@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
You should try and control your emotions a bit more if you wish others to engage with your arguments more seriously.
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
There have been a number of metaphors for Brexit. The most obvious is a vehicle driving off a cliff. This may yet prove to be the most accurate, but for now we are still in the fall. The sharp rocks lie in our future.
SeanT came up with his favoured childbirth analogy, but given that Brexit is the bastard lovechild of Farage and BoZo. that is actually more an argument for late term abortion.
There is another, better analogy, I realise now. It captures the futility, sacrifice and ultimate failure, and is forever immortalised by these words
We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence, determined still to do our best to the last ... Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman.
Yes, Brexit is our very own quest to the South Pole.
Initially pointless (we only did it because we thought we could, and nobody had tried before), terribly under-prepared, questionable choice of personnel, needless sacrifice, ultimate tragedy, and of course, the Norwegians beat us to it...
The only upside for Brexiteers is that some of their number may be lionised as a result.
I must take issue. I don't think adventure and exploration is ever futile. Both for what it is and for what it inspires.
The better analogy is of a child wishing fervently for the keys to the Ferrari (or Mclaren) and being given them.
Yes, Brexit is our very own quest to the South Pole.
Initially pointless (we only did it because we thought we could, and nobody had tried before), terribly under-prepared, questionable choice of personnel, needless sacrifice, ultimate tragedy, and of course, the Norwegians beat us to it...
The only upside for Brexiteers is that some of their number may be lionised as a result.
Fintan O’Toole: Brexit resurrects the English cult of heroic failure
Yet, unheeding of this omen, HMS Brexit sets sail into uncharted waters, confident of finding the, as yet undiscovered, passage to the promised land where you can always have more cake even when you’ve eaten it.
I have to say the gorge does rise to see a succession of Leavers complain about @RochdalePioneers' choice of language. Motes and beams, motes and beams.
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
Well yes, I agree with you.
One of the things that makes me laugh about Labour's obsession with the 'ownership structure' of the railways is that they utterly ignore freight. To the extent that one pro-nationalisation polemic produced by a trade union mentioned freight only three times in dozens of pages - and that was just the word, not the needs of the railfreight industry.
The difference with rail freight is that it does operate as a competitive market. Want to move stuff from A to B? There are several freight companies who will bid for the contract. We have seen new entrants, large and small, and the original dominant player lose market share hand over fist by generally being a bit crap. In terms of renationalisation priorities, I would put rail freight well behind public utilities, for example.
1) We're talking about a strategy for the railways that ignored railfreight. It was insane.
2) Good. So you're saying that privatised railfreight has been a success (*). So your answer to this is to nationalise passenger railways, rather than look at how the existing structure may be improved?
3) You may want to tell this to some of you fellow Labourites, and especially those in the rail unions, who seem to think that 'rail renationalisation' should and will include railfreight.
(*) This is difficult to judge. IIRC freight tonnage has decreased, but that is mainly because the trainload bulk coal market has vanished due to the closure of power stations. Other freight markets have performed better. But it's easy to argue that passenger sectors have outperformed freight since privatisation.
Late reply:
The fundamental difference between freight and passenger operations is that freight is discrete, point-to-point services whereas passenger is best served by an integrated network facilitating countless individual journey options with connections, changes, etc. In addition, on most passenger routes there is, under privatisation, no competition. A national passenger service operator would best serve the interests of the passenger. This is less clearly the case for freight where the current system works better.
My opinions may not match those of the RMT, but I believe they are the majority view in the country.
I have to say the gorge does rise to see a succession of Leavers complain about @RochdalePioneers' choice of language. Motes and beams, motes and beams.
Ah, but the Leavers won. Therefore any criticism is treason, or at least something approaching it.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
But not among the group that @Alistair Meeks identified, the relatively affluent who backed Brexit, nor among the left behind. Polling tends to put the Conservatives ahead on economic issues.
According to all the rules, Brexit should never have got near winning an absolute majority in a national referendum.
The fact it did should be serious food for thought for everyone, but it isn't.
This is the big point. When you look at the forces ranged against Leave in the campaign, from the PM, all the main parties, most of the Broadcast media, international bodies, the President of the USA, the civil service, and the money that govt threw at it before Purdah (leaflets etc). Leave should have been annihilated- they shouldn't have stood a cat in hell's chance.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
But not among the group that @Alistair Meeks identified, the relatively affluent who backed Brexit, nor among the left behind. Polling tends to put the Conservatives ahead on economic issues.
