The NAO media and politicians have only taken 20 years to work out that it might be a poor use of funds by Brown and Osborne.
Heaven has a place for a sinner who repents.
Maybe we will now start to see how PFI and outsourcing have hollowed out our state infrastructure.
In what way has the State infrastructure been "hollowed out". Where there is PFI for a school or a hospital, for example, that school or hospital will become a State asset at the end of the contract period. PFI allowed Brown in particular to lie about how much he was borrowing and spending by putting the future obligations off balance sheet. It added to our vulnerability in the great crash (because our deficit in a boom was even greater than it appeared) but it did produce more schools and hospitals that will belong to the State in due course.
The question is whether the State got value for money for those S&Hs. I think the picture there is mixed. In some cases, including many of Carillion's contracts, the answer is yes. In other cases the somewhat naïve and inexperienced Civil Service were undoubtedly ripped off by QSs who had been playing this game in the construction industry their entire lives and could spot a chargeable variation when it was a glimmer in their customer's eye.
For me, the lessons are: If the government is to do PFI contracts it should not be just to hide borrowing and making the deficit look better. Debt off the books is ultimately more expensive than direct government borrowing. The government needs expertise and discipline in negotiating and conducting PFI contracts. Paying for that is a good investment. Service contracts, not really PFI at all but often related, can be good VFM for the State provided they deal with businesses focussed on and providing that service, not intermediaries who subcontract all the work like Carillion.
Absolutely agree with you on the lessons learnt. Too much focus on deficit and debt can lead to other stupid decisions like selling off student loans at a knock down price. IMO ONS should redefine these numbers to reduce the temptation for accounting tricks.
Absolutely. That would be the most useful lesson of all.
Isn't the most extraordinary thing that the romantic dinner was in the National Liberal Club ?
First, the National Liberal Club has the romantic charm of a large lavatory.
And second, that Bolton is even a member of the National Liberal Club.
Apparently he was a Lib Dem before joining UKIP.
It has given me a very different picture of the National Liberal Club.
I assumed it was mainly populated by people like Mike Smithson recalling the glory days of their youth ("Ah, dear old Gladstone, the Grand Old Man, I remember when he socked it to Dizzy ...")
Now I know it is the venue of choice for UKIP romancers ("The royal seed may become tainted, dear, but my seed is pure ...")
The NAO media and politicians have only taken 20 years to work out that it might be a poor use of funds by Brown and Osborne.
Heaven has a place for a sinner who repents.
Maybe we will now start to see how PFI and outsourcing have hollowed out our state infrastructure.
In what way has the State infrastructure been "hollowed out". Where there is PFI for a school or a hospital, for example, that school or hospital will become a State asset at the end of the contract period. PFI allowed Brown in particular to lie about how much he was borrowing and spending by putting the future obligations off balance sheet. It added to our vulnerability in the great crash (because our deficit in a boom was even greater than it appeared) but it did produce more schools and hospitals that will belong to the State in due course.....
While that's true, bear in mind that many of these multi-decade deals are inflexible, and lock (for example) local authorities into schools contracts irrespective of whether a particular school remains viable. (I know of at least one such school locally which might well have been closed but for the PFI deal under which it was constructed a decade ago.) This isn't an argument against PFI per se, but poorly negotiated, inflexible contracts can be extremely expensive for those on the wrong end of them (us, the taxpayers).
I think that is what I said in my remaining paragraphs. Some good, many bad, negotiated by those who were not competent to tell the difference.
"In the coming months, I will be touring Brexit strongholds around the country, not to convince but to listen and learn".
Presumably along the lines, "There, there, I understand, little dears, you were misled by the media. It's best to leave matters like this to the grown-ups."
There are many good things to chuckle over in the article from the architect of tuitions fees, but my favourite is:
" I admit our collective failure to understand the plight of those in this country who didn’t go to university and get well-paid jobs, and whose children are faced with declining living standards. '
It is amazing how the very personal failure of Adonis in the matter of tuition fees has now become a "collective failure".
'A second referendum looks increasingly likely' LOL
Isn't the most extraordinary thing that the romantic dinner was in the National Liberal Club ?
First, the National Liberal Club has the romantic charm of a large lavatory.
And second, that Bolton is even a member of the National Liberal Club.
Apparently he was a Lib Dem before joining UKIP.
I know the club quite well - I had my first book launch there. I think they allow non-political members? I liked it a lot in the old days when it was the epitome of shabby old-fashioned charm. Less so now they've smartened it up into a more routine business-friendly location. I agree it's not exactly romantic, but it's quite a massive pile so I can see it appealing to a certain type of person out to impress.
Real cheap: Legal blog UpCounsel puts the cost of the H-1B process at $10,000 to $11,000 per employee....
These tend to be people with masters degrees.
Silicon Valley love H1-B visas, as it lets them pay Indians $40k a year to live in California, where an American won’t work for less than $100k. It’s also sponsored employment, so they get to work 70 hours a week and get deported if they’re fired. Most of them have ‘degrees’ paid for by some very dodgy Indian ‘Universities’
There’s a big campaign in SV to raise the minimum salary for H1-B visas to $100k, so they’re used to employed genuinely talented people rather than undercutting Americans’ wages.
I think you’re right it did just go up to $60k. Trump said he’d look at raising it to $100k during his campaign, as it was intended to be for exceptional talents rather than entry-level developers and tech support people. I’d auction them off, to employers who will use them as intended to find skills they can’t get in the US.
PFI has been great news for lawyers. It will very difficult to unpick the contracts.
Have either George Osborne or Gordon Brown offered defences of these schemes this morning?
No, and they can't. Most PFI deals were dreadful for the taxpayer and entered into for political bookkeeping reasons. There is a role for PFI in some cases - both where specialist knowledge is needed on a short-term basis and where the contractor has demonstrably better project-management skills than the state - but even in these cases, the contract still has to be right for the taxpayer.
Domestically, it suggests that Boris's attack on Corbyn for not being enamoured of the US alliance is not going to resonate. Corbyn is lucky that some of his classic themes - criticism of US policy, opposition to PFI, scepticism about British foreign intervention - are now commonplace, even among people who thought them deplorable 10-20 years ago.
Isn't that really just a reflection that Britons and indeed most of the world, don't like most Republican Presidents, Nixon and W Bush were equally loathed and US approval has fallen everywhere in that poll under Trump outside Israel, Russia, Liberia and parts of Eastern Europe. If say Bernie Sanders won the 2020 Presidential election I expect a future PM Corbyn would have a good relationship with him
Isn't the most extraordinary thing that the romantic dinner was in the National Liberal Club ?
