Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
It's also worth remembering that you are subject to both tax, and transaction costs, which the index excludes
With the new tax year looming, is it worth OP maxing out ISAs for this year (if still running; is today the last day?) and next? That will remove tax from the equation.
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
They didn’t invest in the stock market.
Did bonds give sufficient returns in those decades to finance pension plans? Genuine question.
I’m not expert on financial history, but I’m old enough to remember reading about significant reliance on stock market investment being something of an innovation.
And it depends what you mean by sufficient. I suspect the answer is no: people were poorer back then. I think it might have been the runaway inflation of the seventies which changed things.
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
They didn’t invest in the stock market.
Did bonds give sufficient returns in those decades to finance pension plans? Genuine question.
I’m not expert on financial history, but I’m old enough to remember reading about significant reliance on stock market investment being something of an innovation.
Well I know what I'm going to be trying to read up on tomorrow.
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
4 in my lifetime (born 80s) Vs 1 for Labour.
If you were born after 1983, you're yet to see a single Tory leader make it through a full term with a majority intact.
Pedant alert: Someone born in1984 did see Margaret Thatcher make it through to the full term with a Majority in June 1987. He/She was not there for the whole of the term though.
I'm sure someone with more knowledge of semantics than myself can make a ruling on whether your pedantry is 100% correct
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
They didn’t invest in the stock market.
Did bonds give sufficient returns in those decades to finance pension plans? Genuine question.
Yes, from the beginning of time up to 2008 (genuinely, pretty much).
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
They didn’t invest in the stock market.
Or in the case of one Prime Minister, invest in the stock market, lose the lot and get bailed out by your rich friends. And then do the same thing again. These days he'd be out on his ear and possibly in prison but the past is another country. Winston something-or-other, his name was.
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
Blair of course had more in common with Whig or Liberal leaders than traditional Labour leaders and in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century it was much less common for Tory leaders to win majorities, no Tory leader won a majority or even most seats while Blair was Labour leader
Hmmm.
Let’s start with the basics. There was no ‘Tory leader’ in the nineteenth century. There was a Leader in the Commons and a Leader in the Lords. If one was an ex-Prime Minister he was regarded as the overall leader. If not, it was the one who had served for longest who was considered Senior, but not overall leader. So for example, in 1880 Northcote was considered senior to Salisbury, and in 1911 Lansdowne was considered senior to Bonar Law.
But if I take those Tory leaders who after 1832 were considered leaders of the overall party, my list runs as follows:
Robert Peel Edward Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby Benjamin Disraeli Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury Arthur Balfour
And I suppose you could add:
Bonar Law* Austen Chamberlain*
Which to be honest, leaving aside that last bit, doesn’t look terribly different.
So 4 out of 7 'overall' Tory leaders between 1832 and 1922 did not win a majority, point proved, (Bonar Law led the party at the 1918 general election fought as the National Government under PM Lloyd George).
Wellington also lost the 1832 general election of course
How would he manage it pre 2024? If the Tories look vulnerable to losing they aren't having an early election.
I'm just thinking that corona is so huge you can't rely on the usual logic.
Ordinarily I'd be saying Starmer Will Never Be Prime Minister: he doesn't have the heft someone would need to beat Boris in ordinary times. He's got a lot to do though - I don't think hashtagtorygenocide is going to come to anything. Starmer needs to get busy clearing out the antisemites, and the stupid people. He needs to battle Labour before he can battle the Tories.
It might be that Boris is out of a job by 2024 - he's fated to do something big but it might just be, do Brexit and get us through Corona, but there won't be an election till the end of Parliament unless there is a new leader and it's obvious the Tories storm it. If the Tories are in trouble then there's no way - turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas.
18/1 -- reasoning in previous thread -- has won last two races so in form and is one of only two to have won at the distance.
Graphics were better than I expected.
You must have processed the data like the program did. That's a talent that could perhaps be monetized in other ways.
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
If they were moaning because they won and wanted to deprive the NHS of more donations then the bookies were correct.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
Blair of course had more in common with Whig or Liberal leaders than traditional Labour leaders and in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century it was much less common for Tory leaders to win majorities, no Tory leader won a majority or even most seats while Blair was Labour leader
Hmmm.
Let’s start with the basics. There was no ‘Tory leader’ in the nineteenth century. There was a Leader in the Commons and a Leader in the Lords. If one was an ex-Prime Minister he was regarded as the overall leader. If not, it was the one who had served for longest who was considered Senior, but not overall leader. So for example, in 1880 Northcote was considered senior to Salisbury, and in 1911 Lansdowne was considered senior to Bonar Law.
But if I take those Tory leaders who after 1832 were considered leaders of the overall party, my list runs as follows:
Robert Peel Edward Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby Benjamin Disraeli Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury Arthur Balfour
And I suppose you could add:
Bonar Law* Austen Chamberlain*
Which to be honest, leaving aside that last bit, doesn’t look terribly different.
So 4 out of 7 'overall' Tory leaders between 1832 and 1922 did not win a majority, point proved (Bonar Law led the party at both 1910 elections and also failed to win a majority and should be added too (the 1918 general election fought as the National Government)
Bonar Law did not lead the party in 1910. He was elected leader in the Commons in 1911.