According to all the rules, Brexit should never have got near winning an absolute majority in a national referendum.
The fact it did should be serious food for thought for everyone, but it isn't.
This is the big point. When you look at the forces ranged against Leave in the campaign, from the PM, all the main parties, most of the Broadcast media, international bodies, the President of the USA, the civil service, and the money that govt threw at it before Purdah (leaflets etc). Leave should have been annihilated- they shouldn't have stood a cat in hell's chance.
Yet they won.
Inconveniently for people who parade this, so did Trump, or Mr Brexit as he once styled himself.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
But not among the group that @Alistair Meeks identified, the relatively affluent who backed Brexit, nor among the left behind. Polling tends to put the Conservatives ahead on economic issues.
According to all the rules, Brexit should never have got near winning an absolute majority in a national referendum.
The fact it did should be serious food for thought for everyone, but it isn't.
This is the big point. When you look at the forces ranged against Leave in the campaign, from the PM, all the main parties, most of the Broadcast media, international bodies, the President of the USA, the civil service, and the money that govt threw at it before Purdah (leaflets etc). Leave should have been annihilated- they shouldn't have stood a cat in hell's chance.
Yet they won.
Leave was supported by the best-selling newspapers of course.
This is the big point. When you look at the forces ranged against Leave in the campaign, from the PM, all the main parties, most of the Broadcast media, international bodies, the President of the USA, the civil service, and the money that govt threw at it before Purdah (leaflets etc). Leave should have been annihilated- they shouldn't have stood a cat in hell's chance.
Yet they won.
No
What we know now, that wasn't really clear prior to Brexit, is that the sort of bullshit peddled by the Leave campaign, Corbyn and Trump, is completely impervious to fact, reason, argument or exposure.
Claiming that a campaign of bullshit should have been defeated has been disproven again and again.
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
It's an interesting article. All the EU has to do is hold together (which is by no means a given) and it will dominate the UK. For Brexit to be success the UK needs a united EU because it can't negotiate with 27 countries at the same time. But for Brexit to be viable long term, it needs the EU to fragment so there's an alternative to it. The EU and its member states are fully aware that its erstwhile partner wants to see its destruction and negotiates accordingly.
That is not an epiphany. An epiphany is when you come to your senses and realise that howling at the moon is pointless. You are stuck in a denial phase, it is time to move on to acceptance. You will sleep better that way.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
[Snipped}
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
And yet when someone who does come from that sort of background becomes a Tory they face some pretty unpleasant and vicious abuse as if they were being a sort of class traitor. See, for example, Shaun Bailey.
So I'd have more sympathy with @NickPalmer's point if it weren't people from his party making it so personally unpleasant for people with exactly that sort of background to be Tories.
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight.ine.
Well yes, I agree with you.
One of the things that makes me laugh about Labour's obsession with the 'ownership structure' of the railways is that they utterly ignore freight. To the extent that one pro-nationalisation polemic produced by a trade union mentioned freight only three times in dozens of pages - and that was just the word, not the needs of the railfreight industry.
The difference with rail freight is that it does operate as a competitive market. Want to move stuff from A to B? There are several freight companies who will bid for the contract. We have seen new entrants, large and small, and the original dominant player lose market share hand over fist by generally being a bit crap. In terms of renationalisation priorities, I would put rail freight well behind public utilities, for example.
1) We're talking about a strategy for the railways that ignored railfreight. It was insane.
2) Good. So you're saying that privatised railfreight has been a success (*). So your answer to this is to nationalise passenger railways, rather than look at how the existing structure may be improved?
3) You may want to tell this to some of you fellow Labourites, and especially those in the rail unions, who seem to think that 'rail renationalisation' should and will include railfreight.
(*) This is difficult to judge. IIRC freight tonnage has decreased, but that is mainly because the trainload bulk coal market has vanished due to the closure of power stations. Other freight markets have performed better. But it's easy to argue that passenger sectors have outperformed freight since privatisation.
Late reply:
The fundamental difference between freight and passenger operations is that freight is discrete, point-to-point services whereas passenger is best served by an integrated network facilitating countless individual journey options with connections, changes, etc. In addition, on most passenger routes there is, under privatisation, no competition. A national passenger service operator would best serve the interests of the passenger. This is less clearly the case for freight where the current system works better.
My opinions may not match those of the RMT, but I believe they are the majority view in the country.