First, the National Liberal Club has the romantic charm of a large lavatory.
And second, that Bolton is even a member of the National Liberal Club.
Apparently he was a Lib Dem before joining UKIP.
It has given me a very different picture of the National Liberal Club.
I assumed it was mainly populated by people like Mike Smithson recalling the glory days of their youth ("Ah, dear old Gladstone, the Grand Old Man, I remember when he socked it to Dizzy ...")
Now I know it is the venue of choice for UKIP romancers ("The royal seed may become tainted, dear, but my seed is pure ...")
We used to hold the early gatherings of PB at the National Liberal Club. It is great in the summer overlooking the Thames. I've never been a member. I take the view Groucho Marx view that any club that would accept me as a member is not worth joining
I recall that there were a lot of people who were seriously unimpressed by the Met standing by whilst rioters were clearing out shops. Manchester Police were more robust (in general, there were exceptions) and got a lot of praise for it. To describe comments about that failure by the Met to do its job as "supporting police brutality" is just silly.
How else ought one to interpret "police brutality should be encouraged" ?
I have said how. The Met in particular were being encouraged to take on the rioters instead of watching them. That involved using riot shields, batons, horses and an intimidating level of force. Eventually the criticism of them grew so great that they did and the rioting stopped.
Quite. The real reason the ex-miners still go on about Orgreave is not because of the police violence as such but because that force worked. Had it not, there wouldn't be a fraction of the whinging. Violent threats to law and order have to be met in kind. Where it is, even where that means inflicting considerable injury, it's still proportionate, necessary and, therefore, justified.
Domestically, it suggests that Boris's attack on Corbyn for not being enamoured of the US alliance is not going to resonate. Corbyn is lucky that some of his classic themes - criticism of US policy, opposition to PFI, scepticism about British foreign intervention - are now commonplace, even among people who thought them deplorable 10-20 years ago.
Isn't that really just a reflection that Britons and indeed most of the world, don't like most Republican Presidents, Nixon and W Bush were equally loathed and US approval has fallen everywhere in that poll under Trump outside Israel, Russia, Liberia and parts of Eastern Europe. If say Bernie Sanders won the 2020 Presidential election I expect a future PM Corbyn would have a good relationship with him
Re your first point, I think there’s an element of truth to that.
I recall that there were a lot of people who were seriously unimpressed by the Met standing by whilst rioters were clearing out shops. Manchester Police were more robust (in general, there were exceptions) and got a lot of praise for it. To describe comments about that failure by the Met to do its job as "supporting police brutality" is just silly.
How else ought one to interpret "police brutality should be encouraged" ?
I have said how. The Met in particular were being encouraged to take on the rioters instead of watching them. That involved using riot shields, batons, horses and an intimidating level of force. Eventually the criticism of them grew so great that they did and the rioting stopped.
Quite. The real reason the ex-miners still go on about Orgreave is not because of the police violence as such but because that force worked. Had it not, there wouldn't be a fraction of the whinging. Violent threats to law and order have to be met in kind. Where it is, even where that means inflicting considerable injury, it's still proportionate, necessary and, therefore, justified.
But there’s a strong argument that says the police action at Orgreave led to the shameful incidents at Hillsborough and Rotherham.
A police service that thought it was above the law and could do what it wanted.
Domestically, it suggests that Boris's attack on Corbyn for not being enamoured of the US alliance is not going to resonate. Corbyn is lucky that some of his classic themes - criticism of US policy, opposition to PFI, scepticism about British foreign intervention - are now commonplace, even among people who thought them deplorable 10-20 years ago.
Isn't that really just a reflection that Britons and indeed most of the world, don't like most Republican Presidents, Nixon and W Bush were equally loathed and US approval has fallen everywhere in that poll under Trump outside Israel, Russia, Liberia and parts of Eastern Europe. If say Bernie Sanders won the 2020 Presidential election I expect a future PM Corbyn would have a good relationship with him
Re your first point, I think there’s an element of truth to that.
Neither Trump nor George W Bush would have won a UK general election. Bush Snr is probably the last Republican candidate who could have won a general election in the UK
I recall that there were a lot of people who were seriously unimpressed by the Met standing by whilst rioters were clearing out shops. Manchester Police were more robust (in general, there were exceptions) and got a lot of praise for it. To describe comments about that failure by the Met to do its job as "supporting police brutality" is just silly.
How else ought one to interpret "police brutality should be encouraged" ?
I have said how. The Met in particular were being encouraged to take on the rioters instead of watching them. That involved using riot shields, batons, horses and an intimidating level of force. Eventually the criticism of them grew so great that they did and the rioting stopped.
Quite. The real reason the ex-miners still go on about Orgreave is not because of the police violence as such but because that force worked. Had it not, there wouldn't be a fraction of the whinging. Violent threats to law and order have to be met in kind. Where it is, even where that means inflicting considerable injury, it's still proportionate, necessary and, therefore, justified.
But there’s a strong argument that says the police action at Orgreave led to the shameful incidents at Hillsborough and Rotherham.
A police service that thought it was above the law and could do what it wanted.
I agree and I would not defend Orgreave. The NUM were well up for the fight and the bucolic descriptions of people opening their picnic baskets while the birds tweeted are completely hilarious but that was the government of the day going looking for a fight and excusing those that did the fighting for them in advance disregarding the rule of law completely and then lying about it. I don't think the London riot situation was comparable in any way.
Mr. Eagles, on Rotherham, assuming you're referring to the 1,400 plus child sexual assaults, that seems a bloody odd conclusion to draw to me.
That was allowed to continue for so long because authorities were turning a blind eye in the politically correct name of 'cultural sensitivity'. That's the antithesis of getting stuck in violently.
Domestically, it suggests that Boris's attack on Corbyn for not being enamoured of the US alliance is not going to resonate. Corbyn is lucky that some of his classic themes - criticism of US policy, opposition to PFI, scepticism about British foreign intervention - are now commonplace, even among people who thought them deplorable 10-20 years ago.
Isn't that really just a reflection that Britons and indeed most of the world, don't like most Republican Presidents, Nixon and W Bush were equally loathed and US approval has fallen everywhere in that poll under Trump outside Israel, Russia, Liberia and parts of Eastern Europe. If say Bernie Sanders won the 2020 Presidential election I expect a future PM Corbyn would have a good relationship with him
Yes, I'm sure you're right. Many people vaguely think of the GOP (not always fairly) as nationalist hard right, and that's outside the global mainstream, with the notable exception of Russia and parts of Eastern Europe, who as you say don't mind Trump.
