD said:
Is that speculation or informed speculation?nico67 said:No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.
It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
If they ruled against they wouldn’t need this long to compile the majority opinion , because aswell as this they wouldn’t have to deal with any of the arguments about lawfulness .
0 -
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.1 -
Well I'm one of the 44%. It's a great movie.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Hmmm.... The Last Jedi got an "official" 91% but an audience 44%...Barnesian said:
83% from reviewers. 45% and a sick bucket from audiences.Sunil_Prasannan said:
83% on Rotten TomatoesBarnesian said:
The initial reviews for Ad Astra gave it five or four stars. "A great film". "A masterpiece". The initial Guardian review was five stars, then four stars, then Kermode's three stars as the public comments came in. It will end up on two or one star. How did that happen? What were the reviewers thinking?Stuartinromford said:
Heavily advertised? Not worth it? Are we talking about Ad Astra or Brexit?Noo said:
It wasn't me, but I did chime in with the opinion that anything that's heavily advertised it probably not going to be worthwhile. Haven't seen it (yet).kle4 said:Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/ad-astra-review-brad-pitt-james-gray#comment-133401304
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ad_astra
Illustrates my point. I suspect herding from reviewers. Following the first few five star reviews, reviewers didn't want to step too much out of line. The audiences have no such qualms.1 -
How does what one judge asked tell you about the opinions of the entire court? I don't think you can read too much into a delay, it could be due to a variety of different reasons.nico67 said:
No . They would have formed their opinions quite early there , you’ll note none of their questions directed towards Lord Pannick in the final argument we’re talking about that, just remedies .RobD said:
I meant the speculation about what it means for the ruling. Perhaps they are spending their time arguing about whether it is justiciable or not?nico67 said:
Informed speculation ! Joshua Rozenberg who is as good as they get . The delay means at least on justiciable the court will agree that it does .RobD said:
Is that speculation or informed speculation?nico67 said:No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.
It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
If they ruled against they wouldn’t need this long to compile the majority opinion , because aswell as this they wouldn’t have to deal with any of the arguments about lawfulness .0 -
There is a silent majority in the Labour party who will I think vote for a more moderate leadership candidate next time. Not an old school Blairite, probably someone to the left of Ed Miliband, but I don't believe there is an appetite to go down the wormhole that some of those close to Corbyn seem set on. The anti semitism stuff, the anti EU stuff, the crude class war stuff, just isn't where the vast majority of Labour supporters are. Mind you some of his internal opponents haven't helped themselves either, with their constant plotting. The whole thing is just so fucking depressing.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I don't know. It's a hard left party now, but Corbyn-mania has really faded.TGOHF said:
It’s the Jezza party now - they will never add the members required to oust this Junta.SquareRoot said:
Doesn't Cornyn have the party by the short and curlies?alex. said:
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.Gallowgate said:What is going on in Labour?
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/1175836759789318144?s=21
There are a percentage of Labour folk - quite a big percentage - who have no appetite to return to the bad old days (as they'd see it) of New Labour, but also accept Corbyn has served his purpose.
Yes, there are zealots, but there are also people on the hard left who are NOT antisemitic and realise Corbyn has mishandled it appallingly (very probably due to some misplaced personal sympathy), are pro-European and realise Corbyn is not, and basically see him as damage goods, a husk of what they elected (twice).0 -
So you are saying the Brits didn't book?eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
It looks mostly internet to me. It is just too easy to book your own arrangements now.0 -
Thanks. It might then be that pundits are getting ahead of themselves.Foxy said:
Jezza looks fit to me, mentally and physically. He arrived at the climate strike by bike for example.DecrepitJohnL said:
When Foreign Secretary, Dr Owen would be tapped up by MI6 to provide health assessments of foreign leaders he'd met (he was a consultant neurologist, iirc). If Corbyn is stepping down this suddenly, and cannot do a full day, then we need pb's medical cadre to hold their stethoscopes to the television coverage and tell us what is wrong. House could do it.alex. said:
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.Gallowgate said:What is going on in Labour?
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/1175836759789318144?s=21
Underneath, who knows? But that is true for us all.0 -
Noo said:
Could you expand on that "indirect discrimination"? Which protected characteristic(s) are at play here?Cyclefree said:
What about for each course?Chris said:
Each university individually?alex. said:I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.
Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.
I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
Well, imagine that the rule is that only 7% on any course can be from private schools. If - and it is a big if - that means that, say, on a particular course students with protected characteristics were thereby prevented from attending that course then it might amount to indirect discrimination.
There are lots of assumptions in my scenario. But any quota system has the potential for creating a system which indirectly discriminates.
And numerical quotas are troubling for other reasons: law, for instance, has more Jewish people working in it than the percentage of Jews in the population. If you have a quota for public school pupils why not quotas for other characteristics under the guise of, say, increasing the number of white working-class boys in the law?
I am wary of this reductive approach to dealing with unfairness. It is easy to criticise public schools. Or newspapers with most of their journalists coming from a small number of select universities. But that does nothing to come up with effective policies - including more money - to improve the schools which educated the majority.