I’m dubious about calling him and Chamberlain party leaders. They were officially leaders in the Commons. However, because Lansdowne was a bland nobody and Curzon was a total loon they were generally regarded, including by Lloyd George, as the most senior figures.
I hadn’t thought of 1918, surprising though that may seem. But if I did include it, Bonar Law would arguably have won a majority given the Unionist vote was the bedrock of the Coalition's success.
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
I hope we get to see Pinatubo at Newmarket.
Name a bit like mine, I'd say. Both of us are mountains and sound like thoroughbreds who win group ones.
A gambling question. I'm translating Danish regulations for casino operators. What do you call one game of chance transaction, using the same word (in Danish "traek") for one pull on a one-armed bandit or one session of bingo? Or maybe one needs different words in English? A pull? Works for the one-armed bandit but still doesn't feel quite right.
Spin, Hand, Pull, are the 3 in a casino that I can think of.
Can you not check the British (or any other English language) regulations?
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
Blair of course had more in common with Whig or Liberal leaders than traditional Labour leaders and in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century it was much less common for Tory leaders to win majorities, no Tory leader won a majority or even most seats while Blair was Labour leader
Hmmm.
Let’s start with the basics. There was no ‘Tory leader’ in the nineteenth century. There was a Leader in the Commons and a Leader in the Lords. If one was an ex-Prime Minister he was regarded as the overall leader. If not, it was the one who had served for longest who was considered Senior, but not overall leader. So for example, in 1880 Northcote was considered senior to Salisbury, and in 1911 Lansdowne was considered senior to Bonar Law.
But if I take those Tory leaders who after 1832 were considered leaders of the overall party, my list runs as follows:
Robert Peel Edward Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby Benjamin Disraeli Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury Arthur Balfour
And I suppose you could add:
Bonar Law* Austen Chamberlain*
Which to be honest, leaving aside that last bit, doesn’t look terribly different.
So 4 out of 7 'overall' Tory leaders between 1832 and 1922 did not win a majority, point proved, (Bonar Law led the party at the 1918 general election fought as the National Government).
Wellington also lost the 1832 general election of course
Wellington had also announced in 1830 that he never wished to be Prime Minister again. Although that didn’t stop him from trying to form a government in 1832 or running a caretaker ministry of himself only in 1834.
Today’s main event has been the frankly epic amount of weeding I’ve done. I trust no one with a badge is going to complain that I have enjoyed my time outdoors too much.
Lying down in parks. I noticed yesterday the gate to our local park has a new sign limiting our freedom to sell sex in the park. Or possibly to buy sex; I forget which. I imagine this is a side effect of killjoy Boris closing massage parlours.
Sex al fresco sounds like a marvellous way to get your daily exercise. If it is with a member of your household and well away from prying eyes it complies with all the rules. And indeed with the guidance.
Though in a Lake District summer you’d have to be so wrapped up to stay warm and alive that unbuttoning all the layers would probably provide quite enough exercise for the day.
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
Blair of course had more in common with Whig or Liberal leaders than traditional Labour leaders and in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century it was much less common for Tory leaders to win majorities, no Tory leader won a majority or even most seats while Blair was Labour leader
Hmmm.
Let’s start with the basics. There was no ‘Tory leader’ in the nineteenth century. There was a Leader in the Commons and a Leader in the Lords. If one was an ex-Prime Minister he was regarded as the overall leader. If not, it was the one who had served for longest who was considered Senior, but not overall leader. So for example, in 1880 Northcote was considered senior to Salisbury, and in 1911 Lansdowne was considered senior to Bonar Law.
But if I take those Tory leaders who after 1832 were considered leaders of the overall party, my list runs as follows:
Robert Peel Edward Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby Benjamin Disraeli Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury Arthur Balfour
And I suppose you could add:
Bonar Law* Austen Chamberlain*
Which to be honest, leaving aside that last bit, doesn’t look terribly different.
So 4 out of 7 'overall' Tory leaders between 1832 and 1922 did not win a majority, point proved (Bonar Law led the party at both 1910 elections and also failed to win a majority and should be added too (the 1918 general election fought as the National Government)
Bonar Law did not lead the party in 1910. He was elected leader of the Commons in 1911.
I’m dubious about calling him and Chamberlain party leaders. They were officially leaders in the Commons. However, because Lansdowne was a bland nobody and Curzon was a total loon they were generally regarded, including by Lloyd George, as the most senior figures.
I hadn’t thought of 1918, surprising though that may seem. But if I did include it, Bonar Law would arguably have won a majority given the Unionist vote was the bedrock of the Coalition's success.
Add another 2 defeats for Balfour then.
Lloyd George was PM overall in 1918 though and of course as I said Wellington also lost the 1832 general election
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
Blair of course had more in common with Whig or Liberal leaders than traditional Labour leaders and in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century it was much less common for Tory leaders to win majorities, no Tory leader won a majority or even most seats while Blair was Labour leader
Hmmm.