54% approve of a tax rise paid by someone else. The approval rate might even go up as those that do pay leave. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I suppose people aren't so stupid that they can't see a saving of c.£40k per kid that goes to uni, cheaper housing & council tax and free prescriptions might more than compensate for a few £100s extra p.a. in income tax.
Mr. Eagles, on Rotherham, assuming you're referring to the 1,400 plus child sexual assaults, that seems a bloody odd conclusion to draw to me.
That was allowed to continue for so long because authorities were turning a blind eye in the politically correct name of 'cultural sensitivity'. That's the antithesis of getting stuck in violently.
That’s not what I said.
If the police had been held accountable for past sins then coppers in South Yorkshire dealing with Rotherham would have known turning a blind eye would have serious consequences for them.
Mr. Eagles, I must disagree. It was not only police but other authorities too, all led by a political direction of appeasing barbarians for fear of appearing racist. A failure to defend the most basic tenets of civilisation, of British values, was the problem, and one that lasted over a decade.
And the same thing was happening elsewhere, and is probably still happening today.
Domestically, it suggests that Boris's attack on Corbyn for not being enamoured of the US alliance is not going to resonate. Corbyn is lucky that some of his classic themes - criticism of US policy, opposition to PFI, scepticism about British foreign intervention - are now commonplace, even among people who thought them deplorable 10-20 years ago.
Isn't that really just a reflection that Britons and indeed most of the world, don't like most Republican Presidents, Nixon and W Bush were equally loathed and US approval has fallen everywhere in that poll under Trump outside Israel, Russia, Liberia and parts of Eastern Europe. If say Bernie Sanders won the 2020 Presidential election I expect a future PM Corbyn would have a good relationship with him
Yes, I'm sure you're right. Many people vaguely think of the GOP (not always fairly) as nationalist hard right, and that's outside the global mainstream, with the notable exception of Russia and parts of Eastern Europe, who as you say don't mind Trump.
What's your opinion on the NEC changes and the removal of Ann Black?
Of course! As I said, the next year is all about finding a deal that allows the government to avoid international humiliation and domestic disintegration. There will be symbolic gestures on FoM, the ECJ, the Single Market and Customs Union as part of this. But in practical terms nothing much will change.
I disagree with this. The big change comes with stopping membership of the European Union, although the immediate effects of doing so are substantially mitigated by the compromises you mention. For the setup to work, Leave supporters need to be unaware that Britain has now become a client state of the EU. The loss of sovereignty comes not from the fact of leaving the EU but from the compromises that make the effects of leaving acceptable. Leavers probably won't notice the loss of sovereignty (arguably that's more of a Remain concern) and we do what we are told. Something unpopular will come up, sooner rather than later, so people will ask, why is the EU telling us what do when we are no longer members? Then the arguments start: do we knuckle down, do we give up on the whole relationship?
Bottom lines. Multilateral bodies operate multilaterally. If we don't want to work that way, it's going to be very uncomfortable. And institutions matter in keeping things together. We are going for disintegration in the literal sense.
Mr. Eagles, I must disagree. It was not only police but other authorities too, all led by a political direction of appeasing barbarians for fear of appearing racist. A failure to defend the most basic tenets of civilisation, of British values, was the problem, and one that lasted over a decade.
And the same thing was happening elsewhere, and is probably still happening today.
Nope.
When’s there’s a culture of knowing you won’t get punished bad things happen.
Cf the Catholic Church abuse where you’d more likely get a new posting than be prosecuted, all to protect the Church.
Heck Cardinal Law was given an appointment to the Vatican even after his complicity became public.
54% approve of a tax rise paid by someone else. The approval rate might even go up as those that do pay leave. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I suppose people aren't so stupid that they can't see a saving of c.£40k per kid that goes to uni, cheaper housing & council tax and free prescriptions might more than compensate for a few £100s extra p.a. in income tax.
That's currently funded by English tax payers.....nowt to do with increases in Scottish income tax.....
I recall that there were a lot of people who were seriously unimpressed by the Met standing by whilst rioters were clearing out shops. Manchester Police were more robust (in general, there were exceptions) and got a lot of praise for it. To describe comments about that failure by the Met to do its job as "supporting police brutality" is just silly.
How else ought one to interpret "police brutality should be encouraged" ?
I have said how. The Met in particular were being encouraged to take on the rioters instead of watching them. That involved using riot shields, batons, horses and an intimidating level of force. Eventually the criticism of them grew so great that they did and the rioting stopped.
Quite. The real reason the ex-miners still go on about Orgreave is not because of the police violence as such but because that force worked. Had it not, there wouldn't be a fraction of the whinging. Violent threats to law and order have to be met in kind. Where it is, even where that means inflicting considerable injury, it's still proportionate, necessary and, therefore, justified.
But there’s a strong argument that says the police action at Orgreave led to the shameful incidents at Hillsborough and Rotherham.
A police service that thought it was above the law and could do what it wanted.
I'm not sure there is. There is - or ought to be - a clear distinction between forceful use of lawful powers and fiddling with evidence and/or process to secure or prevent an outcome.
It's crucial we have a defence of British values, and free speech, but the political class is more intent on censorship than freedom. As we saw when the stubbly 'children' of Calais came over and then screens had to be erected to stop the press and public mocking their crows' feet.
This is interesting. The slide behind Barnier's head implies the Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement will contain no reference to any trade deal or long term relationship, not even in outline. According to the timetable the Withdrawal Agreement will be agreed in October this year after negotiations complete on phase 1 items - including payments, citizen rights and Irish arrangements - and on the "transition" arrangements. The Withdrawal Agreement will be ratified between October this year and March 2019. During the same period a "political statement" on the future relationship will be agreed. The actual negotiations take place entirely after we leave the EU.
I suggest the "political statement" won't be much more than an intention to have a future relationship. We would also need to wrap up the actual negotiations during the "transition" period if we are to avoid the shifted cliff edge.
I recall that there were a lot of people who were seriously unimpressed by the Met standing by whilst rioters were clearing out shops. Manchester Police were more robust (in general, there were exceptions) and got a lot of praise for it. To describe comments about that failure by the Met to do its job as "supporting police brutality" is just silly.
How else ought one to interpret "police brutality should be encouraged" ?
