England certainly didn't start the Hundred Years War owning half France. Acquitaine had been whittled down to Bordeaux and a strip of coastline South of it.
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.
Can you tell us more about these "pumped" house prices and rents you are talking about.
On ONS figures, Private Rents in London have risen a little slower than RPI since 2011, and outside London signifcantly (like a third) more slowly. RPI over the period Jan 2011 to Aug 2017 is up 16%. London rents 15%. Outside London rents 11%.
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.
Can you tell us more about these "pumped" house prices and rents you are talking about.
On ONS figures, Private Rents in London have risen a little slower than RPI since 2011, and outside London signifcantly (like a third) more slowly. RPI over the period Jan 2011 to Aug 2017 is up 16%. London rents 15%. Outside London rents 11%.
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.
I think you're right. They've picked something that they know we can't possibly budge on and won't allow talks to continue otherwise. Looks like we're crashing out with no deal.
Well the other side clearly prefer to be obstinate and don’t want to do a deal, so we should start preparing now to leave in 18 months’ time without one. The EU are just going to have to put up with another Switzerland or Singapore off their coast - and a large hole in their budget.
Yes it will be difficult and painful for us unfortunately, but it is necessary now. It's obvious we can't get a decent deal so we need to take steps to move on to the next stage.
Of course the loony remainers will blame the government for this as usual.
It is Loony LEAVER LEMMINGS who have caused the problem and will be blamed hereafter
In your dreams. Given that that would mean people believing they had made a bad choice, it will be far easier and inevitable that they blame the EU. Particularly as the EU is doing nothing to dissuade them from that position. As always the EU is its own worst enemy and Leave will happily take advantage of that.
To be honest, I'd much rather we reached a sensible deal.
But, there are far too many fanatics on both sides, egged on by their own loyal lemmings.
The idea that George Osborne has a conflict of interest because some Blackrock funds invest in Uber is completely silly. I can only assume that the people making such barmy such claims haven't the faintest idea what BlackRock is. For a starter, it's not BlackRock's money, it's their clients' money which is invested in Uber, and secondly, and more importantly, BlackRock has $5.7 trillion under management; Uber's entire market cap doesn't even register as a rounding error on that.
Chris Frost, chair of the NUJ’s ethics councils, said that the Evening Standard should note Osborne’s role at BlackRock alongside newspaper and online articles it publishes about Uber. The publication did not mention Osborne’s job with BlackRock in Monday’s newspaper.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Precisely. Osborne doesn't have the slightest financial interest in Uber, or at least not through his role at BlackRock. Like other journalists and editors, he might through any investments he holds, of course.
I know nothing about this, but that sounds to me like an indirect interest at the very least. From a quick google it seems he's been lobbying for Uber since the 2014 investment. It is in the interests of BlackRock and its investors for Osborne to write in Uber's favour, and it's in Osborne's interest that BlackRock continue to see him as a good investment of theirs.
OT Is David Davis sincere in claiming he wants to hang up his baton? I get the impression he is not enjoying Brexit but I did assume him to be ambitious. Maybe he realises just how poisoned this Conservative Leader chalice is?
My impression is that David Davis had this idea that he was going to be a brilliant negotiator. Like the SAS man he was, he would charge into the room with a burst of gunfire and release the hostage. It's dawned on Davis that HE is the hostage. Humiliatingly, the hostage the captors forgot about and seeing him still tied to the radiator they tell him, you can go.
The idea that George Osborne has a conflict of interest because some Blackrock funds invest in Uber is completely silly. I can only assume that the people making such barmy such claims haven't the faintest idea what BlackRock is. For a starter, it's not BlackRock's money, it's their clients' money which is invested in Uber, and secondly, and more importantly, BlackRock has $5.7 trillion under management; Uber's entire market cap doesn't even register as a rounding error on that.
Chris Frost, chair of the NUJ’s ethics councils, said that the Evening Standard should note Osborne’s role at BlackRock alongside newspaper and online articles it publishes about Uber. The publication did not mention Osborne’s job with BlackRock in Monday’s newspaper.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Just read Laura Kuenssberg's article on the BBC about the mood at the Tory conference and it just reinforces how badly they miss Cameron. Former ministers who think the Party is about to go on a major decline that they can't get out of and I would agree.
If Labour had a Centre-Left leader I think the Tories would be in a hell of a lot more trouble right now. In fact they would be certainties to lose the next election.
The problem for the Tories is that the core of what they believe is just not all that popular with the general public, so to get to mass appeal they need to have someone to the left of what they stand for. It's not sustainable.
For example trying to slowly reduce government overspending and run a balanced budget is branded as "austerity" or "punishing the poor" and they are hated for it. I think it is madness, but that is where we're at unfortunately.
I don't believe its left or right - it's energy , enthusiasm and different thinking that voters want. Not dour efficiency at a mediocre level - which is what Hammond is trying to sell.
That goes some way to explain Jacob Rees-Mogg. People want to hear positivity and enthusiasm for government, which is not happening with people like Hammond, Rudd and the relentlessly negative and remain-dominated broadcast media.
We need to get some of the more positive voices out there, even if they’re not popular with everyone, talking about the opportunities of Brexit and free trade with the world. The likes of JR-M, Michael Gove, Dan Hannan are all very good communicators and relentlessly positive about what Britain can achieve outside the EU.
It would also be good to get more business leaders publicly involved, there’s an awful lot going on when it comes to international trade at the moment, but almost all of it is below the domestic media radar.
Next month I’m going to watch one event in BAE Systems’ and the RAF’s nine-Hawk demonstrator world tour, as an example. They’ve sold dozens of planes in the last month, and are hoping to have sold hundreds of planes and training by the time they get back in the spring. That’s just one example of a number of trade missions and campaigns ongoing, but again there’s no domestic publicity for them. http://greatbritaincampaign.com/#!/home
Nobody has ever bought a single Hawk as a result of seeing the RAFAT. That's just not how military aircraft procurement works.
Yes I know that military procurement doesn’t happen because we gave a good show, but RAFAT are doing a bloody good job of promoting Britain, the RAF and BAE wherever in the world they fly. They’re absolutely the best at what they do!
The idea that George Osborne has a conflict of interest because some Blackrock funds invest in Uber is completely silly. I can only assume that the people making such barmy such claims haven't the faintest idea what BlackRock is. For a starter, it's not BlackRock's money, it's their clients' money which is invested in Uber, and secondly, and more importantly, BlackRock has $5.7 trillion under management; Uber's entire market cap doesn't even register as a rounding error on that.
Chris Frost, chair of the NUJ’s ethics councils, said that the Evening Standard should note Osborne’s role at BlackRock alongside newspaper and online articles it publishes about Uber. The publication did not mention Osborne’s job with BlackRock in Monday’s newspaper.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
An interesting comment by the IFS on the recent announcements on tuition fees:
[lifting the repayment threshold from £21K to £25K] will save middle earning graduates a lot of money - up to £15,700 over their lifetimes. It also represents a big shift in policy raising the long run cost to the taxpayer of providing higher education by around 40%, or over £2.3bn a year in the long run.
I'm well chuffed. I just hope May stays in power long enough for the autumn budget to pass.
Yes, this seems like a genuinely Good Thing.
Of course, luckily for Labour, they botched the announcement of it, by combining it with the pathetically small-beer freezing of tuition fees at "only" £9000, with the latter taking most of the publicity - so we could get the best of both worlds, a good policy passing with the Tories getting no credit for it!
OT Is David Davis sincere in claiming he wants to hang up his baton? I get the impression he is not enjoying Brexit but I did assume him to be ambitious. Maybe he realises just how poisoned this Conservative Leader chalice is?