Good post. What the public sees are high and rising prices, ludicrously complicated ticketing and pricing, and dubious reliability (on some lines). The question is whether an alternative ownership model can improve these things, at least in the eyes of the users.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
[Snipped}
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
And yet when someone who does come from that sort of background becomes a Tory they face some pretty unpleasant and vicious abuse as if they were being a sort of class traitor. See, for example, Shaun Bailey.
So I'd have more sympathy with @NickPalmer's point if it weren't people from his party making it so personally unpleasant for people with exactly that sort of background to be Tories.
plus the opposition parties are increasingly peopled by those from relatively privileged backgrounds with a lifetime of experience in campaigning, lobbying and 'advising' but not much else.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
[Snipped}
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
And yet when someone who does come from that sort of background becomes a Tory they face some pretty unpleasant and vicious abuse as if they were being a sort of class traitor. See, for example, Shaun Bailey.
So I'd have more sympathy with @NickPalmer's point if it weren't people from his party making it so personally unpleasant for people with exactly that sort of background to be Tories.
Oh, I quite agree with you. The Left need to learn that not sharing their political opinions does not make them guilty of moral turpitude, and justify any level of abuse or "action".
The fundamental difference between freight and passenger operations is that freight is discrete, point-to-point services whereas passenger is best served by an integrated network facilitating countless individual journey options with connections, changes, etc. In addition, on most passenger routes there is, under privatisation, no competition. A national passenger service operator would best serve the interests of the passenger. This is less clearly the case for freight where the current system works better.
My opinions may not match those of the RMT, but I believe they are the majority view in the country.
Yet freight and passenger operators have to work side-by-side, and therefore a cohesive approach is required. Concentrating on the needs of passengers over freight will destroy railfreight, for instance if paths are removed from freight.
There are also big issues with private companies trying to operate on a nationalised network with nationalised operators, which is exactly why the EU introduced the rules they did.
I'll look forward for you arguning against anyone calling for "a return to BR"
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
It's an interesting article. All the EU has to do is hold together (which is by no means a given) and it will dominate the UK. For Brexit to be success the UK needs a united EU because it can't negotiate with 27 countries at the same time. But for Brexit to be viable long term, it needs the EU to fragment so there's an alternative to it. The EU and its member states are fully aware that its erstwhile partner wants to see its destruction and negotiates accordingly.
The vision of Farage et al was always that the EU was heading for collapse, and that we should help the process along and do ourselves a favour by getting out first. If the EU instead holds together, his world view doesn't really compute.
On the other hand, if the predicated Euro collapse were to happen, our leaving will not shelter us from the adverse consequences.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
[Snipped}
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
And yet when someone who does come from that sort of background becomes a Tory they face some pretty unpleasant and vicious abuse as if they were being a sort of class traitor. See, for example, Shaun Bailey.
So I'd have more sympathy with @NickPalmer's point if it weren't people from his party making it so personally unpleasant for people with exactly that sort of background to be Tories.
Oh, I quite agree with you. The Left need to learn that not sharing their political opinions does not make them guilty of moral turpitude, and justify any level of abuse or "action".
The fundamental difference between freight and passenger operations is that freight is discrete, point-to-point services whereas passenger is best served by an integrated network facilitating countless individual journey options with connections, changes, etc. In addition, on most passenger routes there is, under privatisation, no competition. A national passenger service operator would best serve the interests of the passenger. This is less clearly the case for freight where the current system works better.
My opinions may not match those of the RMT, but I believe they are the majority view in the country.
Yet freight and passenger operators have to work side-by-side, and therefore a cohesive approach is required. Concentrating on the needs of passengers over freight will destroy railfreight, for instance if paths are removed from freight.
There are also big issues with private companies trying to operate on a nationalised network with nationalised operators, which is exactly why the EU introduced the rules they did.
I'll look forward for you arguning against anyone calling for "a return to BR"
On most PC rail simulations at least, the best strategy is always to keep passengers and freight on separate trains running on separate tracks between separate stations.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
[Snipped}
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
And yet when someone who does come from that sort of background becomes a Tory they face some pretty unpleasant and vicious abuse as if they were being a sort of class traitor. See, for example, Shaun Bailey.
So I'd have more sympathy with @NickPalmer's point if it weren't people from his party making it so personally unpleasant for people with exactly that sort of background to be Tories.
