Mr. Eagles, but staying would not be under existing terms, would it? It'd mean losing every opt-out we have. Joining Schengen, being on the path for the euro, etc.
If we decide we're staying (an outcome they seem to be getting us wet for) then we're through the looking glass at that point and anything's possible.
Donald Trump has the emotional intelligence of a five year old. He literally behaves like a five year old - rather than like a teenager, for example. On that score he is clearly less intelligent than a normal adult. If Wolff's reports are true that Trump has a habit of retelling the same anecdote several times to the same person within minutes, it suggests he is in the early stages of dementia. He has very little curiosity about people, places and facts. On the other hand he has a high transactional ability and I suspect his IQ is high.
Against other recent presidents, which is maybe a meaningful comparison, I would say he is overall more intelligent than George W Bush and less so than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the reason why we are discussing this and the poll was taken, is Donald Trump own claims to unusual intelligence.
On Carillion, the facilities services part should be an OK business on its own or sold off to a competitor. The construction side is a mess and will result in some very large bills for the taxpayer.
Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success
Anyhoo, this is today’s major news, Boris wants us to remain in the EU.
Boris has told confidantes that still having to accept dictats from Brussels would leave the UK as “just another Norway” and the nationwide vote’s landmark result would have proved “a total waste of time”.
In that soft Brexit scenario, the mop-haired Tory boss has even claimed to pals: “I’d rather us stay in than leave like that”
It's well known that most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence. The extremes in politics certainly do.
An example ... the famous Jim Hacker phrase ..."The Guardian is read by those who think they should rule the country" is true, and that's because they do believe they have superior intellect. Having a large majority of Remainers in their ranks exacerbates the situation. Assuming they automatically know better, they will naturally believe their opinions must be right.
I thought the report of families falling out over the referendum weird. My wife and I walked to the polling booth to cast contradictory votes. Kids split evenly too but it's a source of amusement only. Some things are far more important than politics.
If you want to have an argument across the generations then do this calculation:
5 + 2 x 8 = ?
And if you want to see how technology has changed then try it on a pocket or computer calculator and then on a mobile phone calculator.
21. BODMAS. iPhone agrees with me.
While the iPhone does indeed surprisingly get it 'right', it's all ludicrous. Only a fool would pose an equation that could be interpreted more than one way depending on the generation of the solver and/or the device he is solving it on. The wise setter uses brackets:
5 + (2x8) =
or
(2x8) + 5 =
leave no room for ambiguity.
+1
When I program, I always add the parentheses to make clear the operator precedence. It's better for a number of reasons: it makes what is wanted clear, can make it easier to split things up, and eases conversion between different languages.
Anyhoo, this is today’s major news, Boris wants us to remain in the EU.
Boris has told confidantes that still having to accept dictats from Brussels would leave the UK as “just another Norway” and the nationwide vote’s landmark result would have proved “a total waste of time”.
In that soft Brexit scenario, the mop-haired Tory boss has even claimed to pals: “I’d rather us stay in than leave like that”
It's well known that most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence. The extremes in politics certainly do.
An example ... the famous Jim Hacker phrase ..."The Guardian is read by those who think they should rule the country" is true, and that's because they do believe they have superior intellect. Having a large majority of Remainers in their ranks exacerbates the situation. Assuming they automatically know better, they will naturally believe their opinions must be right.
I thought the report of families falling out over the referendum weird. My wife and I walked to the polling booth to cast contradictory votes. Kids split evenly too but it's a source of amusement only. Some things are far more important than politics.
If you want to have an argument across the generations then do this calculation:
5 + 2 x 8 = ?
And if you want to see how technology has changed then try it on a pocket or computer calculator and then on a mobile phone calculator.
21. BODMAS. iPhone agrees with me.
While the iPhone does indeed surprisingly get it 'right', it's all ludicrous. Only a fool would pose an equation that could be interpreted more than one way depending on the generation of the solver and/or the device he is solving it on. The wise setter uses brackets:
5 + (2x8) =
or
(2x8) + 5 =
leave no room for ambiguity.
+1
When I program, I always add the parentheses to make clear the operator precedence. It's better for a number of reasons: it makes what is wanted clear, can make it easier to split things up, and eases conversion between different languages.
Mr. Eagles, but staying would not be under existing terms, would it? It'd mean losing every opt-out we have. Joining Schengen, being on the path for the euro, etc.
If we decide we're staying (an outcome they seem to be getting us wet for) then we're through the looking glass at that point and anything's possible.
My view, for whatever that is worth (probably little), is that were we to officially change our mind, the EU would allow us to stay on existing terms. They have no desire to break up the EU by cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
I'd be very surprised if Donald Trump did not possess an above average intelligence. He's been successful in business (albeit in an industry that rewarded leverage over smarts), he went to Wharton Business School, and he became President of the United States. It would be surprising indeed if he was not in the top 10% of people by intelligence.
With that said, I watched the hour long meeting between President Trump and the Congressional leadership on immigration. On a number of occasions, he seemed to forget what he'd said minutes before. It was unsettling.
The thousands of suppliers he has left unpaid because of his businesses failing may beg to differ on your business acumen contention.
Their failure to get paid reflects on their lack of business acumen. They should never have allowed a single customer to become vital to their own success.
It's well known that most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence. The extremes in politics certainly do.
An example ... the famous Jim Hacker phrase ..."The Guardian is read by those who think they should rule the country" is true, and that's because they do believe they have superior intellect. Having a large majority of Remainers in their ranks exacerbates the situation. Assuming they automatically know better, they will naturally believe their opinions must be right.
I thought the report of families falling out over the referendum weird. My wife and I walked to the polling booth to cast contradictory votes. Kids split evenly too but it's a source of amusement only. Some things are far more important than politics.
If you want to have an argument across the generations then do this calculation:
5 + 2 x 8 = ?
And if you want to see how technology has changed then try it on a pocket or computer calculator and then on a mobile phone calculator.
21. BODMAS. iPhone agrees with me.
While the iPhone does indeed surprisingly get it 'right', it's all ludicrous. Only a fool would pose an equation that could be interpreted more than one way depending on the generation of the solver and/or the device he is solving it on. The wise setter uses brackets:
5 + (2x8) =
or
(2x8) + 5 =
leave no room for ambiguity.
Oh indeed. The question was deliberately ambiguous, I was genuinely surprised the phone got it right, most calculators calculate the sum as soon as you press another operator key so it would do (5+2)*8 = 56.
Disagree with most of what Cable says, but he said something I agree with the other day, namely that it's (I paraphrase) daft to have so many state services provided by a single private company because then, if that private company enters difficulty, it puts the government in a very problematic position.
