Just heard from somebody who got "rescued" from abroad due to monarch collapse. They said it was actually rather well organised and good communication throughout.
Not often you hear that. Especially given the large numbers involved.
CAA have done an awesome job on this, they’ve got 30 planes now flying pretty much Monarch’s entire schedule - the bankrupt airline had 35 aircraft - to get everyone abroad back to the UK. They’ll be doing this for the next fortnight.
Mr. Eagles, most of those (here, at least) who support leaving the EU believe that, in the short term, there will be an economic hit. However, David Davis is unlikely to be around as a potential leadership candidate much beyond that short term period.
Exactly the same argument the Corbynistas make about trashing the economy and a run on the pound.
You can’t complain about the economic arsonism of Corbyn if you’re a Brexiteer.
We had £115bn of economic arsonism from GO in 2016:
Isn't that statement meaningless/economically obvious?
The exchange of products creates the debt. no?
Forgive me if I'm being thick here.
Effectively Britain is selling its assets to pay for its current consumption.
The asset in this case is government debt which means that our future taxes will be higher to pay for our current consumption.
So we make ourselves poorer in the future to pay for today.
Until Comrade Corbyn cancels the debt.
You generally get to borrow more cheaply when you pay debts back. Unilaterally cancelling our debt would cost a fortune I'm sure Labour knows this
When John McDonnell said last week that no-one earning less than £80k will pay more tax under Labour, what he failed to mention is that five years of inflation, devaluation and printing money will mean that £80k is going to be barely minimum wage!
Any politician who discusses that current account deficit chart would have my respect. The UK ... going the way of Monarch Airlines?
I'm puzzled why the line is so flat in the earlier period, surely there should be some movement up and down? I remember though that severe current deficits were thought to be a sign of incompetence and brought down governments.
The chart is balance of payments -- and it did used to bring down governments as some believe this is why Labour lost in 1970. With a floating exchange rate, balance of payments is less crucial but there are limits.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers. Devaluation and Uncertainty. Or " an immediate economic shock " as a certain Treasury document once said.
Which isn't to say Monarch didn't have huge problems anyway. It certainly did. But if you are already I'll that's a reason to avoid unnecessary infections not vote for them in a referendum. It's simply obtuse to argue that because something isn't the sole or primary cause of something it can't be an aggrevating factor.
"Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foreign Currency."
I would have hoped so, until someone on here yesterday thought that it was "utter bollocks". ;-)
Mr. Eagles, most of those (here, at least) who support leaving the EU believe that, in the short term, there will be an economic hit. However, David Davis is unlikely to be around as a potential leadership candidate much beyond that short term period.
Exactly the same argument the Corbynistas make about trashing the economy and a run on the pound.
You can’t complain about the economic arsonism of Corbyn if you’re a Brexiteer.
We had £115bn of economic arsonism from GO in 2016:
The buying of the product creates the debt. There's never not going to be a debt when you buy a product across a currency border.
Forgive me if I'm being thick here.
The buying of the product creates the debt only if you lack the money to pay for the product - and if you lack the money you should not be buying it.
Thanks + ^^
My point is basically semantics. Money is debt. Osborne could & should have just said "we're in debt to China" or "they're selling more to us than we're selling to them"
Not sure why these two metrics would move in opposite directions.
Interesting. Anyway, this article explains Real Net National Disposable Income, despite its name, is a variation of GDP that includes income from foreign investments. Real Household Disposable Income is what we think it is, ie what households have to spend after taxes.
For the long-term changes in NNDI sound more important.
If corporations are on a stronger financial footing then they'll be in a position to grow which will result in higher future household incomes. Similarly if the government's on a stronger financial footing then it will result in higher future household incomes than otherwise.
Not sure why these two metrics would move in opposite directions.
Interesting. Anyway, this article explains Real Net National Disposable Income, despite its name, is a variation of GDP that includes income from foreign investments. Real Household Disposable Income is what we think it is, ie what households have to spend after taxes.
I have a question. When the ONS quotes an increase, say of 2%, in GDP. Is that nominal or real? ie If inflation is 3% would that be a 1% reduction in real GDP or is it still a 2% increase.
Not sure why these two metrics would move in opposite directions.
Interesting. Anyway, this article explains Real Net National Disposable Income, despite its name, is a variation of GDP that includes income from foreign investments. Real Household Disposable Income is what we think it is, ie what households have to spend after taxes.
I have a question. When the ONS quotes an increase, say of 2%, in GDP. Is that nominal or real? ie If inflation is 3% would that be a 1% reduction in real GDP or is it still a 2% increase.
@logical_song Of course. After terrorism took out certain markets ( a non Brexit factor ) 80% of Monarch's business was in Spain and Portugal. Thus the devaluation and Single European Sky withdrawal were very significant drags. Of course Monarch was overcapacity in a industry where fares had been depressed too far. But if you are already seriously unwell you don't vote to get a nasty dose of flu in a referendum.
But the Big Picture is we are seeing now on an almost daily basis data showing why May activated the air bag of a two year status quo transition. She knew what is coming.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Not sure why these two metrics would move in opposite directions.
Interesting. Anyway, this article explains Real Net National Disposable Income, despite its name, is a variation of GDP that includes income from foreign investments. Real Household Disposable Income is what we think it is, ie what households have to spend after taxes.
I have a question. When the ONS quotes an increase, say of 2%, in GDP. Is that nominal or real? ie If inflation is 3% would that be a 1% reduction in real GDP or is it still a 2% increase.
They use both, if it’s not described as as ‘real’ then it will be nominal GDP.
The statistics also include what they call ‘seasonal variations’ to try and compare like with like - a little like opinion pollsters do with adjustments and weightings.
Just heard from somebody who got "rescued" from abroad due to monarch collapse. They said it was actually rather well organised and good communication throughout.
Not often you hear that. Especially given the large numbers involved.
CAA have done an awesome job on this, they’ve got 30 planes now flying pretty much Monarch’s entire schedule - the bankrupt airline had 35 aircraft - to get everyone abroad back to the UK. They’ll be doing this for the next fortnight.
I am sure the media will still find some doughnut who has ignored all the instructions and now stranded and blaming tory cuts.
Spot on the other Nick... There is nothing the right, or its Murdoch cheerleaders can do other than whinge ineffectively about the IRA and Chavez.
What they should be doing is what Blair did in the 90's and drive their tanks on their enemies gardens.
Yes. Anyone who has done any doorstep canvassing in recent years will know that the popular perception is that those who caused the banking crisis were bailed out at public expense, no one was punished, and the whole corporate merry go round of telephone number salaries for those at the top and minimum-wage zero-hours contracts for those at the bottom continued with the active encouragement of the government. The cost of the crisis was paid by ordinary people who suffered tax increases, frozen living standards and the erosion of public services whilst the top 10% or so continued to get richer.
In the circumstances the rise of populism is hardly surprising. But right-wing populists have rushed into the blind alleys of Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US - neither of these offer any serious hope of dealing with the causes of the popular sense of alienation and anger. So the stage is set fair for left-wing populism and there is very little the right can do to halt it.
Not sure why these two metrics would move in opposite directions.
Interesting. Anyway, this article explains Real Net National Disposable Income, despite its name, is a variation of GDP that includes income from foreign investments. Real Household Disposable Income is what we think it is, ie what households have to spend after taxes.
I have a question. When the ONS quotes an increase, say of 2%, in GDP. Is that nominal or real? ie If inflation is 3% would that be a 1% reduction in real GDP or is it still a 2% increase.
They used the word Real so it would be real.
Thanks. I should have made the effort to answer my own question.
These charts show the UK real GDP growth plunging down to the bottom of the OECD league table while the nominal GDP growth remains at the top of the league table, presumably thanks to Brexit and inflation.