I have said how. The Met in particular were being encouraged to take on the rioters instead of watching them. That involved using riot shields, batons, horses and an intimidating level of force. Eventually the criticism of them grew so great that they did and the rioting stopped.
Quite. The real reason the ex-miners still go on about Orgreave is not because of the police violence as such but because that force worked. Had it not, there wouldn't be a fraction of the whinging. Violent threats to law and order have to be met in kind. Where it is, even where that means inflicting considerable injury, it's still proportionate, necessary and, therefore, justified.
But there’s a strong argument that says the police action at Orgreave led to the shameful incidents at Hillsborough and Rotherham.
A police service that thought it was above the law and could do what it wanted.
I agree and I would not defend Orgreave. The NUM were well up for the fight and the bucolic descriptions of people opening their picnic baskets while the birds tweeted are completely hilarious but that was the government of the day going looking for a fight and excusing those that did the fighting for them in advance disregarding the rule of law completely and then lying about it. I don't think the London riot situation was comparable in any way.
Really? While on one level Orgreave was about was nothing less than who runs the country, that was still just a very scaled-up version of the London riots and who controls the local streets.
You are right that both sides went into Orgreave looking for a fight - if lawbreakers come determined to use violence, what else can the state do but ensure that violence fails?
Have PB Tories found a way to blame Corbyn for the PFI fiasco yet
5 live did a review of the PFI issue this morrning and it is not as straight forward as it seems.
The vast majority of the PFI contracts were entered into by Blair and Brown due to the need for large scale building of hospitals and schools and it was the only way they could be built by keeping the debt off the books as there was no way that they could have borrowed the finance without causing a serious financial crisis.
It may have been the correct decision at the time due to the urgency to deal with the issue but it is much easier today to stop most use of new PFI contracts as the construction has taken place
In these circumstances Corbyn's responsibility is that he was a labour MP when this was going on but there is a danger that he is on the wrong side of an informed debate as he would not have been able to build to the extent that Blair and Brown achieved
I hope you accept this as a fair response from a conservative member
54% approve of a tax rise paid by someone else. The approval rate might even go up as those that do pay leave. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I suppose people aren't so stupid that they can't see a saving of c.£40k per kid that goes to uni, cheaper housing & council tax and free prescriptions might more than compensate for a few £100s extra p.a. in income tax.
That's currently funded by English tax payers.....nowt to do with increases in Scottish income tax.....
Irrespective of the merits of your familiarly crude 'indigent Scotch beggars' argument, what's that got to do with a discussion about whether Scottish income tax rises will drive away the wealth creators/greedy feckers (delete to taste)?
Have PB Tories found a way to blame Corbyn for the PFI fiasco yet
No, we're still laughing our heads off at Labour's line that a company went bust because it wasn't taxed heavily enough.
Or that the boss of a company in liquidation continues to get paid for 10 months......
Yes, that was a goody. Another was Corbyn's new-found enthusiasm for outsourcing financial due diligence to hedge funds. Not a bad idea, actually.
Or that government should refuse to give contracts to companies after a profit warning - therefore making their difficulties worse and administration more likely.
PMQs yesterday was a fine example of how little Mr Corbyn understands about business that provide the revenue he wishes to spend.
Isn't the most extraordinary thing that the romantic dinner was in the National Liberal Club ?
First, the National Liberal Club has the romantic charm of a large lavatory.
And second, that Bolton is even a member of the National Liberal Club.
I've known plenty of non-liberals to be members of it. It's basically the cheapest club in London that still looks a bit posh. (Most of it has been sold off over the years but a couple of plush rooms still remain.)
54% approve of a tax rise paid by someone else. The approval rate might even go up as those that do pay leave. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I suppose people aren't so stupid that they can't see a saving of c.£40k per kid that goes to uni, cheaper housing & council tax and free prescriptions might more than compensate for a few £100s extra p.a. in income tax.
That's currently funded by English tax payers.....nowt to do with increases in Scottish income tax.....
Irrespective of the merits of your familiarly crude 'indigent Scotch beggars' argument, what's that got to do with a discussion about whether Scottish income tax rises will drive away the wealth creators/greedy feckers (delete to taste)?
What would be better about Scotland if all the "greedy feckers" left and went south? Its NHS? Education? Social services?
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Real cheap: Legal blog UpCounsel puts the cost of the H-1B process at $10,000 to $11,000 per employee....
These tend to be people with masters degrees.
Silicon Valley love H1-B visas, as it lets them pay Indians $40k a year to live in California, where an American won’t work for less than $100k. It’s also sponsored employment, so they get to work 70 hours a week and get deported if they’re fired. Most of them have ‘degrees’ paid for by some very dodgy Indian ‘Universities’
There’s a big campaign in SV to raise the minimum salary for H1-B visas to $100k, so they’re used to employed genuinely talented people rather than undercutting Americans’ wages.
That's a little bit harsh. IT Services companies - like IBM Global Services, Accenture, and the like - have tended to abuse H1B visas in that way, but in the Valley most (although not all) are very highly skilled and pretty well paid.
Before we decided on Santa Monica, we looked at Silicon Valley for our US base. In the end, the cost of talent there was simply too high. There aren't many unemployed skilled US tech guys there (in fact you need to be pretty seriously anti-social not to be employed), so it's hard to make the case that it's damaged Americans job prospects in the area.
What it has done - as has the absolute flood of foreign cash into properties for investment purposes - is pushed up the cost of living.
@YBarddCwsc LOL! Tbh I’m not very familiar with the National Liberal Club to say the least. From a quick google, it does seem a bit posh.
@NickPalmer I have to say I wouldn’t have thought that a political club would be a place where you have a date!
Looks can be deceiving. I once had in there, by some distance, the worst meal I've ever been served (a burger from a roadside van in Great Yarmouth included).
Isn't the most extraordinary thing that the romantic dinner was in the National Liberal Club ?
First, the National Liberal Club has the romantic charm of a large lavatory.
And second, that Bolton is even a member of the National Liberal Club.
I've known plenty of non-liberals to be members of it. It's basically the cheapest club in London that still looks a bit posh. (Most of it has been sold off over the years but a couple of plush rooms still remain.)
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Some of the late ‘90s PFIs are completely one sided. The motivation from government was primarily to keep the borrowing off the books - and the bidders all knew this so overbid and put escalators in ongoing service charges.
