Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
If the race were held today, George Osborne might have 180 nominations (I'm sceptical, to be honest). But the race isn't going to be held today and may well not be held for three years. Support is not irrevocable and many MPs are going to be giving warm words to a very powerful figure in the hope of preferment. Many of those MPs are likely to have reassessed their hope of preferment by the time they make their choice.
Precisely. The Conservative Party is not the Labour Party and will not sew it up for him.
There are plenty of reasons and evidence as it is for Tory MPs to worry about Osborne's candidacy.
Another scenario I was talking about with someone yesterday, if we do vote to leave. What does Dave do with Osborne? He will surely have to take the fall which then opens up the second most powerful job in the country. I could see Dave shifting Osborne to the FCO and Hammond into the Treasury, a job swap, but then he might use the opportunity to refresh the whole team.
Why would Osborne take the fall? Surely if anyone does then Dave (who is going anyway) will take the fall?
Besides if Osborne is to be moved then moving him to the FCO at a time we need to negotiate Brexit seems most unlikely. I would expect a Leaver to be moved into the FCO if necessary.
Yeah, good point. I don't think Dave will go in the event of a Leave. I think Osborne will take the fall as he is the chief architect of the negotiation. Dave will want to stay and see it through, "accept the will of the people".
If Corbyn is still LOTO, then it may be that David Cameron will step down and let George Osborne be Prime Minister for a bit and lead the Conservatives into a general election where the latter's unlikeability might not be thought significant. Do they remain BFF ?
"... let George Osborne be Prime Minister for a bit" ?!
It's not in Cameron's gift to name his successor and it'll be less in his influence if he's either lost the referendum or won it only slightly and against the will of his party.
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Does Boris actually believe in anything at all?
Lol - the irony of NPXMP making that criticism of.. anyone.
LOL! I'm feeling a little happier about my bet with @blackburn63 this morning. Still can't see Leicester keeping it up though, they'll start being tired/injured/suspended at some point soon and don't have the squad depth of those around them. Not that that's much consolation to the Spurs fans.
LOL! I'm feeling a little happier about my bet with @blackburn63 this morning. Still can't see Leicester keeping it up though, they'll start being tired/injured/suspended at some point soon and don't have the squad depth of those around them. Not that that's much consolation to the Spurs fans.
Indeed, I'm lower than Ed Miliband on May 8th.
Become a Liverpool fan. We're going to win the title next season if we get a decent keeper/defence
Nah, you've gone backwards under Klopp. I went to Anfield last night and thought Liverpool were average; you should have stuck with Rodgers. Don't be fooled by a decent performance against the only team in the PL that plays 4-1-5.
Really!?
On TV I thought they matched Arsenal, exceeded them going forward (although Giroud was excellent, second goal truly superb)
Defence is bobbins, that corner was embarrassing again. That performance would have beaten 15 or so Prem teams though.
As Liverpool fan the agony is that we know there is a very high chance that next game will be inexplicably flat and poor. 4-1 at City then lose 3-0 to Watford, that sort of thing...
Consistency, Sturridge back for more than a few hours at a time and a new keeper and we will be top 4 next year. Title may be ambitious!
The worst thing Klopp has done since he joined was to give Simon Mignolet a five year contract.
The next match is Man U at home. The Times reports if LVG loses that match, he's gone.
So defeat might well be good for Liverpool
That's heresy! A defeat to the Scum is never good for Liverpool. Hope we beat them by a handful to get within a win of the CL places.
Mr. 1000, I fundamentally disagree with that view of the EU.
It's not 28 individuals (or countries). It's got its own mind, as it were, now. And the ratchet effect means powers almost always move from nation-states to Brussels.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the EU bureaucracy has much less power than you think.
It seems to me you are ignoring the ECJ in that assessment.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Dont be silly, Catbert switches voters off and MPs want to get re-elected
Just for you, I've written a thread for Sunday saying why Osborne shouldn't be Tory leader.
However I'd like to point out that in May when it looked likely Osborne was going to be turfed out of the Treasury the voters came out en masse to ensure Ozzy remained Chancellor. He helped oversee an increase in Tory share of the vote and increase in MPs after a full parliamentary term, something that doesn't happen too often.
LOL
nobody voted for Le Crapaud . People voted against Sturgeon courtesy of Sir Lynton.
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
Osborne won.
ROFL
yes it was all his personal doing nobody else did anything.
I never said that, I think he was part of a team. But you OTOH did claim that "nobody" voted for him which is absurd and the true "ROFL" claim. Without Cameron/Osborne being judged to be competent then the Sturgeon/Milliband Crosby attacks would have gone down like a lead balloon.
Hmmm.... Carter was a single term President, unlike Obama. Carter was replaced by Reagan, Obama will be replaced by...probably a political pygmy small-statured person of central African origin (except that would keep Rod Crosby telling us how that would preclude them from being President....
Hmmm.... Carter was a single term President, unlike Obama. Carter was replaced by Reagan, Obama will be replaced by...probably a political pygmy small-statured person of central African origin (except that would keep Rod Crosby telling us how that would preclude them from being President....
I think others are overestimating the probability that George Osborne will be on the ballot paper.
Has George Osborne finally decided whether he wants to stand? I doubt it, though he seems to be heading in that direction. Let's call that a 1/2 shot - it would be 1/3 if he had to decide today but there's plenty of time for him to change his mind back again before the Conservatives vote on their next leader.
If he decides to stand, will he be on the ballot paper? If that were being decided today, that's pretty well certain - he has a client base to ensure that. But the decision is not today and he might well lose support over time (whether because of the EU referendum, movements in the economy or otherwise). Let's call that a 1/4 shot.
You can't just multiply the two together because they are related contingencies. But you do need to apply some form of adjustment to the 1/2 that I mention above.
All told I make it no better than a 4/6 shot that George Osborne will be on the ballot paper.
I might suggest that the distinct possibility that Osborne could be the next Conservative, leader and hence PM, is proof that Corbyn's election and Labour imploding is such a dreadful thing for the Country. With no viable alternative to vote for we would be stuck with a man who seems to think of politics as a game to be won for its own sake rather than a means to achieve good governance of the United Kingdom.