It wasn’t so long ago that Boris Johnson was the star attraction of the conference. He would pack auditoriums, just as I’m sure he will when he speaks this afternoon.
But although he once again tops ConHome’s members’ poll on potential eventual successors to Theresa May, I detect a lessening of the adulation he once enjoyed. With so much at stake, there is little patience for anything that looks like self-indulgence.
The self-indulgence is sub-standard TMay sticking on.
He writes....as a Tory?
Are you saying that only Tories can have opinions on our sub-standard PM who has been rejected by the voters? I admire your loyalty but she is rubbish at politics and is incapable of leading the country.
She was not rejected by the voters. She failed to win a majority and massively underperformed expectations, but that isn't the same thing.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Sam Cleverly was tipped here for the Tories recently -- Emily vs Sam -- the battle of the colonels.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Well, certainly some of us on PB have put a few quid on Thornberry.
Not so sure about your May prediction. Yes, she will last longer than many think. But a year out from a GE, someone will make a move.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Well, certainly some of us on PB have put a few quid on Thornberry.
Not so sure about your May prediction. Yes, she will last longer than many think. But a year out from a GE, someone will make a move.
Thornberry is the standout replacement, but Corbyn will fight the next election. I doubt Thornberry is trusted so much on the left for a coronation.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
Mr Swaffield blamed the company's demise on "terrorism and the closure of some markets like Turkey, Tunisia and Egypt," which led to more competition on routes to Spain and Portugal. "Flights were being squeezed into a smaller number of destinations and a 25% reduction in ticket prices on our routes created a massive economic challenge for our short-haul network," he told the BBC.
The Las Vegas really is a mystery. I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Well, certainly some of us on PB have put a few quid on Thornberry.
Not so sure about your May prediction. Yes, she will last longer than many think. But a year out from a GE, someone will make a move.
I am pretty nicely green on Thornberry but I fear the days of nice Tory Labour leaders is behind us for a while.
It wasn’t so long ago that Boris Johnson was the star attraction of the conference. He would pack auditoriums, just as I’m sure he will when he speaks this afternoon.
But although he once again tops ConHome’s members’ poll on potential eventual successors to Theresa May, I detect a lessening of the adulation he once enjoyed. With so much at stake, there is little patience for anything that looks like self-indulgence.
The self-indulgence is sub-standard TMay sticking on.
He writes....as a Tory?
Are you saying that only Tories can have opinions on our sub-standard PM who has been rejected by the voters? I admire your loyalty but she is rubbish at politics and is incapable of leading the country.
She was not rejected by the voters. She failed to win a majority and massively underperformed expectations, but that isn't the same thing.
I got 9 Tory leaflets during #GE17 They were unlike any GE material I've sent in my adult life time. #1 Unprecedented presidential am around May her self. #2 Unprecedented messaging framing the election as being about nothing else but Brexit. #3 Unprecedented lack of local content and candidate input. #4 A unique request. To give her an even bigger majority in a specially called election.
She called an early election to seek an increased majority. The voters took her existing majority off her. In what way is describing that a " rejection " inappropriate ?
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Well, certainly some of us on PB have put a few quid on Thornberry.
Not so sure about your May prediction. Yes, she will last longer than many think. But a year out from a GE, someone will make a move.
I am pretty nicely green on Thornberry but I fear the days of nice Tory Labour leaders is behind us for a while.
As long as the days of nice electable Labour leaders are also not behind us. Thornberry is not what the Corbynistas think she is-she is not ideological hard left.
Just heard from somebody who got "rescued" from abroad due to monarch collapse. They said it was actually rather well organised and good communication throughout.
Not often you hear that. Especially given the large numbers involved.
CAA have done an awesome job on this, they’ve got 30 planes now flying pretty much Monarch’s entire schedule - the bankrupt airline had 35 aircraft - to get everyone abroad back to the UK. They’ll be doing this for the next fortnight.
I am sure the media will still find some doughnut who has ignored all the instructions and now stranded and blaming tory cuts.
Probably. And after a little digging by a journo he’ll turn out to be a Labour councillor.
I’m usually the first to have a go at crap bureaucracy and shitty quangoes, private pilots regularly refer to the CAA as the Campaign Against Aviation thanks to their legendary lack of speed and interest in essential paperwork leaving pilots and planes grounded...
BUT hats off to them here, they’ve planned and executed the evacuation very well indeed, finding 30 planes and crews from as far away as Qatar to operate what’s pretty much a temporary airline to get people home. *applause*
Someone on another forum points out the irony that when XL airline went bust a few years ago, the biggest participant in the rescue was... Monarch.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
Is that because people come into gun shops and buy mass-killing machine guns over the counter and nobody bats an eyelid?
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Well, certainly some of us on PB have put a few quid on Thornberry.
Not so sure about your May prediction. Yes, she will last longer than many think. But a year out from a GE, someone will make a move.
The Tories would be crazy to let her. I hope you are right about Thornberry. I cannot support Corbyn, but Thornberry I would -and she is not what the Corbynistas think she is, certainly not one of themselves, not on the hard ideological left.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
FWIW I think Corbyn will carry on until the next general election, whenever that is, unless his health fails. There is no prospect of a challenge from within Labour and, even if the Tories change leader, the Brexit millstone they have placed around their necks will prevent them from getting back on to the front foot for the forseeable future.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Sam Cleverly was tipped here for the Tories recently -- Emily vs Sam -- the battle of the colonels.
It wasn’t so long ago that Boris Johnson was the star attraction of the conference. He would pack auditoriums, just as I’m sure he will when he speaks this afternoon.
But although he once again tops ConHome’s members’ poll on potential eventual successors to Theresa May, I detect a lessening of the adulation he once enjoyed. With so much at stake, there is little patience for anything that looks like self-indulgence.
The self-indulgence is sub-standard TMay sticking on.
He writes....as a Tory?
Are you saying that only Tories can have opinions on our sub-standard PM who has been rejected by the voters? I admire your loyalty but she is rubbish at politics and is incapable of leading the country.
She was not rejected by the voters. She failed to win a majority and massively underperformed expectations, but that isn't the same thing.
I got 9 Tory leaflets during #GE17 They were unlike any GE material I've sent in my adult life time. #1 Unprecedented presidential am around May her self. #2 Unprecedented messaging framing the election as being about nothing else but Brexit. #3 Unprecedented lack of local content and candidate input. #4 A unique request. To give her an even bigger majority in a specially called election.
She called an early election to seek an increased majority. The voters took her existing majority off her. In what way is describing that a " rejection " inappropriate ?
And, yet, she is still in office with most votes and a majority of the house supporting the key parts of her programme.
Whereas economic globalisation of the previous decade had brought stagnant wages and stagnant productivity but rising debt and rising inequality.
I think this is wrong (and not only because inequality has fallen).
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Well, certainly some of us on PB have put a few quid on Thornberry.
Not so sure about your May prediction. Yes, she will last longer than many think. But a year out from a GE, someone will make a move.
I am pretty nicely green on Thornberry but I fear the days of nice Tory Labour leaders is behind us for a while.
As long as the days of nice electable Labour leaders are also not behind us. Thornberry is not what the Corbynistas think she is-she is not ideological hard left.
I don't think the Corbynistas are predominately "ideological hard left". They just like their man and his challenging of the political consensus of the past 35 years. Thornberry is on board with that, and is personally close to Corbyn.
It wasn’t so long ago that Boris Johnson was the star attraction of the conference. He would pack auditoriums, just as I’m sure he will when he speaks this afternoon.
But although he once again tops ConHome’s members’ poll on potential eventual successors to Theresa May, I detect a lessening of the adulation he once enjoyed. With so much at stake, there is little patience for anything that looks like self-indulgence.