The government had little experience for using such structures for complex buildings like hospitals, and so were completely out-negotiated by highly professional and well paid bid teams at companies like Carillion.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
54% approve of a tax rise paid by someone else. The approval rate might even go up as those that do pay leave. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I suppose people aren't so stupid that they can't see a saving of c.£40k per kid that goes to uni, cheaper housing & council tax and free prescriptions might more than compensate for a few £100s extra p.a. in income tax.
That's currently funded by English tax payers.....nowt to do with increases in Scottish income tax.....
Irrespective of the merits of your familiarly crude 'indigent Scotch beggars' argument, what's that got to do with a discussion about whether Scottish income tax rises will drive away the wealth creators/greedy feckers (delete to taste)?
What would be better about Scotland if all the "greedy feckers" left and went south? Its NHS? Education? Social services?
Can you as presumably a greedy fecker expert tell me at what tax rate the greedy feckers would feel the need to start their mass migration? An extra £15 p.a.for those earning £60,000, or an extra £415 p.a. for those earning £100k? It would take someone earning £150,000 around 37 years of working in the more 'benign' English tax system to make up the tuition fees of one university student.
Isn't the most extraordinary thing that the romantic dinner was in the National Liberal Club ?
First, the National Liberal Club has the romantic charm of a large lavatory.
And second, that Bolton is even a member of the National Liberal Club.
I've known plenty of non-liberals to be members of it. It's basically the cheapest club in London that still looks a bit posh. (Most of it has been sold off over the years but a couple of plush rooms still remain.)
The big omission from that list is that (I was told) that the original series of Pot Black was filmed in the snooker room there - in ridiculously cramped conditions!
Have PB Tories found a way to blame Corbyn for the PFI fiasco yet
5 live did a review of the PFI issue this morrning and it is not as straight forward as it seems.
The vast majority of the PFI contracts were entered into by Blair and Brown due to the need for large scale building of hospitals and schools and it was the only way they could be built by keeping the debt off the books as there was no way that they could have borrowed the finance without causing a serious financial crisis.
Nah. The government could easily have borrowed the money financially. It managed to borrow a lot more after the financial crisis. The problem was that it couldn't borrow the money *politically* because it'd bugger up the borrowing stats and Brown's golden rules.
The markets should have been well aware of what was going on and if they did have concerns about the government committing to those levels of future repayments, it'd have impacted on general borrowing costs.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Some of the late ‘90s PFIs are completely one sided. The motivation from government was primarily to keep the borrowing off the books - and the bidders all knew this so overbid and put escalators in ongoing service charges.
The government had little experience for using such structures for complex buildings like hospitals, and so were completely out-negotiated by highly professional and well paid bid teams at companies like Carillion.
Since Gordon Brown's proudest boast was about how much money was being spent, it's hardly surprising that civil servants and the contractors responded by ensuring that as much as possible was spent.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The structures were set up on Labour's watch. Much harder to negotiate away from a set precdedent. But maybe you have never negotiated large contracts?
54% approve of a tax rise paid by someone else. The approval rate might even go up as those that do pay leave. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I suppose people aren't so stupid that they can't see a saving of c.£40k per kid that goes to uni, cheaper housing & council tax and free prescriptions might more than compensate for a few £100s extra p.a. in income tax.
That's currently funded by English tax payers.....nowt to do with increases in Scottish income tax.....
Irrespective of the merits of your familiarly crude 'indigent Scotch beggars' argument, what's that got to do with a discussion about whether Scottish income tax rises will drive away the wealth creators/greedy feckers (delete to taste)?
Irrespective of whether one is a unionist or not, taxes are going to have to rise to meet the demands of our aging populations.
Politicians are fundamentally dishonest on this point, though, to be fair, that's mostly because the electorate are, by and large, hypocrites. Most people are in favour of other people paying more tax.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
No, they did a complete review and seriously tightened up procedures and financial controls.
Mr O'Mara said: "I am so pleased to be returning to work. Last June I was incredibly proud to have been elected the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Hallam and I am now delighted to be moving forward and able to represent my constituents."
54% approve of a tax rise paid by someone else. The approval rate might even go up as those that do pay leave. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I suppose people aren't so stupid that they can't see a saving of c.£40k per kid that goes to uni, cheaper housing & council tax and free prescriptions might more than compensate for a few £100s extra p.a. in income tax.
That's currently funded by English tax payers.....nowt to do with increases in Scottish income tax.....
Irrespective of the merits of your familiarly crude 'indigent Scotch beggars' argument, what's that got to do with a discussion about whether Scottish income tax rises will drive away the wealth creators/greedy feckers (delete to taste)?
Irrespective of whether one is a unionist or not, taxes are going to have to rise to meet the demands of our aging populations.
Politicians are fundamentally dishonest on this point, though, to be fair, that's mostly because the electorate are, by and large, hypocrites. Most people are in favour of other people paying more tax.
It's worse. The electorate have actively punished parties that have told the truth on this.
Like Pavlov's Dog, the political parties have responded to the sound of the bell.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The damage was by Blair and Brown but as I have explained earlier this was a choice that they made to build the hospitals and schools needed without causing a financial crisis.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The structures were set up on Labour's watch. Much harder to negotiate away from a set precdedent. But maybe you have never negotiated large contracts?
Once you have been in power for 8 years , a government can change the precedent to suggest otherwise is idiotic , look at brexit.
Mr O'Mara said: "I am so pleased to be returning to work. Last June I was incredibly proud to have been elected the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Hallam and I am now delighted to be moving forward and able to represent my constituents."
Eight months to move forward. When will he arrive at his destination?
I suspect the Tories & LibDems will be delighted at his re-emergence. I'm less certain that it is good for Jeremy.
Have PB Tories found a way to blame Corbyn for the PFI fiasco yet
5 live did a review of the PFI issue this morrning and it is not as straight forward as it seems.
The vast majority of the PFI contracts were entered into by Blair and Brown due to the need for large scale building of hospitals and schools and it was the only way they could be built by keeping the debt off the books as there was no way that they could have borrowed the finance without causing a serious financial crisis.
Nah. The government could easily have borrowed the money financially. It managed to borrow a lot more after the financial crisis. The problem was that it couldn't borrow the money *politically* because it'd bugger up the borrowing stats and Brown's golden rules.
The markets should have been well aware of what was going on and if they did have concerns about the government committing to those levels of future repayments, it'd have impacted on general borrowing costs.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The damage was by Blair and Brown but as I have explained earlier this was a choice that they made to build the hospitals and schools needed without causing a financial crisis.
So Carillion went bust because of Blair and Brown nearly over a decade ago grow up .