I do like Mr. Brooke's nickname for Osborne, Catbert. Those not familiar with the Scott Adams cartoon series may not understand the reference but Catbert sums him up nicely; manipulative, scheming and, ultimately, malignant. He is, in my view, just a lightweight version of Brown - all clever wheezes and speeches whilst ducking the opportunities to actually change things for the better in the long term.
Last time I looked we still had a structural deficit of about £70bn p.a., a dreadful current account balance (the UK's biggest export is still its rapidly dwindling stock of wealth), and a wealth generating sector that seems to be getting smaller rather than larger. Yet people keep asking me to believe that Osborne has done a good job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The man is a ****, who may have done well by the Conservative Party but not by the Country.
Mr. 1000, I fundamentally disagree with that view of the EU.
It's not 28 individuals (or countries). It's got its own mind, as it were, now. And the ratchet effect means powers almost always move from nation-states to Brussels.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the EU bureaucracy has much less power than you think.
It seems to me you are ignoring the ECJ in that assessment.
I agree with you. One of the most egregious things about the EU is the ECJ. I was not including them in my definition of bureaucracy.
"Renault SA shares plunged as much as 20 percent after a union said French fraud investigators seized computers from the automaker as part of an apparent probe into emissions testing.
Agents from the Economy Ministry’s fraud office visited some Renault sites that have to do with standards testing and engine certification, said Florent Grimaldi, an official with the CGT union at the company’s operations in Lardy, France, by telephone Thursday, confirming a report earlier by Agence France-Presse. That left the impression that the probe is related to emissions standards in the wake of the Volkswagen AG scandal, he said."
I might suggest that the distinct possibility that Osborne could be the next Conservative, leader and hence PM, is proof that Corbyn's election and Labour imploding is such a dreadful thing for the Country. With no viable alternative to vote for we would be stuck with a man who seems to think of politics as a game to be won for its own sake rather than a means to achieve good governance of the United Kingdom.
I do like Mr. Brooke's nickname for Osborne, Catbert. Those not familiar with the Scott Adams cartoon series may not understand the reference but Catbert sums him up nicely; manipulative, scheming and, ultimately, malignant. He is, in my view, just a lightweight version of Brown - all clever wheezes and speeches whilst ducking the opportunities to actually change things for the better in the long term.
Last time I looked we still had a structural deficit of about £70bn p.a., a dreadful current account balance (the UK's biggest export is still its rapidly dwindling stock of wealth), and a wealth generating sector that seems to be getting smaller rather than larger. Yet people keep asking me to believe that Osborne has done a good job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The man is a ****, who may have done well by the Conservative Party but not by the Country.
Oh dear - what a silly post from start to finish. when you start to call middle of the road politicians 'malignant' the plot is well and truly lost.
I don't know if anyone's seen this, but there are rumours that Renault is the next VW as far as emissions. Apparently, French investigators have confiscated computers.
I don't know if anyone's seen this, but there are rumours that Renault is the next VW as far as emissions. Apparently, French investigators have confiscated computers.
Where would we be without the wonderful EU institutions to protect consumers ?
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Does Boris actually believe in anything at all?
Lol - the irony of NPXMP making that criticism of.. anyone.
Hey, I try to live up to the pbTory depictions - I'm apparently both a crypto-communist and have no views at all, and I'm simultaneously retired from the Commons and a careerist seeking advancement. (I do wonder why they care.)
Speaking of other people with evolving views, I don't think SeanT has left us, Cyclefree - he does have other preoccupations but he's never given up on us yet, just takes a break from time to time.
"Renault SA shares plunged as much as 20 percent after a union said French fraud investigators seized computers from the automaker as part of an apparent probe into emissions testing.
Agents from the Economy Ministry’s fraud office visited some Renault sites that have to do with standards testing and engine certification, said Florent Grimaldi, an official with the CGT union at the company’s operations in Lardy, France, by telephone Thursday, confirming a report earlier by Agence France-Presse. That left the impression that the probe is related to emissions standards in the wake of the Volkswagen AG scandal, he said."
That can't be a massive surprise. The chance that it was only VW involved in dodgy looking emissions testing is negligible. Engines have always been built to meet detailed requirements, one of which was passing the emissions test through whatever means. That VW in the USA got caught engaging in gamesmanship is clearly the tip of the iceberg in an era of computer-controlled cars.
Mr. 1000, I fundamentally disagree with that view of the EU.
It's not 28 individuals (or countries). It's got its own mind, as it were, now. And the ratchet effect means powers almost always move from nation-states to Brussels.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the EU bureaucracy has much less power than you think.
It seems to me you are ignoring the ECJ in that assessment.
I agree with you. One of the most egregious things about the EU is the ECJ. I was not including them in my definition of bureaucracy.
I don't mind the EU having its own mind. I object to the too-limited democratic control that exists over that mind. The ECJ is one aspect of that.
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Does Boris actually believe in anything at all?
Lol - the irony of NPXMP making that criticism of.. anyone.
Hey, I try to live up to the pbTory depictions - I'm apparently both a crypto-communist and have no views at all, and I'm simultaneously retired from the Commons and a careerist seeking advancement. (I do wonder why they care.)
Speaking of other people with evolving views, I don't think SeanT has left us, Cyclefree - he does have other preoccupations but he's never given up on us yet, just takes a break from time to time.
You should point out a former Tory Chairman/Cabinet Minister under Cameron was an ex Communist in his youth.
@AlastairMeeks - I don't think he'll stand unless he thinks he can win the nomination and win a majority at the GE. The Conservative leadership must have private polling and focus-group data on this; one of Osborne's great virtues is his self-awareness, and another is his unsentimentality - he'll assess the probabilities and the politics dispassionately. That probably all means that you are right that the probability of him standing may be lower than it looks at the moment.
I think others are overestimating the probability that George Osborne will be on the ballot paper.
Has George Osborne finally decided whether he wants to stand? I doubt it, though he seems to be heading in that direction. Let's call that a 1/2 shot - it would be 1/3 if he had to decide today but there's plenty of time for him to change his mind back again before the Conservatives vote on their next leader.