The self-indulgence is sub-standard TMay sticking on.
He writes....as a Tory?
Are you saying that only Tories can have opinions on our sub-standard PM who has been rejected by the voters? I admire your loyalty but she is rubbish at politics and is incapable of leading the country.
She was not rejected by the voters. She failed to win a majority and massively underperformed expectations, but that isn't the same thing.
I got 9 Tory leaflets during #GE17 They were unlike any GE material I've sent in my adult life time. #1 Unprecedented presidential am around May her self. #2 Unprecedented messaging framing the election as being about nothing else but Brexit. #3 Unprecedented lack of local content and candidate input. #4 A unique request. To give her an even bigger majority in a specially called election.
She called an early election to seek an increased majority. The voters took her existing majority off her. In what way is describing that a " rejection " inappropriate ?
The voters still returned a Conservative government, if half-heartedly.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
Mr. Eagles, the referendum was on staying in or leaving the EU, not adopting economic nationalism.
You're arguing against a case that I haven't made.
Mate...the whole Brexit fuckup is built on economic nationalism. It's utterly corrosive, damaging and illiterate.
Why do you think the only business people Brexit dredged up was some wanker who set up Weatherspoons, or the completely bonkers, Dyson?
The kind of nationalism that underpins Brexit is horrible with a capital H. It has completely debased our country, thrown us out to the margins, and alienated us from world affairs instead looking to the likes of Trump and Saudi for crumbs.
An excellent post and on the nail. Nationalism is grotesque and a scourge whether it is in Bosnia the UK.
I just heard that only 1 in 4 of the under 50's voted Tory at the last election which roughly corresponds to those under 50 who voted Brexit.
I'm no psephologist but that tells me the Tories are fucked unless they can find a get out and with Boris there's zero chance of that.
According to Ipsos Mori, 28% of 18-34 year olds voted Conservative, 33% of 35-44 year olds, and 43% of 45-54 year olds.
33% of 18-34 year olds supported Brexit, 48% of 35-44 year olds, and 52% of 45-54 year olds.
The Conservatives really should have done much better among 35-44 year olds.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
Is that because people come into gun shops and buy mass-killing machine guns over the counter and nobody bats an eyelid?
You are missing my point. American guns laws are nuts.
However my point is this guy doesn't fit anything that has come before. Multi millionaire, never in any trouble, no crazy social media posts and he has been buying a massive arsenal in a calm collected manner in seemingly no hurry (and often choosing guns that don't give maximum death per buck, other times doing so).
@Sean_F@Casino_Royale And thus our quandary. I don't doubt her constitutional and legal right to be PM. But everyone knows June was the end of May. She's in office but not in power. The realpolitik is badly out of alignment with the notional result. Hence the current malaise. Anyway I was only really defending Mike's use of the word rejected. It's clear true in many real senses if not others.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Well, certainly some of us on PB have put a few quid on Thornberry.
Not so sure about your May prediction. Yes, she will last longer than many think. But a year out from a GE, someone will make a move.
I am pretty nicely green on Thornberry but I fear the days of nice Tory Labour leaders is behind us for a while.
As long as the days of nice electable Labour leaders are also not behind us. Thornberry is not what the Corbynistas think she is-she is not ideological hard left.
I don't think the Corbynistas are predominately "ideological hard left". They just like their man and his challenging of the political consensus of the past 35 years. Thornberry is on board with that, and is personally close to Corbyn.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance - but the majority of the new Corbynites are political novices who, as you say, want to challenge the "neo-liberal" consensus. Corbyn knows he has the hard left section of the electorate sewn up- he will now try to move toward the centre - the change in Labour Brexit policy to accept an EEA transition period is the first move on this.
The Tory response so far seems to consist of shouting "extremist" on every possible occasion - this did not work at the general election and there is no sign that it will be any more effective now.
It wasn’t so long ago that Boris Johnson was the star attraction of the conference. He would pack auditoriums, just as I’m sure he will when he speaks this afternoon.
But although he once again tops ConHome’s members’ poll on potential eventual successors to Theresa May, I detect a lessening of the adulation he once enjoyed. With so much at stake, there is little patience for anything that looks like self-indulgence.
The self-indulgence is sub-standard TMay sticking on.
He writes....as a Tory?
Are you saying that only Tories can have opinions on our sub-standard PM who has been rejected by the voters? I admire your loyalty but she is rubbish at politics and is incapable of leading the country.
She was not rejected by the voters. She failed to win a majority and massively underperformed expectations, but that isn't the same thing.
I got 9 Tory leaflets during #GE17 They were unlike any GE material I've sent in my adult life time. #1 Unprecedented presidential am around May her self. #2 Unprecedented messaging framing the election as being about nothing else but Brexit. #3 Unprecedented lack of local content and candidate input. #4 A unique request. To give her an even bigger majority in a specially called election.
She called an early election to seek an increased majority. The voters took her existing majority off her. In what way is describing that a " rejection " inappropriate ?
And, yet, she is still in office with most votes and a majority of the house supporting the key parts of her programme.
She won by every rule or argument or angle but did untold, probably permanent damage to herself in doing so.
What genuinely amazes me (but also doesn't, because ... ) is that we have a perfectly fine expression for what happened in June and it remains practically unused.
Whereas economic globalisation of the previous decade had brought stagnant wages and stagnant productivity but rising debt and rising inequality.
I think this is wrong (and not only because inequality has fallen).
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
I think there is still a real lack of appreciation of how much UK wealth effectively disappeared in the financial crisis - and it's now so distant in time that people tend to think we should be back to normal... whatever that might be.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
Is that because people come into gun shops and buy mass-killing machine guns over the counter and nobody bats an eyelid?
You are missing my point. American guns laws are nuts.
However my point is this guy doesn't fit anything that has come before. Multi millionaire, never in any trouble, no crazy social media posts and he has been buying a massive arsenal in a calm collected manner in seemingly no hurry (and often choosing guns that don't give maximum death per buck, other times doing so).
It's super-strange. Lots of conspiracy theories going around on t'internet about, ahem, multiple shooters.
As I set out yesterday, for me (as for many) it is strange because here is a normal non-gun kind of guy (according to his brother, who may not have known about any range visits, tbf), using and managing significant and serious hardware from inside a room and controlling the weapons to shoot out his windows and then down at a *lot* of casualties 32 floors below. It just takes quite a lot to be able to do that. Not saying that in his spare time the guy wasn't practising this kind of thing, but it just seems strange.
Edit: As for the multiple shooters theory, you can hear him/someone empty a magazine at a time and then bomb up again so not 100% sure about that but we will wait to see.
Whereas economic globalisation of the previous decade had brought stagnant wages and stagnant productivity but rising debt and rising inequality.
I think this is wrong (and not only because inequality has fallen).
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
Well said. Whatever anyone may think of Mr Osborne now (and I think I’ve made my views on the Class A C*** pretty well known), he did a bloody good job as CoE of balancing spending and growth in the economy, in order to avoid mass unemployment and a prolonged recession.
People also forget that a great many companies were wiped out, ask anyone who had shares in Lloyds Bank. The idea that the ‘rich’ somehow came out of the crisis well just isn’t true, even if a 90% reduction in your assets from £10m to £1m doesn’t leave you sleeping on the streets.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
It wasn’t so long ago that Boris Johnson was the star attraction of the conference. He would pack auditoriums, just as I’m sure he will when he speaks this afternoon.
But although he once again tops ConHome’s members’ poll on potential eventual successors to Theresa May, I detect a lessening of the adulation he once enjoyed. With so much at stake, there is little patience for anything that looks like self-indulgence.