My impression is that David Davis had this idea that he was going to be a brilliant negotiator. Like the SAS man he was, he would charge into the room with a burst of gunfire and release the hostage. It's dawned on Davis that HE is the hostage. Humiliatingly, the hostage the captors forgot about and seeing him still tied to the radiator they tell him, you can go.
I think he realises it's going to be a complete fuck up for which he will take the blame.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
OT Is David Davis sincere in claiming he wants to hang up his baton? I get the impression he is not enjoying Brexit but I did assume him to be ambitious. Maybe he realises just how poisoned this Conservative Leader chalice is?
My impression is that David Davis had this idea that he was going to be a brilliant negotiator. Like the SAS man he was, he would charge into the room with a burst of gunfire and release the hostage. It's dawned on Davis that HE is the hostage. Humiliatingly, the hostage the captors forgot about and seeing him still tied to the radiator they tell him, you can go.
I think he realises it's going to be a complete fuck up for which he will take the blame.
I think he realises it's going to be a complete fuck up but wants to take credit for being the first one to stand up and shout move now at the Somme.
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.
Can you tell us more about these "pumped" house prices and rents you are talking about.
On ONS figures, Private Rents in London have risen a little slower than RPI since 2011, and outside London signifcantly (like a third) more slowly. RPI over the period Jan 2011 to Aug 2017 is up 16%. London rents 15%. Outside London rents 11%.
Got in (thanks @TSE). The sentence from the article in full is:
The total amount of rent paid collectively in London was around £20bn in the 12 months to the end of June, and has risen by 42 per cent over five years.
That is not about rents being up by 42%; it is about there being an increase in rented property in London.
As my official numbers show, individual rents are not being "pumped", and are in fact increasing more slowly than inflation.
WRT the popularity of left wing populism, we seem to be overlooking that support for capitalism has been undermined by the outrageous behaviour of many businessmen and companies.
Sir Philip Green, Sir Fred the Shred, insolvency practitioners who loot the companies they're supposed to be rescuing, banks who sell worthless insurance policies, tech giants who pay derisory amounts of tax, companies who believe in privatising their profits while nationalising their losses, all fuel hatred of the system, in the same way that Trade Union leaders did in the Seventies and Eighties.
Gosh! If things go on as they are, then the 73 year old Jeremy Corbyn can celebrate another glorious defeat in 2022 at the seaside with a rousing rendition of "OH Jeremy..."
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
My tuppence as a Remain voter: C) It should happen, but we shouldn't pretend it hasn't been a shambles from start to finish and that this shambles is the defining reality of British politics for the foreseeable future, from planning such a daft referendum where we had no idea what was going to happen next and to a large extent still don't, to the current state of the negotiations.
All my family were Leavers, I would hate for their vote to be discounted after we had MPs from all major parties getting up in the Commons and saying 'there will be no second referendum' before the vote.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Precisely. Osborne doesn't have the slightest financial interest in Uber, or at least not through his role at BlackRock. Like other journalists and editors, he might through any investments he holds, of course.
I know nothing about this, but that sounds to me like an indirect interest at the very least. From a quick google it seems he's been lobbying for Uber since the 2014 investment. It is in the interests of BlackRock and its investors for Osborne to write in Uber's favour, and it's in Osborne's interest that BlackRock continue to see him as a good investment of theirs.
The investment by BlackRock-managed funds in Uber is worth something like $500,000,000. BlackRock manages funds worth around $5,700,000,000,000. That's equivalent to a 'conflict of interest' of 87p in £100,000, even if you discount the fact that London accounts for a small proportion of the total Uber valuation.
Frankly, there probably isn't a journalist in the country without a similar 'conflict of interest', through their pension funds.
An interesting comment by the IFS on the recent announcements on tuition fees:
[lifting the repayment threshold from £21K to £25K] will save middle earning graduates a lot of money - up to £15,700 over their lifetimes. It also represents a big shift in policy raising the long run cost to the taxpayer of providing higher education by around 40%, or over £2.3bn a year in the long run.
I'm well chuffed. I just hope May stays in power long enough for the autumn budget to pass.
Yes, this seems like a genuinely Good Thing.
Of course, luckily for Labour, they botched the announcement of it, by combining it with the pathetically small-beer freezing of tuition fees at "only" £9000, with the latter taking most of the publicity - so we could get the best of both worlds, a good policy passing with the Tories getting no credit for it!
Quite. Agreed to all the points above.
If Corbyn were to be found conspiring personally to assassinate a 3 year old, the current Government would find a way of making it seem a moral and upstanding thing to do.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Precisely. Osborne doesn't have the slightest financial interest in Uber, or at least not through his role at BlackRock. Like other journalists and editors, he might through any investments he holds, of course.
I know nothing about this, but that sounds to me like an indirect interest at the very least. From a quick google it seems he's been lobbying for Uber since the 2014 investment. It is in the interests of BlackRock and its investors for Osborne to write in Uber's favour, and it's in Osborne's interest that BlackRock continue to see him as a good investment of theirs.
The investment by BlackRock-managed funds in Uber is worth something like $500,000,000. BlackRock manages funds worth around $5,700,000,000,000. That's equivalent to a 'conflict of interest' of 87p in £100,000, even if you discount the fact that London accounts for a small proportion of the total Uber valuation.
Frankly, there probably isn't a journalist in the country without a similar 'conflict of interest', through their pension funds.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
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.
And yet it still remains true that no party has ever won a majority without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections (as opposed to the mere 1% now), it remains true that Corbyn will need to win double the number of seats next time that he won in 2017, -which means marginals, not merely piling up useless votes in seats he already holds. So I am not clear where this landslide will come from.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
My tuppence as a Remain voter: C) It should happen, but we shouldn't pretend it hasn't been a shambles from start to finish and that this shambles is the defining reality of British politics for the foreseeable future, from planning such a daft referendum where we had no idea what was going to happen next and to a large extent still don't, to the current state of the negotiations.
All my family were Leavers, I would hate for their vote to be discounted after we had MPs from all major parties getting up in the Commons and saying 'there will be no second referendum' before the vote.
The inability of remainers to make a positive case for staying in other than "it's tough to leave" reflects on why we voted out.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
I'm not a staunch remainer but frankly do not see what is so offensive about a second vote, perhaps the Noel Edmonds option. It's not like Stanley Baldwin is still Prime Minister because his 1924 election victory is sacrosanct.
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.
Can you tell us more about these "pumped" house prices and rents you are talking about.
On ONS figures, Private Rents in London have risen a little slower than RPI since 2011, and outside London signifcantly (like a third) more slowly. RPI over the period Jan 2011 to Aug 2017 is up 16%. London rents 15%. Outside London rents 11%.
Got in (thanks @TSE). The sentence from the article in full is:
The total amount of rent paid collectively in London was around £20bn in the 12 months to the end of June, and has risen by 42 per cent over five years.
That is not about rents being up by 42%; it is about there being an increase in rented property in London.
As my official numbers show, individual rents are not being "pumped", and are in fact increasing more slowly than inflation.
I was looking into trying to buy a flat in S. East - but actually having run the numbers, renting is actually much more attractive than I previously thought.
And yet it still remains true that no party has ever won a majority without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections (as opposed to the mere 1% now), it remains true that Corbyn will need to win double the number of seats next time that he won in 2017, -which means marginals, not merely piling up useless votes in seats he already holds. So I am not clear where this landslide will come from.
Perhaps we will just get an even-more-hung parliament.
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.
And yet it still remains true that no party has ever won a majority without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections (as opposed to the mere 1% now), it remains true that Corbyn will need to win double the number of seats next time that he won in 2017, -which means marginals, not merely piling up useless votes in seats he already holds. So I am not clear where this landslide will come from.
LOL, we are not "between elections", we're only 4 months on.
And didn't Corbyn already prove he has some appeal in marginal seats?