If he decides to stand, will he be on the ballot paper? If that were being decided today, that's pretty well certain - he has a client base to ensure that. But the decision is not today and he might well lose support over time (whether because of the EU referendum, movements in the economy or otherwise). Let's call that a 1/4 shot.
You can't just multiply the two together because they are related contingencies. But you do need to apply some form of adjustment to the 1/2 that I mention above.
All told I make it no better than a 4/6 shot that George Osborne will be on the ballot paper.
No, I'm not taking bets on this.
The Conservative MPs have a secret ballot, not the same as Labour public endorsements.
As it is a secret ballot any MP can vote for an alternative who may offer a better chance of future patronage.
After all, if GO has to find comfy rewards for all 180 many will be disappointed.
I don't know if anyone's seen this, but there are rumours that Renault is the next VW as far as emissions. Apparently, French investigators have confiscated computers.
Where would we be without the wonderful EU institutions to protect consumers ?
Well if the institutions in the EUK- specifically in London - did their job right, not one diesel would be allowed to run - apart from buses and commercial vehicles.
So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich...
I don't know if anyone's seen this, but there are rumours that Renault is the next VW as far as emissions. Apparently, French investigators have confiscated computers.
Where would we be without the wonderful EU institutions to protect consumers ?
Well if the institutions in the EUK- specifically in London - did their job right, not one diesel would be allowed to run - apart from buses and commercial vehicles.
So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich...
Imagine we tried to unilaterally block the sales of VW or Renaults.....
"Renault SA shares plunged as much as 20 percent after a union said French fraud investigators seized computers from the automaker as part of an apparent probe into emissions testing.
Agents from the Economy Ministry’s fraud office visited some Renault sites that have to do with standards testing and engine certification, said Florent Grimaldi, an official with the CGT union at the company’s operations in Lardy, France, by telephone Thursday, confirming a report earlier by Agence France-Presse. That left the impression that the probe is related to emissions standards in the wake of the Volkswagen AG scandal, he said."
That can't be a massive surprise. The chance that it was only VW involved in dodgy looking emissions testing is negligible. Engines have always been built to meet detailed requirements, one of which was passing the emissions test through whatever means. That VW in the USA got caught engaging in gamesmanship is clearly the tip of the iceberg in an era of computer-controlled cars.
There are a number of other diesel cars from other manufacturers which have been mysteriously out of stock for the last few months, which gives credence to your view.
'So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich..'
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
I don't know if anyone's seen this, but there are rumours that Renault is the next VW as far as emissions. Apparently, French investigators have confiscated computers.
Where would we be without the wonderful EU institutions to protect consumers ?
Well if the institutions in the EUK- specifically in London - did their job right, not one diesel would be allowed to run - apart from buses and commercial vehicles.
So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich...
Imagine we tried to unilaterally block the sales of VW or Renaults.....
It's not just VWs and Renaults. There are a couple of diesels from the Far East that are rumoured to have issues.
FTSE down substantially this morning, mirroring most of the world since yesterday evening. Currently trading at levels last seen in late 2012.
I'm still keeping my Apple shares -such as I have - in a vain hope that those at least will hold value.
IF the Dow drops another 2/3% today run for the exits. Nasdaq looking frail this morning.
So your view is that if shares are cheaper, you should sell them?
I thought that a time like this is a time to buy and hold your nerve.......
HA! Just a few months before Lehman Brothers went down I was at a city dinner where I found myself sitting next to a "high flying" chap who had, courtesy of a previous employment, a big wodge of Lehman shares, which had dropped in price significantly. I suggested he sell them and take the book hit (he never paid for them in the first place). He told me I was a fool and didn't know what I was talking about and of course the shares in a company like Lehman Brothers would bounce back.
Buy and hold your nerve can be a good strategy (I remember when the FT Index, the forerunner of the FTSE. went down to 150) but not one without significant risks.
"Renault SA shares plunged as much as 20 percent after a union said French fraud investigators seized computers from the automaker as part of an apparent probe into emissions testing.
Agents from the Economy Ministry’s fraud office visited some Renault sites that have to do with standards testing and engine certification, said Florent Grimaldi, an official with the CGT union at the company’s operations in Lardy, France, by telephone Thursday, confirming a report earlier by Agence France-Presse. That left the impression that the probe is related to emissions standards in the wake of the Volkswagen AG scandal, he said."
That can't be a massive surprise. The chance that it was only VW involved in dodgy looking emissions testing is negligible. Engines have always been built to meet detailed requirements, one of which was passing the emissions test through whatever means. That VW in the USA got caught engaging in gamesmanship is clearly the tip of the iceberg in an era of computer-controlled cars.
There are a number of other diesel cars from other manufacturers which have been mysteriously out of stock for the last few months, which gives credence to your view.
German?
If Renault are caught will that be Nissan too? Do they share engines / electronics?
I don't know if anyone's seen this, but there are rumours that Renault is the next VW as far as emissions. Apparently, French investigators have confiscated computers.
Where would we be without the wonderful EU institutions to protect consumers ?
Well if the institutions in the EUK- specifically in London - did their job right, not one diesel would be allowed to run - apart from buses and commercial vehicles.
So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich...
Imagine we tried to unilaterally block the sales of VW or Renaults.....
Exactly. Since the EU has taken this on as a competence I am afraid Madasafish's defence is rather hollow.
'So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich..'
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
The move to diesel was not about 'being lenient to big business', but a deliberate policy by the then UK government (and by other governments around the world) to push diesel cars because they were wrongly thought to be cleaner. Simple cock-up, in other words.
Is that a real price or just some oddschecker bug?
Bug - looks like a Betfair price that is hidden on their website (i.e. they're no longer offering, and someone's typed 9999 to make that clear internally) but has mistakenly got into the xml(?) feed that Oddschecker use.
'So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich..'
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
The move to diesel was not about 'being lenient to big business', but a deliberate policy by the then UK government (and by other governments around the world) to push diesel cars because they were wrongly thought to be cleaner. Simple cock-up, in other words.
The science was proved, settled and incontrovertible?
