Squiffy
Wednesday 9 November 2016
Sunday 6 November 2016
F1 2016: The crunch
We're coming down to the crunch in the 2016 F1 season. There's two races to go and Nico Rosberg is 19 points ahead of Lewis Hamilton.
Nico Rosberg has definitely had his best ever season and won some races decisively. He has had quite a lot of luck, however, as Hamilton has suffered from multiple engine related problems. Two qualifying sessions in the early part of the season put Lewis towards the back of the grid, resulting in Lewis changing multiple engines in Belgium to build up his number of working engines and starting from the back again. Finally, his engine blowing up in Malaysia when he was near the end of the race in the lead and about to regain the lead in the championship was nearly a final straw.
Without those failures, it's hard to see how Rosberg would be in with a chance in this championship.
But, we are where we are.
There are two races left. Rosberg has won the last two Brazilian Grand Prix, and Hamilton has never won there. If history repeats itself and Rosberg wins again then he will be this year's champion. But Brazil has a habit of throwing up some unusual races. Quite often it rains and catches out some of the top players. Also, I'm not sure whether Rosberg has ever won a rain affected race - where Hamilton is a rain supremo.
If Hamilton was to get his first ever Brazilian GP win and Rosberg crashed out or drove defensively to a lower place in the points, like Monaco's race this year, then it will be game on.
Either way, this Brazil Grand Prix will be decisive, I think. If Hamilton comes out on top and back in the game, then I expect him to win the ABu Dhabi GP and win the championship. If Rosberg wins then I expect him to take the Abu Dhabi GP as well as his first championship.
Only if Hamilton wins and Rosberg is second or third, do we go onto to Abu Dhabi with it all still to play for. Hamilton know never to give up, in 2007 he was 17 points ahead of Raikkonen going into the last two races with 20 points available and yet Raikkonen won. Hamilton must be hoping for that misfortune to be cancelled out this time round.
We also don't know whether Rosberg will tighten up in these crunch rounds. So far he has been strong and stable so we should expect not, but you never know.
This time next week some of these questions will be answered.
Squiffy.
Nico Rosberg has definitely had his best ever season and won some races decisively. He has had quite a lot of luck, however, as Hamilton has suffered from multiple engine related problems. Two qualifying sessions in the early part of the season put Lewis towards the back of the grid, resulting in Lewis changing multiple engines in Belgium to build up his number of working engines and starting from the back again. Finally, his engine blowing up in Malaysia when he was near the end of the race in the lead and about to regain the lead in the championship was nearly a final straw.
Without those failures, it's hard to see how Rosberg would be in with a chance in this championship.
But, we are where we are.
There are two races left. Rosberg has won the last two Brazilian Grand Prix, and Hamilton has never won there. If history repeats itself and Rosberg wins again then he will be this year's champion. But Brazil has a habit of throwing up some unusual races. Quite often it rains and catches out some of the top players. Also, I'm not sure whether Rosberg has ever won a rain affected race - where Hamilton is a rain supremo.
If Hamilton was to get his first ever Brazilian GP win and Rosberg crashed out or drove defensively to a lower place in the points, like Monaco's race this year, then it will be game on.
Either way, this Brazil Grand Prix will be decisive, I think. If Hamilton comes out on top and back in the game, then I expect him to win the ABu Dhabi GP and win the championship. If Rosberg wins then I expect him to take the Abu Dhabi GP as well as his first championship.
Only if Hamilton wins and Rosberg is second or third, do we go onto to Abu Dhabi with it all still to play for. Hamilton know never to give up, in 2007 he was 17 points ahead of Raikkonen going into the last two races with 20 points available and yet Raikkonen won. Hamilton must be hoping for that misfortune to be cancelled out this time round.
We also don't know whether Rosberg will tighten up in these crunch rounds. So far he has been strong and stable so we should expect not, but you never know.
This time next week some of these questions will be answered.
Squiffy.
Thursday 20 October 2016
Oi thickie. We knew what we voted for?
I'm getting increasingly incensed by being told that I did not know what I was voting for in the EU referendum. I feel like a large number of the political elite are extremely condescending.
Yes, I'm thinking of you Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. Here is Nick Clegg in full condescension mode.
Apparently not one single voter said to Nick that they were voting leave to 'stop British exporters from their untrammeled access to their largest markets in Europe'. Well, I must say I'm surprised, that's what most people were saying on my high street! No, it's a straw man set up to be ridiculous.
The video shows leaders of both the remain and leave camps saying that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market. We all knew that we would still be trading with the single market but would not be bound by the wealth of regulations in the rest of our economy.
Most people I know who voted leave knew £350m a week would not be going to the NHS - it was indicative, but wanted to have control over our laws, regulations and borders. Hence, we knew it was going to be a so called 'hard' Brexit.
We felt the EU was going in the wrong direction, and had been for a quarter of a century, and repeated attempts to change direction were rebuffed.
They are treating us like we are stupid, but
We knew what we were voting for - you thickie
Of course, Nick Clegg knows that most people did know what they were voting for. He is not thick, I just said that for effect. Like he does.
He is pushing for votes on various aspects of Brexit. The more votes the better. He wants to frustrate the process at all stage. He gives not one damn about democracy. The Lib Dem 2005 manifesto actually proposed an in/out referendum but he forgot about this when it became inconvenient.
There will be so many different ways in which Parliament will be pushed for votes, the Government is going to have to be vigilant.
I hope that Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband lose their seats at the next election. Let's show them what democracy is all about.
Squiffy.
Yes, I'm thinking of you Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. Here is Nick Clegg in full condescension mode.
Apparently not one single voter said to Nick that they were voting leave to 'stop British exporters from their untrammeled access to their largest markets in Europe'. Well, I must say I'm surprised, that's what most people were saying on my high street! No, it's a straw man set up to be ridiculous.
The video shows leaders of both the remain and leave camps saying that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market. We all knew that we would still be trading with the single market but would not be bound by the wealth of regulations in the rest of our economy.
Most people I know who voted leave knew £350m a week would not be going to the NHS - it was indicative, but wanted to have control over our laws, regulations and borders. Hence, we knew it was going to be a so called 'hard' Brexit.
We felt the EU was going in the wrong direction, and had been for a quarter of a century, and repeated attempts to change direction were rebuffed.
They are treating us like we are stupid, but
We knew what we were voting for - you thickie
Of course, Nick Clegg knows that most people did know what they were voting for. He is not thick, I just said that for effect. Like he does.