Donald Trump has the emotional intelligence of a five year old. He literally behaves like a five year old - rather than like a teenager, for example. On that score he is clearly less intelligent than a normal adult. If Wolff's reports are true that Trump has a habit of retelling the same anecdote several times to the same person within minutes, it suggests he is in the early stages of dementia. He has very little curiosity about people, places and facts. On the other hand he has a high transactional ability and I suspect his IQ is high.
Against other recent presidents, which is maybe a meaningful comparison, I would say he is overall more intelligent than George W Bush and less so than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the reason why we are discussing this and the poll was taken, is Donald Trump own claims to unusual intelligence.
On Carillion, the facilities services part should be an OK business on its own or sold off to a competitor. The construction side is a mess and will result in some very large bills for the taxpayer.
Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success
What evidence is there for Carter's intelligence being so high? Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a Rhodes Scholar. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review. Both of those suggest high academic intelligence. Carter went to Georgia Tech, which while a perfectly good school, is hardly top tier. Nor did he - if Wikipedia is any guide - gain any particular academic plaudits.
It's well known that most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence. The extremes in politics certainly do.
An example ... the famous Jim Hacker phrase ..."The Guardian is read by those who think they should rule the country" is true, and that's because they do believe they have superior intellect. Having a large majority of Remainers in their ranks exacerbates the situation. Assuming they automatically know better, they will naturally believe their opinions must be right.
I thought the report of families falling out over the referendum weird. My wife and I walked to the polling booth to cast contradictory votes. Kids split evenly too but it's a source of amusement only. Some things are far more important than politics.
If you want to have an argument across the generations then do this calculation:
5 + 2 x 8 = ?
And if you want to see how technology has changed then try it on a pocket or computer calculator and then on a mobile phone calculator.
21. BODMAS. iPhone agrees with me.
While the iPhone does indeed surprisingly get it 'right', it's all ludicrous. Only a fool would pose an equation that could be interpreted more than one way depending on the generation of the solver and/or the device he is solving it on. The wise setter uses brackets:
5 + (2x8) =
or
(2x8) + 5 =
leave no room for ambiguity.
+1
When I program, I always add the parentheses to make clear the operator precedence. It's better for a number of reasons: it makes what is wanted clear, can make it easier to split things up, and eases conversion between different languages.
I once had a job doing QA on a bunch of sales reports from a point of sale stock system, that a customer complained didn’t add up. Turned out that the program put the brackets in a different place from that assumed by the developer. Was a bloody nightmare to go through all the sums in the program and validate them - because it was so sloppy to begin with!
This will go down in the histories as one of the classic PR screw-ups.
A simple commercial decision to drop a slow-selling newspaper in favour of better sellers is weeks later dressed up as a classic piece of virtue signalling. Leading to endless PR firefighting and ultimately the re-stocking of a slow seller.....
It's well known that most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence. The extremes in politics certainly do.
An example ... the famous Jim Hacker phrase ..."The Guardian is read by those who think they should rule the country" is true, and that's because they do believe they have superior intellect. Having a large majority of Remainers in their ranks exacerbates the situation. Assuming they automatically know better, they will naturally believe their opinions must be right.
I thought the report of families falling out over the referendum weird. My wife and I walked to the polling booth to cast contradictory votes. Kids split evenly too but it's a source of amusement only. Some things are far more important than politics.
If you want to have an argument across the generations then do this calculation:
5 + 2 x 8 = ?
And if you want to see how technology has changed then try it on a pocket or computer calculator and then on a mobile phone calculator.
21. BODMAS. iPhone agrees with me.
While the iPhone does indeed surprisingly get it 'right', it's all ludicrous. Only a fool would pose an equation that could be interpreted more than one way depending on the generation of the solver and/or the device he is solving it on. The wise setter uses brackets:
5 + (2x8) =
or
(2x8) + 5 =
leave no room for ambiguity.
It's not a generational thing at all - when I was at school over 50 years ago the answer was 21 because of BODMAS. And good quality calculators have always given the right answer - it's only cheapo models that might tell you 56.
Having said that, I do agree that a few extra brackets never did any harm.
PS Just tried the calculator on my computer and on my Android phone, and both give the correct answer I'm pleased to say.
It's well known that most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence. The extremes in politics certainly do.
An example ... the famous Jim Hacker phrase ..."The Guardian is read by those who think they should rule the country" is true, and that's because they do believe they have superior intellect. Having a large majority of Remainers in their ranks exacerbates the situation. Assuming they automatically know better, they will naturally believe their opinions must be right.
I thought the report of families falling out over the referendum weird. My wife and I walked to the polling booth to cast contradictory votes. Kids split evenly too but it's a source of amusement only. Some things are far more important than politics.
If you want to have an argument across the generations then do this calculation:
5 + 2 x 8 = ?
And if you want to see how technology has changed then try it on a pocket or computer calculator and then on a mobile phone calculator.
21. BODMAS. iPhone agrees with me.
While the iPhone does indeed surprisingly get it 'right', it's all ludicrous. Only a fool would pose an equation that could be interpreted more than one way depending on the generation of the solver and/or the device he is solving it on. The wise setter uses brackets:
5 + (2x8) =
or
(2x8) + 5 =
leave no room for ambiguity.
+1
When I program, I always add the parentheses to make clear the operator precedence. It's better for a number of reasons: it makes what is wanted clear, can make it easier to split things up, and eases conversion between different languages.
I always overload my operators to make sure that people looking over my shoulder can't work out what I'm doing.
Donald Trump has the emotional intelligence of a five year old. He literally behaves like a five year old - rather than like a teenager, for example. On that score he is clearly less intelligent than a normal adult. If Wolff's reports are true that Trump has a habit of retelling the same anecdote several times to the same person within minutes, it suggests he is in the early stages of dementia. He has very little curiosity about people, places and facts. On the other hand he has a high transactional ability and I suspect his IQ is high.
Against other recent presidents, which is maybe a meaningful comparison, I would say he is overall more intelligent than George W Bush and less so than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the reason why we are discussing this and the poll was taken, is Donald Trump own claims to unusual intelligence.
On Carillion, the facilities services part should be an OK business on its own or sold off to a competitor. The construction side is a mess and will result in some very large bills for the taxpayer.
Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success
What evidence is there for Carter's intelligence being so high? Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a Rhodes Scholar. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review. Both of those suggest high academic intelligence. Carter went to Georgia Tech, which while a perfectly good school, is hardly top tier. Nor did he - if Wikipedia is any guide - gain any particular academic plaudits.