The inability of remainers to make a positive case for staying in other than "it's tough to leave" reflects on why we voted out.
There are plenty of positive reasons, but unfortunately many Brexiteers refuse to believe that they are benefits of the EU, and would view losing them as a punishment rather than a consequence of leaving.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
If he were writing about BlackRock it would be a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it doesn't even rate a storm in a teacup.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Leave but remain in the single market and customs union. Easy peasy.
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.
And yet it still remains true that no party has ever won a majority without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections (as opposed to the mere 1% now), it remains true that Corbyn will need to win double the number of seats next time that he won in 2017, -which means marginals, not merely piling up useless votes in seats he already holds. So I am not clear where this landslide will come from.
LOL, we are not "between elections", we're only 4 months on.
And didn't Corbyn already prove he has some appeal in marginal seats?
WRT the popularity of left wing populism, we seem to be overlooking that support for capitalism has been undermined by the outrageous behaviour of many businessmen and companies.
Sir Philip Green, Sir Fred the Shred, insolvency practitioners who loot the companies they're supposed to be rescuing, banks who sell worthless insurance policies, tech giants who pay derisory amounts of tax, companies who believe in privatising their profits while nationalising their losses, all fuel hatred of the system, in the same way that Trade Union leaders did in the Seventies and Eighties.
I think 2008-09 massively hit the public's trust in authority figures in a way that hasn't been really fully expressed yet - all those economists and statesmen (statespersons?) having to go on TV and admit 'I have no idea what's going on, how to fix it, or what's going to happen next'. And the expenses scandal and so on. The whole thing is clearly rotten, and if it's settled back down since that's not because they have fixed anything.
We're like island tribes people, worshipping this volcano called 'The Economy', and the high-priests have always told us it won't erupt if we feed it certain sacrifices and do the required rituals. It only works as long as it doesn't erupt.
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.
Can you tell us more about these "pumped" house prices and rents you are talking about.
On ONS figures, Private Rents in London have risen a little slower than RPI since 2011, and outside London signifcantly (like a third) more slowly. RPI over the period Jan 2011 to Aug 2017 is up 16%. London rents 15%. Outside London rents 11%.
Got in (thanks @TSE). The sentence from the article in full is:
The total amount of rent paid collectively in London was around £20bn in the 12 months to the end of June, and has risen by 42 per cent over five years.
That is not about rents being up by 42%; it is about there being an increase in rented property in London.
As my official numbers show, individual rents are not being "pumped", and are in fact increasing more slowly than inflation.
I was looking into trying to buy a flat in S. East - but actually having run the numbers, renting is actually much more attractive than I previously thought.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
If he were writing about BlackRock it would be a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it doesn't even rate a storm in a teacup.
A higher Uber shareprice means better performance for Blackrock (assuming they don't have a huge short on). It's pretty simple, they are a fund manager and one of their holdings is Uber. It may be like the fly on the side of the ocean liner but it does make a difference.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Realistically, confront the population with the hard truth, which is that we live in a highly interconnected world and that all the stuff we take for granted, not just with the EU but with other parties depends on those relationships. That being so, we can: (1) stay in the EU; (2) leave the EU as voted on but try to limit the damage and keep things as much the same as we can; (3) crash and burn. As a Remain politician I would be OK with (1) or (2). If enough people change their minds I would be happy to negotiate to stay or rejoin the EU. If they don't, I would aim to limit the damage by going for a pseudo-Brexit. I will have nothing to do with (3) crash and burn, .
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
If he were writing about BlackRock it would be a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it doesn't even rate a storm in a teacup.
The point surely is, if he weren't such greedy fecker, he would recognise that being editor of the ES is a job in itself, and concentrate on that. But, on no, he has to have his snout in every available trough, probably earing more money than he could spend in 50 lifetimes. There's a word for it: greed.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
I went for option (C) a.k.a. exit. I will be spending more time out of the UK now whilst keeping a toe in UK waters for pension purposes etc.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
If he were writing about BlackRock it would be a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it doesn't even rate a storm in a teacup.
A higher Uber shareprice means better performance for Blackrock (assuming they don't have a huge short on). It's pretty simple, they are a fund manager and one of their holdings is Uber. It may be like the fly on the side of the ocean liner but it does make a difference.
By that reasoning a journalist who earns £100K a year and posts a dozen letters a year shouldn't write an article about the price of stamps without declaring a conflict of interest.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Precisely. Osborne doesn't have the slightest financial interest in Uber, or at least not through his role at BlackRock. Like other journalists and editors, he might through any investments he holds, of course.
I know nothing about this, but that sounds to me like an indirect interest at the very least. From a quick google it seems he's been lobbying for Uber since the 2014 investment. It is in the interests of BlackRock and its investors for Osborne to write in Uber's favour, and it's in Osborne's interest that BlackRock continue to see him as a good investment of theirs.
The investment by BlackRock-managed funds in Uber is worth something like $500,000,000. BlackRock manages funds worth around $5,700,000,000,000. That's equivalent to a 'conflict of interest' of 87p in £100,000, even if you discount the fact that London accounts for a small proportion of the total Uber valuation.
Frankly, there probably isn't a journalist in the country without a similar 'conflict of interest', through their pension funds.
That's a red herring, surely. In the grand scheme of things it might not mean much to BlackRock, but do we think Osborne's services mean more to them than their investors' investment in Uber? That's the issue. Does Osborne want to keep his position at BlackRock? Yes. Is that made more likely by using his editorial role to support BlackRock's investments? Yes. Would it be make less likely if he slagged off BlackRock's investments? Yes.
WRT the popularity of left wing populism, we seem to be overlooking that support for capitalism has been undermined by the outrageous behaviour of many businessmen and companies.
Sir Philip Green, Sir Fred the Shred, insolvency practitioners who loot the companies they're supposed to be rescuing, banks who sell worthless insurance policies, tech giants who pay derisory amounts of tax, companies who believe in privatising their profits while nationalising their losses, all fuel hatred of the system, in the same way that Trade Union leaders did in the Seventies and Eighties.
That is a superb post, SeanF, and I would go further. Much of Labour's current popularity is attributable to the blatantly self-serving behaviour of so many Conservative MPs, and the Party as a whole.
Apparently Amber Rudd has said she'll do something about letterboxes at the bottom of doors. I've got an estate in my ward with most the doors like this, I can feel my knees every time I deliver it. If I think it's bad as an occasional leaflet deliverer, imagine life for the poor postie who does it every day.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
If he were writing about BlackRock it would be a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it doesn't even rate a storm in a teacup.
The point surely is, if he weren't such greedy fecker, he would recognise that being editor of the ES is a job in itself, and concentrate on that. But, on no, he has to have his snout in every available trough, probably earing more money than he could spend in 50 lifetimes. There's a word for it: greed.
I'm no Ozzy fan, as is known around these parts.
But there is one obvious word to describe that post: envy.
Do you object to the fact that he is a Tory, wealthy, influential, or all three?
Well some very very brainy people have been finding innovative ways to keep Moore’s Law running for more than 50 years now, despite millions of words written during that time suggesting that the end was nigh. I don’t doubt that the scientists will continue to find ways to do things in the future that we haven’t thought about today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
This is going off-topic, but Moore's Law is already broken in spirit. Advances in process (i.e. manufacture) of chips are slowing rapidly: Intel has had to move from a two-year tick-tock model (where they improve the process one year, and the architecture the next) to a three-year process-architecture-optimise one, and they're finding it hard to stick to that.
Improvements are getting much harder. 3D transistors are much more complex to make, but necessary for smaller processes. As an example, one fab plant trialled moving to a 10nanometre process, and were getting a 10% yield after several months of improvements. That means that 90% of all chips produced were duds.