FTSE down substantially this morning, mirroring most of the world since yesterday evening. Currently trading at levels last seen in late 2012.
I'm still keeping my Apple shares -such as I have - in a vain hope that those at least will hold value.
IF the Dow drops another 2/3% today run for the exits. Nasdaq looking frail this morning.
So your view is that if shares are cheaper, you should sell them?
I thought that a time like this is a time to buy and hold your nerve.......
HA! Just a few months before Lehman Brothers went down I was at a city dinner where I found myself sitting next to a "high flying" chap who had, courtesy of a previous employment, a big wodge of Lehman shares, which had dropped in price significantly. I suggested he sell them and take the book hit (he never paid for them in the first place). He told me I was a fool and didn't know what I was talking about and of course the shares in a company like Lehman Brothers would bounce back.
Buy and hold your nerve can be a good strategy (I remember when the FT Index, the forerunner of the FTSE. went down to 150) but not one without significant risks.
It is worth remembering that if you continually buy and sell, you will end up paying repeated dollops of capital gains tax that can more than eliminate any gains - even assuming you're a great trader.
Imagine you buy shares in X for 50. It goes up to 90. You sell it, and pay 25% capital gains. Result, you now have 78. If the shares go below 78 and you can buy them again, terrific. But imagine you are only able to buy them down 10%. Now you only slightly fewer shares than you did before. And that's assuming you can call the shares up and down.
My view is that shares are - in the long run - dividend paying machines. When you buy shares in a company, you are trying to buy a share of its profits. Buying and selling and buying and selling may make stockbrokers and the government rich, but it is unlikely to do the same for you.
I might suggest that the distinct possibility that Osborne could be the next Conservative, leader and hence PM, is proof that Corbyn's election and Labour imploding is such a dreadful thing for the Country. With no viable alternative to vote for we would be stuck with a man who seems to think of politics as a game to be won for its own sake rather than a means to achieve good governance of the United Kingdom.
I do like Mr. Brooke's nickname for Osborne, Catbert. Those not familiar with the Scott Adams cartoon series may not understand the reference but Catbert sums him up nicely; manipulative, scheming and, ultimately, malignant. He is, in my view, just a lightweight version of Brown - all clever wheezes and speeches whilst ducking the opportunities to actually change things for the better in the long term.
Last time I looked we still had a structural deficit of about £70bn p.a., a dreadful current account balance (the UK's biggest export is still its rapidly dwindling stock of wealth), and a wealth generating sector that seems to be getting smaller rather than larger. Yet people keep asking me to believe that Osborne has done a good job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The man is a ****, who may have done well by the Conservative Party but not by the Country.
I think he'd be a disaster for the Conservative Party.
'So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich..'
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
The move to diesel was not about 'being lenient to big business', but a deliberate policy by the then UK government (and by other governments around the world) to push diesel cars because they were wrongly thought to be cleaner. Simple cock-up, in other words.
The science was proved?
The bits they took notice of were! It was the bits they didn't take notice of which were the problem.
I have to say I never understood this. Just driving behind a diesel car, you can often detect the pollution without any instruments at all, just from the stinging in your eyes.
I think others are overestimating the probability that George Osborne will be on the ballot paper.
Has George Osborne finally decided whether he wants to stand? I doubt it, though he seems to be heading in that direction. Let's call that a 1/2 shot - it would be 1/3 if he had to decide today but there's plenty of time for him to change his mind back again before the Conservatives vote on their next leader.
If he decides to stand, will he be on the ballot paper? If that were being decided today, that's pretty well certain - he has a client base to ensure that. But the decision is not today and he might well lose support over time (whether because of the EU referendum, movements in the economy or otherwise). Let's call that a 1/4 shot.
You can't just multiply the two together because they are related contingencies. But you do need to apply some form of adjustment to the 1/2 that I mention above.
All told I make it no better than a 4/6 shot that George Osborne will be on the ballot paper.
No, I'm not taking bets on this.
The Conservative MPs have a secret ballot, not the same as Labour public endorsements.
As it is a secret ballot any MP can vote for an alternative who may offer a better chance of future patronage.
After all, if GO has to find comfy rewards for all 180 many will be disappointed.
I agree with all of this, and the logic in Alastair's original post too.
FTSE down substantially this morning, mirroring most of the world since yesterday evening. Currently trading at levels last seen in late 2012.
I'm still keeping my Apple shares -such as I have - in a vain hope that those at least will hold value.
IF the Dow drops another 2/3% today run for the exits. Nasdaq looking frail this morning.
So your view is that if shares are cheaper, you should sell them?
I thought that a time like this is a time to buy and hold your nerve.......
HA! Just a few months before Lehman Brothers went down I was at a city dinner where I found myself sitting next to a "high flying" chap who had, courtesy of a previous employment, a big wodge of Lehman shares, which had dropped in price significantly. I suggested he sell them and take the book hit (he never paid for them in the first place). He told me I was a fool and didn't know what I was talking about and of course the shares in a company like Lehman Brothers would bounce back.
Buy and hold your nerve can be a good strategy (I remember when the FT Index, the forerunner of the FTSE. went down to 150) but not one without significant risks.
It is worth remembering that if you continually buy and sell, you will end up paying repeated dollops of capital gains tax that can more than eliminate any gains - even assuming you're a great trader.
Imagine you buy shares in X for 50. It goes up to 90. You sell it, and pay 25% capital gains. Result, you now have 78. If the shares go below 78 and you can buy them again, terrific. But imagine you are only able to buy them down 10%. Now you only slightly fewer shares than you did before. And that's assuming you can call the shares up and down.
My view is that shares are - in the long run - dividend paying machines. When you buy shares in a company, you are trying to buy a share of its profits. Buying and selling and buying and selling may make stockbrokers and the government rich, but it is unlikely to do the same for you.
"Renault SA shares plunged as much as 20 percent after a union said French fraud investigators seized computers from the automaker as part of an apparent probe into emissions testing.