Yes, but Clinton and Obama were posh boys, so it's there birthright to get into the top places. Carter grew peanuts.
Mr. 43, Trump just had his first medical as president (brought in after Reagan, I think, to avoid the problems of a president who was losing himself to Alzheimer's or similar). If there is something there, it should show up.
It's well known that most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence. The extremes in politics certainly do.
An example ... the famous Jim Hacker phrase ..."The Guardian is read by those who think they should rule the country" is true, and that's because they do believe they have superior intellect. Having a large majority of Remainers in their ranks exacerbates the situation. Assuming they automatically know better, they will naturally believe their opinions must be right.
I thought the report of families falling out over the referendum weird. My wife and I walked to the polling booth to cast contradictory votes. Kids split evenly too but it's a source of amusement only. Some things are far more important than politics.
If you want to have an argument across the generations then do this calculation:
5 + 2 x 8 = ?
And if you want to see how technology has changed then try it on a pocket or computer calculator and then on a mobile phone calculator.
21. BODMAS. iPhone agrees with me.
While the iPhone does indeed surprisingly get it 'right', it's all ludicrous. Only a fool would pose an equation that could be interpreted more than one way depending on the generation of the solver and/or the device he is solving it on. The wise setter uses brackets:
5 + (2x8) =
or
(2x8) + 5 =
leave no room for ambiguity.
It's not a generational thing at all - when I was at school over 50 years ago the answer was 21 because of BODMAS. And good quality calculators have always given the right answer - it's only cheapo models that might tell you 56.
Having said that, I do agree that a few extra brackets never did any harm.
PS Just tried the calculator on my computer and on my Android phone, and both give the correct answer I'm pleased to say.
It's well known that most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence. The extremes in politics certainly do.
An example ... the famous Jim Hacker phrase ..."The Guardian is read by those who think they should rule the country" is true, and that's because they do believe they have superior intellect. Having a large majority of Remainers in their ranks exacerbates the situation. Assuming they automatically know better, they will naturally believe their opinions must be right.
I thought the report of families falling out over the referendum weird. My wife and I walked to the polling booth to cast contradictory votes. Kids split evenly too but it's a source of amusement only. Some things are far more important than politics.
If you want to have an argument across the generations then do this calculation:
5 + 2 x 8 = ?
And if you want to see how technology has changed then try it on a pocket or computer calculator and then on a mobile phone calculator.
21. BODMAS. iPhone agrees with me.
While the iPhone does indeed surprisingly get it 'right', it's all ludicrous. Only a fool would pose an equation that could be interpreted more than one way depending on the generation of the solver and/or the device he is solving it on. The wise setter uses brackets:
5 + (2x8) =
or
(2x8) + 5 =
leave no room for ambiguity.
+1
When I program, I always add the parentheses to make clear the operator precedence. It's better for a number of reasons: it makes what is wanted clear, can make it easier to split things up, and eases conversion between different languages.
I always overload my operators to make sure that people looking over my shoulder can't work out what I'm doing.
Mr. Eagles, but staying would not be under existing terms, would it? It'd mean losing every opt-out we have. Joining Schengen, being on the path for the euro, etc.
If we decide we're staying (an outcome they seem to be getting us wet for) then we're through the looking glass at that point and anything's possible.
My view, for whatever that is worth (probably little), is that were we to officially change our mind, the EU would allow us to stay on existing terms. They have no desire to break up the EU by cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
Legally it depends purely on when we make the decision. If we revoke Article 50, the existing treaties will stand. Politically, once we've failed to Brexit, the argument for joining the Euro gets much stronger.
Or go right to bottom, select all topics > B > Boxing.
But I can't see it anywhere on the Sports section, is that right?
Nor can I but I did not look very hard as if it were obvious, you wouldn't be asking. You could contact them and ask if this is an accidental side-effect of the redesign or whether they are dropping boxing.
Disagree with most of what Cable says, but he said something I agree with the other day, namely that it's (I paraphrase) daft to have so many state services provided by a single private company because then, if that private company enters difficulty, it puts the government in a very problematic position.
A significant percentage of these deals seem to have been motivated by idea (TM Gordon Brown) of keeping the associated borrowing off the national balance sheet.
Not a particularly compelling rationale, as events have proved.
And people try to say the media has less influence these days. The fact so many people have been persuaded by what are loosely called comedians and other "entertainers" that the President of the US is really stupid, just because he says what seem to be stupid things is downright depressing.
The man has serious personality flaws and is more than somewhat a stranger to the truth. He seems to have highly questionable judgment and a certain lack of coherence or consistency. In my view, as a non voter of course, he is not fit to be POTUS. But he is very far from stupid.
Or go right to bottom, select all topics > B > Boxing.
But I can't see it anywhere on the Sports section, is that right?
Nor can I but I did not look very hard as if it were obvious, you wouldn't be asking. You could contact them and ask if this is an accidental side-effect of the redesign or whether they are dropping boxing.
I emailed them a week or so ago, heard nothing. It's just not anywhere on the sports section. I can't believe it's an oversight, probably something to do with their "values".
Donald Trump has the emotional intelligence of a five year old. He literally behaves like a five year old - rather than like a teenager, for example. On that score he is clearly less intelligent than a normal adult. If Wolff's reports are true that Trump has a habit of retelling the same anecdote several times to the same person within minutes, it suggests he is in the early stages of dementia. He has very little curiosity about people, places and facts. On the other hand he has a high transactional ability and I suspect his IQ is high.
Against other recent presidents, which is maybe a meaningful comparison, I would say he is overall more intelligent than George W Bush and less so than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the reason why we are discussing this and the poll was taken, is Donald Trump own claims to unusual intelligence.
On Carillion, the facilities services part should be an OK business on its own or sold off to a competitor. The construction side is a mess and will result in some very large bills for the taxpayer.
Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success
What evidence is there for Carter's intelligence being so high? Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a Rhodes Scholar. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review. Both of those suggest high academic intelligence. Carter went to Georgia Tech, which while a perfectly good school, is hardly top tier. Nor did he - if Wikipedia is any guide - gain any particular academic plaudits.
Yes, but Clinton and Obama were posh boys, so it's there birthright to get into the top places. Carter grew peanuts.
It's a bit of a stretch to call either Clinton or Obama a posh boy. They were and are just very smart. There's no harm in that. Trump is also smart. But that doesn't make him clever.
Trump isn't stupid. He may say stupid things, but politicians of all shapes and sizes do that depending on what other peoplw want to hear.
As said, there is an increasingly ugly tendency to think that people which you disagree with are stupid. It's a clear form of bigotry. I think most people have it to a certain degree, and its a natural response, but people should do their best to supress it.