He is pushing for votes on various aspects of Brexit. The more votes the better. He wants to frustrate the process at all stage. He gives not one damn about democracy. The Lib Dem 2005 manifesto actually proposed an in/out referendum but he forgot about this when it became inconvenient.
There will be so many different ways in which Parliament will be pushed for votes, the Government is going to have to be vigilant.
I hope that Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband lose their seats at the next election. Let's show them what democracy is all about.
Squiffy.
Wednesday 14 September 2016
Free Trade Agreements, access and membership of the Single Market
Now that we have made the momentous decision to leave the EU, we are constantly asking ourselves what does Brexit look like?
In much the same way as people get confused about the difference between debt and deficit, there is a great deal of confusion between free trade agreements, membership and access of the single market. I thought I might give you what I understand to be the differences, and what I think we should aim for.
Firstly, free trade agreements are generally agreements between two countries in which they agree not to impose tariffs (a tax) on imported goods and services. This may be across the board or only on goods, or in certain sectors of the economy. Many countries have these and there are some cases where there is a free trade agreement between a country and the EU. Within the EU we are in effect in a free trade agreement with the other 27 nations of the EU.
What is the EU single market? It is a customs union in which all members agree not to impose import tariffs, i.e. a free trade agreement between the 28 nations including ourselves.
Is that all? No. The single market is more than that. When you sell goods into the US the goods you sell must adhere to US regulations, likewise with the EU. The Single Market makes it so that every country within the EU has the same regulations, so as a member you know that if you make something for France it will also be good enough for Germany. Being a member of the Single Market means that you agree to adhere to all the EU regulations for all your goods and services (though the single market in services is not yet harmonized).
That sounds great, so we must have access to the single market? Yes, of course we must have access to the single market - but that's not really in question. The US has access to the single market, Western Samoa has access to the single market. Access just means that you are able to sell into the single market - well you can as long as the goods you sell adhere to EU regulations, just like with the US.
So what's the confusion? Some politicians and commentators confuse access to the single market with membership of the single market. We will have access, but whether we are a member is the crux.
It sounds good to be a member of the single market, so why would we not want to be? Those EU regulations which we need to adhere to, we also need to adhere to them for any goods which we don't intend to export to the EU. In fact around 95% of our economy does not export, and some of this regulation is very heavy handed. We could have lighter British regulation for all our economy, and then apply EU regulations for only those exporting to the EU.
Any other drawbacks on being a member? Yes. The EU has made it so that the single market negotiates with other countries on free trade agreements as a Block, which is why we have not been able to have FTA's with like minded countries like the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and tigers such as India and China. Being outside, we can push ahead with new FTA's.
Furthermore as a custom's union, the single market does impose import tariffs on external countries, even if the UK does not wish to. Agricultural goods from Africa are cheaper, but with tariffs are more expensive. This is to protect inefficient french farmers and the common agricultural policy. Outside the single market we can drop those tariffs and get cheaper food from Africa which will help us and help Africa.
Also the EU single market membership holds that free movement of peoples is a pre-requisite which is why immigration has become an issue and, unless the EU becomes more flexible, the reason why we will have to stop being members.
The way in which Theresa May has set up the new departments, one for Brexit and an International
Trade seems to infer that we will have to stop being members of the single market (otherwise we could not negotiate FTA's).
I would bet my bottom dollar on not being members of the single market but having a free trade agreement with the single market in all areas which are already covered.
Hope that explains.
Squiffy,
In much the same way as people get confused about the difference between debt and deficit, there is a great deal of confusion between free trade agreements, membership and access of the single market. I thought I might give you what I understand to be the differences, and what I think we should aim for.
Firstly, free trade agreements are generally agreements between two countries in which they agree not to impose tariffs (a tax) on imported goods and services. This may be across the board or only on goods, or in certain sectors of the economy. Many countries have these and there are some cases where there is a free trade agreement between a country and the EU. Within the EU we are in effect in a free trade agreement with the other 27 nations of the EU.
What is the EU single market? It is a customs union in which all members agree not to impose import tariffs, i.e. a free trade agreement between the 28 nations including ourselves.
Is that all? No. The single market is more than that. When you sell goods into the US the goods you sell must adhere to US regulations, likewise with the EU. The Single Market makes it so that every country within the EU has the same regulations, so as a member you know that if you make something for France it will also be good enough for Germany. Being a member of the Single Market means that you agree to adhere to all the EU regulations for all your goods and services (though the single market in services is not yet harmonized).
That sounds great, so we must have access to the single market? Yes, of course we must have access to the single market - but that's not really in question. The US has access to the single market, Western Samoa has access to the single market. Access just means that you are able to sell into the single market - well you can as long as the goods you sell adhere to EU regulations, just like with the US.
So what's the confusion? Some politicians and commentators confuse access to the single market with membership of the single market. We will have access, but whether we are a member is the crux.
It sounds good to be a member of the single market, so why would we not want to be? Those EU regulations which we need to adhere to, we also need to adhere to them for any goods which we don't intend to export to the EU. In fact around 95% of our economy does not export, and some of this regulation is very heavy handed. We could have lighter British regulation for all our economy, and then apply EU regulations for only those exporting to the EU.
Any other drawbacks on being a member? Yes. The EU has made it so that the single market negotiates with other countries on free trade agreements as a Block, which is why we have not been able to have FTA's with like minded countries like the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and tigers such as India and China. Being outside, we can push ahead with new FTA's.
Furthermore as a custom's union, the single market does impose import tariffs on external countries, even if the UK does not wish to. Agricultural goods from Africa are cheaper, but with tariffs are more expensive. This is to protect inefficient french farmers and the common agricultural policy. Outside the single market we can drop those tariffs and get cheaper food from Africa which will help us and help Africa.
Also the EU single market membership holds that free movement of peoples is a pre-requisite which is why immigration has become an issue and, unless the EU becomes more flexible, the reason why we will have to stop being members.
The way in which Theresa May has set up the new departments, one for Brexit and an International
Trade seems to infer that we will have to stop being members of the single market (otherwise we could not negotiate FTA's).
I would bet my bottom dollar on not being members of the single market but having a free trade agreement with the single market in all areas which are already covered.
Hope that explains.
Squiffy,
Wednesday 13 July 2016
A big day for May. A bad day for Labour and UKIP.