Oh, I quite agree with you. The Left need to learn that not sharing their political opinions does not make them guilty of moral turpitude, and justify any level of abuse or "action".
Mr. Glenn, ah, I was unaware of that (obviously). Cheers for the correction.
Mr. B2, indeed not entirely, but if the EU implodes, less damage will be felt by those outside the edifice than those within.
But we already had much of those "benefits" by dint of our best-of-both worlds special status, particularly after Cammo's negotiation. I doubt our economy will be significantly more isolated from a collapse on the continent after Brexit.
The fundamental difference between freight and passenger operations is that freight is discrete, point-to-point services whereas passenger is best served by an integrated network facilitating countless individual journey options with connections, changes, etc. In addition, on most passenger routes there is, under privatisation, no competition. A national passenger service operator would best serve the interests of the passenger. This is less clearly the case for freight where the current system works better.
My opinions may not match those of the RMT, but I believe they are the majority view in the country.
Yet freight and passenger operators have to work side-by-side, and therefore a cohesive approach is required. Concentrating on the needs of passengers over freight will destroy railfreight, for instance if paths are removed from freight.
There are also big issues with private companies trying to operate on a nationalised network with nationalised operators, which is exactly why the EU introduced the rules they did.
I'll look forward for you arguning against anyone calling for "a return to BR"
On most PC rail simulations at least, the best strategy is always to keep passengers and freight on separate trains running on separate tracks between separate stations.
Yes, and the ability to do that's the difference between a simulation and reality.
Freight trains and stopping passenger services cause big problems for high-speed services. Therefore separating them off onto slow lines is good - except there are relatively little four-line track mileage, and much of that capacity is used by stopping passenger trains.
The best option is freight diversion lines, although BR got rid of some of that during the 1970s and 1980s (e.g. March to Spalding) that would be really useful today.
Also, infrastructure operators don't like freight, as the extra weight causes much more damage to the track than even high-speed passenger trains.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
We don't have a Tory government. We have a collection of people, a nation in fact, both dizzy on the victory of Little England and railed against the forces of modernity and progress.
They can't believe their luck, just as if you or I woke up to find that we could actually fly, or turn Tunnocks tea cakes into gold, we would I'm sure misuse the power until we regained our composure.
Liam Fox is flying the flag today in Sydney. Doesn't it make you feel GREAT?!
McLarens are awesome, we should absolutely be celebrating a British company that in only seven years have already beaten the established Italians at their own game. Oh, and a couple of thousand skilled jobs. Drive one if you get the chance.
Edit: their biggest export markets are not in the inward-looking EU, but in the USA, Middle East and Asia.
Mr. B2, we didn't have a special status, unless you count cash cow. The single market was magically completed for goods, which benefited Germany, but not services, which would've benefited us.
The drive for integration is antithetical to our desire, whilst the economic benefits were undoubtedly popular. Hence the great division we now have. However, the EU's undemocratic empire-building will prove its undoing, I suspect.
If EU-phile politicians had paused just once to consider what the electorate might want instead of blithely throwing away half the rebate or vetoes, then we would've been able to indicate our displeasure without going for the nuclear option. Brown reneging upon a manifesto promise for a referendum on Lisbon didn't exactly instil trust in the political class on the EU.
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
It's an interesting article. All the EU has to do is hold together (which is by no means a given) and it will dominate the UK. For Brexit to be success the UK needs a united EU because it can't negotiate with 27 countries at the same time. But for Brexit to be viable long term, it needs the EU to fragment so there's an alternative to it. The EU and its member states are fully aware that its erstwhile partner wants to see its destruction and negotiates accordingly.
The vision of Farage et al was always that the EU was heading for collapse, and that we should help the process along and do ourselves a favour by getting out first. If the EU instead holds together, his world view doesn't really compute.
On the other hand, if the predicated Euro collapse were to happen, our leaving will not shelter us from the adverse consequences.
But we can be very smug about getting out first. The fatal flaw in Farage's vision is that other EU members might have an opinion on their impending doom and might try to take steps to prevent it, including facing up to threats, like that posed by people like him.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
But not among the group that @Alistair Meeks identified, the relatively affluent who backed Brexit, nor among the left behind. Polling tends to put the Conservatives ahead on economic issues.
According to all the rules, Brexit should never have got near winning an absolute majority in a national referendum.
The fact it did should be serious food for thought for everyone, but it isn't.