The self-indulgence is sub-standard TMay sticking on.
He writes....as a Tory?
Are you saying that only Tories can have opinions on our sub-standard PM who has been rejected by the voters? I admire your loyalty but she is rubbish at politics and is incapable of leading the country.
She was not rejected by the voters. She failed to win a majority and massively underperformed expectations, but that isn't the same thing.
I got 9 Tory leaflets during #GE17 They were unlike any GE material I've sent in my adult life time. #1 Unprecedented presidential am around May her self. #2 Unprecedented messaging framing the election as being about nothing else but Brexit. #3 Unprecedented lack of local content and candidate input. #4 A unique request. To give her an even bigger majority in a specially called election.
She called an early election to seek an increased majority. The voters took her existing majority off her. In what way is describing that a " rejection " inappropriate ?
And, yet, she is still in office with most votes and a majority of the house supporting the key parts of her programme.
She won by every rule or argument or angle but did untold, probably permanent damage to herself in doing so.
What genuinely amazes me (but also doesn't, because ... ) is that we have a perfectly fine expression for what happened in June and it remains practically unused.
Whereas economic globalisation of the previous decade had brought stagnant wages and stagnant productivity but rising debt and rising inequality.
I think this is wrong (and not only because inequality has fallen).
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
Well said. Whatever anyone may think of Mr Osborne now (and I think I’ve made my views on the Class A C*** pretty well known), he did a bloody good job as CoE of balancing spending and growth in the economy, in order to avoid mass unemployment and a prolonged recession.
People also forget that a great many companies were wiped out, ask anyone who had shares in Lloyds Bank. The idea that the ‘rich’ somehow came out of the crisis well just isn’t true, even if a 90% reduction in your assets from £10m to £1m doesn’t leave you sleeping on the streets.
Osborne inherited a recovery, flatlined growth and was forced to abandon Plan A (although not the name). He really did not do a good job.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Whereas economic globalisation of the previous decade had brought stagnant wages and stagnant productivity but rising debt and rising inequality.
I think this is wrong (and not only because inequality has fallen).
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
Well said. Whatever anyone may think of Mr Osborne now (and I think I’ve made my views on the Class A C*** pretty well known), he did a bloody good job as CoE of balancing spending and growth in the economy, in order to avoid mass unemployment and a prolonged recession.
People also forget that a great many companies were wiped out, ask anyone who had shares in Lloyds Bank. The idea that the ‘rich’ somehow came out of the crisis well just isn’t true, even if a 90% reduction in your assets from £10m to £1m doesn’t leave you sleeping on the streets.
Osborne inherited a recovery, flatlined growth and was forced to abandon Plan A (although not the name). He really did not do a good job.
He inherited growth that was only recovering because of the completely unsustainable £166,000,000,000 annual budget deficit, which he reduced as quickly as he could while still keeping the growth line positive. That deficit was half a billion pounds a day, that government was spending more than it was earning.
A good Chancellor adapts to the changing reality around him, and as much as I dislike the guy for behaving like a petulant child now, Osborne was a good Chancellor. It would have been easier politically for him to stick to Plan A but would have led to a prolonged recession.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
But those kinds of accusations cut no ice on the doorstep. You'd need to be well over 80 to have any memory of a time when Stalin was alive, the IRA stuff was tried at the general election and failed to cut through.
Rees-Mogg is much nuttier than Corbyn in the eyes of many people.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
The single most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jon Lansman. His private company owns the Jeremy Corbyn/Momentum database. This is a list of all members and supporters that signed up for Corbyn-related online material in the 2015 and 2016 leadership elections, and it is huge. Almost all people on it are passive, but they have votes in elections for things like NEC seats; as well, of course, as for the leadership itself. There is a clear, direct correlation between the candidates endorsed by Momentum Ltd and internal election success.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge control over our own laws and us having the power to elect and eject our lawmakers as a discernible benefit.
You may not think it is a benefit worth gaining, but it is most unquestionably a benefit.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
Is that because people come into gun shops and buy mass-killing machine guns over the counter and nobody bats an eyelid?
You are missing my point. American guns laws are nuts.
However my point is this guy doesn't fit anything that has come before. Multi millionaire, never in any trouble, no crazy social media posts and he has been buying a massive arsenal in a calm collected manner in seemingly no hurry (and often choosing guns that don't give maximum death per buck, other times doing so).
It’s a really weird one - a guy who was reasonably well off, had had no recent shocks in his life, no history of mental illness or affiliation to groups of nutters, manages to assemble in his hotel room half a batallion’s worth of automatic guns before calmly sending a hail of bullets down onto a crowd of people below.
There has to be something missing from the story, I hope the investigators can gain an understanding of why on Earth this happened.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge control over our own laws and us having the power to elect and eject our lawmakers as a discernible benefit.
You may not think it is a benefit worth gaining, but it is most unquestionably a benefit.
We already have that benefit, as the referendum and general election demonstrated.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
The single most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jon Lansman. His private company owns the Jeremy Corbyn/Momentum database. This is a list of all members and supporters that signed up for Corbyn-related online material in the 2015 and 2016 leadership elections, and it is huge. Almost all people on it are passive, but they have votes in elections for things like NEC seats; as well, of course, as for the leadership itself. There is a clear, direct correlation between the candidates endorsed by Momentum Ltd and internal election success.
So it seems the Labour Party is being directed by a small ideological group which has aims alien to its core traditional support and for whom the welfare of the country as a whole is a secondary consideration.
That is pretty much what happened with the Tory Party and has led us to the the current sorry state of affairs.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
Is that because people come into gun shops and buy mass-killing machine guns over the counter and nobody bats an eyelid?
You are missing my point. American guns laws are nuts.
However my point is this guy doesn't fit anything that has come before. Multi millionaire, never in any trouble, no crazy social media posts and he has been buying a massive arsenal in a calm collected manner in seemingly no hurry (and often choosing guns that don't give maximum death per buck, other times doing so).
It’s a really weird one - a guy who was reasonably well off, had had no recent shocks in his life, no history of mental illness or affiliation to groups of nutters, manages to assemble in his hotel room half a batallion’s worth of automatic guns before calmly sending a hail of bullets down onto a crowd of people below.
There has to be something missing from the story, I hope the investigators can gain an understanding of why on Earth this happened.
In a way, these days having no obvious social media presence at all is kinda of abnormal. I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately they find he had some secret dark online activity.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Well that's my take, Southam, but you know......there was 52% of voters who thought otherwise so we just have to sup it up.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
Is that because people come into gun shops and buy mass-killing machine guns over the counter and nobody bats an eyelid?
You are missing my point. American guns laws are nuts.
However my point is this guy doesn't fit anything that has come before. Multi millionaire, never in any trouble, no crazy social media posts and he has been buying a massive arsenal in a calm collected manner in seemingly no hurry (and often choosing guns that don't give maximum death per buck, other times doing so).
It’s a really weird one - a guy who was reasonably well off, had had no recent shocks in his life, no history of mental illness or affiliation to groups of nutters, manages to assemble in his hotel room half a batallion’s worth of automatic guns before calmly sending a hail of bullets down onto a crowd of people below.
There has to be something missing from the story, I hope the investigators can gain an understanding of why on Earth this happened.
His motivation is indeed a mystery. The ability of a person of unknown motivation to buy such an arsenal entirely legally is a fact. The US really has to deal with the facts. Semi automatic weapons need to be banned.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
But those kinds of accusations cut no ice on the doorstep. You'd need to be well over 80 to have any memory of a time when Stalin was alive, the IRA stuff was tried at the general election and failed to cut through.
Rees-Mogg is much nuttier than Corbyn in the eyes of many people.