Agents from the Economy Ministry’s fraud office visited some Renault sites that have to do with standards testing and engine certification, said Florent Grimaldi, an official with the CGT union at the company’s operations in Lardy, France, by telephone Thursday, confirming a report earlier by Agence France-Presse. That left the impression that the probe is related to emissions standards in the wake of the Volkswagen AG scandal, he said."
That can't be a massive surprise. The chance that it was only VW involved in dodgy looking emissions testing is negligible. Engines have always been built to meet detailed requirements, one of which was passing the emissions test through whatever means. That VW in the USA got caught engaging in gamesmanship is clearly the tip of the iceberg in an era of computer-controlled cars.
There are a number of other diesel cars from other manufacturers which have been mysteriously out of stock for the last few months, which gives credence to your view.
Having seen a couple of well researched documentaries on the scandal, and having a good understanding of how computers in embedded applications work, the only surprise to me was that is wasn't spotted earlier. The problem won't go away until they change the testing regime and process.
How they can do that without introducing too many variables is the challenge, and it's a challenge for the regulatory authorities as much as the manufacturers.
Disclaimer: I used to drive Golf and Mondeo diesel company cars in the UK and loved them, both quite the driver's car for a repmobile.
'So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich..'
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
The move to diesel was not about 'being lenient to big business', but a deliberate policy by the then UK government (and by other governments around the world) to push diesel cars because they were wrongly thought to be cleaner. Simple cock-up, in other words.
The science was proved?
The bits they took notice of were! It was the bits they didn't take notice of which were the problem.
I have to say I never understood this. Just driving behind a diesel car, you can often detect the pollution without any instruments at all, just from the stinging in your eyes.
Spot on, Mr. Navabi, the pollutants and harmful chemicals in diesel exhaust gases have been known about for decades. However, diesels do emit less carbon than petrol engines and HMG though that was more important (see saving polar bears etc.).
And on that note I am off back to the time of the Black Death for the afternoon. Thanks all for some interesting conversation this morning and play nicely.
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Who oh earth tabled this silly nonsense?
Isn't it the result of the petition?
That surely doesn't automatically generate a three-hour debate though? IIRC, a petition reaching the threshold simply means it has to be considered for debate.
The decision is daft diplomatically and indulgent domestically.
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Is that Bercow's stupid idea, whatever happened to not interfering in another country's election?
I hope the Tories ignore the debate completely then pack the house to vote against. The Tory HoL whips have been doing a good job of the same in recent months.
'So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich..'
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
The move to diesel was not about 'being lenient to big business', but a deliberate policy by the then UK government (and by other governments around the world) to push diesel cars because they were wrongly thought to be cleaner. Simple cock-up, in other words.
The science was proved, settled and incontrovertible?
'So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich..'
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
The move to diesel was not about 'being lenient to big business', but a deliberate policy by the then UK government (and by other governments around the world) to push diesel cars because they were wrongly thought to be cleaner. Simple cock-up, in other words.
The science was proved?
The bits they took notice of were! It was the bits they didn't take notice of which were the problem.
I have to say I never understood this. Just driving behind a diesel car, you can often detect the pollution without any instruments at all, just from the stinging in your eyes.
Spot on, Mr. Navabi, the pollutants and harmful chemicals in diesel exhaust gases have been known about for decades. However, diesels do emit less carbon than petrol engines and HMG though that was more important (see saving polar bears etc.).
And on that note I am off back to the time of the Black Death for the afternoon. Thanks all for some interesting conversation this morning and play nicely.
I think there was another factor at work: UK refiners had lots of diesel output, and we were importing petrol from the US and the continent. The government of the day - Lawson? - decided that it would be better if we didn't need to import petrol and used our home grown diesel.
Someone is very keen to back Biden4Potus over on betfair @ 129/1 (£750)
Oddly, they're not prepared to take the ~£800 available @ 119/1 - which leads me to assume they're probably not betting on inside info.
Anyway, I've taken the opportunity to trade out of my Biden position (I'd staked £70 at average odds of ~600/1 - and banked a decent ~£250 overall profit.
Good luck to whoever is on the other side of that bet. A Biden/Trump contest would be really entertaining!
@PolhomeEditor: John Woodcock, chair of the PLP's defence committee, has written to Emily Thornberry to ask if she agrees with this https://t.co/5qVHvXAEa3
I might suggest that the distinct possibility that Osborne could be the next Conservative, leader and hence PM, is proof that Corbyn's election and Labour imploding is such a dreadful thing for the Country. With no viable alternative to vote for we would be stuck with a man who seems to think of politics as a game to be won for its own sake rather than a means to achieve good governance of the United Kingdom.
I do like Mr. Brooke's nickname for Osborne, Catbert. Those not familiar with the Scott Adams cartoon series may not understand the reference but Catbert sums him up nicely; manipulative, scheming and, ultimately, malignant. He is, in my view, just a lightweight version of Brown - all clever wheezes and speeches whilst ducking the opportunities to actually change things for the better in the long term.
Last time I looked we still had a structural deficit of about £70bn p.a., a dreadful current account balance (the UK's biggest export is still its rapidly dwindling stock of wealth), and a wealth generating sector that seems to be getting smaller rather than larger. Yet people keep asking me to believe that Osborne has done a good job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The man is a ****, who may have done well by the Conservative Party but not by the Country.
Oh dear - what a silly post from start to finish. when you start to call middle of the road politicians 'malignant' the plot is well and truly lost.
I do agree. The plot is not lost it is quite deliberately thrown away. People just living in their own dreamland. UK Manufacturing is larger than ever. Services has increased which is normal in an advanced country, but manufacturing output has not declined in real terms.
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary. A sensible, young, fresh, Hispanic, Republican without ethical issues, at a time when the US wants a Republican President. It'd be a landslide.
Trump: it could go either way. I'd reckon the 44% chance of the Presidency in the event of being nominee is about right. He'd lost California, New York and Florida to Hillary, but would gain a bunch of rust belt states.
Cruz comes across very well in Texas and the South. But he's not got national appeal outside that evangelical demographic. He's also a bit weird. I think Hillary beats Cruz three out of four times.