This is the big point. When you look at the forces ranged against Leave in the campaign, from the PM, all the main parties, most of the Broadcast media, international bodies, the President of the USA, the civil service, and the money that govt threw at it before Purdah (leaflets etc). Leave should have been annihilated- they shouldn't have stood a cat in hell's chance.
Yet they won.
And, had it been clear Leave had a real chance, the referendum would never have been called.
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
The vision of Farage et al was always that the EU was heading for collapse, and that we should help the process along and do ourselves a favour by getting out first. If the EU instead holds together, his world view doesn't really compute.
The ideal scenario for Farage would have been for one of the smaller members to leave. Then with the UK as part of the 'EU27', he could have agitated to break up their unity and say that we should leave too.
What he didn't bank on was the UK being first and becoming the object lesson in why leaving is a bad idea.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
Tories are willing to take the difficult decisions to restrain public spending, in the interests of national solvency and the long-term greater good, that Labour are not.
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
[Snipped}
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
And yet when someone who does come from that sort of background becomes a Tory they face some pretty unpleasant and vicious abuse as if they were being a sort of class traitor. See, for example, Shaun Bailey.
So I'd have more sympathy with @NickPalmer's point if it weren't people from his party making it so personally unpleasant for people with exactly that sort of background to be Tories.
Oh, I quite agree with you. The Left need to learn that not sharing their political opinions does not make them guilty of moral turpitude, and justify any level of abuse or "action".
On topic, I think the interview adequately exposed how full of shit the guy was, and it's a little bit astonishing that the British have somehow got themselves to a place where he is the alternative Chancellor, but it shouldn't have taken a whole gang of people all shooting into the same barrel.
The most devastating interviewer I've ever seen is Akira Ikegami. Japanese interviewers tend to be very deferential, but Ikegami's schtick is that he comes over like a teacher asking questions on behalf of a class of children. Sometimes there are children in the studio. This allows him to phrase a question very simply and bluntly while still being immaculately polite, and the unlucky interviewee looks terrible if they try to dance around it, and even worse if they try to attack him for asking the question.
I still prefer my getting the keys to the Ferrari analogy. Cereal box? Pah!
Presumably having got the keys they're unable to start the ignition so throw them away and start pulling the fascia apart looking for wires to connect because they've seen it done on The Sweeney.
The vision of Farage et al was always that the EU was heading for collapse, and that we should help the process along and do ourselves a favour by getting out first. If the EU instead holds together, his world view doesn't really compute.
The ideal scenario for Farage would have been for one of the smaller members to leave. Then with the UK as part of the 'EU27', he could have agitated to break up their unity and say that we should leave too.
What he didn't bank on was the UK being first and becoming the object lesson in why leaving is a bad idea.
One of my family worked with Farage for a while. Didn’t like him, not one bit. Described him as an English Nationalist who really went for juniors who didn’t share all his views.
On topic, I think the interview adequately exposed how full of shit the guy was, and it's a little bit astonishing that the British have somehow got themselves to a place where he is the alternative Chancellor, but it shouldn't have taken a whole gang of people all shooting into the same barrel.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
A lawyers joke. I've heard it used with other professions and probably other revolutions!
It's when the army's starving that you need to worry.
What do Trumpites and Corbynistas have in common? More than anything else, a whingeing about media interviews and the accusation that any set of questions, any interview or interrogator who exposes their weaknesses, demands answers for the voters and the public must be involved in some terrible personal conspiracy to humiliate the poor victim whether it be Trump or Corbyn or McDonnell. When will they get it through their thick paranoid skulls that the voters are entitled to have these questions asked and answered competently.
What do Trumpites and Corbynistas have in common? More than anything else, a whingeing about media interviews and the accusation that any set of questions, any interview or interrogator who exposes their weaknesses, demands answers for the voters and the public must be involved in some terrible personal conspiracy to humiliate the poor victim whether it be Trump or Corbyn or McDonnell. When will they get it through their thick paranoid skulls that the voters are entitled to have these questions asked and answered competently.
They could spend less time whinging and more time doing what Blair and Brown did in Opposition: bomb testing every single line of policy over and over again. I believe the military call it the 'Murder Board'.
They don't want to do this of course because Marxist economics doesn't work.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
A lawyers joke. I've heard it used with other professions and probably other revolutions!
It's when the army's starving that you need to worry.
I thought we heard yesterday that we don't have an army or indeed navy anymore, just a load of cyber defence operatives.