So far from Labour they want to reduce or abolish school inspections and attack Eton. How does that help an ordinary parent and their children?0 -
It's NOT a great movie, I think you mean...CatMan said:
Well I'm one of the 44%. It's a great movie.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Hmmm.... The Last Jedi got an "official" 91% but an audience 44%...Barnesian said:
83% from reviewers. 45% and a sick bucket from audiences.Sunil_Prasannan said:
83% on Rotten TomatoesBarnesian said:
The initial reviews for Ad Astra gave it five or four stars. "A great film". "A masterpiece". The initial Guardian review was five stars, then four stars, then Kermode's three stars as the public comments came in. It will end up on two or one star. How did that happen? What were the reviewers thinking?Stuartinromford said:
Heavily advertised? Not worth it? Are we talking about Ad Astra or Brexit?Noo said:
It wasn't me, but I did chime in with the opinion that anything that's heavily advertised it probably not going to be worthwhile. Haven't seen it (yet).kle4 said:Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/ad-astra-review-brad-pitt-james-gray#comment-133401304
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ad_astra
Illustrates my point. I suspect herding from reviewers. Following the first few five star reviews, reviewers didn't want to step too much out of line. The audiences have no such qualms.0 -
Question about eg. Flavible modelling. Does it assume an election outcome consistent with the polling numbers, or does it use the polling numbers to inform an electoral outcome (which may produce different % numbers).surbiton19 said:
I will go along with yours. In fact, I should do a spreadsheet out of it.Barnesian said:
Putting the recent Opinium, YouGov and ComRes polls into the EMA gives:Scott_P said:
Con 32% Lab 24% LD 19%
Average of Baxter and Flavible gives:
Con 335 Lab 199 LD 43
My tactical voting model with "reasonable" assumptions about tactical voting behaviour gives:
Con 296 Lab 231 LD 53
Eg. if the polling showed LD on 25% would it distribute that 25% in certain places to fit its model, or would it assume that in practice some of the 25% would disappear if those people in an election voted tactically for another party (and vice versa)? Which might lead to a LD vote share of less that 25% because the number of seats where they might shed votes would be lower than those where they gain.
0 -
Was the aim of the Scotland Act:alex. said:
Hardly good news since we have no remedy for fixing them. “A written constitution” you say? Who’s going to write it? Not Parliament I hope given what a horlicks have been made of various constitutional reforms since 1997? Can any one of them be seriously said to have been a success, or (perhaps more neutrally) be said to have achieved the declared aims of its proponents?Noo said:
Good news that the gaps in our constitution are being highlighted. Wouldn't have thought a few years ago it would be the Cons who drew attention to them, but it's good that we're collectively now reaching a level of awareness that there are problems.StuartDickson said:
Looks like this is going to go against HMG.nico67 said:No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.
It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
HMG lied to HM, and she let them.
That doesn’t just cripple HMG, it fundamentally weakens HM and the entire system.
She has had a good run, but her reign is not going to end well. Cheers Dave.
a. to improve the governance of Scotland? or
b. to kill nationalism stone dead?0 -
State educated white males (like myself) are sorely under represented at Medical School...Cyclefree said:Noo said:
Could you expand on that "indirect discrimination"? Which protected characteristic(s) are at play here?Cyclefree said:
What about for each course?Chris said:
Each university individually?alex. said:I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.
Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.
I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
Well, imagine that the rule is that only 7% on any course can be from private schools. If - and it is a big if - that means that, say, on a particular course students with protected characteristics were thereby prevented from attending that course then it might amount to indirect discrimination.
There are lots of assumptions in my scenario. But any quota system has the potential for creating a system which indirectly discriminates.
And numerical quotas are troubling for other reasons: law, for instance, has more Jewish people working in it than the percentage of Jews in the population. If you have a quota for public school pupils why not quotas for other characteristics under the guise of, say, increasing the number of white working-class boys in the law?
I am wary of this reductive approach to dealing with unfairness. It is easy to criticise public schools. Or newspapers with most of their journalists coming from a small number of select universities. But that does nothing to come up with effective policies - including more money - to improve the schools which educated the majority.
So far from Labour they want to reduce or abolish school inspections and attack Eton. How does that help an ordinary parent and their children?0 -
Latest Canadian projection, (with 170 needed for a majority):
Lib 160
Con 145
NDP 14
BQ 14
Grn 4
PPC 1
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/0 -
Yes. One of them could have had a dodgy lunch over the weekend and be behind on writing up their section of the judgement.RobD said:
How does what one judge asked tell you about the opinions of the entire court? I don't think you can read too much into a delay, it could be due to a variety of different reasons.nico67 said:
No . They would have formed their opinions quite early there , you’ll note none of their questions directed towards Lord Pannick in the final argument we’re talking about that, just remedies .RobD said:
I meant the speculation about what it means for the ruling. Perhaps they are spending their time arguing about whether it is justiciable or not?nico67 said:
Informed speculation ! Joshua Rozenberg who is as good as they get . The delay means at least on justiciable the court will agree that it does .RobD said:
Is that speculation or informed speculation?nico67 said:No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.
It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
If they ruled against they wouldn’t need this long to compile the majority opinion , because aswell as this they wouldn’t have to deal with any of the arguments about lawfulness .
Any one of a number of things could have happened.0 -
Tory thinks like a Tory. Nothing new there.blueblue said:
What comes after is ~350 Lib Dem MPs thinking they really rather like their jobs, their salaries, their public profile, and their power...Benpointer said:In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.
What comes after is PR.
What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.
That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.0 -
The Act (depending which one you mean) certainly enacted the most remarkable voting system in the known cosmos. I was trying to explain the logic of it to a French colleague the other day.StuartDickson said:
Was the aim of the Scotland Act:alex. said:
Hardly good news since we have no remedy for fixing them. “A written constitution” you say? Who’s going to write it? Not Parliament I hope given what a horlicks have been made of various constitutional reforms since 1997? Can any one of them be seriously said to have been a success, or (perhaps more neutrally) be said to have achieved the declared aims of its proponents?Noo said:
Good news that the gaps in our constitution are being highlighted. Wouldn't have thought a few years ago it would be the Cons who drew attention to them, but it's good that we're collectively now reaching a level of awareness that there are problems.StuartDickson said:
Looks like this is going to go against HMG.nico67 said:No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.
It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
HMG lied to HM, and she let them.
That doesn’t just cripple HMG, it fundamentally weakens HM and the entire system.
She has had a good run, but her reign is not going to end well. Cheers Dave.
a. to improve the governance of Scotland? or
b. to kill nationalism stone dead?