Let’s start with the basics. There was no ‘Tory leader’ in the nineteenth century. There was a Leader in the Commons and a Leader in the Lords. If one was an ex-Prime Minister he was regarded as the overall leader. If not, it was the one who had served for longest who was considered Senior, but not overall leader. So for example, in 1880 Northcote was considered senior to Salisbury, and in 1911 Lansdowne was considered senior to Bonar Law.
But if I take those Tory leaders who after 1832 were considered leaders of the overall party, my list runs as follows:
Robert Peel Edward Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby Benjamin Disraeli Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury Arthur Balfour
And I suppose you could add:
Bonar Law* Austen Chamberlain*
Which to be honest, leaving aside that last bit, doesn’t look terribly different.
So 4 out of 7 'overall' Tory leaders between 1832 and 1922 did not win a majority, point proved (Bonar Law led the party at both 1910 elections and also failed to win a majority and should be added too (the 1918 general election fought as the National Government)
Bonar Law did not lead the party in 1910. He was elected leader of the Commons in 1911.
I’m dubious about calling him and Chamberlain party leaders. They were officially leaders in the Commons. However, because Lansdowne was a bland nobody and Curzon was a total loon they were generally regarded, including by Lloyd George, as the most senior figures.
I hadn’t thought of 1918, surprising though that may seem. But if I did include it, Bonar Law would arguably have won a majority given the Unionist vote was the bedrock of the Coalition's success.
Lloyd George was PM overall in 1918 though and of course as I said Wellington also lost the 1832 general election
Yes, but Lloyd George owed his success to the support of the Unionists. Where Liberals were opposed by Unionists, even when they were couponed and the Unionists were not, they got hammered.
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
I hope we get to see Pinatubo at Newmarket.
Name a bit like mine, I'd say. Both of us are mountains and sound like thoroughbreds who win group ones.
There was talk of restarting racing on the 1st of May, just in time for the Guineas but it is hard to see it now, even with Covid-19 deaths expected to fall after Easter (next weekend). I see Chester has just been called off.
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
Blair of course had more in common with Whig or Liberal leaders than traditional Labour leaders and in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century it was much less common for Tory leaders to win majorities, no Tory leader won a majority or even most seats while Blair was Labour leader
Hmmm.
Let’s start with the basics. There was no ‘Tory leader’ in the nineteenth century. There was a Leader in the Commons and a Leader in the Lords. If one was an ex-Prime Minister he was regarded as the overall leader. If not, it was the one who had served for longest who was considered Senior, but not overall leader. So for example, in 1880 Northcote was considered senior to Salisbury, and in 1911 Lansdowne was considered senior to Bonar Law.
But if I take those Tory leaders who after 1832 were considered leaders of the overall party, my list runs as follows:
Robert Peel Edward Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby Benjamin Disraeli Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury Arthur Balfour
And I suppose you could add:
Bonar Law* Austen Chamberlain*
Which to be honest, leaving aside that last bit, doesn’t look terribly different.
So 4 out of 7 'overall' Tory leaders between 1832 and 1922 did not win a majority, point proved (Bonar Law led the party at both 1910 elections and also failed to win a majority and should be added too (the 1918 general election fought as the National Government)
Bonar Law did not lead the party in 1910. He was elected leader of the Commons in 1911.
I’m dubious about calling him and Chamberlain party leaders. They were officially leaders in the Commons. However, because Lansdowne was a bland nobody and Curzon was a total loon they were generally regarded, including by Lloyd George, as the most senior figures.
I hadn’t thought of 1918, surprising though that may seem. But if I did include it, Bonar Law would arguably have won a majority given the Unionist vote was the bedrock of the Coalition's success.
Add another 2 defeats to Balfour then.
Strictly speaking they were hung Parliaments, although due to Irish support for the Liberals yes you are right in practice.
But Jeremy WAS badly treated by some on the right of the party. That cannot be denied.
Corbyn can't complain that the parliamentary party wasn't unified when 73% of them said they didn't want him as leader, but he stayed on. It's not everyone else that's wrong, it's him!
A gambling question. I'm translating Danish regulations for casino operators. What do you call one game of chance transaction, using the same word (in Danish "traek") for one pull on a one-armed bandit or one session of bingo? Or maybe one needs different words in English? A pull? Works for the one-armed bandit but still doesn't feel quite right.
Spin, Hand, Pull, are the 3 in a casino that I can think of.
Can you not check the British (or any other English language) regulations?
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
The version of 'proves' used in that saying is an old version which means 'tests' as opposed to 'verifies'. So the way people use the saying today indeed makes no sense.
It derives from Scandinavian. In Norwegian the verb 'to try' is 'prove'. Pronounced 'prer-ver'.
I don't see that either version makes sense. Say your rule is that all swans are white, and you come across a black swan. The modern misunderstanding is that this confirms the rule because it wouldn't be an exception unless there was a rule for it to be an exception to. But if it proves in the sense of tests, it doesn't just test, it tests and shows to be false - which doesn't seem interesting enough to have a proverb about it.
Falsification is the basis of scientific principle. At least if you follow Karl Popper. If you cannot falsify something you cannot use it in a scientific study.
It’s clearly a fantastic proverb, since it provokes sustained discussion about falsifiability.