I'm not suggesting that they do cut much ice on the doorstep, especially amongst the young and naive. My astonishment is more that some (not all) formerly sensible Labour supporters, and even MPs - whose views used to be no different from those I was expressing - seem to have decided it doesn't matter how nutty and extreme the party has become. After all, what happens if, God forbid, Labour under the grip of the current cabal actually get into power? This is not some academic discussion, these things will have serious real-life consequences, not least for the Labour Party itself - not to mention the country.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
Is that because people come into gun shops and buy mass-killing machine guns over the counter and nobody bats an eyelid?
You are missing my point. American guns laws are nuts.
However my point is this guy doesn't fit anything that has come before. Multi millionaire, never in any trouble, no crazy social media posts and he has been buying a massive arsenal in a calm collected manner in seemingly no hurry (and often choosing guns that don't give maximum death per buck, other times doing so).
It’s a really weird one - a guy who was reasonably well off, had had no recent shocks in his life, no history of mental illness or affiliation to groups of nutters, manages to assemble in his hotel room half a batallion’s worth of automatic guns before calmly sending a hail of bullets down onto a crowd of people below.
There has to be something missing from the story, I hope the investigators can gain an understanding of why on Earth this happened.
His motivation is indeed a mystery. The ability of a person of unknown motivation to buy such an arsenal entirely legally is a fact. The US really has to deal with the facts. Semi automatic weapons need to be banned.
The fact you can legally buy a $200 modification to turn a semi into an auto is just mind blowing.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
The single most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jon Lansman. His private company owns the Jeremy Corbyn/Momentum database. This is a list of all members and supporters that signed up for Corbyn-related online material in the 2015 and 2016 leadership elections, and it is huge. Almost all people on it are passive, but they have votes in elections for things like NEC seats; as well, of course, as for the leadership itself. There is a clear, direct correlation between the candidates endorsed by Momentum Ltd and internal election success.
So it seems the Labour Party is being directed by a small ideological group which has aims alien to its core traditional support and for whom the welfare of the country as a whole is a secondary consideration.
That is pretty much what happened with the Tory Party and has led us to the the current sorry state of affairs.
Whereas economic globalisation of the previous decade had brought stagnant wages and stagnant productivity but rising debt and rising inequality.
I think this is wrong (and not only because inequality has fallen).
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
I think there is still a real lack of appreciation of how much UK wealth effectively disappeared in the financial crisis - and it's now so distant in time that people tend to think we should be back to normal... whatever that might be.
I think there is also still a real lack of appreciation of how much UK wealth effectively disappeared following the EU referendum.
UK total income (GDP) has dropped by 15% (£300 billion) since the referendum, relative to the rest of the world.
UK total wealth has also dropped by 15% (£1,350 billion) since the referendum, relative to the rest of the world.
You don't feel it until you travel abroad, buy imported stuff or try to use UK assets to buy assets abroad.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
The single most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jon Lansman. His private company owns the Jeremy Corbyn/Momentum database. This is a list of all members and supporters that signed up for Corbyn-related online material in the 2015 and 2016 leadership elections, and it is huge. Almost all people on it are passive, but they have votes in elections for things like NEC seats; as well, of course, as for the leadership itself. There is a clear, direct correlation between the candidates endorsed by Momentum Ltd and internal election success.
The most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed its getting close to a personality cult in some ways. Lansman plays up his image as a svengali-like figure controlling a flock of momentum sheep and this makes a good story for conspiracy theorists but the true picture is more complex.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Totally with you on the Labour situation, if the next GE is after 2109. Corbyn is not so egotistical that he will put a desire to become PM above the priority of ensuring the election of a left leaning socialist government.
A lot of Tories have consoled themselves with the belief that they will be fighting Corbyn at the next election and that damage will be limited by the significant section of voters that will never vote for Corbyn. Thornberry will not have the baggage that Corbyn carries and if she were to replace him now, we could easily see 15 point poll leads for Labour.
As far as May is concerned, I am not sure. But if the Tories concentrate on choosing a replacement who might be able to beat Corbyn, I fear they could be preparing for the wrong battle.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge control over our own laws and us having the power to elect and eject our lawmakers as a discernible benefit.
You may not think it is a benefit worth gaining, but it is most unquestionably a benefit.
We already have that benefit, as the referendum and general election demonstrated.
The referendum showed we had the ability to regain that ability by leaving, but without leaving we don't have that ability.
The General Election lets us choose who sets some of our laws, it doesn't let us change unpopular EU laws though.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Totally with you on the Labour situation, if the next GE is after 2109. Corbyn is not so egotistical that he will put a desire to become PM above the priority of ensuring the election of a left leaning socialist government.
A lot of Tories have consoled themselves with the belief that they will be fighting Corbyn at the next election and that damage will be limited by the significant section of voters that will never vote for Corbyn. Thornberry will not have the baggage that Corbyn carries and if she were to replace him now, we could easily see 15 point poll leads for Labour.
As far as May is concerned, I am not sure. But if the Tories concentrate on choosing a replacement who might be able to beat Corbyn, I fear they could be preparing for the wrong battle.
I think all the above assumes that Boris is happy to give up his ambition to become PM, or that he doesn't have the numbers. The second could be true.
Mr. Eagles, most of those (here, at least) who support leaving the EU believe that, in the short term, there will be an economic hit. However, David Davis is unlikely to be around as a potential leadership candidate much beyond that short term period.
Exactly the same argument the Corbynistas make about trashing the economy and a run on the pound.
You can’t complain about the economic arsonism of Corbyn if you’re a Brexiteer.
We had £115bn of economic arsonism from GO in 2016:
Isn't that statement meaningless/economically obvious?
The exchange of products creates the debt. no?
Forgive me if I'm being thick here.
Effectively Britain is selling its assets to pay for its current consumption.
The asset in this case is government debt which means that our future taxes will be higher to pay for our current consumption.
So we make ourselves poorer in the future to pay for today.
Until Comrade Corbyn cancels the debt.
You generally get to borrow more cheaply when you pay debts back. Unilaterally cancelling our debt would cost a fortune I'm sure Labour knows this
When John McDonnell said last week that no-one earning less than £80k will pay more tax under Labour, what he failed to mention is that five years of inflation, devaluation and printing money will mean that £80k is going to be barely minimum wage!
It's the reverse trick the tories are playing on the young and the poor.
Look at these juicy tax cuts and minimum wage rises we've given you!
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
The single most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jon Lansman. His private company owns the Jeremy Corbyn/Momentum database. This is a list of all members and supporters that signed up for Corbyn-related online material in the 2015 and 2016 leadership elections, and it is huge. Almost all people on it are passive, but they have votes in elections for things like NEC seats; as well, of course, as for the leadership itself. There is a clear, direct correlation between the candidates endorsed by Momentum Ltd and internal election success.
The most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed its getting close to a personality cult in some ways. Lansman plays up his image as a svengali-like figure controlling a flock of momentum sheep and this makes a good story for conspiracy theorists but the true picture is more complex.
Close to a personality cult? Its a full scale personality on an almost Stalinist level. And it will rebound on Corbyn because voters dont like it. Every time that silly song is sung, he loses 100 votes. And if he should ever get into power, the sheer level of disappointed expectation will turn adoration into detestation.
Mr. Eagles, most of those (here, at least) who support leaving the EU believe that, in the short term, there will be an economic hit. However, David Davis is unlikely to be around as a potential leadership candidate much beyond that short term period.
Exactly the same argument the Corbynistas make about trashing the economy and a run on the pound.
You can’t complain about the economic arsonism of Corbyn if you’re a Brexiteer.
We had £115bn of economic arsonism from GO in 2016:
Isn't that statement meaningless/economically obvious?