Of course, it was not enacted in Edinburgh or of a Scottish parliament.0 -
Maybe Trudeau’s getting a boost from the racist vote?AndyJS said:Latest Canadian projection, (with 170 needed for a majority):
Lib 160
Con 145
NDP 14
BQ 14
Grn 4
PPC 1
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
0 -
+1 Well said.StuartDickson said:
Tory thinks like a Tory. Nothing new there.blueblue said:
What comes after is ~350 Lib Dem MPs thinking they really rather like their jobs, their salaries, their public profile, and their power...Benpointer said:In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.
What comes after is PR.
What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.
That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.0 -
Why would anybody use thomas cook for a holiday? You can get cheap flights with easyjet / ryanair, then use one of a 100 sites to find the cheapest hotel or there is airbnb / loads of villa rental websites.Foxy said:
So you are saying the Brits didn't book?eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
It looks mostly internet to me. It is just too easy to book your own arrangements now.0 -
It was most of the judges . I’m not saying they’ll find it unlawful but given the delay they will agree on it being justiciable .RobD said:
How does what one judge asked tell you about the opinions of the entire court? I don't think you can read too much into a delay, it could be due to a variety of different reasons.nico67 said:
No . They would have formed their opinions quite early there , you’ll note none of their questions directed towards Lord Pannick in the final argument we’re talking about that, just remedies .RobD said:
I meant the speculation about what it means for the ruling. Perhaps they are spending their time arguing about whether it is justiciable or not?nico67 said:
Informed speculation ! Joshua Rozenberg who is as good as they get . The delay means at least on justiciable the court will agree that it does .RobD said:
Is that speculation or informed speculation?nico67 said:No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.
It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
If they ruled against they wouldn’t need this long to compile the majority opinion , because aswell as this they wouldn’t have to deal with any of the arguments about lawfulness .
We’re due another update from the SC tomorrow afternoon as to when the ruling will be handed down .0 -
While that's true, I would argue that both En Marche and Citizens were centrist, establishment responses to traditional parties not being as broad tents as they used to be.alex. said:
Although in most cases the two party duopoly has been broken by insurgent parties, not establishment ones.rcs1000 said:
An excellent responseSirNorfolkPassmore said:Winning a majority would mean winning seats where the Lib Dems are, as of now, practically non-existent (or maybe active in one Council ward). Is that possible on a national air-war and a freepost?, when at least one other party in those areas has a decent list of supporters, an MP, a bit of a presence?
I know they've advanced since 2017, but they lost their deposit in a sizable majority of seats (375) in 2017.
I don't think saying they should be looking at a few dozen seats is predicting "massive underperformance" - I think it's realistic and indeed quite ambitious.
Is it possible Swinson is the revelation of the campaign while Johnson and Corbyn stumble from disaster to disaster? In theory, yes. But the 15-1 on most seats and 50-1 on a majority don't strike me as generous by any means at all. They just start from such a low base and with too few areas where they have a competitive ground game.
But I think you need to set FPTP aside for a second. Why? Because, this is really a bet on whether the LibDems get more votes than the Conservatives. At which, point, of course, FPTP breaks down. As in, in 2017 they were 38 points behind the Conservatives, and in 2019, they might (in some universe) be 3 points ahead.
So what we're really asking is, what is the chance that the LDs will beat the Conservatives in vote share?
And in the vast majority of circumstances they don't. But there are some where they do. Is the Leave vote split between a group who wants a Deal and a group who doesn't? Or have we left, and things haven't gone swimmingly? Or has Labour totally imploded?
All these are small probability outcomes. But I'd point out that a lot of traditional ruling parties have found themselves out of power around the world in the last few years. The lazy consensus of two parties handing the reigns of government between them has fallen in almost every European country except (so far) the UK.
So, is 50-1 a good bet? Well, worth remembering that stepping back fifty elections in the UK takes you back all the way to... well, a long way back. But it might happen. I think rather than a 2% chance it's probably a 3-3.5% one.0 -
-
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.0 -
Yes, sorry, I should have been more precise. I understand the general point, but I was struggling to think which people of protected characteristics would be adversely affected by that limit. I find it convincing in general that it could be the case, but it's not obvious to me which.Cyclefree said:Noo said:
Could you expand on that "indirect discrimination"? Which protected characteristic(s) are at play here?Cyclefree said:
What about for each course?Chris said:
Each university individually?alex. said:I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.
Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.
I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
Well, imagine that the rule is that only 7% on any course can be from private schools. If - and it is a big if - that means that, say, on a particular course students with protected characteristics were thereby prevented from attending that course then it might amount to indirect discrimination.
There are lots of assumptions in my scenario. But any quota system has the potential for creating a system which indirectly discriminates.
And numerical quotas are troubling for other reasons: law, for instance, has more Jewish people working in it than the percentage of Jews in the population. If you have a quota for public school pupils why not quotas for other characteristics under the guise of, say, increasing the number of white working-class boys in the law?
I am wary of this reductive approach to dealing with unfairness. It is easy to criticise public schools. Or newspapers with most of their journalists coming from a small number of select universities. But that does nothing to come up with effective policies - including more money - to improve the schools which educated the majority.
So far from Labour they want to reduce or abolish school inspections and attack Eton. How does that help an ordinary parent and their children?
I wonder the possibility of such a case might also bring to light discriminatory outcomes in private education. Is there a gender or ethnic imbalance in the sector? If there are discriminatory selective practices, do they need to change?
A minefield, to be sure.0 -
I think you overestimate how many people are IT literate and/or trust the internet. Booking through holiday companies also presumably still (present situation excepted) gives a measure of security not available if you make your own arrangements.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why would anybody use thomas cook for a holiday? You can get cheap flights with easyjet / ryanair, then use one of a 100 sites to find the cheapest hotel or there is airbnb / loads of villa rental websites.Foxy said:
So you are saying the Brits didn't book?eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
It looks mostly internet to me. It is just too easy to book your own arrangements now.