Is the point of the proverb that if the rule is eg all swans are white and you only take notice when you see a black one it makes you realise the rule is pretty good?
Today’s main event has been the frankly epic amount of weeding I’ve done. I trust no one with a badge is going to complain that I have enjoyed my time outdoors too much.
Lying down in parks. I noticed yesterday the gate to our local park has a new sign limiting our freedom to sell sex in the park. Or possibly to buy sex; I forget which. I imagine this is a side effect of killjoy Boris closing massage parlours.
Sex al fresco sounds like a marvellous way to get your daily exercise. If it is with a member of your household and well away from prying eyes it complies with all the rules. And indeed with the guidance.
Though in a Lake District summer you’d have to be so wrapped up to stay warm and alive that unbuttoning all the layers would probably provide quite enough exercise for the day.
The Austin Powers solution:
Local slapper is plying her trade in the park. Officer approaches.
‘What are the two of you doing?’
‘Taking our daily exercise officer.’
‘I don’t think this is covered by regulations sir.’
‘Boris said we could cycle. I’m just having my ride on the village bike.’
But Jeremy WAS badly treated by some on the right of the party. That cannot be denied.
They showed him precisely the same level of loyalty he showed previous Labour leaders. Corbyn reaped what he sowed.
I don't know the man. But it appears he never cared overmuch about his colleagues in Parliament, and that undermined him from the very start and he can have few complaints about that. A PM or prospective PM needs to be able to manage things in Parliament, it was arrogance to think those who have been entrusted with the collective governorship of this country can be ignored.
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
I hope we get to see Pinatubo at Newmarket.
Name a bit like mine, I'd say. Both of us are mountains and sound like thoroughbreds who win group ones.
There was talk of restarting racing on the 1st of May, just in time for the Guineas but it is hard to see it now, even with Covid-19 deaths expected to fall after Easter (next weekend). I see Chester has just been called off.
This is quality. The tweet is from the head of racing at Coral
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
The version of 'proves' used in that saying is an old version which means 'tests' as opposed to 'verifies'. So the way people use the saying today indeed makes no sense.
It derives from Scandinavian. In Norwegian the verb 'to try' is 'prove'. Pronounced 'prer-ver'.
I don't see that either version makes sense. Say your rule is that all swans are white, and you come across a black swan. The modern misunderstanding is that this confirms the rule because it wouldn't be an exception unless there was a rule for it to be an exception to. But if it proves in the sense of tests, it doesn't just test, it tests and shows to be false - which doesn't seem interesting enough to have a proverb about it.
Falsification is the basis of scientific principle. At least if you follow Karl Popper. If you cannot falsify something you cannot use it in a scientific study.
It’s clearly a fantastic proverb, since it provokes sustained discussion about falsifiability.
Is the point of the proverb that if the rule is eg all swans are white and you only take notice when you see a black one it makes you realise the rule is pretty good?
All swans ARE white (within engineering accuracy).
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
I hope we get to see Pinatubo at Newmarket.
Name a bit like mine, I'd say. Both of us are mountains and sound like thoroughbreds who win group ones.
At least 2 other mountains have won the grand national.
They showed him precisely the same level of loyalty he showed previous Labour leaders. Corbyn reaped what he sowed.
To an extent. Corbyn rebelled a lot on votes and lived in his own far left niche. But some of these people went much further than that. They vilified and smeared him relentlessly and did their utmost to bring him down. Some of them also quite clearly preferred a Tory government to a Corbyn Labour one. And they on the one hand prioritized Remain over GTTO and yet screwed up the chance to stop Brexit. They are careerists and charlatans and I do not respect them.
Corbyn can't complain that the parliamentary party wasn't unified when 73% of them said they didn't want him as leader, but he stayed on. It's not everyone else that's wrong, it's him!
The members wanted him. The party is bigger than MPs.
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
I hope we get to see Pinatubo at Newmarket.
Name a bit like mine, I'd say. Both of us are mountains and sound like thoroughbreds who win group ones.
At least 2 other mountains have won the grand national.
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
I hope we get to see Pinatubo at Newmarket.
Name a bit like mine, I'd say. Both of us are mountains and sound like thoroughbreds who win group ones.
At least 2 other mountains have won the grand national.
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
I hope we get to see Pinatubo at Newmarket.
Name a bit like mine, I'd say. Both of us are mountains and sound like thoroughbreds who win group ones.
At least 2 other mountains have won the grand national.
They showed him precisely the same level of loyalty he showed previous Labour leaders. Corbyn reaped what he sowed.
To an extent. Corbyn rebelled a lot on votes and lived in his own far left niche. But some of these people went much further than that. They vilified and smeared him relentlessly and did their utmost to bring him down. Some of them also quite clearly preferred a Tory government to a Corbyn Labour one. And they on the one hand prioritized Remain over GTTO and yet screwed up the chance to stop Brexit. They are careerists and charlatans and I do not respect them.
I don't think all your comments are consistent with one another. If they were merely careerists they would not have sought to bring him down, and thus harm their potential careers, they'd have cosied up to him, changing their principles to fit the new leadership in an effort to assist their careers.