Theresa May becomes Prime Minister today, and I wish her well. She's a bit cold but maybe that is going to be useful in the upcoming negotiations with the EU.
I just hope her re-shuffle shows a break from Cameronism and embraces Brexit. I want to see George Osborne moving on from the Chancellorship, the Foreign Office is ok. I don't want to see Philip Hammond as Chancellor as he is gloomy, miserable and still scare mongering - even now. We need an optimist and someone radical to simplify the tax code. Maybe Gove, maybe Dominic Raab.
She should keep Gove in as either chief negotiator or to finish his Justice reforms. Boris should be brought in as maybe Party Chairman or Education Secretary. If not Gove then David Davis would be great as chief negotiator. She does have a few good female talents to draw on, Priti Patel, Amber Rudd and Anna Soubry. She could put Andrea Leadsom in as Treasury Number 2. We'll see.
Yesterday's meeting of the Labour NEC came up with the correct result of having Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot paper. He needs to be destroyed by a legitimate democratic voice and not a stitch-up. They then came up with silly rules to exclude new members from voting, but allowing registered supporters. They need to sort this out quickly. If Corbyn is ousted, Labour would do well to copy the Tory party process.
UKIP went equally mad yesterday and excluded every one from their leadership ballot who has not been a member for 5 years. The party has only been in existence for 20 years or so and the last 5 years has been their best. In one foul swoop they have taken out their brightest and most able media performers, especially Suzanne Evans and Douglas Carswell. Carswell does not want to be leader but Suzanne Evans would have added respectability to the party as she is likeable. It's now got an unknown in Stephen Wolf and Diane James who I don't rate. I think UKIP won't be around as a political force in 5 years time.
Squiffy.
I just hope her re-shuffle shows a break from Cameronism and embraces Brexit. I want to see George Osborne moving on from the Chancellorship, the Foreign Office is ok. I don't want to see Philip Hammond as Chancellor as he is gloomy, miserable and still scare mongering - even now. We need an optimist and someone radical to simplify the tax code. Maybe Gove, maybe Dominic Raab.
She should keep Gove in as either chief negotiator or to finish his Justice reforms. Boris should be brought in as maybe Party Chairman or Education Secretary. If not Gove then David Davis would be great as chief negotiator. She does have a few good female talents to draw on, Priti Patel, Amber Rudd and Anna Soubry. She could put Andrea Leadsom in as Treasury Number 2. We'll see.
Yesterday's meeting of the Labour NEC came up with the correct result of having Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot paper. He needs to be destroyed by a legitimate democratic voice and not a stitch-up. They then came up with silly rules to exclude new members from voting, but allowing registered supporters. They need to sort this out quickly. If Corbyn is ousted, Labour would do well to copy the Tory party process.
UKIP went equally mad yesterday and excluded every one from their leadership ballot who has not been a member for 5 years. The party has only been in existence for 20 years or so and the last 5 years has been their best. In one foul swoop they have taken out their brightest and most able media performers, especially Suzanne Evans and Douglas Carswell. Carswell does not want to be leader but Suzanne Evans would have added respectability to the party as she is likeable. It's now got an unknown in Stephen Wolf and Diane James who I don't rate. I think UKIP won't be around as a political force in 5 years time.
Squiffy.
Monday 11 July 2016
Understanding Corbynistas
I had a conversation with a left wing friend the other day and he was saying how great a leader Jeremy Corbyn was. I was incredulous. How could an otherwise sensible man believe this? He couldn't understand why I couldn't see it.
Today I was listening to the Iain Dale programme on LBC and to a man who was calling Angela Eagle a Blairite or Thatcherite! In the days of Tony Blair you would have said that Angela Eagle was on the left of the party (just not as left as Corbyn). The caller then said that the vast majority of people who don't vote are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, but obviously there is no evidence for this at all!
I think the caller exposed something though which I think is key to understanding Corbynistas. I think that people on the far left believe that everyone, by default, has the same beliefs as them.
I mean how could anyone believe anything different? And if they do believe something different, then if you're right wing then you must be evil and if you are centre-left then you are a traitor.
It is for this reason why moderate Labour MPs are being bombarded with extremely negative messages on twitter and facebook. They are being bullied with horrendous and vicious attacks - some sexist, racist and homophobic messages - from the supposed party of equality.
It is so easy to surround yourself with people who have the same views, especially on the new media of Twitter and Facebook. It's called the 'echo chamber' as you have your own views echoed back to you. Momentum is a big echo chamber of the far left and their member's are extremely vociferous in giving their views, but I doubt it will ever get more than one million members.
The members of the far left, though, forget about the silent millions of centre-left voters who want a reasonable Government with a bigger state but not a ruling state. It will become clear to them when the Labour party splits as it soon will in one way or another. But the people who don't support the people's front are traitors anyway aren't they?
Squiffy.
Today I was listening to the Iain Dale programme on LBC and to a man who was calling Angela Eagle a Blairite or Thatcherite! In the days of Tony Blair you would have said that Angela Eagle was on the left of the party (just not as left as Corbyn). The caller then said that the vast majority of people who don't vote are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, but obviously there is no evidence for this at all!
I think the caller exposed something though which I think is key to understanding Corbynistas. I think that people on the far left believe that everyone, by default, has the same beliefs as them.
I mean how could anyone believe anything different? And if they do believe something different, then if you're right wing then you must be evil and if you are centre-left then you are a traitor.
It is for this reason why moderate Labour MPs are being bombarded with extremely negative messages on twitter and facebook. They are being bullied with horrendous and vicious attacks - some sexist, racist and homophobic messages - from the supposed party of equality.
It is so easy to surround yourself with people who have the same views, especially on the new media of Twitter and Facebook. It's called the 'echo chamber' as you have your own views echoed back to you. Momentum is a big echo chamber of the far left and their member's are extremely vociferous in giving their views, but I doubt it will ever get more than one million members.
The members of the far left, though, forget about the silent millions of centre-left voters who want a reasonable Government with a bigger state but not a ruling state. It will become clear to them when the Labour party splits as it soon will in one way or another. But the people who don't support the people's front are traitors anyway aren't they?
Squiffy.
Saturday 9 July 2016
Corbyn vs PLP (or Eagle vs Corbyn)
It looks like Angela Eagle is set to challenge Jeremy Corbyn for leadership of the Labour party on Monday.
I cannot believe how slow the Labour party coup has been. It's taken two weeks already and the Labour party looks like a joke. The Tory party does this so much better, they do not accept crap leaders for long. And if Angela Eagle is the best challenger it shows the paucity of talent in the Labour ranks.