And frankly, some people simply don’t like to do it themselves and have to make the choices necessary. They are just happy to choose a destination and let somebody else do the rest.
0 -
Pah - that's nothing. How many Italian-Irish women do you think there are in the City? Or the law, come to that? Or ones who have worked full-time or ones over 40? I have been a minority my entire life. I have rarely been in a work meeting or event where women have been even approaching 50/50 let alone a majority.Foxy said:
State educated white males (like myself) are sorely under represented at Medical School...Cyclefree said:Noo said:
Could you expand on that "indirect discrimination"? Which protected characteristic(s) are at play here?Cyclefree said:
What about for each course?Chris said:
Each university individually?alex. said:I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.
Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.
I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
Well, imagine that the rule is that only 7% on any course can be from private schools. If - and it is a big if - that means that, say, on a particular course students with protected characteristics were thereby prevented from attending that course then it might amount to indirect discrimination.
There are lots of assumptions in my scenario. But any quota system has the potential for creating a system which indirectly discriminates.
And numerical quotas are troubling for other reasons: law, for instance, has more Jewish people working in it than the percentage of Jews in the population. If you have a quota for public school pupils why not quotas for other characteristics under the guise of, say, increasing the number of white working-class boys in the law?
I am wary of this reductive approach to dealing with unfairness. It is easy to criticise public schools. Or newspapers with most of their journalists coming from a small number of select universities. But that does nothing to come up with effective policies - including more money - to improve the schools which educated the majority.
So far from Labour they want to reduce or abolish school inspections and attack Eton. How does that help an ordinary parent and their children?
In my last full-time role I was the only female MD (the top rank) who had been in my department more than 10 years, was working full-time and had children. Most of the other women had left, were part-time or not promoted. And that was in a department which had quite a few women working in it. In the money-making areas, the position was even worse ......0 -
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.0 -
Because not everyone is comfortable with aggregating their own holiday? Because you get repatriation thrown in if your operator defaults? Not everyone is sophisticated.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why would anybody use thomas cook for a holiday? You can get cheap flights with easyjet / ryanair, then use one of a 100 sites to find the cheapest hotel or there is airbnb / loads of villa rental websites.Foxy said:
So you are saying the Brits didn't book?eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
It looks mostly internet to me. It is just too easy to book your own arrangements now.
The follow-on point here, and it is, I’m afraid, a Brexit one, is that there will likely be a personal insurance requirement when traveling to EU countries. Frankly I think significant minority won’t take it, will suffer adverse consequences and expect HMG to bail them out. Expect sob story newspaper stories in abandon.0 -
Well, sometimes too much choice is too much. You trust Thomas Cook to verify that the hotel is good enough and then you don't have to try and work that out from the internet listing.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why would anybody use thomas cook for a holiday? You can get cheap flights with easyjet / ryanair, then use one of a 100 sites to find the cheapest hotel or there is airbnb / loads of villa rental websites.Foxy said:
So you are saying the Brits didn't book?eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
It looks mostly internet to me. It is just too easy to book your own arrangements now.0 -
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
1 -
I don't know about Flavible modelling but my own constituency based tactical spreadsheet model can end up with slightly different shares from the input shares because of the tactical voting. Certainly the Green share is well down.alex. said:
Question about eg. Flavible modelling. Does it assume an election outcome consistent with the polling numbers, or does it use the polling numbers to inform an electoral outcome (which may produce different % numbers).surbiton19 said:
I will go along with yours. In fact, I should do a spreadsheet out of it.Barnesian said:
Putting the recent Opinium, YouGov and ComRes polls into the EMA gives:Scott_P said:
Con 32% Lab 24% LD 19%
Average of Baxter and Flavible gives:
Con 335 Lab 199 LD 43
My tactical voting model with "reasonable" assumptions about tactical voting behaviour gives:
Con 296 Lab 231 LD 53
Eg. if the polling showed LD on 25% would it distribute that 25% in certain places to fit its model, or would it assume that in practice some of the 25% would disappear if those people in an election voted tactically for another party (and vice versa)? Which might lead to a LD vote share of less that 25% because the number of seats where they might shed votes would be lower than those where they gain.
I use an exponential moving average of the polls.
I use a combination of 75% arithmetical swing and 25% multiplicative swing.
I assume 40% of the Green vote goes to Labour and 40% goes to LD.
I assume if Lib Dems are way behind Lab (less than 30% of Lab votes) then 30% of LibDems will vote tactically for Labour.
I assume if Lab is behind LibDem to any extent, then 60% of Labour voters will vote tactically for LibDem.
I also assume that in a seat with Lab first and LD second, 10% of Tory voters will vote tactically for the LD. [But in practice this makes no difference to number of seats].
0 -
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
0 -
Surely 1923, in its present form ...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.0 -
I am not claiming discrimination*, but in my Med School the entry is 65% female, 45% BME, and around 50% privately educated.Cyclefree said:
Pah - that's nothing. How many Italian-Irish women do you think there are in the City? Or the law, come to that? Or ones who have worked full-time or ones over 40? I have been a minority my entire life. I have rarely been in a work meeting or event where women have been even approaching 50/50 let alone a majority.Foxy said:
State educated white males (like myself) are sorely under represented at Medical School...Cyclefree said:Noo said:
Could you expand on that "indirect discrimination"? Which protected characteristic(s) are at play here?Cyclefree said:
What about for each course?Chris said:
Each university individually?alex. said:I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.
Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.
I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
Well, imagine that the rule is that only 7% on any course can be from private schools. If - and it is a big if - that means that, say, on a particular course students with protected characteristics were thereby prevented from attending that course then it might amount to indirect discrimination.