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The structures were set up on Labour's watch. Much harder to negotiate away from a set precdedent. But maybe you have never negotiated large contracts?
Once you have been in power for 8 years , a government can change the precedent to suggest otherwise is idiotic , look at brexit.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The structures were set up on Labour's watch. Much harder to negotiate away from a set precdedent. But maybe you have never negotiated large contracts?
Yes and No.The origin of PFI was John Major's time as a wheeze to avoid the EU 3% debt to GDP ratio even though the European procurement rules still applied.This always was very bad value for money for the public but it is a problem of government,whether Con-with or without the LDS-and Lab since 1995.Have a look at the history-I've been opposing it since 1996.Current Labour policy therefore allows for triangulation between the mistakes of the Tories and the mistakes of the Blair/Brown government and has a leader which makes that position credible. I hope this helps
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The structures were set up on Labour's watch. Much harder to negotiate away from a set precdedent. But maybe you have never negotiated large contracts?
Yes and No.The origin of PFI was John Major's time as a wheeze to avoid the EU 3% debt to GDP ratio even though the European procurement rules still applied.This always was very bad value for money for the public but it is a problem of government,whether Con-with or without the LDS-and Lab since 1995.Have a look at the history-I've been opposing it since 1996.Current Labour policy therefore allows for triangulation between the mistakes of the Tories and the mistakes of the Blair/Brown government and has a leader which makes that position credible. I hope this helps
Real cheap: Legal blog UpCounsel puts the cost of the H-1B process at $10,000 to $11,000 per employee....
These tend to be people with masters degrees.
Silicon Valley love H1-B visas, as it lets them pay Indians $40k a year to live in California, where an American won’t work for less than $100k. It’s also sponsored employment, so they get to work 70 hours a week and get deported if they’re fired. Most of them have ‘degrees’ paid for by some very dodgy Indian ‘Universities’
There’s a big campaign in SV to raise the minimum salary for H1-B visas to $100k, so they’re used to employed genuinely talented people rather than undercutting Americans’ wages.
That's a little bit harsh. IT Services companies - like IBM Global Services, Accenture, and the like - have tended to abuse H1B visas in that way, but in the Valley most (although not all) are very highly skilled and pretty well paid.
Before we decided on Santa Monica, we looked at Silicon Valley for our US base. In the end, the cost of talent there was simply too high. There aren't many unemployed skilled US tech guys there (in fact you need to be pretty seriously anti-social not to be employed), so it's hard to make the case that it's damaged Americans job prospects in the area.
What it has done - as has the absolute flood of foreign cash into properties for investment purposes - is pushed up the cost of living.
Perhaps a little harsh, but for a lot of those made redundant by the outsourcing to the likes of IBM and Tata it’s a serious problem.
The H1-B should be for senior staff or researchers, rather than for entry-level positions.
AIUI housing in SV is now a really serious problem, with rents unaffordable even to those with the good jobs. A bunch of very large tech companies with extra piles of onshore cash in the next year or two is unlikely to make that situation any better.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Some of the late ‘90s PFIs are completely one sided. The motivation from government was primarily to keep the borrowing off the books - and the bidders all knew this so overbid and put escalators in ongoing service charges.
The government had little experience for using such structures for complex buildings like hospitals, and so were completely out-negotiated by highly professional and well paid bid teams at companies like Carillion.
Since Gordon Brown's proudest boast was about how much money was being spent, it's hardly surprising that civil servants and the contractors responded by ensuring that as much as possible was spent.
I recall that there were a lot of people who were seriously unimpressed by the Met standing by whilst rioters were clearing out shops. Manchester Police were more robust (in general, there were exceptions) and got a lot of praise for it. To describe comments about that failure by the Met to do its job as "supporting police brutality" is just silly.
I recall that there were a lot of people who were seriously unimpressed by the Met standing by whilst rioters were clearing out shops. Manchester Police were more robust (in general, there were exceptions) and got a lot of praise for it. To describe comments about that failure by the Met to do its job as "supporting police brutality" is just silly.
How else ought one to interpret "police brutality should be encouraged" ?
I have said how. The Met in particular were being encouraged to take on the rioters instead of watching them. That involved using riot shields, batons, horses and an intimidating level of force. Eventually the criticism of them grew so great that they did and the rioting stopped.
Quite. The real reason the ex-miners still go on about Orgreave is not because of the police violence as such but because that force worked. Had it not, there wouldn't be a fraction of the whinging. Violent threats to law and order have to be met in kind. Where it is, even where that means inflicting considerable injury, it's still proportionate, necessary and, therefore, justified.
The main complaints about the Met response to the riots I saw was that it was all very well kettling and beating up mainly peaceful middle class student who had filed their route in advance but hey seemed a bit reticent about taking on violent gangs loaded up for a rammy striking in random patterns.
It kind of gave a massive lie to the use of kettling as a way of containing mass violence.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
The current Labour leadership would probably agree. They'd argue there is no real link between them and the last Labour government. It's affair point. Corbyn and McDonnell spent most of their time opposing it. Politically that does make them a bit harder to attack.
How the hell can someone not work out that date nights in with pizza n dvd would have been a good wheeze for a month or so just at the moment? I think Marney is a plant by the press or a Ukip rival (I don't see any national security services giving enough of a toss to bother). Bolton was ensnared with that line we've all heard - "If you really loved me, you'd take me to the National Liberal Club."
How the hell can someone not work out that date nights in with pizza n dvd would have been a good wheeze for a month or so just at the moment? I think Marney is a plant by the press or a Ukip rival (I don't see any national security services giving enough of a toss to bother). Bolton was ensnared with that line we've all heard - "If you really loved me, you'd take me to the National Liberal Club."
They couldn't have pizza - they had violently differing views on the merits of pineapple topping.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The structures were set up on Labour's watch. Much harder to negotiate away from a set precdedent. But maybe you have never negotiated large contracts?
Yes and No.The origin of PFI was John Major's time as a wheeze to avoid the EU 3% debt to GDP ratio even though the European procurement rules still applied.This always was very bad value for money for the public but it is a problem of government,whether Con-with or without the LDS-and Lab since 1995.Have a look at the history-I've been opposing it since 1996.Current Labour policy therefore allows for triangulation between the mistakes of the Tories and the mistakes of the Blair/Brown government and has a leader which makes that position credible. I hope this helps
Real cheap: Legal blog UpCounsel puts the cost of the H-1B process at $10,000 to $11,000 per employee....
These tend to be people with masters degrees.