The Labour party is a mess from top to bottom. The party members are not representative of Labour voters. The Parliamentary Labour Party is not representative of the membership and Corbyn does not represent the PLP.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins there will have to be a split. The moderates will have to leave and set up a new party.
If Angela Eagle wins, will Momentum split taking Jeremy Corbyn and his small band of far left wingers?
I don't think the broad church of the Labour can sustain any longer, it just remains to be seen who takes custody of the Labour name and party machinery.
Squiffy.
I cannot believe how slow the Labour party coup has been. It's taken two weeks already and the Labour party looks like a joke. The Tory party does this so much better, they do not accept crap leaders for long. And if Angela Eagle is the best challenger it shows the paucity of talent in the Labour ranks.
The Labour party is a mess from top to bottom. The party members are not representative of Labour voters. The Parliamentary Labour Party is not representative of the membership and Corbyn does not represent the PLP.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins there will have to be a split. The moderates will have to leave and set up a new party.
If Angela Eagle wins, will Momentum split taking Jeremy Corbyn and his small band of far left wingers?
I don't think the broad church of the Labour can sustain any longer, it just remains to be seen who takes custody of the Labour name and party machinery.
Squiffy.
May vs Leadson
The Tory party leader and next Prime Minister will either be Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom.
I think Michael Gove would be the best Prime Minister, he is a radical with great ideas on social justice. Unfortunately, by the way he treated Boris Johnson, he has seriously damaged his credentials and so was third out of the leadership contest.
The two ladies fighting it out now do not fill me with enthusiasm, like David Cameron did, and so I hope the hustings will show some ideas which get my mouth watering.
I think, though, that I want Theresa May to win. I think her experience will be very valuable. She has styled herself as the new Iron Lady and I hope she is able to live up to the original. I don't like the fact that we have two months of campaigning, we desperately need a new PM soon to start taking away the doubt in this post-referendum world. In fact it would be great if Andrea Leadsom stood down so we could have a new PM immediately.
The last few days has shown that Andrea is a bit politically naive and I hope she learns from this. She seems to have picked up the right wing and UKIPpers - which worries me greatly. She would benefit from a cabinet job in Theresa May Government.
Squiffy
I think Michael Gove would be the best Prime Minister, he is a radical with great ideas on social justice. Unfortunately, by the way he treated Boris Johnson, he has seriously damaged his credentials and so was third out of the leadership contest.
The two ladies fighting it out now do not fill me with enthusiasm, like David Cameron did, and so I hope the hustings will show some ideas which get my mouth watering.
I think, though, that I want Theresa May to win. I think her experience will be very valuable. She has styled herself as the new Iron Lady and I hope she is able to live up to the original. I don't like the fact that we have two months of campaigning, we desperately need a new PM soon to start taking away the doubt in this post-referendum world. In fact it would be great if Andrea Leadsom stood down so we could have a new PM immediately.
The last few days has shown that Andrea is a bit politically naive and I hope she learns from this. She seems to have picked up the right wing and UKIPpers - which worries me greatly. She would benefit from a cabinet job in Theresa May Government.
Squiffy
Rosberg vs Hamilton
Last week in Austria Nico Rosberg made a mistake, collided with Lewis Hamilton and damaged his car. Note, how I lay the blame on Nico Rosberg. Lewis Hamilton left Nico plenty of room to turn, Nico left Hamilton none and only turned at the last moment.
Let's trace this back.
Rosberg started it.
In Bahrain 2014 we witnessed a fantastic race with overtaking hard but fair on both sides, with Hamilton coming out on top. All nice and clean. Apart from the fact that Rosberg had used an engine setting with more power - against Mercedes' own rule to get close to Hamilton.
Two races later in Spain, Hamilton retaliated and used the 'forbidden' engine mode to stay ahead of Rosberg to take the win.
Then Monaco. In qualifying, Rosberg had a very suspicious off, destroying Hamilton's lap as Rosberg was running ahead of him on the track. He even reversed back onto the track. It was clearly a foul. Hamilton was incandescent.
In Hungary, Hamilton had another problem in qualifying with his car on fire and so he had to come through the field. Hamilton and Rosberg found themselves running 3rd and 4th. Hamilton was asked to allow Rosberg to pass, but as he was still in the hunt for the win he said he wouldn't slow down - Rosberg would have to get closer, which he didn't.
In Spa, Rosberg got a good run on Hamilton up Les Combes and tried to pass but managed to clip Hamilton's rear tyre puncturing it. There was a public flair up and the first laying down of the law by Toto Wolff.
Turn to 2015.
In Japan, Hamilton was aggressive into the first corner, leaving Rosberg 'out to dry' as Hamilton had the racing line.
In Austin, again into the first corner on a wet track, Rosberg was slightly ahead on the outside, with Hamilton on the inside trying to turn and with cold brakes going straight on pushing Rosberg out. This is the most similar situation to the recent Austria incident, but Hamilton had cold brakes and tried to turn. Incidentally, Rosberg said he was 'slightly ahead so had the luxury to take the racing line.' Remember that.
Now to 2016.
In Spain, Rosberg passed Hamilton off the line but was in the wrong engine mode and stopped picking up speed as they went through turn three. Hamilton closed fast and went for the inside but Rosberg closed the space and went into Hamilton. Both were out, but both were at fault.
In Canada, Rosberg again got partially alongside Hamilton after the start but was on the outside and Hamilton again, with cold brakes, was about to take the racing line with Rosberg having to take to the grass. They had banged wheels.
Finally Austria. Interestingly, Hamilton was slightly ahead on the outside, Rosberg had failing brakes. This time Rosberg said 'he had the inside line and so was able to take the racing line' - which is the opposite of what he said in the race in Austin! He didn't even take the racing line, he failed to turn in and specifically pushed Hamilton wide.
In conclusion. Rosberg started hostilities. Hamilton has raced hard but fair and when he forced them to touch, they banged wheels with both cars continuing. Rosberg when racing wheel to wheel makes too many mistakes and causes bits to fall off cars. Hamilton is a better racer. That's why Hamilton has 3 world championships.
Squiffy.
Let's trace this back.
Rosberg started it.
In Bahrain 2014 we witnessed a fantastic race with overtaking hard but fair on both sides, with Hamilton coming out on top. All nice and clean. Apart from the fact that Rosberg had used an engine setting with more power - against Mercedes' own rule to get close to Hamilton.