Yes indeed. Trump is often so unpleasant and can often say things that sound stupid, that it can be hard to suppress.
I'd be very surprised if Donald Trump did not possess an above average intelligence. He's been successful in business (albeit in an industry that rewarded leverage over smarts), he went to Wharton Business School, and he became President of the United States. It would be surprising indeed if he was not in the top 10% of people by intelligence.
With that said, I watched the hour long meeting between President Trump and the Congressional leadership on immigration. On a number of occasions, he seemed to forget what he'd said minutes before. It was unsettling.
I don’t think he has been that successful in business. Obviously he’s had a fair few bankruptcies and been helped out hugely by his father.
Didn’t someone point out that if he’d just taken his inherited fortune and put it in the stock market he’d have more money than he does now?
I agree he probably is above average intelligence though.
Disagree with most of what Cable says, but he said something I agree with the other day, namely that it's (I paraphrase) daft to have so many state services provided by a single private company because then, if that private company enters difficulty, it puts the government in a very problematic position.
I don't see why if it fails - as it has - the government can't just set up a new company (or more than one company) that takes on all the delivering bits of the old one and then, once it's stable, floats it off - preferably as a new independent but to another buyer if necessary. Keeping the project knowledge together is surely critical to delivery?
Interesting comments on R5 live this morning. The government asked public bodies dealing with Carillion to make contingency plans for a possible insolvency last June. Many, such as Oxfordshire, seem to have responded by winding up contracts with the firm. It is very likely that many finance departments will have hesitated to make payments to a company all too likely to default on its contractual obligations giving rise to offset and damages claims. When you get to that stage the chicken and egg debate becomes pretty meaningless.
Former staff also extremely uncomplimentary about the management and integrity of the company's internal systems. It seems less surprising in light of all that that the company has ended up in liquidation rather than administration.
David Lidington was on Today with the Humf. Slightly tricky wicket but I was unimpressed. If he is now Minister for the Today program the government is going to struggle to get its message over. He sounded pompous, vague and just a tad unsure of himself.
Donald Trump has the emotional intelligence of a five year old. He literally behaves like a five year old - rather than like a teenager, for example. On that score he is clearly less intelligent than a normal adult. If Wolff's reports are true that Trump has a habit of retelling the same anecdote several times to the same person within minutes, it suggests he is in the early stages of dementia. He has very little curiosity about people, places and facts. On the other hand he has a high transactional ability and I suspect his IQ is high.
Against other recent presidents, which is maybe a meaningful comparison, I would say he is overall more intelligent than George W Bush and less so than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But the reason why we are discussing this and the poll was taken, is Donald Trump own claims to unusual intelligence.
On Carillion, the facilities services part should be an OK business on its own or sold off to a competitor. The construction side is a mess and will result in some very large bills for the taxpayer.
Nixon was probably the brightest post-war President alongside Carter, neither were a great success
What evidence is there for Carter's intelligence being so high? Bill Clinton, for all his faults, was a Rhodes Scholar. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review. Both of those suggest high academic intelligence. Carter went to Georgia Tech, which while a perfectly good school, is hardly top tier. Nor did he - if Wikipedia is any guide - gain any particular academic plaudits.
Yes, but Clinton and Obama were posh boys, so it's there birthright to get into the top places. Carter grew peanuts.
It's a bit of a stretch to call either Clinton or Obama a posh boy. They were and are just very smart. There's no harm in that. Trump is also smart. But that doesn't make him clever.
Clinton grew up poor in Arkansas with an absent alcoholic father I think.
Interesting comments on R5 live this morning. The government asked public bodies dealing with Carillion to make contingency plans for a possible insolvency last June. Many, such as Oxfordshire, seem to have responded by winding up contracts with the firm. It is very likely that many finance departments will have hesitated to make payments to a company all too likely to default on its contractual obligations giving rise to offset and damages claims. When you get to that stage the chicken and egg debate becomes pretty meaningless.
Former staff also extremely uncomplimentary about the management and integrity of the company's internal systems. It seems less surprising in light of all that that the company has ended up in liquidation rather than administration.
David Lidington was on Today with the Humf. Slightly tricky wicket but I was unimpressed. If he is now Minister for the Today program the government is going to struggle to get its message over. He sounded pompous, vague and just a tad unsure of himself.
Meanwhile Rebecca L-B, while economically illiterate, sounded very impressive.
Then again, as you say, it is tricky to say the least. The govt gave them £2bn of contracts after their profit warning, while of course not to have given them the contracts might have hastened their demise.
RLB certainly didn't seem to understand the concept of moral hazard and I'm disappointed that Humphreys didn't ask her about it. Then again, she did point out that there were some processes that the govt might not have followed in these circumstances.
But as I said, she sounded confident, on top of her brief, and convincing.
Presumably he will have to take the Chiltern Hundreds, won't he? Doesn't that mean he will have to take a position from the Crown. Should an Irish republican be doing that?
Disagree with most of what Cable says, but he said something I agree with the other day, namely that it's (I paraphrase) daft to have so many state services provided by a single private company because then, if that private company enters difficulty, it puts the government in a very problematic position.
I don't see why if it fails - as it has - the government can't just set up a new company (or more than one company) that takes on all the delivering bits of the old one and then, once it's stable, floats it off - preferably as a new independent but to another buyer if necessary. Keeping the project knowledge together is surely critical to delivery?
The standard way is for the liquidators to seek buyers for sections of the failed company and sell off the more profitable parts that others wish to buy, possibly by auction. There is nothing stopping the govt (or Carillion's competitors) from buying whole sections of the business at a knock-down price.
Since the govt may be a major creditor it can simply buy the sections it owes payment to for £1. Also HMRC will be involved and they often come higher up the list of interested parties.
Interesting comments on R5 live this morning. The government asked public bodies dealing with Carillion to make contingency plans for a possible insolvency last June. Many, such as Oxfordshire, seem to have responded by winding up contracts with the firm. It is very likely that many finance departments will have hesitated to make payments to a company all too likely to default on its contractual obligations giving rise to offset and damages claims. When you get to that stage the chicken and egg debate becomes pretty meaningless.
Former staff also extremely uncomplimentary about the management and integrity of the company's internal systems. It seems less surprising in light of all that that the company has ended up in liquidation rather than administration.
David Lidington was on Today with the Humf. Slightly tricky wicket but I was unimpressed. If he is now Minister for the Today program the government is going to struggle to get its message over. He sounded pompous, vague and just a tad unsure of himself.
Meanwhile Rebecca L-B, while economically illiterate, sounded very impressive.