Silicon Valley love H1-B visas, as it lets them pay Indians $40k a year to live in California, where an American won’t work for less than $100k. It’s also sponsored employment, so they get to work 70 hours a week and get deported if they’re fired. Most of them have ‘degrees’ paid for by some very dodgy Indian ‘Universities’
There’s a big campaign in SV to raise the minimum salary for H1-B visas to $100k, so they’re used to employed genuinely talented people rather than undercutting Americans’ wages.
That's a little bit harsh. IT Services companies - like IBM Global Services, Accenture, and the like - have tended to abuse H1B visas in that way, but in the Valley most (although not all) are very highly skilled and pretty well paid.
Before we decided on Santa Monica, we looked at Silicon Valley for our US base. In the end, the cost of talent there was simply too high. There aren't many unemployed skilled US tech guys there (in fact you need to be pretty seriously anti-social not to be employed), so it's hard to make the case that it's damaged Americans job prospects in the area.
What it has done - as has the absolute flood of foreign cash into properties for investment purposes - is pushed up the cost of living.
Perhaps a little harsh, but for a lot of those made redundant by the outsourcing to the likes of IBM and Tata it’s a serious problem.
The H1-B should be for senior staff or researchers, rather than for entry-level positions.
AIUI housing in SV is now a really serious problem, with rents unaffordable even to those with the good jobs. A bunch of very large tech companies with extra piles of onshore cash in the next year or two is unlikely to make that situation any better.
But people aren't made redundant due to outsourcing in Silicon Valley. They're made redundant due to outsourcing in Madison, Wisconsin.
I agree there is a serious housing shortage in SV and SF. There are also absolutely ridiculous rents for office space there too. Second tier office space - and we're really not talking nice stuff here - in Santa Clara is as expensive as ocean front in Santa Monica. It's insane. But it can hardly all be blamed at the foot of H1Bs.
Indeed, would Silicon Valley be such a magnet for tech companies, if it wasn't possible to bring in foreign talent so easily? I suspect that if you looked at H1B salaries there, the average would be comfortably above $120k.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
Did they make a hash of the negotiating the contracts since may 2010 ? You are been absurd .
The structures were set up on Labour's watch. Much harder to negotiate away from a set precdedent. But maybe you have never negotiated large contracts?
Yes and No.The origin of PFI was John Major's time as a wheeze to avoid the EU 3% debt to GDP ratio even though the European procurement rules still applied.This always was very bad value for money for the public but it is a problem of government,whether Con-with or without the LDS-and Lab since 1995.Have a look at the history-I've been opposing it since 1996.Current Labour policy therefore allows for triangulation between the mistakes of the Tories and the mistakes of the Blair/Brown government and has a leader which makes that position credible. I hope this helps
Have PB Tories found a way to blame Corbyn for the PFI fiasco yet
5 live did a review of the PFI issue this morrning and it is not as straight forward as it seems.
The vast majority of the PFI contracts were entered into by Blair and Brown due to the need for large scale building of hospitals and schools and it was the only way they could be built by keeping the debt off the books as there was no way that they could have borrowed the finance without causing a serious financial crisis.
Nah. The government could easily have borrowed the money financially. It managed to borrow a lot more after the financial crisis. The problem was that it couldn't borrow the money *politically* because it'd bugger up the borrowing stats and Brown's golden rules.
The markets should have been well aware of what was going on and if they did have concerns about the government committing to those levels of future repayments, it'd have impacted on general borrowing costs.
Well that was 5 live's explanation
That explains a lot. The entire PFI liability is 'only' about the same as the government was borrowing in about 15 months at the height of the post-2008 crisis (back of an envelope / mental maths but I think that's about right).
Should Tory MPs be quite so delighted at UKIP's demise? By hinting that they might defect to it, it allowed otherwise insignificant MPs to spook the leadership and get no end of media attention. They'll miss it when it's gone.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
The current Labour leadership would probably agree. They'd argue there is no real link between them and the last Labour government. It's affair point. Corbyn and McDonnell spent most of their time opposing it. Politically that does make them a bit harder to attack.
That's true, they want to repeat the mistakes of the 1970s, not the mistakes of the Blair/Brown years.
The risk to the contractor is whether they can deliver to the budget. It's the same whether they are bidding for a fixed price government contract or financing the project themselves through PFI. The National Audit Office did an investigation on the value for money comparison between direct bids where the state funds the project itself and PFI and found the difference on financing costs were unimportant until 2008 when the Credit Crunch made private financing a lot more expensive compared with government borrowing.
The main issue is if we borrow to spend money now we are burdening future generations. It doesn't matter whether it's PFI or another funding vehicle.
How the hell can someone not work out that date nights in with pizza n dvd would have been a good wheeze for a month or so just at the moment? I think Marney is a plant by the press or a Ukip rival (I don't see any national security services giving enough of a toss to bother). Bolton was ensnared with that line we've all heard - "If you really loved me, you'd take me to the National Liberal Club."
"If you really loved me, you'd take me to the National Liberal Club."
Worst euphemism ever.
Although I've got Tim Minchin's 'If you really loved me, you'd let me videotape you whilst you wee' in my head now.
Domestically, it suggests that Boris's attack on Corbyn for not being enamoured of the US alliance is not going to resonate. Corbyn is lucky that some of his classic themes - criticism of US policy, opposition to PFI, scepticism about British foreign intervention - are now commonplace, even among people who thought them deplorable 10-20 years ago.
Isn't that really just a reflection that Britons and indeed most of the world, don't like most Republican Presidents, Nixon and W Bush were equally loathed and US approval has fallen everywhere in that poll under Trump outside Israel, Russia, Liberia and parts of Eastern Europe. If say Bernie Sanders won the 2020 Presidential election I expect a future PM Corbyn would have a good relationship with him
Re your first point, I think there’s an element of truth to that.
Neither Trump nor George W Bush would have won a UK general election. Bush Snr is probably the last Republican candidate who could have won a general election in the UK
John McCain could have done, before he hurtled to the right and inexplicably put Sarah Palin on his ticket. Dole in 96 was also basically a moderate.
Mr O'Mara said: "I am so pleased to be returning to work. Last June I was incredibly proud to have been elected the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Hallam and I am now delighted to be moving forward and able to represent my constituents."
I'm sure he'll be very grateful for the youthful indiscretion bar being so helpfully lowered.