Trump leads Clinton in Florida. Cubans aren't that significant a voting block anyway (dwarfed by whites, that is even if we aren't considering ethnically Spanish Cubans as whites), Cubans couldn't care less about illegal Mexican immigrants and I expect Cruz to be Trump's VP pick anyway.
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Who oh earth tabled this silly nonsense?
Isn't it the result of the petition?
That surely doesn't automatically generate a three-hour debate though? IIRC, a petition reaching the threshold simply means it has to be considered for debate.
The decision is daft diplomatically and indulgent domestically.
Presumably the great of MPs would agree and won't attend. I can't say that I understand it.
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Is this a real debate? I thought they were going to debate it but not in the Commons chamber?
If is a full-on debate with a division then it's an embarrassment.
Is being held in Westminster Hall I think which means no formal division/vote
Correct. Not even an informal vote. There will be a modest number of MPs (typically half a dozen, might be 20 for this) who will banter around for a while, a Minister will give a stolid response, and that's it. That's Adjournment Debate life.
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Who oh earth tabled this silly nonsense?
Isn't it the result of the petition?
That surely doesn't automatically generate a three-hour debate though? IIRC, a petition reaching the threshold simply means it has to be considered for debate.
The decision is daft diplomatically and indulgent domestically.
'So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich..'
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
The move to diesel was not about 'being lenient to big business', but a deliberate policy by the then UK government (and by other governments around the world) to push diesel cars because they were wrongly thought to be cleaner. Simple cock-up, in other words.
The science was proved?
The bits they took notice of were! It was the bits they didn't take notice of which were the problem.
I have to say I never understood this. Just driving behind a diesel car, you can often detect the pollution without any instruments at all, just from the stinging in your eyes.
Spot on, Mr. Navabi, the pollutants and harmful chemicals in diesel exhaust gases have been known about for decades. However, diesels do emit less carbon than petrol engines and HMG though that was more important (see saving polar bears etc.).
And on that note I am off back to the time of the Black Death for the afternoon. Thanks all for some interesting conversation this morning and play nicely.
That's a good point, that the focus on carbon emissions for eg. road tax nd company car tax led to neglect in other areas. I'll need to double check but ISTR specific UK market engines, both petrol and diesel, from a number of manufacturers in response to rules on taxes.
I know that the VW 2.0 diesel in the 2007 Golf used to be available in 140bhp and 170bhp versions - the two engines were mechanically identical, the only difference being the computerised engine map.
@AlastairMeeks - I don't think he'll stand unless he thinks he can win the nomination and win a majority at the GE. The Conservative leadership must have private polling and focus-group data on this; one of Osborne's great virtues is his self-awareness, and another is his unsentimentality - he'll assess the probabilities and the politics dispassionately. That probably all means that you are right that the probability of him standing may be lower than it looks at the moment.
That is true - if he's clearly going to lose he might withdraw. But it would have to be clear quite some way out.
I think the die has been cast and Cameron has already made his approximate intentions known to Osborne (which will vary depending on the referendum result and margin).
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Who oh earth tabled this silly nonsense?
Isn't it the result of the petition?
That surely doesn't automatically generate a three-hour debate though? IIRC, a petition reaching the threshold simply means it has to be considered for debate.
The decision is daft diplomatically and indulgent domestically.
I entirely agree.
Re: your earlier comment - The petition to ban Trump from the UK only needed 10,000 signatures before parliament was compelled to respond. - If 100,000 signatories added their names, the anti-Trump petition would be considered for debate in the Commons.
It should have been ‘considered’ and rejected forthwith, but a three hour debate is ridiculous.
@PolhomeEditor: John Woodcock, chair of the PLP's defence committee, has written to Emily Thornberry to ask if she agrees with this https://t.co/5qVHvXAEa3
Woodcock is worth keeping an eye on as one who might provoke a by-election in opposition to his party's policy, or resign the whip, or defect - or some combination of the above.
Corbyn was right about Iraq, he was right about Syria, he was right about Libya and he is right about Trident.
The 'moderate' Blairites sure know to pick their battles, presumably Mandelson is urging iron discipline and loyalty to the Dear Leader as he did back in the New Labour heyday?
Is that a real price or just some oddschecker bug?
Bug - looks like a Betfair price that is hidden on their website (i.e. they're no longer offering, and someone's typed 9999 to make that clear internally) but has mistakenly got into the xml(?) feed that Oddschecker use.
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary. A sensible, young, fresh, Hispanic, Republican without ethical issues, at a time when the US wants a Republican President. It'd be a landslide.
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Who oh earth tabled this silly nonsense?
Isn't it the result of the petition?
That surely doesn't automatically generate a three-hour debate though? IIRC, a petition reaching the threshold simply means it has to be considered for debate.
The decision is daft diplomatically and indulgent domestically.
There's a lot of misunderstanding about petitions and debates. The all-party Backbench Business Committee has a certain amount of time to allocate, which is much in demand. They consider how many MPs are interested in attending and speaking (very important - it'd be embarrassing to allocate time and then find not enough turn up), how topical it is, and whether a lot of the public are interested. The 100,000"threshold" does not so far as I know have any formal standing - the BBC will consider any proposal, and 100K signatures has been considered as a sign of significant popular interest, but if 100K people demand a debate on Manchester United or the Jedi it will still go straight in the bin.
The alternative route is via the Speaker. If lots of MPs ask him for an adjournment debate, he may well agree, though the process is deliberately obscure to prevent manipulation. If this is that kind of debate - and for a 3-hour debate I think it probably is - it must mean that loads of MPs (20+) have asked for it. The origin is of course Trump's statement that Muslims would be kept out of the USA, so it's presumably a sort of protest, though I'm sure Trump will just see it as more fodder for his populism - "Vote Trump, banned by British bureaucrats!"
@PolhomeEditor: John Woodcock, chair of the PLP's defence committee, has written to Emily Thornberry to ask if she agrees with this https://t.co/5qVHvXAEa3
Woodcock is the MP for Barrow, where there's thousands of jobs depending on Trident renewal. He's either going to resign as an MP or cross the floor if Labour come out against it.
Corbyn was right about Iraq, he was right about Syria, he was right about Libya and he is right about Trident.