On topic: John McDonnell fully deserves to be humiliated by interviewers. We need more such humiliation, not less. Not only is he an extremely nasty piece of work, he is also proposing to wreck the British economy:
Note the chilling last paragraph. That is the language of populist despotism, stoking up discontent so that ogres can be blamed. Jews, and especially Jewish bankers,were the most fruitful source of ogres blamed by McDonnell's predecessors in Europe and the US in the last century. It's only a small change of terminology to blame 'banks and hedge funds' - the latter being especially handy, since hardly anyone knows what a hedge fund is. And blaming 'profiteers' isn't even a change at all - it's straight out of the 1930s.
On topic, I think the interview adequately exposed how full of shit the guy was, and it's a little bit astonishing that the British have somehow got themselves to a place where he is the alternative Chancellor, but it shouldn't have taken a whole gang of people all shooting into the same barrel.
The most devastating interviewer I've ever seen is Akira Ikegami. Japanese interviewers tend to be very deferential, but Ikegami's schtick is that he comes over like a teacher asking questions on behalf of a class of children. Sometimes there are children in the studio. This allows him to phrase a question very simply and bluntly while still being immaculately polite, and the unlucky interviewee looks terrible if they try to dance around it, and even worse if they try to attack him for asking the question.
It's a reasonable interview in my opinion, which asked relevant questions and allowed Mr Macdonnell to make his case. That Macdonnell failed to do so, may be to do with his case rather than his articulation of it. Either way, it's up to the interviewee to get it right.
On topic, I've had the misfortune to read Paxman's book. It was before I reviewed on Amazon but had I put up a review, it'd have been a 1-star. Far from understanding and dissecting the political animal, Paxman consistently fails to do so and returns instead to his own preconceived opinion of them, which is the hackneyed view of showbiz for the ugly. it is positively misleading about politicians but probably unintentionally revealing about Paxman - not least, because he must, in being a part of the political world, ultimately view himself as an entertainer rather than as being involved in a serious business. And you rather suspect that grates.
Very good piece from Lord Hague about the Irish border issue. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/27/ireland-miscalculating-asking-impossible-britain-way-brexit/ A failure in December carries major risks for everyone. It would be a tragedy if old wounds were reopened between the UK and the Republic and within Northern Ireland. From both governments, and the EU negotiators, now is a time for statesmanship, not brinkmanship.
On topic: John McDonnell fully deserves to be humiliated by interviewers. We need more such humiliation, not less. Not only is he an extremely nasty piece of work, he is also proposing to wreck the British economy:
Note the chilling last paragraph. That is the language of populist despotism, stoking up discontent so that ogres can be blamed. Jews, and especially Jewish bankers,were the most fruitful source of ogres blamed by McDonnell's predecessors in Europe and the US in the last century. It's only a small change of terminology to blame 'banks and hedge funds' - the latter being especially handy, since hardly anyone knows what a hedge fund is. And blaming 'profiteers' isn't even a change at all - it's straight out of the 1930s.
It's like McDonnell is literally Hitler. Except it isn't. It's more like the Tories who used to complain Gordon Brown did not regulate the banks are now complaining McDonnell proposes to regulate the banks. Maybe it is the previous paragraph that is scary: where Labour says it will do what the CBI and FSB have been calling for. Or perhaps we should all just tone down the rhetoric.
On topic, I think the interview adequately exposed how full of shit the guy was, and it's a little bit astonishing that the British have somehow got themselves to a place where he is the alternative Chancellor, but it shouldn't have taken a whole gang of people all shooting into the same barrel.
The most devastating interviewer I've ever seen is Akira Ikegami. Japanese interviewers tend to be very deferential, but Ikegami's schtick is that he comes over like a teacher asking questions on behalf of a class of children. Sometimes there are children in the studio. This allows him to phrase a question very simply and bluntly while still being immaculately polite, and the unlucky interviewee looks terrible if they try to dance around it, and even worse if they try to attack him for asking the question.
It's a reasonable interview in my opinion, which asked relevant questions and allowed Mr Macdonnell to make his case. That Macdonnell failed to do so, may be to do with his case rather than his articulation of it. Either way, it's up to the interviewee to get it right.
I don't disagree, but I think it would actually have been more devastating if it had only been Neil instead of Neil plus a whole supporting cast, and also if Neil had done a little bit less interrupting (just a bit, he wasn't too bad) and a little bit more STFU. He could have been polite and just kept handing out the rope and it would have left the guy just as dead or deader.