How the hell can someone not work out that date nights in with pizza n dvd would have been a good wheeze for a month or so just at the moment? I think Marney is a plant by the press or a Ukip rival (I don't see any national security services giving enough of a toss to bother). Bolton was ensnared with that line we've all heard - "If you really loved me, you'd take me to the National Liberal Club."
"If you really loved me, you'd take me to the National Liberal Club."
Worst euphemism ever.
Although I've got Tim Minchin's 'If you really loved me, you'd let me videotape you whilst you wee' in my head now.
'If you really love me you'll let me take you up the National Liberal Club' has a certain je ne sais quoi.
The other nice bit about Labour's position, for connoisseurs of the politically absurd, is that their criticism basically comes down to blaming the Tories for the fact that a Labour government made a massive hash of negotiating PFI contracts.
The current Labour leadership would probably agree. They'd argue there is no real link between them and the last Labour government. It's affair point. Corbyn and McDonnell spent most of their time opposing it. Politically that does make them a bit harder to attack.
That's true, they want to repeat the mistakes of the 1970s, not the mistakes of the Blair/Brown years.
Nope, they were fervently opposed to and campaigned against the Labour government of 74-79, too. In fact, the far left that now leads Labour has opposed every Labour government there has ever been - even the Attlee one. We really are in uncharted territory in terms of belief systems and world view. They are actively opposed to capitalism - they want to smash it, not regulate it - and unequivocally anti-Western in outlook.
Comments
I assumed it was mainly populated by people like Mike Smithson recalling the glory days of their youth ("Ah, dear old Gladstone, the Grand Old Man, I remember when he socked it to Dizzy ...")
Now I know it is the venue of choice for UKIP romancers ("The royal seed may become tainted, dear, but my seed is pure ...")
Have either George Osborne or Gordon Brown offered defences of these schemes this morning?
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/953918916232957952
https://twitter.com/BenBradleyTV/status/953830078101753856
@NickPalmer I have to say I wouldn’t have thought that a political club would be a place where you have a date!
A police service that thought it was above the law and could do what it wanted.
I do much prefer each way bets for this sort of thing, but that's worth a pound or two. If the Renault's good enough, he'll be competitive.
That was allowed to continue for so long because authorities were turning a blind eye in the politically correct name of 'cultural sensitivity'. That's the antithesis of getting stuck in violently.
If the police had been held accountable for past sins then coppers in South Yorkshire dealing with Rotherham would have known turning a blind eye would have serious consequences for them.
And the same thing was happening elsewhere, and is probably still happening today.
Bottom lines. Multilateral bodies operate multilaterally. If we don't want to work that way, it's going to be very uncomfortable. And institutions matter in keeping things together. We are going for disintegration in the literal sense.
When’s there’s a culture of knowing you won’t get punished bad things happen.
Cf the Catholic Church abuse where you’d more likely get a new posting than be prosecuted, all to protect the Church.
Heck Cardinal Law was given an appointment to the Vatican even after his complicity became public.
Or Cardinal Bigot is another example.
It's crucial we have a defence of British values, and free speech, but the political class is more intent on censorship than freedom. As we saw when the stubbly 'children' of Calais came over and then screens had to be erected to stop the press and public mocking their crows' feet.
https://twitter.com/rinka_dog/status/953892842807668738
You are right that both sides went into Orgreave looking for a fight - if lawbreakers come determined to use violence, what else can the state do but ensure that violence fails?
The vast majority of the PFI contracts were entered into by Blair and Brown due to the need for large scale building of hospitals and schools and it was the only way they could be built by keeping the debt off the books as there was no way that they could have borrowed the finance without causing a serious financial crisis.
It may have been the correct decision at the time due to the urgency to deal with the issue but it is much easier today to stop most use of new PFI contracts as the construction has taken place
In these circumstances Corbyn's responsibility is that he was a labour MP when this was going on but there is a danger that he is on the wrong side of an informed debate as he would not have been able to build to the extent that Blair and Brown achieved
I hope you accept this as a fair response from a conservative member
PMQs yesterday was a fine example of how little Mr Corbyn understands about business that provide the revenue he wishes to spend.
Before we decided on Santa Monica, we looked at Silicon Valley for our US base. In the end, the cost of talent there was simply too high. There aren't many unemployed skilled US tech guys there (in fact you need to be pretty seriously anti-social not to be employed), so it's hard to make the case that it's damaged Americans job prospects in the area.
What it has done - as has the absolute flood of foreign cash into properties for investment purposes - is pushed up the cost of living.
The government had little experience for using such structures for complex buildings like hospitals, and so were completely out-negotiated by highly professional and well paid bid teams at companies like Carillion.
The markets should have been well aware of what was going on and if they did have concerns about the government committing to those levels of future repayments, it'd have impacted on general borrowing costs.
Politicians are fundamentally dishonest on this point, though, to be fair, that's mostly because the electorate are, by and large, hypocrites. Most people are in favour of other people paying more tax.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20588870
They also managed to renegotiate some of the poor contracts inherited from Brown.
Mr O'Mara said: "I am so pleased to be returning to work. Last June I was incredibly proud to have been elected the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Hallam and I am now delighted to be moving forward and able to represent my constituents."
Like Pavlov's Dog, the political parties have responded to the sound of the bell.
I suspect the Tories & LibDems will be delighted at his re-emergence. I'm less certain that it is good for Jeremy.
I hope this helps
http://www.searchingfinance.com/news-and-views/the-history-and-horror-of-the-pfi.html
The H1-B should be for senior staff or researchers, rather than for entry-level positions.
AIUI housing in SV is now a really serious problem, with rents unaffordable even to those with the good jobs. A bunch of very large tech companies with extra piles of onshore cash in the next year or two is unlikely to make that situation any better.
It kind of gave a massive lie to the use of kettling as a way of containing mass violence.
I agree there is a serious housing shortage in SV and SF. There are also absolutely ridiculous rents for office space there too. Second tier office space - and we're really not talking nice stuff here - in Santa Clara is as expensive as ocean front in Santa Monica. It's insane. But it can hardly all be blamed at the foot of H1Bs.
Indeed, would Silicon Valley be such a magnet for tech companies, if it wasn't possible to bring in foreign talent so easily? I suspect that if you looked at H1B salaries there, the average would be comfortably above $120k.
Bayeaux Tapestry, false embroidery.
The main issue is if we borrow to spend money now we are burdening future generations. It doesn't matter whether it's PFI or another funding vehicle.
Worst euphemism ever.
Although I've got Tim Minchin's 'If you really loved me, you'd let me videotape you whilst you wee' in my head now.