In addition, clock speeds increased rapidly up to the 3-4GHz level up to the mid 2000s, and have now more or less paused. Instead, most of the improvements come from architecture and by throwing more cores in. Instructions Per Clock are not improving massively.
The move to a process below 10nm (say, 7nm) is going to be very painful, as will the long-promised move to extreme ultraviolet lithography.
There are two ways things will improve in the long term: *) Better understanding and implementation of multithreading/multiprocessing (i.e. tchniques to split tasks into parts that can be consecutively run) *) Move to a brand new technology (e.g. optical or quantum).
These have been promised for decades but little progress has been made, in part because 'conventional' chips have been improving.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Realistically, confront the population with the hard truth, which is that we live in a highly interconnected world and that all the stuff we take for granted, not just with the EU but with other parties depends on those relationships. That being so, we can: (1) stay in the EU; (2) leave the EU as voted on but try to limit the damage and keep things as much the same as we can; (3) crash and burn. As a Remain politician I would be OK with (1) or (2). If enough people change their minds I would be happy to negotiate to stay or rejoin the EU. If they don't, I would aim to limit the damage by going for a pseudo-Brexit. I will have nothing to do with (3) crash and burn, .
Unless there is a massive fall-out in the next 6 to 12 months, Brexit will happen. To stop it needs a major impact such as (say) a major manufacturer closing their factories and blaming Brexit and 100,000+ jobs on the line thanks to supply chain dependencies, and then another few mentioning that they are planning the same.
The point surely is, if he weren't such greedy fecker, he would recognise that being editor of the ES is a job in itself, and concentrate on that. But, on no, he has to have his snout in every available trough, probably earing more money than he could spend in 50 lifetimes. There's a word for it: greed.
Well, as the most successful G20 finance minister of the last decade, yes of course he has very high earning potential. I'm not sure how it would help the UK if he didn't earn megabucks from a US-owned company, on which he no doubt pays PAYE.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Precisely. Osborne doesn't have the slightest financial interest in Uber, or at least not through his role at BlackRock. Like other journalists and editors, he might through any investments he holds, of course.
I know nothing about this, but that sounds to me like an indirect interest at the very least. From a quick google it seems he's been lobbying for Uber since the 2014 investment. It is in the interests of BlackRock and its investors for Osborne to write in Uber's favour, and it's in Osborne's interest that BlackRock continue to see him as a good investment of theirs.
The investment by BlackRock-managed funds in Uber is worth something like $500,000,000. BlackRock manages funds worth around $5,700,000,000,000. That's equivalent to a 'conflict of interest' of 87p in £100,000, even if you discount the fact that London accounts for a small proportion of the total Uber valuation.
Frankly, there probably isn't a journalist in the country without a similar 'conflict of interest', through their pension funds.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
You’re right that this is an area where journalists not only need to be above board, but need to be seen to be acting above board. Journalists have been given prison sentences for ramping companies in which they have a personal interest. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/08/pressandpublishing.mirror1
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
My tuppence as a Remain voter: C) It should happen, but we shouldn't pretend it hasn't been a shambles from start to finish and that this shambles is the defining reality of British politics for the foreseeable future, from planning such a daft referendum where we had no idea what was going to happen next and to a large extent still don't, to the current state of the negotiations.
All my family were Leavers, I would hate for their vote to be discounted after we had MPs from all major parties getting up in the Commons and saying 'there will be no second referendum' before the vote.
The inability of remainers to make a positive case for staying in other than "it's tough to leave" reflects on why we voted out.
I agree. The campaign was an embarrassment - their 'ring your Granny and tell her how much you, as a young person, like travelling round the EU!' thing was when I really started to worry, because they clearly didn't know the country.
Corbyn's 7/10 in favour of staying, and focus on bread-and-butter issues was less ecstatically pro-EU, but more effective in reaching people like me and my family (even if unsuccessful for the latter, they've been hating the EU for a very long-time for reasons I don't understand).
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
If he were writing about BlackRock it would be a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it doesn't even rate a storm in a teacup.
The point surely is, if he weren't such greedy fecker, he would recognise that being editor of the ES is a job in itself, and concentrate on that. But, on no, he has to have his snout in every available trough, probably earing more money than he could spend in 50 lifetimes. There's a word for it: greed.
I'm no Ozzy fan, as is known around these parts.
But there is one obvious word to describe that post: envy.
Do you object to the fact that he is a Tory, wealthy, influential, or all three?
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.
And yet it still remains true that no party has ever won a majority without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections (as opposed to the mere 1% now), it remains true that Corbyn will need to win double the number of seats next time that he won in 2017, -which means marginals, not merely piling up useless votes in seats he already holds. So I am not clear where this landslide will come from.
LOL, we are not "between elections", we're only 4 months on.
And didn't Corbyn already prove he has some appeal in marginal seats?
How far away do you think the next GE is, Danny?
4 years 7 months unless the Tories regain a mammoth poll lead once more.
This Parliament will drag on until the end like 74-79 or 05-10 or 92-97
Governments behind in the polls don't go to the polls early, even if they're minority governments (79 and 97).
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Precisely. Osborne doesn't have the slightest financial interest in Uber, or at least not through his role at BlackRock. Like other journalists and editors, he might through any investments he holds, of course.
I know nothing about this, but that sounds to me like an indirect interest at the very least. From a quick google it seems he's been lobbying for Uber since the 2014 investment. It is in the interests of BlackRock and its investors for Osborne to write in Uber's favour, and it's in Osborne's interest that BlackRock continue to see him as a good investment of theirs.
The investment by BlackRock-managed funds in Uber is worth something like $500,000,000. BlackRock manages funds worth around $5,700,000,000,000. That's equivalent to a 'conflict of interest' of 87p in £100,000, even if you discount the fact that London accounts for a small proportion of the total Uber valuation.
Frankly, there probably isn't a journalist in the country without a similar 'conflict of interest', through their pension funds.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
You’re right that this is an area where journalists not only need to be above board, but need to be seen to be acting above board. Journalists have been given prison sentences for ramping companies in which they have a personal interest. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/08/pressandpublishing.mirror1
That's a red herring, surely. In the grand scheme of things it might not mean much to BlackRock, but do we think Osborne's services mean more to them than their investors' investment in Uber? That's the issue. Does Osborne want to keep his position at BlackRock? Yes. Is that made more likely by using his editorial role to support BlackRock's investments? Yes. Would it be make less likely if he slagged off BlackRock's investments? Yes.
The answers to your last two questions are emphatically No and No. Quite apart from anything else, BlackRock funds invest in Uber's competitors as well.
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.
Can you tell us more about these "pumped" house prices and rents you are talking about.
On ONS figures, Private Rents in London have risen a little slower than RPI since 2011, and outside London signifcantly (like a third) more slowly. RPI over the period Jan 2011 to Aug 2017 is up 16%. London rents 15%. Outside London rents 11%.
Got in (thanks @TSE). The sentence from the article in full is:
The total amount of rent paid collectively in London was around £20bn in the 12 months to the end of June, and has risen by 42 per cent over five years.
That is not about rents being up by 42%; it is about there being an increase in rented property in London.
As my official numbers show, individual rents are not being "pumped", and are in fact increasing more slowly than inflation.
Yeah, fair enough. That 42% stat doesn't prove much, although it is part of the picture.
The experinece for many is that rents have risen faster than wages since the crash/"recovery"
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Leave but remain in the single market and customs union. Easy peasy.
Just leave, whatever. Most Remainers I know feel the same. The idea that we all want a re-run and can't cope with the result is a fiction.
The inability of remainers to make a positive case for staying in other than "it's tough to leave" reflects on why we voted out.