Obama I missed the 5-2, but 5-4 with Paddy looks well worth a bet still, seeing as he congratulated Prince Harry on twitter is good friends and there is no reason to disbelieve this rumour.
On topic: John McDonnell fully deserves to be humiliated by interviewers. We need more such humiliation, not less. Not only is he an extremely nasty piece of work, he is also proposing to wreck the British economy:
Note the chilling last paragraph. That is the language of populist despotism, stoking up discontent so that ogres can be blamed. Jews, and especially Jewish bankers,were the most fruitful source of ogres blamed by McDonnell's predecessors in Europe and the US in the last century. It's only a small change of terminology to blame 'banks and hedge funds' - the latter being especially handy, since hardly anyone knows what a hedge fund is. And blaming 'profiteers' isn't even a change at all - it's straight out of the 1930s.
It's like McDonnell is literally Hitler. Except it isn't. It's more like the Tories who used to complain Gordon Brown did not regulate the banks are now complaining McDonnell proposes to regulate the banks. Maybe it is the previous paragraph that is scary: where Labour says it will do what the CBI and FSB have been calling for. Or perhaps we should all just tone down the rhetoric.
I’d love someone to ask McDonnell how his policy on banks will help young people access mortgages to get on the housing ladder.
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
Actually I think most people who voted for Brexit hoped the EU would be sensible and we'd come to mutually beneficial arrangements... But that was always hope over expectation and most people were actually ready from the start that we'd have to go to WTO rules with no deal - And the fact most people always expected the EU to be vindictive to point of being irrational is the very reason we chose Brexit in the first place.
With their behavior the EU has just confirmed what we already knew to be true.
Mr. P, if Obama wasn't invited to the last one, it's not a snub so much as expected.
Harry's wedding has more leeway on the guests, since he is sixth rather than third (Expected future king, and issue immediately after) in line to the throne.
Mr. P, if Obama wasn't invited to the last one, it's not a snub so much as expected.
Harry's wedding has more leeway on the guests, since he is sixth rather than third (Expected future king, and issue immediately after) in line to the throne.
Yes, after his elder brother produced heirs Harry’s now a minor royal. This will be more like the weddings of Andrew and Edward.
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
Actually I think most people who voted for Brexit hoped the EU would be sensible and we'd come to mutually beneficial arrangements... But that was always hope over expectation and most people were actually ready from the start that we'd have to go to WTO rules with no deal - And the fact most people always expected the EU to be vindictive to point of being irrational is the very reason we chose Brexit in the first place.
With their behavior the EU has just confirmed what we already knew to be true.
For me this reached its zenith when Jacqui Smith was asked five times in succession "How many illegal immigrants that you don't know about are there in the country?"
Comments
That includes welfare reform, which is delivering results in terms of employment, and greater long-term prosperity with - no doubt - some very challenging personal stories involved.
But, their humanity is not in question.
You should try and control your emotions a bit more if you wish others to engage with your arguments more seriously.
As an example of this, Nick Palmer once said that one issue with the Tories is that far too few of them understand just how hard life is for the poorest in society, because so few of them come from that background.
I thought that was a fair comment, and that lesson has stayed with me.
The better analogy is of a child wishing fervently for the keys to the Ferrari (or Mclaren) and being given them.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexit-resurrects-the-english-cult-of-heroic-failure-1.2947706
Fintan O’Toole: Brexit resurrects the English cult of heroic failure
Yet, unheeding of this omen, HMS Brexit sets sail into uncharted waters, confident of finding the, as yet undiscovered, passage to the promised land where you can always have more cake even when you’ve eaten it.
The fundamental difference between freight and passenger operations is that freight is discrete, point-to-point services whereas passenger is best served by an integrated network facilitating countless individual journey options with connections, changes, etc. In addition, on most passenger routes there is, under privatisation, no competition. A national passenger service operator would best serve the interests of the passenger. This is less clearly the case for freight where the current system works better.
My opinions may not match those of the RMT, but I believe they are the majority view in the country.
Yet they won.
Brexit is an exploration into unknown territory, and it is futile
What we know now, that wasn't really clear prior to Brexit, is that the sort of bullshit peddled by the Leave campaign, Corbyn and Trump, is completely impervious to fact, reason, argument or exposure.
Claiming that a campaign of bullshit should have been defeated has been disproven again and again.