Two races later in Spain, Hamilton retaliated and used the 'forbidden' engine mode to stay ahead of Rosberg to take the win.
Then Monaco. In qualifying, Rosberg had a very suspicious off, destroying Hamilton's lap as Rosberg was running ahead of him on the track. He even reversed back onto the track. It was clearly a foul. Hamilton was incandescent.
In Hungary, Hamilton had another problem in qualifying with his car on fire and so he had to come through the field. Hamilton and Rosberg found themselves running 3rd and 4th. Hamilton was asked to allow Rosberg to pass, but as he was still in the hunt for the win he said he wouldn't slow down - Rosberg would have to get closer, which he didn't.
In Spa, Rosberg got a good run on Hamilton up Les Combes and tried to pass but managed to clip Hamilton's rear tyre puncturing it. There was a public flair up and the first laying down of the law by Toto Wolff.
Turn to 2015.
In Japan, Hamilton was aggressive into the first corner, leaving Rosberg 'out to dry' as Hamilton had the racing line.
In Austin, again into the first corner on a wet track, Rosberg was slightly ahead on the outside, with Hamilton on the inside trying to turn and with cold brakes going straight on pushing Rosberg out. This is the most similar situation to the recent Austria incident, but Hamilton had cold brakes and tried to turn. Incidentally, Rosberg said he was 'slightly ahead so had the luxury to take the racing line.' Remember that.
Now to 2016.
In Spain, Rosberg passed Hamilton off the line but was in the wrong engine mode and stopped picking up speed as they went through turn three. Hamilton closed fast and went for the inside but Rosberg closed the space and went into Hamilton. Both were out, but both were at fault.
In Canada, Rosberg again got partially alongside Hamilton after the start but was on the outside and Hamilton again, with cold brakes, was about to take the racing line with Rosberg having to take to the grass. They had banged wheels.
Finally Austria. Interestingly, Hamilton was slightly ahead on the outside, Rosberg had failing brakes. This time Rosberg said 'he had the inside line and so was able to take the racing line' - which is the opposite of what he said in the race in Austin! He didn't even take the racing line, he failed to turn in and specifically pushed Hamilton wide.
In conclusion. Rosberg started hostilities. Hamilton has raced hard but fair and when he forced them to touch, they banged wheels with both cars continuing. Rosberg when racing wheel to wheel makes too many mistakes and causes bits to fall off cars. Hamilton is a better racer. That's why Hamilton has 3 world championships.
Squiffy.
Thursday 30 June 2016
They say a week is a long time in politics. The world has changed
A week ago Britain voted to leave the EU.
Since then the political landscape has changed quite a lot.
Firstly the PM has resigned and will be gone by 9th September. David Cameron has been a good Prime Minister and has led this country out the worst of the credit crunch. He gave us a good Olympics, gay marriage, and some great Education reforms. Unfortunately, he also gave us the NHS reforms which were not well thought through. I think he ended up surrounded too much by his own clique, but he did give us the referendum, on which he found himself on the wrong side. We may find that we miss David Cameron more than we thought!
The doom-mongers seemed to have a point as Friday markets opened. Both the pound and FTSE plunged. There two days of falls, and now three days of rises and now the FTSE 100 is at a ten month high. The FTSE 250 and 350 indices have also nearly reached their pre-brexit values. The pound however is still low, but I'm sure it will come back.
There has been a series of warnings from some companies taking about relocation, but these are the same warnings as before brexit. We don't know whether they will carry out their threats for a number of years.
The EU has gone into full fingers in ear mode, and Juncker is looking like a right pillock. Hopefully Angela Merkel will be the voice of sanity.
On the trade front, the PMs of Australia and New Zealand have reached out for full trade deals, as has Paul Ryan, the speaker on the US House of Representatives. So much for being at the back of the queue.
Predictably the remainers have signed a petition to try to get a second referendum. Just like the Corbynites and countless others they will continue to be deluded. There will be no second referendum.
What annoys me, is the refrain 'Old people have stolen the future of the youth'. The youth may have voted 75% to 25% in favour of remain, but that's of those who chose to vote. In fact only 24% of those eligible to vote went for remain, so it's not like they were overly exercised by the issue. Decisions are taken by those who turn up.
For most of us, we have been wanting a referendum for years to put right the bad decision made in 1975 - and I still have plenty years left. Remainers have been putting it to the youth that they will not be able to travel or work abroad after Brexit. What crap, we were able to before being a member of the EEC and we will be able to after Brexit!
What is despicable is the number of hate crimes against members of the public by racists and xenophobes. What a crying shame that's happened and I would have thought that we cold be a more civil society. I wanted brexit to be a more fully committed member of the world rather than as part of an insular club.
The Tory party has started to choose a new leader. It looked likely to be a predicted Boris vs Theresa contest but was thrown into the air by Michael Gove ditching Boris, going it alone leading to Boris pulling out of the contest (though he never officially entered). It appears to be to do with Gove losing confidence in Boris, but it has left a lot of Boris supporters screaming blue murder about betrayal.
I wasn't sure who to support. I'd like to support Gove as Theresa May is a bit too cold and we need some optimism and vision. I'll wait to see if any of the contenders have some interesting policies up in their pocket.
What I think is clear is that the poison of Europe will gradually leave the Tory party and it can once again be the political winning machine that it was for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.
You may not recognise the person above. It is Paul Flynn, 81 year old Labour MP. Today he made his debut at the despatch box after being an MP for 29 years. The Labour party is a complete joke. Every day has seen resignations from the shadow cabinet and shadow ministerial teams. Pat Glass made history after being appointed as shadow Education secretary on Monday and resigning on Wednesday. A whole 2 days.
I think Jeremy Corbyn has scraped the barrel of Labour MPs to form his shadow team but he can only fill around 30 positions (he needs around 90). The rest of the PLP has voted JC down in a vote of confidence by 172 to 40. Any normal leader would know that he should resign, but Jeremy Corbyn and his socialist workers misfits know that it's probably their only chance to shape the Labour party in their image and so they are clinging on.
It looks like Angela Eagle will challenge in the next few days, but if JC stands in the subsequent selection, he will probably win and then there would be a serious split in the party. This has been on the cards for some time, but brought into focus by the referendum.
Fascinating times. Let's see what the next week brings!
Squiffy.
Since then the political landscape has changed quite a lot.