The exchange of products creates the debt. no?
Forgive me if I'm being thick here.
Effectively Britain is selling its assets to pay for its current consumption.
The asset in this case is government debt which means that our future taxes will be higher to pay for our current consumption.
So we make ourselves poorer in the future to pay for today.
Until Comrade Corbyn cancels the debt.
You generally get to borrow more cheaply when you pay debts back. Unilaterally cancelling our debt would cost a fortune I'm sure Labour knows this
When John McDonnell said last week that no-one earning less than £80k will pay more tax under Labour, what he failed to mention is that five years of inflation, devaluation and printing money will mean that £80k is going to be barely minimum wage!
It's the reverse trick the tories are playing on the young and the poor.
Look at these juicy tax cuts and minimum wage rises we've given you!
While deliberately pumping house prices.
Yep.
With Brexit followed by Corbyn the UK could be getting the reset it desperately needs after years of governments propping up asset prices at the expense of the young.
Mr. Eagles, most of those (here, at least) who support leaving the EU believe that, in the short term, there will be an economic hit. However, David Davis is unlikely to be around as a potential leadership candidate much beyond that short term period.
Exactly the same argument the Corbynistas make about trashing the economy and a run on the pound.
You can’t complain about the economic arsonism of Corbyn if you’re a Brexiteer.
We had £115bn of economic arsonism from GO in 2016:
Isn't that statement meaningless/economically obvious?
The exchange of products creates the debt. no?
Forgive me if I'm being thick here.
Effectively Britain is selling its assets to pay for its current consumption.
The asset in this case is government debt which means that our future taxes will be higher to pay for our current consumption.
So we make ourselves poorer in the future to pay for today.
Until Comrade Corbyn cancels the debt.
You generally get to borrow more cheaply when you pay debts back. Unilaterally cancelling our debt would cost a fortune I'm sure Labour knows this
When John McDonnell said last week that no-one earning less than £80k will pay more tax under Labour, what he failed to mention is that five years of inflation, devaluation and printing money will mean that £80k is going to be barely minimum wage!
It's the reverse trick the tories are playing on the young and the poor.
Look at these juicy tax cuts and minimum wage rises we've given you!
While deliberately pumping house prices/rents.
I was the first to criticise the Chancellor yesterday for his comments on extending the Help to Buy scheme, the efforts need to be focussed on the supply side.
Mr. Eagles, most of those (here, at least) who support leaving the EU believe that, in the short term, there will be an economic hit. However, David Davis is unlikely to be around as a potential leadership candidate much beyond that short term period.
Exactly the same argument the Corbynistas make about trashing the economy and a run on the pound.
You can’t complain about the economic arsonism of Corbyn if you’re a Brexiteer.
We had £115bn of economic arsonism from GO in 2016:
Isn't that statement meaningless/economically obvious?
The exchange of products creates the debt. no?
Forgive me if I'm being thick here.
Effectively Britain is selling its assets to pay for its current consumption.
The asset in this case is government debt which means that our future taxes will be higher to pay for our current consumption.
So we make ourselves poorer in the future to pay for today.
Until Comrade Corbyn cancels the debt.
You generally get to borrow more cheaply when you pay debts back. Unilaterally cancelling our debt would cost a fortune I'm sure Labour knows this
When John McDonnell said last week that no-one earning less than £80k will pay more tax under Labour, what he failed to mention is that five years of inflation, devaluation and printing money will mean that £80k is going to be barely minimum wage!
It's the reverse trick the tories are playing on the young and the poor.
Look at these juicy tax cuts and minimum wage rises we've given you!
While deliberately pumping house prices/rents.
I was the first to criticise the Chancellor yesterday for his comments on extending the Help to Buy scheme, the efforts need to be on the supply side.
There's some excellent third-sector reports in this area. It seems there are at least a dozen thins holding back supply.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Well that's my take, Southam, but you know......there was 52% of voters who thought otherwise so we just have to sup it up.
Or not. People change their minds, circumstances change. Political parties don't give up and disband because they lose an election (UKIP excepted). Those against the EC didn't give up after 1975.
Yes that's right. There are a few of the old "hard left" around - Lansman for instance ...
LOL at that! The massive point you are glossing over there is that those 'few of the old hard left - who are the nuttiest of nutty extremists by any standard - are the ones actually running the party, and with an iron grip: the odious Stalin-apologist Seamas Milne, the unreconstructed Jon Lansman, the Marxist IRA apologist John McDonnell, and Corbyn himself.
The single most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jon Lansman. His private company owns the Jeremy Corbyn/Momentum database. This is a list of all members and supporters that signed up for Corbyn-related online material in the 2015 and 2016 leadership elections, and it is huge. Almost all people on it are passive, but they have votes in elections for things like NEC seats; as well, of course, as for the leadership itself. There is a clear, direct correlation between the candidates endorsed by Momentum Ltd and internal election success.
The most powerful and influential person in Labour now is Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed its getting close to a personality cult in some ways. Lansman plays up his image as a svengali-like figure controlling a flock of momentum sheep and this makes a good story for conspiracy theorists but the true picture is more complex.
Jeremy is the figurehead, but in terms of raw internal power, the Momentum Ltd database is where it's at - precisely because of the cult of Corbyn: the material it sends out is seen as the Word of the Leader and so when an instruction comes out to vote in a certain way, that is exactly what happens.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge control over our own laws and us having the power to elect and eject our lawmakers as a discernible benefit.
You may not think it is a benefit worth gaining, but it is most unquestionably a benefit.
We already have that benefit, as the referendum and general election demonstrated.
The referendum showed we had the ability to regain that ability by leaving, but without leaving we don't have that ability.
The General Election lets us choose who sets some of our laws, it doesn't let us change unpopular EU laws though.
It may be the case that Leaving simply isn't possible without significant economic and political fallout.
Leavers think that it's still worth it. Remainers are horrified.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Totally with you on the Labour situation, if the next GE is after 2109. Corbyn is not so egotistical that he will put a desire to become PM above the priority of ensuring the election of a left leaning socialist government.
A lot of Tories have consoled themselves with the belief that they will be fighting Corbyn at the next election and that damage will be limited by the significant section of voters that will never vote for Corbyn. Thornberry will not have the baggage that Corbyn carries and if she were to replace him now, we could easily see 15 point poll leads for Labour.
As far as May is concerned, I am not sure. But if the Tories concentrate on choosing a replacement who might be able to beat Corbyn, I fear they could be preparing for the wrong battle.
I think the Tories are paralysed by fear of a second GE1997 experience.
I know it's unfashionable but I believe that Mrs May will still be leading the Tories into the next General Election in 2022, - and will lose it to Emily Thornberry.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
Totally with you on the Labour situation, if the next GE is after 2109. Corbyn is not so egotistical that he will put a desire to become PM above the priority of ensuring the election of a left leaning socialist government.
A lot of Tories have consoled themselves with the belief that they will be fighting Corbyn at the next election and that damage will be limited by the significant section of voters that will never vote for Corbyn. Thornberry will not have the baggage that Corbyn carries and if she were to replace him now, we could easily see 15 point poll leads for Labour.
As far as May is concerned, I am not sure. But if the Tories concentrate on choosing a replacement who might be able to beat Corbyn, I fear they could be preparing for the wrong battle.
I think all the above assumes that Boris is happy to give up his ambition to become PM, or that he doesn't have the numbers. The second could be true.
He might have the numbers to be one of the two contenders (with Amber Rudd?) put to the membership and therefore win. However I believe a sufficient number of Tory MPs will not support him as PM pursuing a hard Brexit and are able to pose a credible threat. If Boris becomes PM, they will not support the government in a confidence motion. He is easily frightened off as we know. Does he want to be PM just for a few weeks before a general election is triggered?