One might argue those who stuck resolutely to their guns and refused to countenance the new party regime were acting in a Corbyn like principled manner in doing so, even if one disagrees with their reluctance to support him.
And in fact there were long periods whre they were completely silent, as was often noted as to make themselves feel better they'd only emerge to criticise when issues relating to foreign affairs and anti-semitism arose.
What counts as a smear is also highly subjective, since accurately stating his views and being opposed to them would not be smear, merely an attack. Inaccurately stating his views would be a smear, and it probably happened on occasion, but not all the attacks were smears, whether or not they were reasonable attacks.
Starmer, however, was loyal enough to remain in post, so I assume most will give him a chance.
They showed him precisely the same level of loyalty he showed previous Labour leaders. Corbyn reaped what he sowed.
To an extent. Corbyn rebelled a lot on votes and lived in his own far left niche. But some of these people went much further than that. They vilified and smeared him relentlessly and did their utmost to bring him down. Some of them also quite clearly preferred a Tory government to a Corbyn Labour one. And they on the one hand prioritized Remain over GTTO and yet screwed up the chance to stop Brexit. They are careerists and charlatans and I do not respect them.
Do you not think it is an indictment on Corbyn that many of those who knew him never wanted him anywhere near Govt?
I want to see a ruthless purge of Corbynism from the Labour Party. He was a disaster and this period has been a great stain on one of the great political parties. Who would have thought that the Labour Party would have sunk to the anti semitism that has engulfed it these last years?
Ordinarily I'd be saying Starmer Will Never Be Prime Minister: he doesn't have the heft someone would need to beat Boris in ordinary times. He's got a lot to do though - I don't think hashtagtorygenocide is going to come to anything. Starmer needs to get busy clearing out the antisemites, and the stupid people. He needs to battle Labour before he can battle the Tories.
It might be that Boris is out of a job by 2024 - he's fated to do something big but it might just be, do Brexit and get us through Corona, but there won't be an election till the end of Parliament unless there is a new leader and it's obvious the Tories storm it. If the Tories are in trouble then there's no way - turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas.
Quick one off the top of my head -
Corona brings us low and recovery requires EU integration and indefinite postponement of Brexit.
But Jeremy WAS badly treated by some on the right of the party. That cannot be denied.
They showed him precisely the same level of loyalty he showed previous Labour leaders. Corbyn reaped what he sowed.
I don't know the man. But it appears he never cared overmuch about his colleagues in Parliament, and that undermined him from the very start and he can have few complaints about that. A PM or prospective PM needs to be able to manage things in Parliament, it was arrogance to think those who have been entrusted with the collective governorship of this country can be ignored.
Corbyn was born to oppose.
He opposed Israel, he opposed the Britich Government in Northern Ireland, irrespective of its stripe. He opposed all British Governments at home and abroad. He opposed the European Union. He opposed the USA in Cuba.and Vietnam. He opposed the nuclear deterrent, and NATO during the cold war. He opposed everything.
When by some quirk of reality he became leader of the Party he had belonged to, but had opposed every leader of, including Michael Foot, since he was a teenager, the only thing left to oppose was every other MP in the Party. Is it any wonder that in the end, nearly three quarters of those who voted in a General Election opposed him?
Ordinarily I'd be saying Starmer Will Never Be Prime Minister: he doesn't have the heft someone would need to beat Boris in ordinary times. He's got a lot to do though - I don't think hashtagtorygenocide is going to come to anything. Starmer needs to get busy clearing out the antisemites, and the stupid people. He needs to battle Labour before he can battle the Tories.
It might be that Boris is out of a job by 2024 - he's fated to do something big but it might just be, do Brexit and get us through Corona, but there won't be an election till the end of Parliament unless there is a new leader and it's obvious the Tories storm it. If the Tories are in trouble then there's no way - turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas.
Quick one off the top of my head -
Corona brings us low and recovery requires EU integration and indefinite postponement of Brexit.
Tory split. Election.
Too late, we’ve already left the EU. To go back in we would have to reapply under a49 and that simply isn’t going to happen.
Ordinarily I'd be saying Starmer Will Never Be Prime Minister: he doesn't have the heft someone would need to beat Boris in ordinary times. He's got a lot to do though - I don't think hashtagtorygenocide is going to come to anything. Starmer needs to get busy clearing out the antisemites, and the stupid people. He needs to battle Labour before he can battle the Tories.
It might be that Boris is out of a job by 2024 - he's fated to do something big but it might just be, do Brexit and get us through Corona, but there won't be an election till the end of Parliament unless there is a new leader and it's obvious the Tories storm it. If the Tories are in trouble then there's no way - turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas.
Quick one off the top of my head -
Corona brings us low and recovery requires EU integration and indefinite postponement of Brexit.
Tory split. Election.
Mercifully, we've already left, so such a scenario is impossible.
Ordinarily I'd be saying Starmer Will Never Be Prime Minister: he doesn't have the heft someone would need to beat Boris in ordinary times. He's got a lot to do though - I don't think hashtagtorygenocide is going to come to anything. Starmer needs to get busy clearing out the antisemites, and the stupid people. He needs to battle Labour before he can battle the Tories.