Firstly the PM has resigned and will be gone by 9th September. David Cameron has been a good Prime Minister and has led this country out the worst of the credit crunch. He gave us a good Olympics, gay marriage, and some great Education reforms. Unfortunately, he also gave us the NHS reforms which were not well thought through. I think he ended up surrounded too much by his own clique, but he did give us the referendum, on which he found himself on the wrong side. We may find that we miss David Cameron more than we thought!
The doom-mongers seemed to have a point as Friday markets opened. Both the pound and FTSE plunged. There two days of falls, and now three days of rises and now the FTSE 100 is at a ten month high. The FTSE 250 and 350 indices have also nearly reached their pre-brexit values. The pound however is still low, but I'm sure it will come back.
There has been a series of warnings from some companies taking about relocation, but these are the same warnings as before brexit. We don't know whether they will carry out their threats for a number of years.
The EU has gone into full fingers in ear mode, and Juncker is looking like a right pillock. Hopefully Angela Merkel will be the voice of sanity.
On the trade front, the PMs of Australia and New Zealand have reached out for full trade deals, as has Paul Ryan, the speaker on the US House of Representatives. So much for being at the back of the queue.
Predictably the remainers have signed a petition to try to get a second referendum. Just like the Corbynites and countless others they will continue to be deluded. There will be no second referendum.
What annoys me, is the refrain 'Old people have stolen the future of the youth'. The youth may have voted 75% to 25% in favour of remain, but that's of those who chose to vote. In fact only 24% of those eligible to vote went for remain, so it's not like they were overly exercised by the issue. Decisions are taken by those who turn up.
For most of us, we have been wanting a referendum for years to put right the bad decision made in 1975 - and I still have plenty years left. Remainers have been putting it to the youth that they will not be able to travel or work abroad after Brexit. What crap, we were able to before being a member of the EEC and we will be able to after Brexit!
What is despicable is the number of hate crimes against members of the public by racists and xenophobes. What a crying shame that's happened and I would have thought that we cold be a more civil society. I wanted brexit to be a more fully committed member of the world rather than as part of an insular club.
The Tory party has started to choose a new leader. It looked likely to be a predicted Boris vs Theresa contest but was thrown into the air by Michael Gove ditching Boris, going it alone leading to Boris pulling out of the contest (though he never officially entered). It appears to be to do with Gove losing confidence in Boris, but it has left a lot of Boris supporters screaming blue murder about betrayal.
I wasn't sure who to support. I'd like to support Gove as Theresa May is a bit too cold and we need some optimism and vision. I'll wait to see if any of the contenders have some interesting policies up in their pocket.
What I think is clear is that the poison of Europe will gradually leave the Tory party and it can once again be the political winning machine that it was for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.
You may not recognise the person above. It is Paul Flynn, 81 year old Labour MP. Today he made his debut at the despatch box after being an MP for 29 years. The Labour party is a complete joke. Every day has seen resignations from the shadow cabinet and shadow ministerial teams. Pat Glass made history after being appointed as shadow Education secretary on Monday and resigning on Wednesday. A whole 2 days.
I think Jeremy Corbyn has scraped the barrel of Labour MPs to form his shadow team but he can only fill around 30 positions (he needs around 90). The rest of the PLP has voted JC down in a vote of confidence by 172 to 40. Any normal leader would know that he should resign, but Jeremy Corbyn and his socialist workers misfits know that it's probably their only chance to shape the Labour party in their image and so they are clinging on.
It looks like Angela Eagle will challenge in the next few days, but if JC stands in the subsequent selection, he will probably win and then there would be a serious split in the party. This has been on the cards for some time, but brought into focus by the referendum.
Fascinating times. Let's see what the next week brings!
Squiffy.
Friday 24 June 2016
David Cameron resigns
I suppose it was inevitable, but I hoped the mould could be broken and David Cameron could hang on but alas not.
David Cameron has just announced that he will step down before the Tory party conference in October. It's sad, very sad. They say that all political careers end in failure, and so that is how this last act will be seen.
Such a shame.
Squiffy,
David Cameron has just announced that he will step down before the Tory party conference in October. It's sad, very sad. They say that all political careers end in failure, and so that is how this last act will be seen.
Such a shame.
Squiffy,
The referendum is over: Brexit
We will find out what David Cameron is going to do within the hour.
Squiffy
Squiffy
Eu referendum: Update 4 p.m.
Leave are now leading the votes by roughly 500,000. 51.3% to 48.7%.
I don't think Remain can win now and that Leave will get it.
The sun is about to rise, and I would like to go to bed soon. Alas the excitement of where we go from here will keep me awake. Will Cameron resign? Will he trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty today?
Exciting times.
Dare to believe in democracy.
Squiffy.
Very tired, slightly more tipsy.
I don't think Remain can win now and that Leave will get it.
The sun is about to rise, and I would like to go to bed soon. Alas the excitement of where we go from here will keep me awake. Will Cameron resign? Will he trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty today?
Exciting times.
Dare to believe in democracy.
Squiffy.
Very tired, slightly more tipsy.
Eu referendum: Update 2 a.m.
It's 2 am. My initial thoughts that Remain would win have now been dispelled. It looks increasingly clear that Leave might make it (we still have most London votes to go).
The current outlook is Leave 53%, Remain 47%.
So far I have yet to see any area of England, apart from London, voting in favour of Remain.
It looks like we're going to be in for some rocky times over the next few days before the impact sinks in.
It's going to be a long night.
Squiffy.
Quite tired, a little tipsy
The current outlook is Leave 53%, Remain 47%.
So far I have yet to see any area of England, apart from London, voting in favour of Remain.
It looks like we're going to be in for some rocky times over the next few days before the impact sinks in.
It's going to be a long night.
Squiffy.
Quite tired, a little tipsy
Thursday 23 June 2016
Some thoughts about the referendum: Re-alignment
I think there could, just could, be some seismic changes to the British political landscape following the referendum.
The Tory Party is split down the middle. If Leave wins, I think the party will coalesce around a new Brexiteer leader, Boris Johnson or maybe Micahel Gove if he can be persuaded. If Remain wins then I can foresee a split like what happened to Labour in 1981. The Brexiteers will feel extremely let down by David Cameron's behaviour, using the Government machine for propaganda will not have gone down well. George Osborne is nearly a dead man walking.