Then again, as you say, it is tricky to say the least. The govt gave them £2bn of contracts after their profit warning, while of course not to have given them the contracts might have hastened their demise.
RLB certainly didn't seem to understand the concept of moral hazard and I'm disappointed that Humphreys didn't ask her about it. Then again, she did point out that there were some processes that the govt might not have followed in these circumstances.
But as I said, she sounded confident, on top of her brief, and convincing.
I didn't hear her but with something like this it is always easier to ask awkward questions than to justify what you have done. Lidington's explanations of what he had done bordered on the incoherent and were extremely difficult to follow.
Presumably he will have to take the Chiltern Hundreds, won't he? Doesn't that mean he will have to take a position from the Crown. Should an Irish republican be doing that?
Carillion going bust and not being bailed out is a good thing - in the medium/long term.
Unsuccessful businesses should be allowed to fail.
RBS should have been allowed to go under too - would have set a good example.
If RBS had gone bust in an uncontrolled way, there could well have been a revolution within a week. There's a good chance that the entire retail banking system would have seized up, electronic payments would have ceased, ATMs would have stopped paying out and the movement of goods would have ground to a halt. The practical consequences of that are profound.
Mr. Eagles, but staying would not be under existing terms, would it? It'd mean losing every opt-out we have. Joining Schengen, being on the path for the euro, etc.
If we decide we're staying (an outcome they seem to be getting us wet for) then we're through the looking glass at that point and anything's possible.
My view, for whatever that is worth (probably little), is that were we to officially change our mind, the EU would allow us to stay on existing terms. They have no desire to break up the EU by cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
Legally it depends purely on when we make the decision. If we revoke Article 50, the existing treaties will stand. Politically, once we've failed to Brexit, the argument for joining the Euro gets much stronger.
If we remain in or rejoin after all this palaver, we should be all in.
Although given it is still only supposition we can revoke A50, speaking definitively of what the legal position is re on what terms we could stay in is less important than politics I'd guess.
Mr. Eagles, but staying would not be under existing terms, would it? It'd mean losing every opt-out we have. Joining Schengen, being on the path for the euro, etc.
If we decide we're staying (an outcome they seem to be getting us wet for) then we're through the looking glass at that point and anything's possible.
My view, for whatever that is worth (probably little), is that were we to officially change our mind, the EU would allow us to stay on existing terms. They have no desire to break up the EU by cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
Legally it depends purely on when we make the decision. If we revoke Article 50, the existing treaties will stand. Politically, once we've failed to Brexit, the argument for joining the Euro gets much stronger.
If we remain in or rejoin after all this palaver, we should be all in.
Although given it is still only supposition we can revoke A50, speaking definitively of what the legal position is re on what terms we could stay in is less important than politics I'd guess.
First, I don't think we will rejoin. We Brits are funny like that; happy to cut our noses to spite our faces, it was ever thus.
Secondly, if (IF) we do go back in we should push for Dave's deal. I think we would have a fighting chance of getting it, albeit I don't think we could as a nation stomach the humiliation.
Presumably he will have to take the Chiltern Hundreds, won't he? Doesn't that mean he will have to take a position from the Crown. Should an Irish republican be doing that?
They have before - Gerry Adams did. (IIRC, technically, they don't have to accept it - it's the mere appointment that disqualifies someone from sitting as an MP. This would give an unscrupulous chancellor an amusing way of getting rid of rivals).
However, it is ridiculous that the nonsense of Chiltern Hundreds and Northstead Manorships matters in the 21st century. Members of the Lords can resign; members of the Commons should be able to too.
In our company we have had some dealings with Carillion. They are a terrible company and terrible payers. They would do anything to delay payment. They were also Health & Safety freaks, more interested in stopping you working for some bizarre Health & Safety reason than getting the job done. They took a number of local firms down by not paying them. Therefore we have not done any business with them for a few years. I think there is a high level of criminality amongst the directors.
In my experience, Currystar, when a firm is slow to pay, it is in money trouble.
I recently posted a note on here indicating how slowly I and a good friend had been paid out by Betway. Any punters here who have an account should take note.
Just to work for them you had to accept 90 day terms, you would normally get paid after 180 days
They officially moved to 120 days some months back.
So Carillion were getting paid straight away by the Government, then did not pay their suppliers for 120 days, yet have gone bust owing billions. Im sure some of the Directors have trousered plenty.
You're quite right. As always follow the money. Look at the records on companies house and the interlocked directors and look at the common company registration agents. That tells you the real story.
It has to be said that Henry Bolton is having a next level midlife crisis.
I fear it's an end-of-political-life crisis.
Good, I was getting antsy without a ukip leadership contest around. Farage is suddenly back in the UK after what feels like months of globe trotting, he could have another go.
The American psychs are having a field day with Trump.It's a question of his disassociative personality disorder not his IQ which is the main cause for concern,although,with someone with sociopathic disorders,being thick means they are easier to manage.Basically,he is out of touch with reality because his empathy neurons are not connected to his dendrites and he thinks he is the starring host of a reality TV show playing the role of POTUS.Think Big Brother Trump style.Whether he is declared medically unfit under the constitution will be mightily difficult as USA pychs have as many views as there are pyschs and personality disorder/sociopathy/psychopathology are not generally viewed as coming within the legal definition of "mental illness",certainly under current UK mental health law-it's a huge grey area still.
Presumably he will have to take the Chiltern Hundreds, won't he? Doesn't that mean he will have to take a position from the Crown. Should an Irish republican be doing that?
Gerry Adams did.
Sinn Fein have no objection to taking money from the Crown: they accept their Parliamentary salaries after all. No doubt they rationalize it as taking back some small part of the tax tevenues that the British illegitimately collect in NI.
Verulamius, yeah, I was checking the Wikipedia page too. Markets might revolve around exceeding 50% for Sinn Fein or 25% for the DUP.
If people are really pissed about the power-sharing situation and/or want to give Sinn Fein a kicking over the reason for the resignation it *might* cause a larger shift, but I really don't know much about Northern Irish politics. Good topic for a thread, though.
Presumably he will have to take the Chiltern Hundreds, won't he? Doesn't that mean he will have to take a position from the Crown. Should an Irish republican be doing that?
They have before - Gerry Adams did. (IIRC, technically, they don't have to accept it - it's the mere appointment that disqualifies someone from sitting as an MP. This would give an unscrupulous chancellor an amusing way of getting rid of rivals).
However, it is ridiculous that the nonsense of Chiltern Hundreds and Northstead Manorships matters in the 21st century. Members of the Lords can resign; members of the Commons should be able to too.