There are lots of assumptions in my scenario. But any quota system has the potential for creating a system which indirectly discriminates.
So far from Labour they want to reduce or abolish school inspections and attack Eton. How does that help an ordinary parent and their children?
In my last full-time role I was the only female MD (the top rank) who had been in my department more than 10 years, was working full-time and had children. Most of the other women had left, were part-time or not promoted. And that was in a department which had quite a few women working in it. In the money-making areas, the position was even worse ......
If we are to look at quotas then there should be positive discrimination for folk like me who comprise about 40% of the UK school leavers. That is the absurdity of quotas.
*indeed when I was starting out, I was on several occasions appointed over better qualified applicants.0 -
Very admirable. Sometimes us men do not appreciate or even understand what many womed go through.Cyclefree said:
Pah - that's nothing. How many Italian-Irish women do you think there are in the City? Or the law, come to that? Or ones who have worked full-time or ones over 40? I have been a minority my entire life. I have rarely been in a work meeting or event where women have been even approaching 50/50 let alone a majority.Foxy said:
State educated white males (like myself) are sorely under represented at Medical School...Cyclefree said:Noo said:
Could you expand on that "indirect discrimination"? Which protected characteristic(s) are at play here?Cyclefree said:Chris said:
Each university individually?alex. said:I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.
I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
Well, imagine that the rule is that only 7% on any course can be from private schools. If - and it is a big if - that means that, say, on a particular course students with protected characteristics were thereby prevented from attending that course then it might amount to indirect discrimination.
There are lots of assumptions in my scenario. But any quota system has the potential for creating a system which indirectly discriminates.
And numerical quotas are troubling for other reasons: law, for instance, has more Jewish people working in it than the percentage of Jews in the population. If you have a quota for public school pupils why not quotas for other characteristics under the guise of, say, increasing the number of white working-class boys in the law?
I am wary of this reductive approach to dealing with unfairness. It is easy to criticise public schools. Or newspapers with most of their journalists coming from a small number of select universities. But that does nothing to come up with effective policies - including more money - to improve the schools which educated the majority.
So far from Labour they want to reduce or abolish school inspections and attack Eton. How does that help an ordinary parent and their children?
In my last full-time role I was the only female MD (the top rank) who had been in my department more than 10 years, was working full-time and had children. Most of the other women had left, were part-time or not promoted. And that was in a department which had quite a few women working in it. In the money-making areas, the position was even worse ......
0 -
1927Carnyx said:
Surely 1923, in its present form ...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1927_in_the_United_Kingdom0 -
What was it called before ?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
0 -
No Stuart is right. It was the United Kingdom from 1707. Well, according to wiki anyway!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
0 -
There is already a personal insurance requirement when travelling to EU countries, people who don't insure are idiots. Travel insurance is cheap, and together with the consumer credit act gives you quite a measure of protection.matt said:
Because not everyone is comfortable with aggregating their own holiday? Because you get repatriation thrown in if your operator defaults? Not everyone is sophisticated.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why would anybody use thomas cook for a holiday? You can get cheap flights with easyjet / ryanair, then use one of a 100 sites to find the cheapest hotel or there is airbnb / loads of villa rental websites.Foxy said:
So you are saying the Brits didn't book?eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
It looks mostly internet to me. It is just too easy to book your own arrangements now.
The follow-on point here, and it is, I’m afraid, a Brexit one, is that there will likely be a personal insurance requirement when traveling to EU countries. Frankly I think significant minority won’t take it, will suffer adverse consequences and expect HMG to bail them out. Expect sob story newspaper stories in abandon.0 -
723? (With a modest interregnum)alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.0 -
Nor am I. I was just noting that the position for women is not hunky dory either - and can often get worse as they get older. It was much much tougher working when my children were older than when they were young babies, a point I make when talking to womens' groups. People often assume - wrongly - that it is the other way around.Foxy said:
I am not claiming discrimination*, but in my Med School the entry is 65% female, 45% BME, and around 50% privately educated.Cyclefree said:
Pah - that's nothing. How many Italian-Irish women do you think there are in the City? Or the law, come to that? Or ones who have worked full-time or ones over 40? I have been a minority my entire life. I have rarely been in a work meeting or event where women have been even approaching 50/50 let alone a majority.Foxy said:
State educated white males (like myself) are sorely under represented at Medical School...Cyclefree said:Noo said:
Well, imagine that the rule is that only 7% on any course can be from private schools. If - and it is a big if - that means that, say, on a particular course students with protected characteristics were thereby prevented from attending that course then it might amount to indirect discrimination.
There are lots of assumptions in my scenario. But any quota system has the potential for creating a system which indirectly discriminates.
So far from Labour they want to reduce or abolish school inspections and attack Eton. How does that help an ordinary parent and their children?
In my last full-time role I was the only female MD (the top rank) who had been in my department more than 10 years, was working full-time and had children. Most of the other women had left, were part-time or not promoted. And that was in a department which had quite a few women working in it. In the money-making areas, the position was even worse ......
If we are to look at quotas then there should be positive discrimination for folk like me who comprise about 40% of the UK school leavers. That is the absurdity of quotas.
*indeed when I was starting out, I was on several occasions appointed over better qualified applicants.
You need to fight hard against the "older women becoming invisible" rule which can be all too common in life.
Quotas are a very crude way of dealing with a very real problem.