It's good to be positive. It's good to be realistic too. What is the Leavers' plan for Brexit? It's your project after all. I merely ask because there wasn't a hint of a plan at the time of the referendum and there isn't one now, even though the Government has initiated the separation and we are definitively out in 18 months time with about 800 treaties lapsing at that time.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
If he were writing about BlackRock it would be a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it doesn't even rate a storm in a teacup.
A higher Uber shareprice means better performance for Blackrock (assuming they don't have a huge short on). It's pretty simple, they are a fund manager and one of their holdings is Uber. It may be like the fly on the side of the ocean liner but it does make a difference.
By that reasoning a journalist who earns £100K a year and posts a dozen letters a year shouldn't write an article about the price of stamps without declaring a conflict of interest.
No I think that is not a good analogy ( @kle4 will confirm).
He is working for a fund manager and is giving one of their holdings a puff.
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.
And yet it still remains true that no party has ever won a majority without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections (as opposed to the mere 1% now), it remains true that Corbyn will need to win double the number of seats next time that he won in 2017, -which means marginals, not merely piling up useless votes in seats he already holds. So I am not clear where this landslide will come from.
LOL, we are not "between elections", we're only 4 months on.
And didn't Corbyn already prove he has some appeal in marginal seats?
How far away do you think the next GE is, Danny?
4 years 7 months unless the Tories regain a mammoth poll lead once more.
This Parliament will drag on until the end like 74-79 or 05-10 or 92-97
Governments behind in the polls don't go to the polls early, even if they're minority governments (79 and 97).
Except the government was forced to go early in 1979 almost as soon as they lost their majority (when the Liberals ended their pact with them).
If the DUP decides they want to pull the plug, there won't be a thing the Tories can do about it.
I agree but actually, thinking about it, the point stands in principle. He probably needs to think about that perceived conflict. If he thinks it will prevent him from voicing his concerns about this, that and the other in London he should perhaps consider his position with Blackrock.
If he were writing about BlackRock it would be a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it doesn't even rate a storm in a teacup.
The point surely is, if he weren't such greedy fecker, he would recognise that being editor of the ES is a job in itself, and concentrate on that. But, on no, he has to have his snout in every available trough, probably earing more money than he could spend in 50 lifetimes. There's a word for it: greed.
I'm no Ozzy fan, as is known around these parts.
But there is one obvious word to describe that post: envy.
Do you object to the fact that he is a Tory, wealthy, influential, or all three?
I certainly do not envy him; I pity him.
I'm thrilled he has such lucrative jobs. He will be paying huge amounts of income tax.
I'm even more thrilled that 'MP' isn't one of them
Apparently Amber Rudd has said she'll do something about letterboxes at the bottom of doors. I've got an estate in my ward with most the doors like this, I can feel my knees every time I deliver it. If I think it's bad as an occasional leaflet deliverer, imagine life for the poor postie who does it every day.
Got my vote.
I have on occasion refused to put my (Conservative Party) leaflet through those letterboxes. That'll learn 'em.
Apparently Amber Rudd has said she'll do something about letterboxes at the bottom of doors. I've got an estate in my ward with most the doors like this, I can feel my knees every time I deliver it. If I think it's bad as an occasional leaflet deliverer, imagine life for the poor postie who does it every day.
Got my vote.
I have on occasion refused to put my (Conservative Party) leaflet through those letterboxes. That'll learn 'em.
I'm amazed how many doors don't have letter boxes at all - got to be c. round these parts 2%.
Apparently Amber Rudd has said she'll do something about letterboxes at the bottom of doors. I've got an estate in my ward with most the doors like this, I can feel my knees every time I deliver it. If I think it's bad as an occasional leaflet deliverer, imagine life for the poor postie who does it every day.
Got my vote.
I have on occasion refused to put my (Conservative Party) leaflet through those letterboxes. That'll learn 'em.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Leave but remain in the single market and customs union. Easy peasy.
Just leave, whatever. Most Remainers I know feel the same. The idea that we all want a re-run and can't cope with the result is a fiction.
"Just leave, whatever" is supposed to mean what, exactly? I said we should leave but remain in the single market and customs union. It is no better or worse, administratively, than any other option, and is a lot better for the country.
Some encouraging news for Monarch crew: ttps://twitter.com/VirginAtlantic/status/915202791605448704
EasyJet are doing the same, the front line Monarch staff shouldn’t have too much trouble finding jobs as there’s a shortage of pilots and hosties at the moment (ask Michael O’Leary ). The back office and head office staff will find things more difficult 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.
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.
And yet it still remains true that no party has ever won a majority without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections (as opposed to the mere 1% now), it remains true that Corbyn will need to win double the number of seats next time that he won in 2017, -which means marginals, not merely piling up useless votes in seats he already holds. So I am not clear where this landslide will come from.
LOL, we are not "between elections", we're only 4 months on.
And didn't Corbyn already prove he has some appeal in marginal seats?
How far away do you think the next GE is, Danny?
4 years 7 months unless the Tories regain a mammoth poll lead once more.
This Parliament will drag on until the end like 74-79 or 05-10 or 92-97
Governments behind in the polls don't go to the polls early, even if they're minority governments (79 and 97).
Except the government was forced to go early in 1979 almost as soon as they lost their majority (when the Liberals ended their pact with them).
If the DUP decides they want to pull the plug, there won't be a thing the Tories can do about it.
Won't be that simple, of course.
Because they could simply abstain to block Corbz from power.
Something that I'd fully expect, if for some bizarre reason the DUP couldn't come to an arrangement with a Tory government.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
Precisely. Osborne doesn't have the slightest financial interest in Uber, or at least not through his role at BlackRock. Like other journalists and editors, he might through any investments he holds, of course.
I know nothing about this, but that sounds to me like an indirect interest at the very least. From a quick google it seems he's been lobbying for Uber since the 2014 investment. It is in the interests of BlackRock and its investors for Osborne to write in Uber's favour, and it's in Osborne's interest that BlackRock continue to see him as a good investment of theirs.
The investment by BlackRock-managed funds in Uber is worth something like $500,000,000. BlackRock manages funds worth around $5,700,000,000,000. That's equivalent to a 'conflict of interest' of 87p in £100,000, even if you discount the fact that London accounts for a small proportion of the total Uber valuation.
Frankly, there probably isn't a journalist in the country without a similar 'conflict of interest', through their pension funds.
That's a red herring, surely. In the grand scheme of things it might not mean much to BlackRock, but do we think Osborne's services mean more to them than their investors' investment in Uber? That's the issue. Does Osborne want to keep his position at BlackRock? Yes. Is that made more likely by using his editorial role to support BlackRock's investments? Yes. Would it be make less likely if he slagged off BlackRock's investments? Yes.
There was a time when $500,000,000 was quite a lot of money, and it probably looks like more than chump change to Blackrock even now, or why bother to make the investment. Assuming Blackrock is structured like any other megacorp there will be people there who are Osbornes seniors to whom it represents a much bigger fraction of their manor than of Br total assets. Saying it is only .00001% of Br so is not important is like waving away any criticism of ones actions by saying it will all be the same in a hundred years.
Also, we have runaway analogy issues. The posting letters analogy surely only works if the complaint against Osborne is that he is bigging up Uber because he makes use of it to get around London.
Apparently Amber Rudd has said she'll do something about letterboxes at the bottom of doors. I've got an estate in my ward with most the doors like this, I can feel my knees every time I deliver it. If I think it's bad as an occasional leaflet deliverer, imagine life for the poor postie who does it every day.
Got my vote.
I have on occasion refused to put my (Conservative Party) leaflet through those letterboxes. That'll learn 'em.
Low and with a brushy thing is a nightmare
Any height with those awful brushy things is a nightmare....
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.
Can you tell us more about these "pumped" house prices and rents you are talking about.