Well as you point out, it doesn't matter as they can resign as in the Adams situation his resignation letter was taken as a request to be so appointed.
Therefore, it is a harmless quirk. Yes, it's now silly, but it's a legal fiction, who cares? Since there's a way around it there's no need to update the rules since it causes no problems.
Resigning the Commons is now just called taking the Chiltern hundreds etc, its just a term.
It would be nice to have some calibration of the question - ask whether voters think May or Corbyn is above or below average, and split by VI to see if the answers reflect anything more than tribalism.
Of UK party leaders in my time, I'd rate everyone highly intelligent except Ashdown and Corbyn - both about average - and IDS - well below.
Carillion going bust and not being bailed out is a good thing - in the medium/long term.
Unsuccessful businesses should be allowed to fail.
RBS should have been allowed to go under too - would have set a good example.
If RBS had gone bust in an uncontrolled way, there could well have been a revolution within a week. There's a good chance that the entire retail banking system would have seized up, electronic payments would have ceased, ATMs would have stopped paying out and the movement of goods would have ground to a halt. The practical consequences of that are profound.
Was it Mao, Marx or Lenin who said "No society is more than three meals from revolution?
Verulamius, yeah, I was checking the Wikipedia page too. Markets might revolve around exceeding 50% for Sinn Fein or 25% for the DUP.
If people are really pissed about the power-sharing situation and/or want to give Sinn Fein a kicking over the reason for the resignation it *might* cause a larger shift, but I really don't know much about Northern Irish politics. Good topic for a thread, though.
From what I gather SF are doing fine out of all this.
Mr. Eagles, but staying would not be under existing terms, would it? It'd mean losing every opt-out we have. Joining Schengen, being on the path for the euro, etc.
If we decide we're staying (an outcome they seem to be getting us wet for) then we're through the looking glass at that point and anything's possible.
My view, for whatever that is worth (probably little), is that were we to officially change our mind, the EU would allow us to stay on existing terms. They have no desire to break up the EU by cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
Legally it depends purely on when we make the decision. If we revoke Article 50, the existing treaties will stand. Politically, once we've failed to Brexit, the argument for joining the Euro gets much stronger.
If we remain in or rejoin after all this palaver, we should be all in.
Although given it is still only supposition we can revoke A50, speaking definitively of what the legal position is re on what terms we could stay in is less important than politics I'd guess.
I agree about being "all in", but the smarter option is a phased transition. Back in on current terms, rebate to be phased out in the next EU budget cycle (2021???) , Schengen in 5 years, Euro in 10 years after the bulk of the "Leave" vote has departed this mortal coil.
Someone resigning because they did something very stupid? Now that is unusual.
One situation where the Gov happy for another SF MP to be elected I'd say, rather than the alternative i assume.
Sinn Fein achieved over 50% of the vote in 2017, so a safe seat I would presume?
I'd assume so. NI is its own beast, but it seems improbable therefore that the SDLP will benefit, or for a republican split so severe, along with low turnout, for the DUP to snatch it.
In our company we have had some dealings with Carillion. They are a terrible company and terrible payers. They would do anything to delay payment. They were also Health & Safety freaks, more interested in stopping you working for some bizarre Health & Safety reason than getting the job done. They took a number of local firms down by not paying them. Therefore we have not done any business with them for a few years. I think there is a high level of criminality amongst the directors.
In my experience, Currystar, when a firm is slow to pay, it is in money trouble.
I recently posted a note on here indicating how slowly I and a good friend had been paid out by Betway. Any punters here who have an account should take note.
Just to work for them you had to accept 90 day terms, you would normally get paid after 180 days
They officially moved to 120 days some months back.
So Carillion were getting paid straight away by the Government, then did not pay their suppliers for 120 days, yet have gone bust owing billions. Im sure some of the Directors have trousered plenty.
You're quite right. As always follow the money. Look at the records on companies house and the interlocked directors and look at the common company registration agents. That tells you the real story.
For those of us who don't have the time for such digging, why not just tell us the story ?
It would be nice to have some calibration of the question - ask whether voters think May or Corbyn is above or below average, and split by VI to see if the answers reflect anything more than tribalism.
Even the most ardent of the May dickriders (of which there are few on here) would struggle to describe her as exceptionally intelligent.
Corbyn isn't even worth discussing. He is quite obviously and unequivocally as thick as shit.
The American psychs are having a field day with Trump.It's a question of his disassociative personality disorder not his IQ which is the main cause for concern,although,with someone with sociopathic disorders,being thick means they are easier to manage.Basically,he is out of touch with reality because his empathy neurons are not connected to his dendrites and he thinks he is the starring host of a reality TV show playing the role of POTUS.Think Big Brother Trump style.Whether he is declared medically unfit under the constitution will be mightily difficult as USA pychs have as many views as there are pyschs and personality disorder/sociopathy/psychopathology are not generally viewed as coming within the legal definition of "mental illness",certainly under current UK mental health law-it's a huge grey area still.
Some Republicans might prefer a compliant President Trump who has no real policy ideas aside from blaming foreigners, Democrats or both for whatever injustice he has just seen on television, than a President Pence with his own agenda. It was suggested this is why Reagan was allowed a second term rather than being replaced by Bush Sr.
Verulamius, yeah, I was checking the Wikipedia page too. Markets might revolve around exceeding 50% for Sinn Fein or 25% for the DUP.
If people are really pissed about the power-sharing situation and/or want to give Sinn Fein a kicking over the reason for the resignation it *might* cause a larger shift, but I really don't know much about Northern Irish politics. Good topic for a thread, though.
SF suspended McElduff so I guess some hardcore Repubs might be holding a grudge against them. Probably be compensated for by more centrist folk agreeing with them though.
Mr. Eagles, but staying would not be under existing terms, would it? It'd mean losing every opt-out we have. Joining Schengen, being on the path for the euro, etc.
If we decide we're staying (an outcome they seem to be getting us wet for) then we're through the looking glass at that point and anything's possible.
My view, for whatever that is worth (probably little), is that were we to officially change our mind, the EU would allow us to stay on existing terms. They have no desire to break up the EU by cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
Legally it depends purely on when we make the decision. If we revoke Article 50, the existing treaties will stand. Politically, once we've failed to Brexit, the argument for joining the Euro gets much stronger.
If we remain in or rejoin after all this palaver, we should be all in.
Although given it is still only supposition we can revoke A50, speaking definitively of what the legal position is re on what terms we could stay in is less important than politics I'd guess.
I agree about being "all in", but the smarter option is a phased transition. Back in on current terms, rebate to be phased out in the next EU budget cycle (2021???) , Schengen in 5 years, Euro in 10 years after the bulk of the "Leave" vote has departed this mortal coil.