The Labour parliamentary Party is united against Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour Party at large are now largely for him. Everyone knew that Corbyn would be a Leaver had he not been leader. The referendum has added a new cleave between the parliamentary party and a large section of their voters. There are now so many disconnects within Labour it could rupture quite quickly. It may even disappear completely.
If Leave wins then UKIP can disappear along with Nigel Farage with their voters finding new homes. If Remain win then this party could unite with Tory malcontents to form a new party. Otherwise a similar change to what happened to the SNP could occur under new leadership. Europe was not a big deal for most people, but it will be now. I expect UKIP to do quite well after a Remain win, but Farage would have to resign - he is now toxic. I would prefer to see Suzanne Evans as leader, in fact I think leave would have had a better change with her at the helm.
Farage may not stand down though, and maybe he wanted them not to win to continue as leader of this party. He may sense an SNP type surge, but I can't see it with him at the helm.
The SNP and Lib Dems are the only ones who would be untouched.
Alternately, we may just trundle on as before.
Squiffy.
The Tory Party is split down the middle. If Leave wins, I think the party will coalesce around a new Brexiteer leader, Boris Johnson or maybe Micahel Gove if he can be persuaded. If Remain wins then I can foresee a split like what happened to Labour in 1981. The Brexiteers will feel extremely let down by David Cameron's behaviour, using the Government machine for propaganda will not have gone down well. George Osborne is nearly a dead man walking.
The Labour parliamentary Party is united against Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour Party at large are now largely for him. Everyone knew that Corbyn would be a Leaver had he not been leader. The referendum has added a new cleave between the parliamentary party and a large section of their voters. There are now so many disconnects within Labour it could rupture quite quickly. It may even disappear completely.
If Leave wins then UKIP can disappear along with Nigel Farage with their voters finding new homes. If Remain win then this party could unite with Tory malcontents to form a new party. Otherwise a similar change to what happened to the SNP could occur under new leadership. Europe was not a big deal for most people, but it will be now. I expect UKIP to do quite well after a Remain win, but Farage would have to resign - he is now toxic. I would prefer to see Suzanne Evans as leader, in fact I think leave would have had a better change with her at the helm.
Farage may not stand down though, and maybe he wanted them not to win to continue as leader of this party. He may sense an SNP type surge, but I can't see it with him at the helm.
The SNP and Lib Dems are the only ones who would be untouched.
Alternately, we may just trundle on as before.
Squiffy.
Some thoughts on the referendum : The polls
The polls were all over the place for a long time and were level pegging for most of the campaign. For a while Remain was ahead, then it swung to Leave, in the final days it swung back to Remain.
The betting markets have been majorly for Remain all along, bobbing about the 75%.
The most fascinating thing about the polls is that it is so difficult to work out the turnout. Older people are more likely to go for Leave, hyoung for Remain and we all know older people turn out to vote far more than the youth.
Also, though, ABC1s are more for Remain and more likely to vote than C2DEs.
Both these factors conflict and so it will be interesting to see if these correlate to what happens in a few hours. Not long to go now.
My view is that it will be 54% remain, 46% leave. But I'm just as in the dark as everyone else!
Squiffy.
The betting markets have been majorly for Remain all along, bobbing about the 75%.
The most fascinating thing about the polls is that it is so difficult to work out the turnout. Older people are more likely to go for Leave, hyoung for Remain and we all know older people turn out to vote far more than the youth.
Also, though, ABC1s are more for Remain and more likely to vote than C2DEs.
Both these factors conflict and so it will be interesting to see if these correlate to what happens in a few hours. Not long to go now.
My view is that it will be 54% remain, 46% leave. But I'm just as in the dark as everyone else!
Squiffy.
Some thoughts on the referendum : Stars and Duds
Some people have starred in the campaigns and others have been found wanting. Here's my round-up.
Stars
Ruth Davidson - Anyone who followed the Scottish referendum debates knows that the Scottish Tory leader is a star with a big crossover appeal. She's like an a completely authentic Boris Johnson with appeal but none of the perceived faults. She was great in the big BBC debate and was a surprise to some.
Sadiq Khan - Also at the BBC debate the new London Mayor shone calling the Leave campaign 'Project Hate'. Together with Ruth Davidson they really made a big impression for the Remain campaign, where as the Remain campaign was lacklustre on the ITV debate.
Andrea Leadsom - Was very good at both debates with common sense responses, though overdid the 'as a mother...' line. Maybe a future star of the Tory party.
Gisela Stuart - Has always been an impressive backbencher for Labour, she impressed at both debates making the good leave arguments.
Michael Gove - Firm and assured with courteousness, he would be my choice for next PM. Logical without invective.
Dominic Raab - Another Leaver who made sensible points in a calm measured way.
So-So
David Cameron - The PM is very good when on his own talking to an audience and he was good again. Unfortunately all 'project fear' has wasted a lot of the good will to him. If Remain wins, he will be a confirmed winner. If Leave wins he will have ruined his career.
Boris Johnson - Had plenty of chances to shine but was generally outperformed by others at the debates. The one time he shone was at the end of the BBC debate where he got a standing ovation.
Duds
George Osborne - The punishment budget, the dodgy statistics (£4300 per household worse off by 2030) for project fear have severely weakened the chancellor. Other times he has come back from it, but I don't think he can this time. Expect to see him immediately resign if Leave win, and be moved if Remain wins.
Alan Johnson - The leader of Labour Remain. Where was he? Didn't see him at all. All those saying that he was the best PM we never had, had better have a rethink.
Jeremy Corbyn - Again he was useless. He didn't believe in Remain and would have been more convincing if he'd gone for Leave, though his parliamentary party would be out for more blood.
Nigel Farage - The man who has worked for so many years for this opportunity became a liability as did the Leave.EU compaign. Bad posters bordering on racism has no place in UK politics. One would think he didn't want to win this campaign - more on that later.
Special mention
Dan Hannan - He has been making great Leave debating points, videos and arguments for years. It's a shame he wasn't used in any of the main debates because he is a star when talking about the decrepit EU.
Squiffy.
Some thoughts on the EU referendum: The campaigns
The EU referendum campaign has come to an end and so I'm going to give some thoughts on it before the result is declared.
I don't think either campaign has done justice to their case.
The Remain campaign went far too far with doom and gloom. By going so heavy with predictions on everything getting worse such as GDP, employment, house prices, and even the impact on bees they made arses of themselves. If they had been more temperate in their views and saying that Britain would be worse off if we left and there would be some turmoil, I think they could have gotten away with being believed.