On ONS figures, Private Rents in London have risen a little slower than RPI since 2011, and outside London signifcantly (like a third) more slowly. RPI over the period Jan 2011 to Aug 2017 is up 16%. London rents 15%. Outside London rents 11%.
Got in (thanks @TSE). The sentence from the article in full is:
The total amount of rent paid collectively in London was around £20bn in the 12 months to the end of June, and has risen by 42 per cent over five years.
That is not about rents being up by 42%; it is about there being an increase in rented property in London.
As my official numbers show, individual rents are not being "pumped", and are in fact increasing more slowly than inflation.
Yeah, fair enough. That 42% stat doesn't prove much, although it is part of the picture.
The experinece for many is that rents have risen faster than wages since the crash/"recovery"
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Definitely A. As Super Hans once observed you can't trust people. People voted for the Nazis and like Coldplay.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Leave but remain in the single market and customs union. Easy peasy.
Just leave, whatever. Most Remainers I know feel the same. The idea that we all want a re-run and can't cope with the result is a fiction.
"Just leave, whatever" is supposed to mean what, exactly? I said we should leave but remain in the single market and customs union. It is no better or worse, administratively, than any other option, and is a lot better for the country.
When you have a referendum on a constitutional matter, the decision simply has to be enacted.
The way it is enacted is usually less complex than Brexit, granted, but unless and until we actually leave the EU there will be tremendous suspicion of the political classes from those who voted Leave. If we never leave, I honestly suspect there will be civil disobedience and a breakdown of the Westminster system.
No I think that is not a good analogy ( @kle4 will confirm).
He is working for a fund manager and is giving one of their holdings a puff.
Really? I missed the bit where he advised readers to buy Uber shares. Can you point me to it?
Hmm Richard you are being a bit obtuse on this one. As editor of the ES he is endorsing Uber, promoting the company, and agitating for them to make a higher profit. It is reasonable for potential investors in Uber to think that this endorsement might well help Uber win its fight against TfL and hence increase its profit, or avoid a loss, and hence increase its shareprice.
GO's piece was a puff. It was saying I can help Uber's shareprice to go up (and to benefit from that you should buy their shares).
The idea that George Osborne has a conflict of interest because some Blackrock funds invest in Uber is completely silly. I can only assume that the people making such barmy such claims haven't the faintest idea what BlackRock is. For a starter, it's not BlackRock's money, it's their clients' money which is invested in Uber, and secondly, and more importantly, BlackRock has $5.7 trillion under management; Uber's entire market cap doesn't even register as a rounding error on that.
Chris Frost, chair of the NUJ’s ethics councils, said that the Evening Standard should note Osborne’s role at BlackRock alongside newspaper and online articles it publishes about Uber. The publication did not mention Osborne’s job with BlackRock in Monday’s newspaper.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
It is ludicrous (if typically Guardian) to think that GO can't comment on any company that Blackrock has an investment in.
They're not saying 'he can't comment'
They are saying he should declare any potential conflict of interest.
'George Osborne is an adviser to Blackrock, an investor in Uber'
If he had, none of this would have come up - and this would be seen (correctly in my view) as the Editor of a London paper reflecting the views of many of his readers.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Leave but remain in the single market and customs union. Easy peasy.
This would require the unanimous agreement of the 27, plus the European Parliament and, presumably, both houses at Westminster (the same approvals process as for CETA). Within 18 months. The process hasn't yet started and there's pretty much zero likelihood that the current government could agree on starting it.
Yes, you are right in principle. It's always worth trying to acknowledge and rectify a mistake, it's just that I don't think much purpose would be served in this case. We would be better off just accepting it was a bad decision, and making the best of it.
(My impression is that at the moment we're actually doing neither, but that's a different matter.)
The idea that George Osborne has a conflict of interest because some Blackrock funds invest in Uber is completely silly. I can only assume that the people making such barmy such claims haven't the faintest idea what BlackRock is. For a starter, it's not BlackRock's money, it's their clients' money which is invested in Uber, and secondly, and more importantly, BlackRock has $5.7 trillion under management; Uber's entire market cap doesn't even register as a rounding error on that.
Chris Frost, chair of the NUJ’s ethics councils, said that the Evening Standard should note Osborne’s role at BlackRock alongside newspaper and online articles it publishes about Uber. The publication did not mention Osborne’s job with BlackRock in Monday’s newspaper.
Frost said: “He [Osborne] ought to make it clear to readers that he has a financial interest in what he is writing about. My advice to editors and journalists would be always to declare your interests.”
It is ludicrous (if typically Guardian) to think that GO can't comment on any company that Blackrock has an investment in.
They're not saying 'he can't comment'
They are saying he should declare any potential conflict of interest.
'George Osborne is an adviser to Blackrock, an investor in Uber'
If he had, none of this would have come up - and this would be seen (correctly in my view) as the Editor of a London paper reflecting the views of many of his readers.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Realistically, confront the population with the hard truth, which is that we live in a highly interconnected world and that all the stuff we take for granted, not just with the EU but with other parties depends on those relationships. That being so, we can: (1) stay in the EU; (2) leave the EU as voted on but try to limit the damage and keep things as much the same as we can; (3) crash and burn. As a Remain politician I would be OK with (1) or (2). If enough people change their minds I would be happy to negotiate to stay or rejoin the EU. If they don't, I would aim to limit the damage by going for a pseudo-Brexit. I will have nothing to do with (3) crash and burn, .
Unless there is a massive fall-out in the next 6 to 12 months, Brexit will happen. To stop it needs a major impact such as (say) a major manufacturer closing their factories and blaming Brexit and 100,000+ jobs on the line thanks to supply chain dependencies, and then another few mentioning that they are planning the same.
I agree. There is no sign of a collective change of mind about Brexit. My point was that if there were, I have no issues about revisiting the decision. It would be the democratic thing to do.
I still l think May/Davis will sign on the dotted line for the Article 50 withdrawal agreement and a two year nominal "transition" (actually a can-kick). Then we will end up in a Norway (single market plus customs union) style arrangement. Which is bonkers. We really are not Norway. But is is less painful than outer space and avoiding pain is a big motivator. It also in a strange way removes the politics from our relationship with the EU. If we have no say and have to do what we are told that removes the politics from the relationship. Leavers say they like an economic relationship but not a political one.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Leave but remain in the single market and customs union. Easy peasy.
Just leave, whatever. Most Remainers I know feel the same. The idea that we all want a re-run and can't cope with the result is a fiction.
"Just leave, whatever" is supposed to mean what, exactly? I said we should leave but remain in the single market and customs union. It is no better or worse, administratively, than any other option, and is a lot better for the country.
When you have a referendum on a constitutional matter, the decision simply has to be enacted.
The way it is enacted is usually less complex than Brexit, granted, but unless and until we actually leave the EU there will be tremendous suspicion of the political classes from those who voted Leave. If we never leave, I honestly suspect there will be civil disobedience and a breakdown of the Westminster system.
I want us to leave. I want us to remain part of the Single Market and Customs Union. I am not saying don't leave.
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.
And yet it still remains true that no party has ever won a majority without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections (as opposed to the mere 1% now), it remains true that Corbyn will need to win double the number of seats next time that he won in 2017, -which means marginals, not merely piling up useless votes in seats he already holds. So I am not clear where this landslide will come from.
LOL, we are not "between elections", we're only 4 months on.
And didn't Corbyn already prove he has some appeal in marginal seats?
How far away do you think the next GE is, Danny?
4 years 7 months unless the Tories regain a mammoth poll lead once more.
This Parliament will drag on until the end like 74-79 or 05-10 or 92-97
Governments behind in the polls don't go to the polls early, even if they're minority governments (79 and 97).
Hmmmm.....maybe. I can't say you're wrong, but the situation is far too unstable for me to risk the hard-earned on betting that you are right.