Once again the fallacy that people's views won't change as they age so just wait for people to die. And I believe joining the Euro was not exactly top priority for Remain voters, many of whom were also concerned on immigration.
I don't know how I'd vote I'd we had a second referendum, but whether it took a few years or not, if we rejected our own decision to leave I think the EU would be reasonable to demand we be tied ever closer, and having come crawling back our own reluctance to sign up to everything I think would be hard to sustain.
Mrs C, actually gladiators were a bit fatter than most people think. Fat bleeds well, and it's a tiny bit of extra protection which can make the difference between life and death.
Mind you, gladiator means man of the sword, but gladius was also slang for a todger, so it can also be translated man of the tallywhacker. That's fitting, because they were also often rented out as nocturnal companions to wealthy Roman women.
Mr. Eagles, but staying would not be under existing terms, would it? It'd mean losing every opt-out we have. Joining Schengen, being on the path for the euro, etc.
If we decide we're staying (an outcome they seem to be getting us wet for) then we're through the looking glass at that point and anything's possible.
My view, for whatever that is worth (probably little), is that were we to officially change our mind, the EU would allow us to stay on existing terms. They have no desire to break up the EU by cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
Legally it depends purely on when we make the decision. If we revoke Article 50, the existing treaties will stand. Politically, once we've failed to Brexit, the argument for joining the Euro gets much stronger.
If we remain in or rejoin after all this palaver, we should be all in.
Although given it is still only supposition we can revoke A50, speaking definitively of what the legal position is re on what terms we could stay in is less important than politics I'd guess.
I agree about being "all in", but the smarter option is a phased transition. Back in on current terms, rebate to be phased out in the next EU budget cycle (2021???) , Schengen in 5 years, Euro in 10 years after the bulk of the "Leave" vote has departed this mortal coil.
Once again the fallacy that people's views won't change as they age so just wait for people to die. And I believe joining the Euro was not exactly top priority for Remain voters, many of whom were also concerned on immigration.
I don't know how I'd vote I'd we had a second referendum, but whether it took a few years or not, if we rejected our own decision to leave I think the EU would be reasonable to demand we be tied ever closer, and having come crawling back our own reluctance to sign up to everything I think would be hard to sustain.
I know what you mean, people do change their views, but I think a phased timetable makes much more sense as it gives people and business and government time to adjust to the changes.
In our company we have had some dealings with Carillion. They are a terrible company and terrible payers. They would do anything to delay payment. They were also Health & Safety freaks, more interested in stopping you working for some bizarre Health & Safety reason than getting the job done. They took a number of local firms down by not paying them. Therefore we have not done any business with them for a few years. I think there is a high level of criminality amongst the directors.
In my experience, Currystar, when a firm is slow to pay, it is in money trouble.
I recently posted a note on here indicating how slowly I and a good friend had been paid out by Betway. Any punters here who have an account should take note.
Just to work for them you had to accept 90 day terms, you would normally get paid after 180 days
They officially moved to 120 days some months back.
So Carillion were getting paid straight away by the Government, then did not pay their suppliers for 120 days, yet have gone bust owing billions. Im sure some of the Directors have trousered plenty.
You're quite right. As always follow the money. Look at the records on companies house and the interlocked directors and look at the common company registration agents. That tells you the real story.
Pass any stuff on terrible companies to Private Eye. Next issue is in 9 days' time.
Supermarkets pay suppliers after maybe ~3 months not a reasonable 30 days. Tesco get paid instantly if I buy food (cash or card). So they have about three months' turnover in the bank, worth £100s of millions.
David Lidington was on Today with the Humf. Slightly tricky wicket but I was unimpressed. If he is now Minister for the Today program the government is going to struggle to get its message over. He sounded pompous, vague and just a tad unsure of himself.
Must have sounded just like Humphrys then. Blustering and talking over people would complete the impersonation.
Interesting comments on R5 live this morning. The government asked public bodies dealing with Carillion to make contingency plans for a possible insolvency last June. Many, such as Oxfordshire, seem to have responded by winding up contracts with the firm. It is very likely that many finance departments will have hesitated to make payments to a company all too likely to default on its contractual obligations giving rise to offset and damages claims. When you get to that stage the chicken and egg debate becomes pretty meaningless.
Former staff also extremely uncomplimentary about the management and integrity of the company's internal systems. It seems less surprising in light of all that that the company has ended up in liquidation rather than administration.
David Lidington was on Today with the Humf. Slightly tricky wicket but I was unimpressed. If he is now Minister for the Today program the government is going to struggle to get its message over. He sounded pompous, vague and just a tad unsure of himself.
Meanwhile Rebecca L-B, while economically illiterate, sounded very impressive.
Then again, as you say, it is tricky to say the least. The govt gave them £2bn of contracts after their profit warning, while of course not to have given them the contracts might have hastened their demise.
RLB certainly didn't seem to understand the concept of moral hazard and I'm disappointed that Humphreys didn't ask her about it. Then again, she did point out that there were some processes that the govt might not have followed in these circumstances.
But as I said, she sounded confident, on top of her brief, and convincing.
I didn't hear her but with something like this it is always easier to ask awkward questions than to justify what you have done. Lidington's explanations of what he had done bordered on the incoherent and were extremely difficult to follow.
I thought Liddigton was complacent and, as someone else said, pompous.
'Don’t you worry your little heads, this Government has it all under control' is not a credible line. For most of us, anyway.
Mrs C, actually gladiators were a bit fatter than most people think. Fat bleeds well, and it's a tiny bit of extra protection which can make the difference between life and death.
Mind you, gladiator means man of the sword, but gladius was also slang for a todger, so it can also be translated man of the tallywhacker. That's fitting, because they were also often rented out as nocturnal companions to wealthy Roman women.
I'd be very surprised if Donald Trump did not possess an above average intelligence. He's been successful in business (albeit in an industry that rewarded leverage over smarts), he went to Wharton Business School, and he became President of the United States. It would be surprising indeed if he was not in the top 10% of people by intelligence.
Bless, you think you have to be smart to get in to Wharton! Now, I’m not saying it isn’t a route in, but there are others, most of them related to the size of parental checkbooks. And Trump only transferred to Wharton after a couple of years at Fordham, which, well, isn’t an Ivy.
It would be nice to have some calibration of the question - ask whether voters think May or Corbyn is above or below average, and split by VI to see if the answers reflect anything more than tribalism.
Even the most ardent of the May dickriders (of which there are few on here) would struggle to describe her as exceptionally intelligent.
Corbyn isn't even worth discussing. He is quite obviously and unequivocally as thick as shit.