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge control over our own laws and us having the power to elect and eject our lawmakers as a discernible benefit.
You may not think it is a benefit worth gaining, but it is most unquestionably a benefit.
We already have that benefit, as the referendum and general election demonstrated.
I think the idea is to be able to make our own decisions without a massive amount of upheaval first, which trying to leave the EU is showing we don't have now.
There's some excellent third-sector reports in this area. It seems there are at least a dozen thins holding back supply.
The problem is that with even a 5 year window to play with its unlikely supply side issues can be fixed within that time frame hence the utter insanity of the demand side tweaks continue.
Someone commented elsewhere that we don't actually know what impact htb has actually had on the market as its likely the funding for lending scheme has had a more significant impact by keeping loan rates artificially low...
Off topic, I think the EU want the UK to surrender on the ECJ jurisdiction on citizens rights, and on NI remaining in the customs union/single market before talking trade, in order to make a mockery of taking back control.
I think many in the civil service would reluctantly wear this, but it's politically impossible for the Government to accept.
Whereas economic globalisation of the previous decade had brought stagnant wages and stagnant productivity but rising debt and rising inequality.
I think this is wrong (and not only because inequality has fallen).
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
I think there is still a real lack of appreciation of how much UK wealth effectively disappeared in the financial crisis - and it's now so distant in time that people tend to think we should be back to normal... whatever that might be.
I think there is also still a real lack of appreciation of how much UK wealth effectively disappeared following the EU referendum.
UK total income (GDP) has dropped by 15% (£300 billion) since the referendum, relative to the rest of the world.
UK total wealth has also dropped by 15% (£1,350 billion) since the referendum, relative to the rest of the world.
You don't feel it until you travel abroad, buy imported stuff or try to use UK assets to buy assets abroad.
I travel and work abroad extensively and don't feel it at all.
Whereas economic globalisation of the previous decade had brought stagnant wages and stagnant productivity but rising debt and rising inequality.
I think this is wrong (and not only because inequality has fallen).
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
I think there is still a real lack of appreciation of how much UK wealth effectively disappeared in the financial crisis - and it's now so distant in time that people tend to think we should be back to normal... whatever that might be.
I think there is also still a real lack of appreciation of how much UK wealth effectively disappeared following the EU referendum.
UK total income (GDP) has dropped by 15% (£300 billion) since the referendum, relative to the rest of the world.
UK total wealth has also dropped by 15% (£1,350 billion) since the referendum, relative to the rest of the world.
You don't feel it until you travel abroad, buy imported stuff or try to use UK assets to buy assets abroad.
On the left, Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, who is himself the son of an immigrant bus driver, applauded the license decision as a victory for “passenger safety,” aligning himself with black-cab drivers who are mostly British, white and right-leaning.
On the right, George Osborne, the editor of London’s Evening Standard and a former Conservative chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote an editorial accusing the mayor of “shutting out the future” — only to be slapped down himself by the ethics council of the National Union of Journalists for failing to declare that he sits on the board of the fund manager BlackRock, a major investor in Uber.
Mr Swaffield blamed the company's demise on "terrorism and the closure of some markets like Turkey, Tunisia and Egypt," which led to more competition on routes to Spain and Portugal. "Flights were being squeezed into a smaller number of destinations and a 25% reduction in ticket prices on our routes created a massive economic challenge for our short-haul network," he told the BBC.
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Well that's my take, Southam, but you know......there was 52% of voters who thought otherwise so we just have to sup it up.
Or not. People change their minds, circumstances change. Political parties don't give up and disband because they lose an election (UKIP excepted). Those against the EC didn't give up after 1975.
Yes, that's true, Logical, but I don't think there's much that can be done in this case.
For a start, a lot of the damage has already been done, and is irreversible, even if we could reverse back out of the referendum decision, which is doubtful. Best case therefore would be to reapply at some later date, but that would obviously be on inferior terms to those we previously enjoyed.
But isn't it wrong in principle to backtrack? We all have to take responsibility for our actions, collectively as well as individually, even if we were not full aware of the consequences at the time. Parliament made it clear to the electorate that although it thought on the whole Brexit would be bad for the country, it would proceed in the event of a Leave majority. Surely Parliament has to stand by its commitments?
Nobody is " blaming Brexit " for Monarch. Almost everyone is recognising that #1 A peak to trough devaluation of $1.55 to $1.20 for the £ is a significant shock to a company with huge costs in Foriegn Currency. #2 That withdrawing from the Single European Sky on Brexit Day with no earthly idea what if anything will replace it has detected external buyers.
How many of factors #1 and #2 did the Monarch boss mention in his interview?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
From what I've heard, what killed them was that they could not compete with low cost/no frills airlines.
There is seldom a single cause. My son lost his job recently because his firm relied heavily on EU funding (basically into global warming) so it looks like a direct consequence of Brexit but it was also a demonstration of failure to diversify and too much reliance on one client.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
Yep - all Brexit does is throw another spanner into the works. We have made it harder for ourselves, for no discernible benefit.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge control over our own laws and us having the power to elect and eject our lawmakers as a discernible benefit.
You may not think it is a benefit worth gaining, but it is most unquestionably a benefit.
We already have that benefit, as the referendum and general election demonstrated.
I think the idea is to be able to make our own decisions without a massive amount of upheaval first, which trying to leave the EU is showing we don't have now.
I'd have some sympathy for that if the UK had spent the last 40 years being consistently outvoted at the Council of Ministers; but in reality it is hard to think of much of import that we have had to enshrine in UK law against the wishes of our elected government. Are there examples that I am not thinking of? That may well be the case.
Off topic, I think the EU want the UK to surrender on the ECJ jurisdiction on citizens rights, and on NI remaining in the customs union/single market before talking trade, in order to make a mockery of taking back control.
I think many in the civil service would reluctantly wear this, but it's politically impossible for the Government to accept.
May may try and, if she does, I think she falls.
What choice will she have if the EU tell her to va te faire enculer?
Comments
I would have hoped so, until someone on here yesterday thought that it was "utter bollocks". ;-)
My point is basically semantics. Money is debt. Osborne could & should have just said "we're in debt to China" or "they're selling more to us than we're selling to them"
If corporations are on a stronger financial footing then they'll be in a position to grow which will result in higher future household incomes. Similarly if the government's on a stronger financial footing then it will result in higher future household incomes than otherwise.
But the Big Picture is we are seeing now on an almost daily basis data showing why May activated the air bag of a two year status quo transition. She knew what is coming.
Mrs May is the only one who can hold the Tory party together. Any other choice will tear the party apart and force an early election and they can't have that.
Corbyn will endorse Thornberry who has the feisty appeal of Ruth Davidson or Nicola Sturgeon. McDonnell will be Chancellor. Corbyn will be the grand old man - a bit like Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren. Labour will wipe the floor with the Tories on policies and personalities. A Labour landslide.
So Emily Thornberry is next PM after Theresa May. You heard it here first.
The statistics also include what they call ‘seasonal variations’ to try and compare like with like - a little like opinion pollsters do with adjustments and weightings.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/qmis/grossdomesticproductgdpqmi
What they should be doing is what Blair did in the 90's and drive their tanks on their enemies gardens.
Yes. Anyone who has done any doorstep canvassing in recent years will know that the popular perception is that those who caused the banking crisis were bailed out at public expense, no one was punished, and the whole corporate merry go round of telephone number salaries for those at the top and minimum-wage zero-hours contracts for those at the bottom continued with the active encouragement of the government. The cost of the crisis was paid by ordinary people who suffered tax increases, frozen living standards and the erosion of public services whilst the top 10% or so continued to get richer.