It might be that Boris is out of a job by 2024 - he's fated to do something big but it might just be, do Brexit and get us through Corona, but there won't be an election till the end of Parliament unless there is a new leader and it's obvious the Tories storm it. If the Tories are in trouble then there's no way - turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas.
Quick one off the top of my head -
Corona brings us low and recovery requires EU integration and indefinite postponement of Brexit.
Tory split. Election.
Which rather ignores the fact that Brexit has already happened. That cannot be reversed so all we are delaying is leaving the transition period.
This seems to be a fact that both of the extremist sides of the Brexit debate seem to be having trouble getting their heads around.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
I ran five miles for the first time today. I'm also half-a-stone lighter. The lockdown and the whole plague situation may be shit in almost all respects but my fitness seems much improved!
Lost half a stone in a day! - 999?
Oh ha ha, very funny... since the start of this nonsense, of course.
This was something of a surprise. I was concerned that the amount of time spent stuck at home with a tempting supply of chocolate biscuits to hand would cause me to morph into a sphere.
That's what I mean. Not probable, of course, but eminently possible.
We may not be able to deal with post corona on our own.
You don't think our own politicians are capable of being useless and ineffectual enough on their own that we would need to draft in help from Brussels?
I don't think all your comments are consistent with one another. If they were merely careerists they would not have sought to bring him down, and thus harm their potential careers, they'd have cosied up to him, changing their principles to fit the new leadership in an effort to assist their careers.
One might argue those who stuck resolutely to their guns and refused to countenance the new party regime were acting in a Corbyn like principled manner in doing so, even if one disagrees with their reluctance to support him.
And in fact there were long periods whre they were completely silent, as was often noted as to make themselves feel better they'd only emerge to criticise when issues relating to foreign affairs and anti-semitism arose.
What counts as a smear is also highly subjective, since accurately stating his views and being opposed to them would not be smear, merely an attack. Inaccurately stating his views would be a smear, and it probably happened on occasion, but not all the attacks were smears, whether or not they were reasonable attacks.
Starmer, however, was loyal enough to remain in post, so I assume most will give him a chance.
Careerists in the sense that certain people lost both their marbles AND their prospects when Corbyn took over and therefore to stay relevant they threw themselves into the Remain cause. Not because they believed in the EU that passionately, but because it gave them something to do. Kept them on the telly.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
Can we declare HS2 dead yet?
i doubt it. Big, profitable infrastructure projects funded by borrowing are likely to be more important in an economic crisis, not less - and HS2 is one of the few that’s ready to go.
Do you not think it is an indictment on Corbyn that many of those who knew him never wanted him anywhere near Govt?
I want to see a ruthless purge of Corbynism from the Labour Party. He was a disaster and this period has been a great stain on one of the great political parties. Who would have thought that the Labour Party would have sunk to the anti semitism that has engulfed it these last years?
Do not agree with that. But he was not a credible PM. This I do agree with. Starmer is much better in this - crucial - regard.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
Can we declare HS2 dead yet?
i doubt it. Big, profitable infrastructure projects funded by borrowing are likely to be more important in an economic crisis, not less - and HS2 is one of the few that’s ready to go.
Can we call those opposed to HS2 who think it won't happen brain dead yet ?
Do you not think it is an indictment on Corbyn that many of those who knew him never wanted him anywhere near Govt?
I want to see a ruthless purge of Corbynism from the Labour Party. He was a disaster and this period has been a great stain on one of the great political parties. Who would have thought that the Labour Party would have sunk to the anti semitism that has engulfed it these last years?
Do not agree with that. But he was not a credible PM. This I do agree with. Starmer is much better in this - crucial - regard.
Which part do you not agree with? I'll spell them out for you....
I know people who know Corbyn...and they did not think he was fit to be PM. Corbyn was a disaster for the Labour Party- 12th December 2019. Anti-semitism engulfed the Labour Party.
I never bailed out on the Labour Party...I kept my membership through thick and thin....since 1983 (I was a young socialist doing my O levels)....
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
Can we declare HS2 dead yet?
i doubt it. Big, profitable infrastructure projects funded by borrowing are likely to be more important in an economic crisis, not less - and HS2 is one of the few that’s ready to go.
Can we call those opposed to HS2 who think it won't happen brain dead yet ?
No.
But we can say that they are letting hope triumph over sense.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
Can we declare HS2 dead yet?
i doubt it. Big, profitable infrastructure projects funded by borrowing are likely to be more important in an economic crisis, not less - and HS2 is one of the few that’s ready to go.
Now that everyone has realised that they can hold meetings just as easily using Zoom or Teams or whatever, the need for day trips from the provinces to the Smoke is greatly diminished.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
Can we declare HS2 dead yet?
i doubt it. Big, profitable infrastructure projects funded by borrowing are likely to be more important in an economic crisis, not less - and HS2 is one of the few that’s ready to go.
Particularly if it is all going to be run by the Chinese.
Brilliant article. It is time we faced up to these questions.
Agreed. Trouble is that Dr Shipman and similar cases make it even less likely patients will be given sufficient pain relief, never mind voluntary euthenasia. A pain-free death ought to be a human right.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
Can we declare HS2 dead yet?
i doubt it. Big, profitable infrastructure projects funded by borrowing are likely to be more important in an economic crisis, not less - and HS2 is one of the few that’s ready to go.