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/library/resources/specialcollections/archives/treasures/images/087-big.jpg
That is not an epiphany. An epiphany is when you come to your senses and realise that howling at the moon is pointless. You are stuck in a denial phase, it is time to move on to acceptance. You will sleep better that way.
So I'd have more sympathy with @NickPalmer's point if it weren't people from his party making it so personally unpleasant for people with exactly that sort of background to be Tories.
There are also big issues with private companies trying to operate on a nationalised network with nationalised operators, which is exactly why the EU introduced the rules they did.
I'll look forward for you arguning against anyone calling for "a return to BR"
On the other hand, if the predicated Euro collapse were to happen, our leaving will not shelter us from the adverse consequences.
Mr. B2, indeed not entirely, but if the EU implodes, less damage will be felt by those outside the edifice than those within.
Comedy duo Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders are together again for the first time in 10 years, to mark their 30th anniversary.
Victoria Wood is being celebrated with Our Friend Victoria, which will show clips of the late comedian.
Other shows include Peter Capaldi's final Doctor Who episode.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42142130
Thank god for Netflix.
Freight trains and stopping passenger services cause big problems for high-speed services. Therefore separating them off onto slow lines is good - except there are relatively little four-line track mileage, and much of that capacity is used by stopping passenger trains.
The best option is freight diversion lines, although BR got rid of some of that during the 1970s and 1980s (e.g. March to Spalding) that would be really useful today.
Also, infrastructure operators don't like freight, as the extra weight causes much more damage to the track than even high-speed passenger trains.
Edit: their biggest export markets are not in the inward-looking EU, but in the USA, Middle East and Asia.
The drive for integration is antithetical to our desire, whilst the economic benefits were undoubtedly popular. Hence the great division we now have. However, the EU's undemocratic empire-building will prove its undoing, I suspect.
If EU-phile politicians had paused just once to consider what the electorate might want instead of blithely throwing away half the rebate or vetoes, then we would've been able to indicate our displeasure without going for the nuclear option. Brown reneging upon a manifesto promise for a referendum on Lisbon didn't exactly instil trust in the political class on the EU.
https://medium.com/@somospostpc/tumblr-is-tumbling-d6deb3bb831e
It's purpose was to get a 65/35 vote for Remain, tell Cash/Jenkins/Redwood/Hannan "sorry guys, it's over.", and put the issue to bed for a generation.
What he didn't bank on was the UK being first and becoming the object lesson in why leaving is a bad idea.
Comment of the day, looking at this festive bilge.
Between the two of them, they can design a quantum border for within the island of Ireland.
The most devastating interviewer I've ever seen is Akira Ikegami. Japanese interviewers tend to be very deferential, but Ikegami's schtick is that he comes over like a teacher asking questions on behalf of a class of children. Sometimes there are children in the studio. This allows him to phrase a question very simply and bluntly while still being immaculately polite, and the unlucky interviewee looks terrible if they try to dance around it, and even worse if they try to attack him for asking the question.
They don't want to do this of course because Marxist economics doesn't work.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/27/corbyn-becoming-pm-is-worse-threat-to-british-business-than-brexit-says-bank
Note the chilling last paragraph. That is the language of populist despotism, stoking up discontent so that ogres can be blamed. Jews, and especially Jewish bankers,were the most fruitful source of ogres blamed by McDonnell's predecessors in Europe and the US in the last century. It's only a small change of terminology to blame 'banks and hedge funds' - the latter being especially handy, since hardly anyone knows what a hedge fund is. And blaming 'profiteers' isn't even a change at all - it's straight out of the 1930s.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/27/ireland-miscalculating-asking-impossible-britain-way-brexit/
A failure in December carries major risks for everyone. It would be a tragedy if old wounds were reopened between the UK and the Republic and within Northern Ireland. From both governments, and the EU negotiators, now is a time for statesmanship, not brinkmanship.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/935128549916278785
I missed the 5-2, but 5-4 with Paddy looks well worth a bet still, seeing as he congratulated Prince Harry on twitter is good friends and there is no reason to disbelieve this rumour.
With their behavior the EU has just confirmed what we already knew to be true.
The accountants and financial advisors they used probably liked them a lot as they took commission off millions of investments placed off shore.
Edit: I think that analysis by Morgan Stanley in the link I posted is spot-on BTW.
Having watched the race again on TV it did indeed look crap when viewed through that medium.
Reminds to do a post-season review at some point. Complete with graphs.