Apparently Amber Rudd has said she'll do something about letterboxes at the bottom of doors. I've got an estate in my ward with most the doors like this, I can feel my knees every time I deliver it. If I think it's bad as an occasional leaflet deliverer, imagine life for the poor postie who does it every day.
Got my vote.
She could get the Lib Dems to merge en masse with the Tories if she did.
Letterboxes on the door-fronts, Letterboxes going snippy snappy; Letterboxes on the door fronts - Letterboxes hurt and maim. There's a high one and a low one, And a small one and a narrow one; And they all go snippy-snappy, And they all hurt just the same.
*Yawn - another 'Leaving the EU is the worst thing ever thread*
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again (B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
Leave but remain in the single market and customs union. Easy peasy.
Just leave, whatever. Most Remainers I know feel the same. The idea that we all want a re-run and can't cope with the result is a fiction.
"Just leave, whatever" is supposed to mean what, exactly? I said we should leave but remain in the single market and customs union. It is no better or worse, administratively, than any other option, and is a lot better for the country.
When you have a referendum on a constitutional matter, the decision simply has to be enacted.
The way it is enacted is usually less complex than Brexit, granted, but unless and until we actually leave the EU there will be tremendous suspicion of the political classes from those who voted Leave. If we never leave, I honestly suspect there will be civil disobedience and a breakdown of the Westminster system.
I want us to leave. I want us to remain part of the Single Market and Customs Union. I am not saying don't leave.
My answer on this, informed by many commenters on here:
I would declare that the country was divided like never before, across generations, classes and outlooks. As PM, I would govern for the whole country and my priority was to bring the country together and address the divisions. The referendum result reflected the unease about the EU but it was clear that no consensus was emerging in the country, in parliament or in government about what comes next as reflected in the hung parliament and the contradictory promises of the Leave campaign which are impossible to deliver together.
Therefore we would adopt a 2 step process. The first step would to be respect the referendum and Article 50 process by leaving the EU but retaining membership of the EEA and customs union. This will remove us from political frameworks and produce a net saving but the question of our place in Europe would be unresolved as this compromise would disappoint both adamant Remainers and Leavers.
To determine a final position, a further referendum will be needed. This would have three options: 1) rejoin the EU 2) remain in the EEA 3) leave the single market and customs union. (AV fans this is your moment!)
However the three positions would need to be fully informed - we cannot repeat the referendum with both sides discrediting the other and the conduct of this referendum will be part of how I am restoring credibility and trust in politics. Therefore the Government will, in partnership with the EU, carry out extensive negotiations with the EU on all three options, with detailed costings, transition, risk analysis and implementation plans published for each option. As all three options will be Government-approved, the Government will remain strictly neutral throughout the campaign; ministers can support the approach they feel is best. This referendum will take place only when the country has settled experience in the EEA, and has fully weighted and negotiated the alternative options.
The Government will then throw its weight and enthusiasm behind the option with the greatest support, and there will be an agreed plan of what this will mean and how it will be delivered. The Government will in the meantime seek to address issues raised such as growth and immigration burdens and bringing forward plans to reduce regulation and concrete examples of proposed regulation changes which are only possible outside the single market. These will add clarity to the debate.
This Government is committed to uniting a divided country; these plans will disappoint some, particularly those who support the current approach, however in seeking a fully implementable plan for leaving the single market we will bring clarity and the time we need to craft such an approach, and there will be the opportunity to secure the mandate for this approach that I have concluded I lack.
I would declare that the country was divided like never before, across generations, classes and outlooks. As PM, I would govern for the whole country and my priority was to bring the country together and address the divisions. The referendum result reflected the unease about the EU but it was clear that no consensus was emerging in the country, in parliament or in government about what comes next as reflected in the hung parliament and the contradictory promises of the Leave campaign which are impossible to deliver together.
Therefore we would adopt a 2 step process. The first step would to be respect the referendum and Article 50 process by leaving the EU but retaining membership of the EEA and customs union. This will remove us from political frameworks and produce a net saving but the question of our place in Europe would be unresolved as this compromise would disappoint both adamant Remainers and Leavers.
To determine a final position, a further referendum will be needed. This would have three options: 1) rejoin the EU 2) remain in the EEA 3) leave the single market and customs union. (AV fans this is your moment!)
However the three positions would need to be fully informed - we cannot repeat the referendum with both sides discrediting the other and the conduct of this referendum will be part of how I am restoring credibility and trust in politics. Therefore the Government will, in partnership with the EU, carry out extensive negotiations with the EU on all three options, with detailed costings, transition, risk analysis and implementation plans published for each option. As all three options will be Government-approved, the Government will remain strictly neutral throughout the campaign; ministers can support the approach they feel is best. This referendum will take place only when the country has settled experience in the EEA, and has fully weighted and negotiated the alternative options.
The Government will then throw its weight and enthusiasm behind the option with the greatest support, and there will be an agreed plan of what this will mean and how it will be delivered. The Government will in the meantime seek to address issues raised such as growth and immigration burdens and bringing forward plans to reduce regulation and concrete examples of proposed regulation changes which are only possible outside the single market. These will add clarity to the debate.
This Government is committed to uniting a divided country; these plans will disappoint some, particularly those who support the current approach, however in seeking a fully implementable plan for leaving the single market we will bring clarity and the time we need to craft such an approach, and there will be the opportunity to secure the mandate for this approach that I have concluded I lack.
Apparently Amber Rudd has said she'll do something about letterboxes at the bottom of doors. I've got an estate in my ward with most the doors like this, I can feel my knees every time I deliver it. If I think it's bad as an occasional leaflet deliverer, imagine life for the poor postie who does it every day.
Got my vote.
She could get the Lib Dems to merge en masse with the Tories if she did.
Letterboxes on the door-fronts, Letterboxes going snippy snappy; Letterboxes on the door fronts - Letterboxes hurt and maim. There's a high one and a low one, And a small one and a narrow one; And they all go snippy-snappy, And they all hurt just the same.
I find the worst ones are the narrow vertical ones - you need three hands.
To determine a final position, a further referendum will be needed. This would have three options: 1) rejoin the EU 2) remain in the EEA 3) leave the single market and customs union. (AV fans this is your moment!)
However the three positions would need to be fully informed - we cannot repeat the referendum with both sides discrediting the other and the conduct of this referendum will be part of how I am restoring credibility and trust in politics. Therefore the Government will, in partnership with the EU, carry out extensive negotiations with the EU on all three options, with detailed costings, transition, risk analysis and implementation plans published for each option. As all three options will be Government-approved, the Government will remain strictly neutral throughout the campaign; ministers can support the approach they feel is best. This referendum will take place only when the country has settled experience in the EEA, and has fully weighted and negotiated the alternative options.
The Government will then throw its weight and enthusiasm behind the option with the greatest support, and there will be an agreed plan of what this will mean and how it will be delivered. The Government will in the meantime seek to address issues raised such as growth and immigration burdens and bringing forward plans to reduce regulation and concrete examples of proposed regulation changes which are only possible outside the single market. These will add clarity to the debate.
This Government is committed to uniting a divided country; these plans will disappoint some, particularly those who support the current approach, however in seeking a fully implementable plan for leaving the single market we will bring clarity and the time we need to craft such an approach, and there will be the opportunity to secure the mandate for this approach that I have concluded I lack.
nice
After only reading comments for many years I have gone to the effort of resetting my password and logging in to say this is the best plan I've read by a mile on this sorry saga. The only issue is how long will this all take to happen because I know businesses are already steering clear of us because of our self inflicted confusion.
Comments
It's available via google/cache I think.
https://www.ft.com/content/58bb3090-a53d-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2
It might require clear cookies, but copy/paste & google that ^ address and try and it should work.