0 -
-
Just Great Britain.surbiton19 said:
What was it called before ?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.0 -
Wiki is wrong and Sunil is right. It was 'Great Britain' from 1707, although the name was used informally from 1603 to 1649, and the 'United Kingdom' when the Kingdom of Ireland was integrated into it.alex. said:
No Stuart is right. It was the United Kingdom from 1707. Well, according to wiki anyway!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.0 -
Samoa are good value at 9/1.StuartDickson said:Best prices - World Cup initial matches
Home Draw Away
Wales v Georgia
1/20 80/1 50/1
England v USA
1/41 100/1 50/1
Japan v Ireland
11/1 66/1 1/12
Scotland v Samoa
1/14 60/1 9/10 -
-
Bahydoethur said:
Wiki is wrong and Sunil is right. It was 'Great Britain' from 1707, although the name was used informally from 1603 to 1649, and the 'United Kingdom' when the Kingdom of Ireland was integrated into it.alex. said:
No Stuart is right. It was the United Kingdom from 1707. Well, according to wiki anyway!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
0 -
I did a bit of reading on Thomas Cook yesterday. Given all that has happened to Thomas Cook over the last decade or so and that we are in an era of the likes of Booking.com and Expedia — and all the many incarnations they have — it's quite surprising that they are still going.eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.0 -
Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .
0 -
Only for leading at half time, I’d suggest. They generally fade dramatically (Western Samoa excepted...). Like Italy, if matches ended at 60 minutes they’d be world beaters. The interchange bench kills them.Penddu said:
Samoa are good value at 9/1.StuartDickson said:Best prices - World Cup initial matches
Home Draw Away
Wales v Georgia
1/20 80/1 50/1
England v USA
1/41 100/1 50/1
Japan v Ireland
11/1 66/1 1/12
Scotland v Samoa
1/14 60/1 9/10 -
The problem is all the key figures in Labour had a terrible education. Corbyn Milne, Starmer...they were all privately educated and promoted waaaaay beyond their very limited abilities as a result.nico67 said:Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .0 -
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.Cyclefree said:
What are the moral metrics you are using?Benpointer said:
How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?Cyclefree said:alex. said:Cyclefree said:Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:MikeSmithson said:
I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
For instance, one could argue that a school which charges whatever Eton charges to rich parents couldn't possibly be a charity because those parents and their children are not the sort of people deserving of financial help, however indirect, as a result of the tax breaks the school receives.
Or one could argue that if the school provides financial and other help to other schools (eg by establishing them, paying for them) and pupils elsewhere (who would not otherwise benefit from this sort of education) and the financial worth of that help is greater than the financial worth of the tax breaks received, then society as a whole (and people who do deserve help) have received a benefit.
The former is a value metric based on who should receive charity. The latter is more a financial calculation mixed in with a value judgment about the recipients. There are other ways, of course, of calculating or determining what is or may be moral.
One final point: while the law and morality are not one and the same, the fact that a society has over a very long period of time determined that something is lawful may well be an indication that society considers it something worthwhile and moral in a more general sense. There are some obvious exceptions but what is lawful is an indication - not the only one, of course - but an important one of what a society values.
Eton uses its charitable status to benefit pupils whose parents can afford £42k per year to send them there. Said pupils then appear to benefit by being many times more likely to obtain a top job such as, oh I don't know, PM for example, than a pupil going to any other typical school.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
1 -
Low interest rates and customer inertia. It looks as if TUI will be the only big package operator left standing.glw said:
I did a bit of reading on Thomas Cook yesterday. Given all that has happened to Thomas Cook over the last decade or so and that we are in an era of the likes of Booking.com and Expedia — and all the many incarnations they have — it's quite surprising that they are still going.eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.0 -
I share that terror.TGOHF said:1 -
We actually understand human nature - that's why we're usually the ones in power.Benpointer said:
+1 Well said.StuartDickson said:
Tory thinks like a Tory. Nothing new there.blueblue said:
What comes after is ~350 Lib Dem MPs thinking they really rather like their jobs, their salaries, their public profile, and their power...Benpointer said:In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.
What comes after is PR.
What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.
That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.0 -
See discussion above. A legal minefield. You can’t just “remove charitable status” at the stroke of a pen. And many Private Schools are not charities anyway. Somehow find a way to remove charitable status from those that are and the likely effect is that they simply stop doing the charitable (and beneficial) works that they are currently required by law to carry out.nico67 said:Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .
1 -
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
No Stuart is right. It was the United Kingdom from 1707. Well, according to wiki anyway!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.0 -
You may be right. I don't think however that Marxists or Stalinists have any sort of solution to anything. They invariably make everything very much worse.Benpointer said:
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.Cyclefree said:
What are the moral metrics you are using?Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:alex. said:Cyclefree said:Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:MikeSmithson said:
For instance, one could argue that a school which charges whatever Eton charges to rich parents couldn't possibly be a charity because those parents and their children are not the sort of people deserving of financial help, however indirect, as a result of the tax breaks the school receives.
Eton uses its charitable status to benefit pupils whose parents can afford £42k per year to send them there. Said pupils then appear to benefit by being many times more likely to obtain a top job such as, oh I don't know, PM for example, than a pupil going to any other typical school.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
As in much else in British public life we never look at what other European countries do in the educational field. In most countries - oh, all right, the ones I know - there is a much smaller private school sector. Perhaps we could learn from our fellow Europeans?
Mind you, there is still the issue of self-perpetuating elites even in those countries. So perhaps education is not the only issue. Still, I think we could probably still learn something if only we weren't in the process of turning our noses up at the very idea that Europe might have something to teach us.0 -
I'd dearly love to know why @Charles's mum thinks Starmer is not fit for public office.ydoethur said:
The problem is all the key figures in Labour had a terrible education. Corbyn Milne, Starmer...they were all privately educated and promoted waaaaay beyond their very limited abilities as a result.nico67 said:Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .0 -
More to the point, what's it going to be called after Scotland and/or NI leave?JohnLilburne said:
Just Great Britain.surbiton19 said:
What was it called before ?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
Little Britain?0 -
-
Have you considered the possibility that the charity “subsidy” does not benefit those paying the huge fees but those who don’t? That if they stopped doing the various charitable activities that they do, then it might make no difference to the large fee payers?Benpointer said:
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.Cyclefree said:
What are the moral metrics you are using?Benpointer said:
How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?Cyclefree said:alex. said:Cyclefree said:Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:MikeSmithson said:
I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
For instance, one could argue that a school which charges whatever Eton charges to rich parents couldn't possibly be a charity because those parents and their children
Or one could argue that if the school provides financial and other help to other schools (eg by establishing them, paying for them) and pupils elsewhere (who would not otherwise benefit from this sort of education) and the financial worth of that help is greater than the financial worth of the tax breaks received, then society as a whole (and people who do deserve help) have received a benefit
One final point: while the law and morality are not one and the same, the fact that a society has over a very long period of time determined that something is lawful may well be an indication that society considers it something worthwhile and moral in a more general sense. There are some obvious exceptions but what is lawful is an indication - not the only one, of course - but an important one of what a society values.