The 'moderate' Blairites sure know to pick their battles, presumably Mandelson is urging iron discipline and loyalty to the Dear Leader as he did back in the New Labour heyday?
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Who oh earth tabled this silly nonsense?
Isn't it the result of the petition?
That surely doesn't automatically generate a three-hour debate though? IIRC, a petition reaching the threshold simply means it has to be considered for debate.
The decision is daft diplomatically and indulgent domestically.
There's a lot of misunderstanding about petitions and debates. The all-party Backbench Business Committee has a certain amount of time to allocate, which is much in demand. They consider how many MPs are interested in attending and speaking (very important - it'd be embarrassing to allocate time and then find not enough turn up), how topical it is, and whether a lot of the public are interested. The 100,000"threshold" does not so far as I know have any formal standing - the BBC will consider any proposal, and 100K signatures has been considered as a sign of significant popular interest, but if 100K people demand a debate on Manchester United or the Jedi it will still go straight in the bin.
The alternative route is via the Speaker. If lots of MPs ask him for an adjournment debate, he may well agree, though the process is deliberately obscure to prevent manipulation. If this is that kind of debate - and for a 3-hour debate I think it probably is - it must mean that loads of MPs (20+) have asked for it. The origin is of course Trump's statement that Muslims would be kept out of the USA, so it's presumably a sort of protest, though I'm sure Trump will just see it as more fodder for his populism - "Vote Trump, banned by British bureaucrats!"
I think there should be a Jedi debate. Aren't there tens of thousands of Jedis in UK according to Census?
"Renault SA shares plunged as much as 20 percent after a union said French fraud investigators seized computers from the automaker as part of an apparent probe into emissions testing.
Agents from the Economy Ministry’s fraud office visited some Renault sites that have to do with standards testing and engine certification, said Florent Grimaldi, an official with the CGT union at the company’s operations in Lardy, France, by telephone Thursday, confirming a report earlier by Agence France-Presse. That left the impression that the probe is related to emissions standards in the wake of the Volkswagen AG scandal, he said."
That can't be a massive surprise. The chance that it was only VW involved in dodgy looking emissions testing is negligible. Engines have always been built to meet detailed requirements, one of which was passing the emissions test through whatever means. That VW in the USA got caught engaging in gamesmanship is clearly the tip of the iceberg in an era of computer-controlled cars.
There are a number of other diesel cars from other manufacturers which have been mysteriously out of stock for the last few months, which gives credence to your view.
German?
If Renault are caught will that be Nissan too? Do they share engines / electronics?
Nissan only have the Qashqai available with Diesel engines, everything else is petrol or electric. Japanese companies as a whole have been investing heavily in electric, hybrid and battery technology. European car companies went very heavy on turbo diesels. It looks like a bad bet. BMW seem to be furthest ahead with the i3 and i8, but those are still pretty niche. Toyota and Honda all have a bunch of hybrids and Nissan has the Leaf.
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
Who oh earth tabled this silly nonsense?
Isn't it the result of the petition?
That surely doesn't automatically generate a three-hour debate though? IIRC, a petition reaching the threshold simply means it has to be considered for debate.
The decision is daft diplomatically and indulgent domestically.
There's a lot of misunderstanding about petitions and debates. The all-party Backbench Business Committee has a certain amount of time to allocate, which is much in demand. They consider how many MPs are interested in attending and speaking (very important - it'd be embarrassing to allocate time and then find not enough turn up), how topical it is, and whether a lot of the public are interested. The 100,000"threshold" does not so far as I know have any formal standing - the BBC will consider any proposal, and 100K signatures has been considered as a sign of significant popular interest, but if 100K people demand a debate on Manchester United or the Jedi it will still go straight in the bin.
The alternative route is via the Speaker. If lots of MPs ask him for an adjournment debate, he may well agree, though the process is deliberately obscure to prevent manipulation. If this is that kind of debate - and for a 3-hour debate I think it probably is - it must mean that loads of MPs (20+) have asked for it. The origin is of course Trump's statement that Muslims would be kept out of the USA, so it's presumably a sort of protest, though I'm sure Trump will just see it as more fodder for his populism - "Vote Trump, banned by British bureaucrats!"
The problem is not how Trump sees it, it is how every other American politician and, indeed, citizen will see it.
The Trump debate was originally announced for Westminster Hall & was decided by the Petition's Ctte:
The debate, led by Paul Flynn MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, starts at 4.30pm on Monday 18 January in Westminster Hall. The debate is on the motion: “That this House has considered e-petitions 114003 and 114907 relating to the exclusion of Donald Trump from the UK”.
Comments
There are plenty of reasons and evidence as it is for Tory MPs to worry about Osborne's candidacy.
If he hadn't run such an inept campaign, Corbyn might not have become Labour leader.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/site_furniture/2010/1/4/1262619339398/cameron-poster-page.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=b682f5e4cfdbb6547b7cbf236e323a10
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/donald-trump-jimmy-carter-barack-obama-iran-217746
It's not in Cameron's gift to name his successor and it'll be less in his influence if he's either lost the referendum or won it only slightly and against the will of his party.
pygmysmall-statured person of central African origin (except that would keep Rod Crosby telling us how that would preclude them from being President....Please come back @SeanT, if you're reading this.
Has George Osborne finally decided whether he wants to stand? I doubt it, though he seems to be heading in that direction. Let's call that a 1/2 shot - it would be 1/3 if he had to decide today but there's plenty of time for him to change his mind back again before the Conservatives vote on their next leader.
If he decides to stand, will he be on the ballot paper? If that were being decided today, that's pretty well certain - he has a client base to ensure that. But the decision is not today and he might well lose support over time (whether because of the EU referendum, movements in the economy or otherwise). Let's call that a 1/4 shot.
You can't just multiply the two together because they are related contingencies. But you do need to apply some form of adjustment to the 1/2 that I mention above.
All told I make it no better than a 4/6 shot that George Osborne will be on the ballot paper.
No, I'm not taking bets on this.