Can we call those opposed to HS2 who think it won't happen brain dead yet ?
Oh it will probably happen. Doesn't mean it should do. It is those supporting this outdated and unnecessary project who are the brain dead.
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
Prove originally meant "to test" before acquiring its more specialised modern meaning.
Although Wiktionary tells me I'm wrong and that "to test" was only one of its meanings, which it largely seems to have lost. We still talk about proving-grounds though.
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
They didn’t invest in the stock market.
Or in the case of one Prime Minister, invest in the stock market, lose the lot and get bailed out by your rich friends. And then do the same thing again. These days he'd be out on his ear and possibly in prison but the past is another country. Winston something-or-other, his name was.
Churchill made his retirement money on his WWII history (and had a team assist him write it). Something like £30m in today’s terms.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
Especially when the HS2 cheerleaders want to chop so many down.
Can we declare HS2 dead yet?
i doubt it. Big, profitable infrastructure projects funded by borrowing are likely to be more important in an economic crisis, not less - and HS2 is one of the few that’s ready to go.
Well it's certainly big, and infrastructure. And I agree that a lot of it has already started and needs some sort of workable resolution. Personally I think I'd take it as far as Aylesbury and build some sort of new garden commuter town, like Milton Keynes if Milton Keynes wasn't a dystopian ****hole. Admittedly that's not an informed conclusion, just an idea.
Re the debate on investment - one point not mentioned much so far is the importance of dividends.
Dividends (as opposed to capital gains) make up a much higher proportion of stock market returns over a long period of time than most people realise.
In the UK I think up to maybe the 1970s the dividend yield was always higher than the yield on Government bonds (due to higher risk associated with equities) but then in the 1980s that all changed with the dividend yield going lower due to the expected future growth of dividends (Gordon growth model).
Not sure about historical dividend yields in the US. The most extraordinary bit of the Dow Jones chart is the sustained fall from 8,000 in the mid 1960s to 2,000 in 1980 - a fall of 75% over 15 years but I don't know how much that fall would have been mitigated by dividends.
Regardless of the above, it surely has to be wise to take a balanced approach and don't put all your eggs in one basket. History shows that very unexpected things can happen and happen over a long period of time as, eg, anyone who invested in the US stock market in the mid 1960s will certainly testify.
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
Prove originally meant "to test" before acquiring its more specialised modern meaning.
Although Wiktionary tells me I'm wrong and that "to test" was only one of its meanings, which it largely seems to have lost. We still talk about proving-grounds though.
And we proof coins in the Trial of the Pyx
And of course proof as a measure of alcohol content
A hospital has asked people not to come to its accident and emergency department until further notice, saying it is running out of oxygen. Watford General Hospital has declared a critical incident and said any emergency patients should go to other hospitals with A&E units. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-52151694
The oxygen question came up last week. (Demand levels are unprecedented, and some hospitals have had to replumb systems to accommodate.) Matt Hancock said it ought to be no problem, but I guess demand rose faster than expected.
Hancock on the ball as ever , bit like their supposedly ever increasing testing. All just bollox as they promise more and more but reality is just not there. Good talk but crap reality.
Dodds is Scottish, so no doubt will attract the ire and hatred of the Cybernats for being a 'treacherous yoon'.
You're no doubt fondly remembering the days when folk in Scotland were bothered about what went on in Labour. The overwhelming reaction even amongst those who have a passing interest will be 'who she'.
Unfortunately, I fear you may be right. Had a look on a few prominent Cybernats' twitter accounts today - who five years ago were constantly slamming Milliband and Murphy - and the only reaction to SKS' elevation was a shrug of the shoulders from the Rev. of Bath. Still, if Labour can eventually attract their ire again once more, that would probably mean they might actually be on the road to some kind of recovery in Scotland. Better to be hated than ignored.
Depending on the seats a modest Labour revival could well produce several Tory gains.
The SNP are more interested in attacking each other these days. Keir Starmer's appointment of a Scottish lady (I have no idea how good she is, I have never heard of her until today) may be a sign that he is preparinh a Scottish charm offensive. It remains to be seen if Scots are charmed or offended.
From the looks of it, the vast majority in their 20s/30s. The wrong message took hold, that the old die from it, when it should have been that all except those under ten will suffer from it.
Comments
And it depends what you mean by sufficient. I suspect the answer is no: people were poorer back then.
I think it might have been the runaway inflation of the seventies which changed things.
5 Tory majorities (With 3 different leaders)
1970
1979
1983
1987
2019
to 4 Labour (With 2 different leaders)
1966
1997
2001
2005
Fairly well balanced.
Of course you were born just after the end of 13 years of Conservative rule.
K E I R.
Shit.
The problem for May was a mixture of greed and hubris.
Wellington also lost the 1832 general election of course
It might be that Boris is out of a job by 2024 - he's fated to do something big but it might just be, do Brexit and get us through Corona, but there won't be an election till the end of Parliament unless there is a new leader and it's obvious the Tories storm it. If the Tories are in trouble then there's no way - turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas.