In the circumstances the rise of populism is hardly surprising. But right-wing populists have rushed into the blind alleys of Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US - neither of these offer any serious hope of dealing with the causes of the popular sense of alienation and anger. So the stage is set fair for left-wing populism and there is very little the right can do to halt it.
These charts show the UK real GDP growth plunging down to the bottom of the OECD league table while the nominal GDP growth remains at the top of the league table, presumably thanks to Brexit and inflation.
https://data.oecd.org/gdp/real-gdp-forecast.htm#indicator-chart
I always wondered.
Not so sure about your May prediction. Yes, she will last longer than many think. But a year out from a GE, someone will make a move.
No social media presence, nothing more than a parking ticket in 10 years.
I have seen interviews with two gun shop owners who both say he came in multiple times looking around, in no hurry to buy a weapon, taking several visits before he went ahead and decides to make a purchase.
She called an early election to seek an increased majority. The voters took her existing majority off her. In what way is describing that a " rejection " inappropriate ?
Everything must be fitted to a 'Brexit is a disaster' narrative.
What killed Monarch (according to Monarch) was #1 Terrorism in their main markets which #2 drove them to compete in Markets that were already very competitive.
I’m usually the first to have a go at crap bureaucracy and shitty quangoes, private pilots regularly refer to the CAA as the Campaign Against Aviation thanks to their legendary lack of speed and interest in essential paperwork leaving pilots and planes grounded...
BUT hats off to them here, they’ve planned and executed the evacuation very well indeed, finding 30 planes and crews from as far away as Qatar to operate what’s pretty much a temporary airline to get people home. *applause*
Someone on another forum points out the irony that when XL airline went bust a few years ago, the biggest participant in the rescue was... Monarch.
Once again a leadership market where "lay the favourite" would be seeing you quids in.
The 2008/9 financial crisis was by far the worst world economic crash since the 1930s, and possibly worse than that for the UK. So how could it possibly be a surprise that wages have stagnated? A crisis which takes out a huge chunk of wealth and causes consumers and businesses to stop spending is going to have consequences in the real world: the collapse in all those financial indicators isn't just some abstract curiosity of interest only to economists. So of course ordinary people have been adversely affected. The miracle is that, thanks to Osborne's skilled management of the economy, they weren't much more badly hit - in particular by mass unemployment, which typically the most serious and damaging scourge of economic bad times.
Now, you could make an argument that globalisation was the principal cause of the crash, but I think it's a hard case to make beyond the observation that globalisation of the financial markets helped to spread it.
33% of 18-34 year olds supported Brexit, 48% of 35-44 year olds, and 52% of 45-54 year olds.
The Conservatives really should have done much better among 35-44 year olds.
However my point is this guy doesn't fit anything that has come before. Multi millionaire, never in any trouble, no crazy social media posts and he has been buying a massive arsenal in a calm collected manner in seemingly no hurry (and often choosing guns that don't give maximum death per buck, other times doing so).
It was, I believe, a young Marc Coton who once gave this verdict on a horse race he was reviewing for the Racing Post :
'None of them is good enough to win, but somebody has to. My pin fell on....'
The Tory response so far seems to consist of shouting "extremist" on every possible occasion - this did not work at the general election and there is no sign that it will be any more effective now.
What genuinely amazes me (but also doesn't, because ... ) is that we have a perfectly fine expression for what happened in June and it remains practically unused.
As I set out yesterday, for me (as for many) it is strange because here is a normal non-gun kind of guy (according to his brother, who may not have known about any range visits, tbf), using and managing significant and serious hardware from inside a room and controlling the weapons to shoot out his windows and then down at a *lot* of casualties 32 floors below. It just takes quite a lot to be able to do that. Not saying that in his spare time the guy wasn't practising this kind of thing, but it just seems strange.
Edit: As for the multiple shooters theory, you can hear him/someone empty a magazine at a time and then bomb up again so not 100% sure about that but we will wait to see.
https://twitter.com/VangelisVNZ/status/914936105874579459
People also forget that a great many companies were wiped out, ask anyone who had shares in Lloyds Bank. The idea that the ‘rich’ somehow came out of the crisis well just isn’t true, even if a 90% reduction in your assets from £10m to £1m doesn’t leave you sleeping on the streets.
Brexit obviously wasn't helpful in his case, or Monarch's, but not the sole cause.
A good Chancellor adapts to the changing reality around him, and as much as I dislike the guy for behaving like a petulant child now, Osborne was a good Chancellor. It would have been easier politically for him to stick to Plan A but would have led to a prolonged recession.
is this shit meme still not dead?
it's an ex-meme
this meme has shuffled off our mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible
Rees-Mogg is much nuttier than Corbyn in the eyes of many people.
You may not think it is a benefit worth gaining, but it is most unquestionably a benefit.
There has to be something missing from the story, I hope the investigators can gain an understanding of why on Earth this happened.
That is pretty much what happened with the Tory Party and has led us to the the current sorry state of affairs.
We are f*cked, aren't we?
UK total income (GDP) has dropped by 15% (£300 billion) since the referendum, relative to the rest of the world.
UK total wealth has also dropped by 15% (£1,350 billion) since the referendum, relative to the rest of the world.
You don't feel it until you travel abroad, buy imported stuff or try to use UK assets to buy assets abroad.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/oct/03/steve-coogan-wins-phone-hacking-damages-from-mirror-group
A lot of Tories have consoled themselves with the belief that they will be fighting Corbyn at the next election and that damage will be limited by the significant section of voters that will never vote for Corbyn. Thornberry will not have the baggage that Corbyn carries and if she were to replace him now, we could easily see 15 point poll leads for Labour.
As far as May is concerned, I am not sure. But if the Tories concentrate on choosing a replacement who might be able to beat Corbyn, I fear they could be preparing for the wrong battle.
The General Election lets us choose who sets some of our laws, it doesn't let us change unpopular EU laws though.
Look at these juicy tax cuts and minimum wage rises we've given you!
While deliberately pumping house prices/rents.
With Brexit followed by Corbyn the UK could be getting the reset it desperately needs after years of governments propping up asset prices at the expense of the young.
Leavers think that it's still worth it. Remainers are horrified.
So the debate rolls on.
Someone commented elsewhere that we don't actually know what impact htb has actually had on the market as its likely the funding for lending scheme has had a more significant impact by keeping loan rates artificially low...
It's not just the gun laws that are nuts, apparently.
I think many in the civil service would reluctantly wear this, but it's politically impossible for the Government to accept.
May may try and, if she does, I think she falls.
On the left, Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, who is himself the son of an immigrant bus driver, applauded the license decision as a victory for “passenger safety,” aligning himself with black-cab drivers who are mostly British, white and right-leaning.
On the right, George Osborne, the editor of London’s Evening Standard and a former Conservative chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote an editorial accusing the mayor of “shutting out the future” — only to be slapped down himself by the ethics council of the National Union of Journalists for failing to declare that he sits on the board of the fund manager BlackRock, a major investor in Uber.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/world/europe/uber-london-cab.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
#couldnthappentoanicerman
For a start, a lot of the damage has already been done, and is irreversible, even if we could reverse back out of the referendum decision, which is doubtful. Best case therefore would be to reapply at some later date, but that would obviously be on inferior terms to those we previously enjoyed.
But isn't it wrong in principle to backtrack? We all have to take responsibility for our actions, collectively as well as individually, even if we were not full aware of the consequences at the time. Parliament made it clear to the electorate that although it thought on the whole Brexit would be bad for the country, it would proceed in the event of a Leave majority. Surely Parliament has to stand by its commitments?
Would anybody want it to be otherwise?
https://twitter.com/eyespymp/status/915165741518872576