I think May is intelligent (non-May dickrider speaking here). Very much so.
Doesn't for a second mean that she is fit for any public office, still less PM.
Comments
When I program, I always add the parentheses to make clear the operator precedence. It's better for a number of reasons: it makes what is wanted clear, can make it easier to split things up, and eases conversion between different languages.
The Williams & Glyn spin off is no more and has been for a while.
My view, for whatever that is worth (probably little), is that were we to officially change our mind, the EU would allow us to stay on existing terms. They have no desire to break up the EU by cutting their noses off to spite their faces.
With that said, I watched the hour long meeting between President Trump and the Congressional leadership on immigration. On a number of occasions, he seemed to forget what he'd said minutes before. It was unsettling.
I was in Dallas last night
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/4167147
The plan was a nice money earner for bankers, lawyers and consultants I imagine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_&_Glyn
https://www.ft.com/content/a6e39acc-f796-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00
Not paywalled despite being the FT.
Disagree with most of what Cable says, but he said something I agree with the other day, namely that it's (I paraphrase) daft to have so many state services provided by a single private company because then, if that private company enters difficulty, it puts the government in a very problematic position.
Originally it was going to be sold to Santander who pulled out over the cost and IT issues.
RBS then tried to spin it off and failed then had to pay £750 million to fund new challenger banks instead.
Revealed: How RBS spent £2.2bn on new high street branches that will NEVER open... and guess what? YOU'RE picking up the bill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5266905/RBS-wrote-2BILLION-YOURE-picking-bill.html
A simple commercial decision to drop a slow-selling newspaper in favour of better sellers is weeks later dressed up as a classic piece of virtue signalling. Leading to endless PR firefighting and ultimately the re-stocking of a slow seller.....
Having said that, I do agree that a few extra brackets never did any harm.
PS Just tried the calculator on my computer and on my Android phone, and both give the correct answer I'm pleased to say.
Oh, wait...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/carillion-under-investigation-again-for-not-salting-ontario-highways/article28034100/
Or go right to bottom, select all topics > B > Boxing.
The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that many small UK businesses could be dragged down by Carillion’s failure.
FSB national chairman Mike Cherry says Carillion made its suppliers wait FOUR MONTHS before paying their bills.
This means that many SMEs are nervously waiting to see if those invoices will still be paid. If not, they could be driven to the wall themselves."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jan/15/carillion-crisis-liquidation-last-ditch-talks-fail-business-live
Unsuccessful businesses should be allowed to fail.
RBS should have been allowed to go under too - would have set a good example.
Actually proper going poof and creating trading was not an option due to their position in the UK's payment infastructure.
Ring fencing utility banking from investment banking has been critical. We simply can’t let a critical part of the payment infrastructure go down
Not a particularly compelling rationale, as events have proved.
The man has serious personality flaws and is more than somewhat a stranger to the truth. He seems to have highly questionable judgment and a certain lack of coherence or consistency. In my view, as a non voter of course, he is not fit to be POTUS. But he is very far from stupid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42688698
Didn’t someone point out that if he’d just taken his inherited fortune and put it in the stock market he’d have more money than he does now?
I agree he probably is above average intelligence though.
Former staff also extremely uncomplimentary about the management and integrity of the company's internal systems. It seems less surprising in light of all that that the company has ended up in liquidation rather than administration.
David Lidington was on Today with the Humf. Slightly tricky wicket but I was unimpressed. If he is now Minister for the Today program the government is going to struggle to get its message over. He sounded pompous, vague and just a tad unsure of himself.
Then again, as you say, it is tricky to say the least. The govt gave them £2bn of contracts after their profit warning, while of course not to have given them the contracts might have hastened their demise.
RLB certainly didn't seem to understand the concept of moral hazard and I'm disappointed that Humphreys didn't ask her about it. Then again, she did point out that there were some processes that the govt might not have followed in these circumstances.
But as I said, she sounded confident, on top of her brief, and convincing.
One situation where the Gov happy for another SF MP to be elected I'd say, rather than the alternative i assume.
Since the govt may be a major creditor it can simply buy the sections it owes payment to for £1. Also HMRC will be involved and they often come higher up the list of interested parties.
Although given it is still only supposition we can revoke A50, speaking definitively of what the legal position is re on what terms we could stay in is less important than politics I'd guess.
Secondly, if (IF) we do go back in we should push for Dave's deal. I think we would have a fighting chance of getting it, albeit I don't think we could as a nation stomach the humiliation.
However, it is ridiculous that the nonsense of Chiltern Hundreds and Northstead Manorships matters in the 21st century. Members of the Lords can resign; members of the Commons should be able to too.
Just thinking of Osborne giving May the Hundreds before she could sack him.
If people are really pissed about the power-sharing situation and/or want to give Sinn Fein a kicking over the reason for the resignation it *might* cause a larger shift, but I really don't know much about Northern Irish politics. Good topic for a thread, though.
Therefore, it is a harmless quirk. Yes, it's now silly, but it's a legal fiction, who cares? Since there's a way around it there's no need to update the rules since it causes no problems.
Resigning the Commons is now just called taking the Chiltern hundreds etc, its just a term.
Of UK party leaders in my time, I'd rate everyone highly intelligent except Ashdown and Corbyn - both about average - and IDS - well below.
Mr. kle4, in that case, exceeding 50% *might* be an interesting bet.
Corbyn isn't even worth discussing. He is quite obviously and unequivocally as thick as shit.
But at the same time he has very low levels of emotional understanding, empathy, etc.
He might actually be quite high up on the psychopathy scale...
(Did they look like Russell Crowe?)
I don't know how I'd vote I'd we had a second referendum, but whether it took a few years or not, if we rejected our own decision to leave I think the EU would be reasonable to demand we be tied ever closer, and having come crawling back our own reluctance to sign up to everything I think would be hard to sustain.
Mrs C, actually gladiators were a bit fatter than most people think. Fat bleeds well, and it's a tiny bit of extra protection which can make the difference between life and death.
Mind you, gladiator means man of the sword, but gladius was also slang for a todger, so it can also be translated man of the tallywhacker. That's fitting, because they were also often rented out as nocturnal companions to wealthy Roman women.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42686019
Supermarkets pay suppliers after maybe ~3 months not a reasonable 30 days. Tesco get paid instantly if I buy food (cash or card). So they have about three months' turnover in the bank, worth £100s of millions.
For all I know, it may have risen to four months.
'Don’t you worry your little heads, this Government has it all under control' is not a credible line. For most of us, anyway.
Doesn't for a second mean that she is fit for any public office, still less PM.