To lose his majority he either has to have forty+ (FORTY PLUS) MPs either defect or trigger by elections, all of which are lost.
I mean, it’s possible in the sense that anything is possible but we are talking minuscule chances here.
I’m dubious about calling him and Chamberlain party leaders. They were officially leaders in the Commons. However, because Lansdowne was a bland nobody and Curzon was a total loon they were generally regarded, including by Lloyd George, as the most senior figures.
I hadn’t thought of 1918, surprising though that may seem. But if I did include it, Bonar Law would arguably have won a majority given the Unionist vote was the bedrock of the Coalition's success.
Name a bit like mine, I'd say. Both of us are mountains and sound like thoroughbreds who win group ones.
Though in a Lake District summer you’d have to be so wrapped up to stay warm and alive that unbuttoning all the layers would probably provide quite enough exercise for the day.
Lloyd George was PM overall in 1918 though and of course as I said Wellington also lost the 1832 general election
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Footer/Gambling-related-legislation.aspx
You could also go to a casino's site and see if their rules are published.
Local slapper is plying her trade in the park. Officer approaches.
‘What are the two of you doing?’
‘Taking our daily exercise officer.’
‘I don’t think this is covered by regulations sir.’
‘Boris said we could cycle. I’m just having my ride on the village bike.’
One might argue those who stuck resolutely to their guns and refused to countenance the new party regime were acting in a Corbyn like principled manner in doing so, even if one disagrees with their reluctance to support him.
And in fact there were long periods whre they were completely silent, as was often noted as to make themselves feel better they'd only emerge to criticise when issues relating to foreign affairs and anti-semitism arose.
What counts as a smear is also highly subjective, since accurately stating his views and being opposed to them would not be smear, merely an attack. Inaccurately stating his views would be a smear, and it probably happened on occasion, but not all the attacks were smears, whether or not they were reasonable attacks.
Starmer, however, was loyal enough to remain in post, so I assume most will give him a chance.
I want to see a ruthless purge of Corbynism from the Labour Party. He was a disaster and this period has been a great stain on one of the great political parties. Who would have thought that the Labour Party would have sunk to the anti semitism that has engulfed it these last years?
Corona brings us low and recovery requires EU integration and indefinite postponement of Brexit.
Tory split. Election.
He opposed Israel, he opposed the Britich Government in Northern Ireland, irrespective of its stripe. He opposed all British Governments at home and abroad. He opposed the European Union. He opposed the USA in Cuba.and Vietnam. He opposed the nuclear deterrent, and NATO during the cold war. He opposed everything.
When by some quirk of reality he became leader of the Party he had belonged to, but had opposed every leader of, including Michael Foot, since he was a teenager, the only thing left to oppose was every other MP in the Party. Is it any wonder that in the end, nearly three quarters of those who voted in a General Election opposed him?
2007....Brown was facing McDonnell.....
Miliband and Corbyn.....vs Hague and IDS.....the Tories tripled down with the abysmal Howard before coming to their senses....
This seems to be a fact that both of the extremist sides of the Brexit debate seem to be having trouble getting their heads around.
That's what I mean. Not probable, of course, but eminently possible.
We may not be able to deal with post corona on our own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan
"The black swan (Cygnus atratus) is a large waterbird, a species of swan which breeds mainly in the southeast and southwest regions of Australia."
(Locke died in 1704, Cook stuck a flag in Australia in 1770. I think both of these things happened before Lockdown but my memory is hazy.)
This was something of a surprise. I was concerned that the amount of time spent stuck at home with a tempting supply of chocolate biscuits to hand would cause me to morph into a sphere.
This may be because I have quite an unusual name and everyone spells it wrong.
Brilliant article. It is time we faced up to these questions.
I know people who know Corbyn...and they did not think he was fit to be PM.
Corbyn was a disaster for the Labour Party- 12th December 2019.
Anti-semitism engulfed the Labour Party.
I never bailed out on the Labour Party...I kept my membership through thick and thin....since 1983 (I was a young socialist doing my O levels)....
But we can say that they are letting hope triumph over sense.
HS2 Northern Ltd has just been registered at Companies House.
Will deliver HS2 Phase 2 and NPR.
For obvious reasons did not get much media coverage
Can't work out quite when it was that he posted it.
Dividends (as opposed to capital gains) make up a much higher proportion of stock market returns over a long period of time than most people realise.
In the UK I think up to maybe the 1970s the dividend yield was always higher than the yield on Government bonds (due to higher risk associated with equities) but then in the 1980s that all changed with the dividend yield going lower due to the expected future growth of dividends (Gordon growth model).
Not sure about historical dividend yields in the US. The most extraordinary bit of the Dow Jones chart is the sustained fall from 8,000 in the mid 1960s to 2,000 in 1980 - a fall of 75% over 15 years but I don't know how much that fall would have been mitigated by dividends.
Regardless of the above, it surely has to be wise to take a balanced approach and don't put all your eggs in one basket. History shows that very unexpected things can happen and happen over a long period of time as, eg, anyone who invested in the US stock market in the mid 1960s will certainly testify.
So the club are going to get state aid while paying obsecene wages to their players