Eton uses its charitable status to benefit pupils whose parents can afford £42k per year to send them there. Said pupils then appear to benefit by being many times more likely to obtain a top job such as, oh I don't know, PM for example, than a pupil going to any other typical school.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
0 -
I'm still trying to understand what a 'chair of chairs' is?Cyclefree said:
I'd dearly love to know why @Charles's mum thinks Starmer is not fit for public office.ydoethur said:
The problem is all the key figures in Labour had a terrible education. Corbyn Milne, Starmer...they were all privately educated and promoted waaaaay beyond their very limited abilities as a result.nico67 said:Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .0 -
On all of which points I heartily agree.Cyclefree said:
You may be right. I don't think however that Marxists or Stalinists have any sort of solution to anything. They invariably make everything very much worse.Benpointer said:
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.Cyclefree said:
What are the moral metrics you are using?Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:alex. said:Cyclefree said:Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:MikeSmithson said:
For instance, one could argue that a school which charges whatever Eton charges to rich parents couldn't possibly be a charity because those parents and their children are not the sort of people deserving of financial help, however indirect, as a result of the tax breaks the school receives.
Eton uses its charitable status to benefit pupils whose parents can afford £42k per year to send them there. Said pupils then appear to benefit by being many times more likely to obtain a top job such as, oh I don't know, PM for example, than a pupil going to any other typical school.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
As in much else in British public life we never look at what other European countries do in the educational field. In most countries - oh, all right, the ones I know - there is a much smaller private school sector. Perhaps we could learn from our fellow Europeans?
Mind you, there is still the issue of self-perpetuating elites even in those countries. So perhaps education is not the only issue. Still, I think we could probably still learn something if only we weren't in the process of turning our noses up at the very idea that Europe might have something to teach us. 0 -
Fair comment. Not saying they will win - just that worth a flutter at 9/1. Plus a side bet on the draw.matt said:
Only for leading at half time, I’d suggest. They generally fade dramatically (Western Samoa excepted...). Like Italy, if matches ended at 60 minutes they’d be world beaters. The interchange bench kills them.Penddu said:
Samoa are good value at 9/1.StuartDickson said:Best prices - World Cup initial matches
Home Draw Away
Wales v Georgia
1/20 80/1 50/1
England v USA
1/41 100/1 50/1
Japan v Ireland
11/1 66/1 1/12
Scotland v Samoa
1/14 60/1 9/10 -
-
I think Medicine has pretty much sorted equal ops now, and genuinely is a level playing field in the UK, not least because training and careers are in effect single provider, and that provider has genuine commitment to equality.Cyclefree said:
Nor am I. I was just noting that the position for women is not hunky dory either - and can often get worse as they get older. It was much much tougher working when my children were older than when they were young babies, a point I make when talking to womens' groups. People often assume - wrongly - that it is the other way around.Foxy said:
I am not claiming disCyclefree said:
Pah - that's nothing. How many Italian-Irish women do you think there are in the City? Or the law, come to that? Or ones who have worked full-time or ones over 40? I have been a minority my entire life. I have rarely been in a work meeting or event where women have been even approaching 50/50 let alone a majority.Foxy said:
In my last full-time role I was the only female MD (the top rank) who had been in my department more than 10 years, was working full-time and had children. Most of the other women had left, were part-time or not promoted. And that was in a department which had quite a few women working in it. In the money-making areas, the position was even worse ......
*indeed when I was starting out, I was on several occasions appointed over better qualified applicants.
You need to fight hard against the "older women becoming invisible" rule which can be all too common in life.
Quotas are a very crude way of dealing with a very real problem.
I am not so convinced the same is true in areas where careers are much more exposed to patronage, networking, and club-ability. This is where discrimination happens now. Ironically, media, culture, politics and law seem particularly open to these.
0 -
Tony Blair once said he wanted to make the state sector here like its equivalent in France, so good that nobody used private schools.Cyclefree said:As in much else in British public life we never look at what other European countries do in the educational field. In most countries - oh, all right, the ones I know - there is a much smaller private school sector. Perhaps we could learn from our fellow Europeans?
Which was in its own way amusing, as the French state sector is so shockingly bad that actually despite their long history of state action against private schooling the proportion of children privately educated in France was actually slightly higher than in the UK.
But in one way he did bring it in line with a France - when he left office in 2007 the numbers in private education had risen so far in relative and absolute terms that we were roughly in line with our French neighbours.