But, there are far too many fanatics on both sides, egged on by their own loyal lemmings.
http://fortune.com/2017/03/28/david-cameron-uber-lobbying/
Of course, luckily for Labour, they botched the announcement of it, by combining it with the pathetically small-beer freezing of tuition fees at "only" £9000, with the latter taking most of the publicity - so we could get the best of both worlds, a good policy passing with the Tories getting no credit for it!
Question for those who voted Remain.
Given the vote has happened and we've voted to Leave the EU, assuming you were in charge, would you:
(A) Ignore the vote - declare you know best and there'll be no more of that democracy malarky again
(B) Have another vote until you get Remain, then declare that one is binding for ever more
C) Something else [Please tell us]
Also, one more. For the majority who did vote Leave and might feel slightly aggravated at being ignored, what is your solution to that problem (or have you already answered it in (A) above)?
The total amount of rent paid collectively in London was around £20bn in the 12 months to the end of June, and has risen by 42 per cent over five years.
That is not about rents being up by 42%; it is about there being an increase in rented property in London.
As my official numbers show, individual rents are not being "pumped", and are in fact increasing more slowly than inflation.
WRT the popularity of left wing populism, we seem to be overlooking that support for capitalism has been undermined by the outrageous behaviour of many businessmen and companies.
Sir Philip Green, Sir Fred the Shred, insolvency practitioners who loot the companies they're supposed to be rescuing, banks who sell worthless insurance policies, tech giants who pay derisory amounts of tax, companies who believe in privatising their profits while nationalising their losses, all fuel hatred of the system, in the same way that Trade Union leaders did in the Seventies and Eighties.
All my family were Leavers, I would hate for their vote to be discounted after we had MPs from all major parties getting up in the Commons and saying 'there will be no second referendum' before the vote.
Frankly, there probably isn't a journalist in the country without a similar 'conflict of interest', through their pension funds.
If Corbyn were to be found conspiring personally to assassinate a 3 year old, the current Government would find a way of making it seem a moral and upstanding thing to do.
And didn't Corbyn already prove he has some appeal in marginal seats?
We're like island tribes people, worshipping this volcano called 'The Economy', and the high-priests have always told us it won't erupt if we feed it certain sacrifices and do the required rituals. It only works as long as it doesn't erupt.
Can you blame the voters?
Got my vote.
But there is one obvious word to describe that post: envy.
Do you object to the fact that he is a Tory, wealthy, influential, or all three?
Improvements are getting much harder. 3D transistors are much more complex to make, but necessary for smaller processes. As an example, one fab plant trialled moving to a 10nanometre process, and were getting a 10% yield after several months of improvements. That means that 90% of all chips produced were duds.
In addition, clock speeds increased rapidly up to the 3-4GHz level up to the mid 2000s, and have now more or less paused. Instead, most of the improvements come from architecture and by throwing more cores in. Instructions Per Clock are not improving massively.
The move to a process below 10nm (say, 7nm) is going to be very painful, as will the long-promised move to extreme ultraviolet lithography.
There are two ways things will improve in the long term:
*) Better understanding and implementation of multithreading/multiprocessing (i.e. tchniques to split tasks into parts that can be consecutively run)
*) Move to a brand new technology (e.g. optical or quantum).
These have been promised for decades but little progress has been made, in part because 'conventional' chips have been improving.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/08/pressandpublishing.mirror1
Corbyn's 7/10 in favour of staying, and focus on bread-and-butter issues was less ecstatically pro-EU, but more effective in reaching people like me and my family (even if unsuccessful for the latter, they've been hating the EU for a very long-time for reasons I don't understand).
This Parliament will drag on until the end like 74-79 or 05-10 or 92-97
Governments behind in the polls don't go to the polls early, even if they're minority governments (79 and 97).
The experinece for many is that rents have risen faster than wages since the crash/"recovery"
Which was my original point.
https://twitter.com/VirginAtlantic/status/915202791605448704
He is working for a fund manager and is giving one of their holdings a puff.
If the DUP decides they want to pull the plug, there won't be a thing the Tories can do about it.
I'm even more thrilled that 'MP' isn't one of them
How on earth do they get post??
Because they could simply abstain to block Corbz from power.
Something that I'd fully expect, if for some bizarre reason the DUP couldn't come to an arrangement with a Tory government.
Also, we have runaway analogy issues. The posting letters analogy surely only works if the complaint against Osborne is that he is bigging up Uber because he makes use of it to get around London.
The way it is enacted is usually less complex than Brexit, granted, but unless and until we actually leave the EU there will be tremendous suspicion of the political classes from those who voted Leave. If we never leave, I honestly suspect there will be civil disobedience and a breakdown of the Westminster system.
GO's piece was a puff. It was saying I can help Uber's shareprice to go up (and to benefit from that you should buy their shares).
They are saying he should declare any potential conflict of interest.
'George Osborne is an adviser to Blackrock, an investor in Uber'
If he had, none of this would have come up - and this would be seen (correctly in my view) as the Editor of a London paper reflecting the views of many of his readers.
As it is we're having this discussion......
But apart from all that it's easy peasy.
And thanks for yours.
Yes, you are right in principle. It's always worth trying to acknowledge and rectify a mistake, it's just that I don't think much purpose would be served in this case. We would be better off just accepting it was a bad decision, and making the best of it.
(My impression is that at the moment we're actually doing neither, but that's a different matter.)
NEW THREAD
I still l think May/Davis will sign on the dotted line for the Article 50 withdrawal agreement and a two year nominal "transition" (actually a can-kick). Then we will end up in a Norway (single market plus customs union) style arrangement. Which is bonkers. We really are not Norway. But is is less painful than outer space and avoiding pain is a big motivator. It also in a strange way removes the politics from our relationship with the EU. If we have no say and have to do what we are told that removes the politics from the relationship. Leavers say they like an economic relationship but not a political one.
I would declare that the country was divided like never before, across generations, classes and outlooks. As PM, I would govern for the whole country and my priority was to bring the country together and address the divisions. The referendum result reflected the unease about the EU but it was clear that no consensus was emerging in the country, in parliament or in government about what comes next as reflected in the hung parliament and the contradictory promises of the Leave campaign which are impossible to deliver together.
Therefore we would adopt a 2 step process. The first step would to be respect the referendum and Article 50 process by leaving the EU but retaining membership of the EEA and customs union. This will remove us from political frameworks and produce a net saving but the question of our place in Europe would be unresolved as this compromise would disappoint both adamant Remainers and Leavers.
To determine a final position, a further referendum will be needed. This would have three options:
1) rejoin the EU
2) remain in the EEA
3) leave the single market and customs union. (AV fans this is your moment!)
However the three positions would need to be fully informed - we cannot repeat the referendum with both sides discrediting the other and the conduct of this referendum will be part of how I am restoring credibility and trust in politics. Therefore the Government will, in partnership with the EU, carry out extensive negotiations with the EU on all three options, with detailed costings, transition, risk analysis and implementation plans published for each option. As all three options will be Government-approved, the Government will remain strictly neutral throughout the campaign; ministers can support the approach they feel is best. This referendum will take place only when the country has settled experience in the EEA, and has fully weighted and negotiated the alternative options.
The Government will then throw its weight and enthusiasm behind the option with the greatest support, and there will be an agreed plan of what this will mean and how it will be delivered. The Government will in the meantime seek to address issues raised such as growth and immigration burdens and bringing forward plans to reduce regulation and concrete examples of proposed regulation changes which are only possible outside the single market. These will add clarity to the debate.
This Government is committed to uniting a divided country; these plans will disappoint some, particularly those who support the current approach, however in seeking a fully implementable plan for leaving the single market we will bring clarity and the time we need to craft such an approach, and there will be the opportunity to secure the mandate for this approach that I have concluded I lack.