I do like Mr. Brooke's nickname for Osborne, Catbert. Those not familiar with the Scott Adams cartoon series may not understand the reference but Catbert sums him up nicely; manipulative, scheming and, ultimately, malignant. He is, in my view, just a lightweight version of Brown - all clever wheezes and speeches whilst ducking the opportunities to actually change things for the better in the long term.
Last time I looked we still had a structural deficit of about £70bn p.a., a dreadful current account balance (the UK's biggest export is still its rapidly dwindling stock of wealth), and a wealth generating sector that seems to be getting smaller rather than larger. Yet people keep asking me to believe that Osborne has done a good job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The man is a ****, who may have done well by the Conservative Party but not by the Country.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/renault-shares-drop-on-report-of-fraud-probe-into-emission-tests
"Renault SA shares plunged as much as 20 percent after a union said French fraud investigators seized computers from the automaker as part of an apparent probe into emissions testing.
Agents from the Economy Ministry’s fraud office visited some Renault sites that have to do with standards testing and engine certification, said Florent Grimaldi, an official with the CGT union at the company’s operations in Lardy, France, by telephone Thursday, confirming a report earlier by Agence France-Presse. That left the impression that the probe is related to emissions standards in the wake of the Volkswagen AG scandal, he said."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35299887
Speaking of other people with evolving views, I don't think SeanT has left us, Cyclefree - he does have other preoccupations but he's never given up on us yet, just takes a break from time to time.
As it is a secret ballot any MP can vote for an alternative who may offer a better chance of future patronage.
After all, if GO has to find comfy rewards for all 180 many will be disappointed.
So blaming the EU when we cannot even protect the health of our own citizens is a bit rich...
Reading this article that suggests Dry January is not just over-rated but positively harmful! Maybe I'll be in the pub to watch the evening session of the cricket!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12098843/Dry-January-campaign-could-do-more-harm-than-good-claims-expert.html
John kerry @ 9999/1
Is that a real price or just some oddschecker bug?
All levels of government have a tendency to be over-lenient towards big business. But we can at least vote out our government whereas the Commission goes on and on regardless of how corrupt or dishonest it is.
Buy and hold your nerve can be a good strategy (I remember when the FT Index, the forerunner of the FTSE. went down to 150) but not one without significant risks.
If Renault are caught will that be Nissan too? Do they share engines / electronics?
Imagine you buy shares in X for 50. It goes up to 90. You sell it, and pay 25% capital gains. Result, you now have 78. If the shares go below 78 and you can buy them again, terrific. But imagine you are only able to buy them down 10%. Now you only slightly fewer shares than you did before. And that's assuming you can call the shares up and down.
My view is that shares are - in the long run - dividend paying machines. When you buy shares in a company, you are trying to buy a share of its profits. Buying and selling and buying and selling may make stockbrokers and the government rich, but it is unlikely to do the same for you.
I have to say I never understood this. Just driving behind a diesel car, you can often detect the pollution without any instruments at all, just from the stinging in your eyes.
How they can do that without introducing too many variables is the challenge, and it's a challenge for the regulatory authorities as much as the manufacturers.
Disclaimer: I used to drive Golf and Mondeo diesel company cars in the UK and loved them, both quite the driver's car for a repmobile.
BREAK MPs in the House of Commons to hold three hour debate about banning US President hopeful Donald Trump from the UK on Monday next week
If the answer is 'no' then this is the type that should be bottom of the pile.
And on that note I am off back to the time of the Black Death for the afternoon. Thanks all for some interesting conversation this morning and play nicely.
The decision is daft diplomatically and indulgent domestically.
I hope the Tories ignore the debate completely then pack the house to vote against. The Tory HoL whips have been doing a good job of the same in recent months.
If is a full-on debate with a division then it's an embarrassment.
Oddly, they're not prepared to take the ~£800 available @ 119/1 - which leads me to assume they're probably not betting on inside info.
Anyway, I've taken the opportunity to trade out of my Biden position (I'd staked £70 at average odds of ~600/1 - and banked a decent ~£250 overall profit.
Good luck to whoever is on the other side of that bet. A Biden/Trump contest would be really entertaining!
UK Manufacturing is larger than ever. Services has increased which is normal in an advanced country, but manufacturing output has not declined in real terms.
http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk-manufacturing-statistics/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/7604386/British-manufacturing-is-bigger-than-you-think-and-its-likely-to-grow.html
https://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/ukmanufacturing-300309.pdf
Trump leads Clinton in Florida. Cubans aren't that significant a voting block anyway (dwarfed by whites, that is even if we aren't considering ethnically Spanish Cubans as whites), Cubans couldn't care less about illegal Mexican immigrants and I expect Cruz to be Trump's VP pick anyway.
I know that the VW 2.0 diesel in the 2007 Golf used to be available in 140bhp and 170bhp versions - the two engines were mechanically identical, the only difference being the computerised engine map.
I think the die has been cast and Cameron has already made his approximate intentions known to Osborne (which will vary depending on the referendum result and margin).
I may need to steal be inspired by it...
It should have been ‘considered’ and rejected forthwith, but a three hour debate is ridiculous.
The 'moderate' Blairites sure know to pick their battles, presumably Mandelson is urging iron discipline and loyalty to the Dear Leader as he did back in the New Labour heyday?
An activist foreign policy is a sure vote winner.
The alternative route is via the Speaker. If lots of MPs ask him for an adjournment debate, he may well agree, though the process is deliberately obscure to prevent manipulation. If this is that kind of debate - and for a 3-hour debate I think it probably is - it must mean that loads of MPs (20+) have asked for it. The origin is of course Trump's statement that Muslims would be kept out of the USA, so it's presumably a sort of protest, though I'm sure Trump will just see it as more fodder for his populism - "Vote Trump, banned by British bureaucrats!"
The debate, led by Paul Flynn MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, starts at 4.30pm on Monday 18 January in Westminster Hall. The debate is on the motion: “That this House has considered e-petitions 114003 and 114907 relating to the exclusion of Donald Trump from the UK”.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2015/exclusion_of_donald_trump_from_the_uk_petitions_debate/
These are the members:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/membership/
If its gone to the HoC its the Backbench ctte thats decided:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/backbench-business-committee/membership/