In its own way that's quite funny.0 -
England und Wales, surely?Benpointer said:
More to the point, what's it going to be called after Scotland and/or NI leave?JohnLilburne said:
Just Great Britain.surbiton19 said:
What was it called before ?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
Little Britain?1 -
Oh I am 100% certain it would make no noticable difference to the £42k Eton fee payers. But I still feel charitable status should be removed because it just plain wrong imo.alex. said:
Have you considered the possibility that the charity “subsidy” does not benefit those paying the huge fees but those who don’t? That if they stopped doing the various charitable activities that they do, then it might make no difference to the large fee payers?Benpointer said:
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.Cyclefree said:Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:alex. said:Cyclefree said:Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:MikeSmithson said:
Or one could argue that if the school provides financial and other help to other schools (eg by establishing them, paying for them) and pupils elsewhere (who would not otherwise benefit from this sort of education) and the financial worth of that help is greater than the financial worth of the tax breaks received, then society as a whole (and people who do deserve help) have received a benefit
One final point: while the law and morality are not one and the same, the fact that a society has over a very long period of time determined that something is lawful may well be an indication that society considers it something worthwhile and moral in a more general sense. There are some obvious exceptions but what is lawful is an indication - not the only one, of course - but an important one of what a society values.
Eton uses its charitable status to benefit pupils whose parents can afford £42k per year to send them there. Said pupils then appear to benefit by being many times more likely to obtain a top job such as, oh I don't know, PM for example, than a pupil going to any other typical school.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
VAT on school fees might be a more relevant priority though.0 -
-
In office but not in power at the moment thoughblueblue said:
We actually understand human nature - that's why we're usually the ones in power.Benpointer said:
+1 Well said.StuartDickson said:
Tory thinks like a Tory. Nothing new there.blueblue said:
What comes after is ~350 Lib Dem MPs thinking they really rather like their jobs, their salaries, their public profile, and their power...Benpointer said:In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.
What comes after is PR.
What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.
That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now. 0 -
I'm glad to see they've kept things civil.Scott_P said:
Nothing worse than rudeness to one's comrades.
Good night.0 -
0
-
Who cares? It's the skeletons in Starmer's cupboard I want to know about ......Benpointer said:
I'm still trying to understand what a 'chair of chairs' is?Cyclefree said:
I'd dearly love to know why @Charles's mum thinks Starmer is not fit for public office.ydoethur said:
The problem is all the key figures in Labour had a terrible education. Corbyn Milne, Starmer...they were all privately educated and promoted waaaaay beyond their very limited abilities as a result.nico67 said:Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .0 -
In 2001 it was acquired by the German company C&N Touristic AG, which changed its name to Thomas Cook AG.eek said:
According to today's Times twice as many Germans are on holiday with Thomas Cook than Brits at the moment.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.0 -
These are not good headlines for Labour.0
-
Probably just one of those policies designed to get people fired up and will be ditched once in office and the complexities emerge, like revoke for the LDs (I'm not sure what the Tory equivalent is - I'd say the Hunting ban, but plenty of Tories don't seem to be up for a vote on that),Cyclefree said:
But unless Labour is proposing to withdraw from the ECHR it does not entitle them to expropriate assets or ban the existence of non-state schools. And any law which Labour proposes has to, under the Human Rights Act, be declared to be compatible with that Act and the ECHR. If people think it isn't they won't hesitate to take the government to court. So Labour should not think that this is something which can easily be done.Benpointer said:
Many thanks for your response. I firmly believe their charitable status is a sham but I'm not really trying to prove it. I think Labour could find a way to force the rules to be tightened and yes, there will probably be some unfortunate unintended consequences.Cyclefree said:
Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.Benpointer said:
Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?Cyclefree said:
There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.
I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
My real point though, is that private schools' current charitable status is unlikely to be a barrier to Labour's plans.0 -
I assume the slip into German was accidental but whether 'und' oder 'and', it's not exactly elegant is it?Sunil_Prasannan said:
England und Wales, surely?Benpointer said:
More to the point, what's it going to be called after Scotland and/or NI leave?JohnLilburne said:
Just Great Britain.surbiton19 said:
What was it called before ?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
Little Britain?0 -
No shit sherlock :-)Gallowgate said:These are not good headlines for Labour.
0 -
"The Kingdom of England"Sunil_Prasannan said:
England und Wales, surely?Benpointer said:
More to the point, what's it going to be called after Scotland and/or NI leave?JohnLilburne said:
Just Great Britain.surbiton19 said:
What was it called before ?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.alex. said:
416?Sunil_Prasannan said:
218, surely?StuartDickson said:
Agreed.JohnLilburne said:
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.surbiton19 said:
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?KeithJenner said:
Where are you seeing that?Yellow_Submarine said:Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
Little Britain?0 -
They'll be looking forward to their conference polling bounceGallowgate said:These are not good headlines for Labour.
1 -
I think all elites have a tendency to become self replicating oligarchies. After all, who is better suited to lead than people on this side of the interview table?Cyclefree said:
Mind you, there is still the issue of self-perpetuating elites even in those countries. So perhaps education is not the only issue. Still, I think we could probably still learn something if only we weren't in the process of turning our noses up at the very idea that Europe might have something to teach us.Benpointer said:
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.Cyclefree said:
What are the moral metrics you are using?Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:alex. said:Cyclefree said:Benpointer said:Cyclefree said:MikeSmithson said:
For instance, one could argue that a school which charges whatever Eton charges to rich parents couldn't possibly be a charity because those parents and their children are not the sort of people deserving of financial help, however indirect, as a result of the tax breaks the school receives.
Eton uses its charitable status to benefit pupils whose parents can afford £42k per year to send them there. Said pupils then appear to benefit by being many times more likely to obtain a top job such as, oh I don't know, PM for example, than a pupil going to any other typical school.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
The benefits of new blood is vastly under estimated.
0 -
Well it might indicate which cupboard the skeletons are in.Cyclefree said:
Who cares? It's the skeletons in Starmer's cupboard I want to know about ......Benpointer said:
I'm still trying to understand what a 'chair of chairs' is?Cyclefree said:
I'd dearly love to know why @Charles's mum thinks Starmer is not fit for public office.ydoethur said:
The problem is all the key figures in Labour had a terrible education. Corbyn Milne, Starmer...they were all privately educated and promoted waaaaay beyond their very limited abilities as a result.nico67 said:Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .0
This discussion has been closed.