£4300 per household worse off by 2030 was the worst statistic used by remain. It was split as GDP per household, a completely bogus metric which isn't used anywhere else. Who knows the number of households by then, especially as this didn't take account of current levels of migration.
The worst move was George Osborne's threat of an emergency budget. Everyone knows that if we leave it will take at least 2 years for it to take happen, and so this had only one effect. It trashed the Chancellor's remaining credibility with half the Tory party and the public. I used to quite like him, now I wanted him moved or sacked.
The worst aspect of the remain campaign was that there was absolutely nothing positive at all. When confronted by this, they just said more jobs etc. (which cannot be disproved or affirmed) before going back to rubbishing leave.
Now that I've complained about it, I think it has worked to some extent and people are scared shitless to leave. A lot of people think there will be mass unemployment and disaster if we leave.It's such a shame.
The Leave campaign kept a few simple messages, but some of these could be easily challenged by commentators.
The worst was the £350m we send every week to the EU. It's not true, it's more like £275m of which we get a third back. If they had started with £275m then commentators would not have been able to challenge it and say its a lie. Maybe, though, it's my naivety though because, apparently, £350m was the one item of both campaigns that stuck in people's minds.
As someone on the Leave side, I was disappointed by the focus on immigration. Of course this was part of the wider but more intangible argument around sovereignty, but it was a negative and could be perceived as racist by anybody wanting to! Of course, if Leave wins then immigration probably won it, but it is a shame. The focus on Turkey was a shame, it may be true that they will join before we have a chance of another referendum but they are not going to imminently join.
The good side of Leave was that there were some positives about trading with the rest of the world. It's a message that works for me. I don't think the argument of how the custom's union works was explained well enough making it easy for Remain to scare people that EU trade will be turned off if we Brexit.
The one argument that was not made well enough at all was that the EU is on a certain path. It has been since inception and nothing is changing that. Our biggest threat was this referendum and to possibly leave but they couldn't account for any significant change of direction even with this threat. If we remain we will be discounted as all talk. It should have been said that if people genuinely believe in a United States of Europe then they should vote Remain, otherwise they should vote Leave - give the EU the shake it needs to reform itself.
Both campaigns were poor and people are voting on prejudice (immigration or economy) rather than facts, it's a shame as it could have been so much more impressive.
Squiffy.
I don't think either campaign has done justice to their case.
The Remain campaign went far too far with doom and gloom. By going so heavy with predictions on everything getting worse such as GDP, employment, house prices, and even the impact on bees they made arses of themselves. If they had been more temperate in their views and saying that Britain would be worse off if we left and there would be some turmoil, I think they could have gotten away with being believed.
£4300 per household worse off by 2030 was the worst statistic used by remain. It was split as GDP per household, a completely bogus metric which isn't used anywhere else. Who knows the number of households by then, especially as this didn't take account of current levels of migration.
The worst move was George Osborne's threat of an emergency budget. Everyone knows that if we leave it will take at least 2 years for it to take happen, and so this had only one effect. It trashed the Chancellor's remaining credibility with half the Tory party and the public. I used to quite like him, now I wanted him moved or sacked.
The worst aspect of the remain campaign was that there was absolutely nothing positive at all. When confronted by this, they just said more jobs etc. (which cannot be disproved or affirmed) before going back to rubbishing leave.
Now that I've complained about it, I think it has worked to some extent and people are scared shitless to leave. A lot of people think there will be mass unemployment and disaster if we leave.It's such a shame.
The Leave campaign kept a few simple messages, but some of these could be easily challenged by commentators.
The worst was the £350m we send every week to the EU. It's not true, it's more like £275m of which we get a third back. If they had started with £275m then commentators would not have been able to challenge it and say its a lie. Maybe, though, it's my naivety though because, apparently, £350m was the one item of both campaigns that stuck in people's minds.
As someone on the Leave side, I was disappointed by the focus on immigration. Of course this was part of the wider but more intangible argument around sovereignty, but it was a negative and could be perceived as racist by anybody wanting to! Of course, if Leave wins then immigration probably won it, but it is a shame. The focus on Turkey was a shame, it may be true that they will join before we have a chance of another referendum but they are not going to imminently join.
The good side of Leave was that there were some positives about trading with the rest of the world. It's a message that works for me. I don't think the argument of how the custom's union works was explained well enough making it easy for Remain to scare people that EU trade will be turned off if we Brexit.
The one argument that was not made well enough at all was that the EU is on a certain path. It has been since inception and nothing is changing that. Our biggest threat was this referendum and to possibly leave but they couldn't account for any significant change of direction even with this threat. If we remain we will be discounted as all talk. It should have been said that if people genuinely believe in a United States of Europe then they should vote Remain, otherwise they should vote Leave - give the EU the shake it needs to reform itself.
Both campaigns were poor and people are voting on prejudice (immigration or economy) rather than facts, it's a shame as it could have been so much more impressive.
Squiffy.
Saturday 19 March 2016
F1: I woke up at 5 a.m. for this
 |
| Empty Track |
It's been a ritual of mine for many years. March is the start of the F1 season. It usually coincides with my birthday, so I'm happy. And for the first race in Australia I get up ridiculously early for qualifying and the race as it's on really early in Britain.
This year has been no different. What is different is the disappointment. Not because my favourite driver didn't so well, because he did and he's on pole. But because F1 is a laughing stock. The new qualifying procedures left drivers in the pits having done their laps and being knocked out. It was all wrapped up with four minutes to go. As the chequered flag came out, Lewis Hamilton was at the back of pits signing autographs. Damon Hill on Sky quipped that he could have waved the chequered flag for himself.
It was all so predictable. Drivers, mechanics, engineers all warned that this was likely to happen but the F1 bigwigs put their fingers in their ears and blew raspberries. Well you guys now have a raspberry creme brulée all over your faces.
There's many things wrong with F1. Qualifying wasn't one of them, in fact it was the only thing working well and now that has been turned into a joke.
How did F1 get here? Actually, it started with a good proposal from Bernie to have an hour long qualifying race on the Saturday. The TV companies complained though, they need the breaks between qualifying sessions for advertising as most don't interrupt the races. Once the hare had been set running on changes to qualifying, something was bound to be done and they came up with this crackpot scheme which sounds good on paper but would always be optimised to being boring. It is terrible.
Change it back, now! Don't try to tinker with the steaming pile you have created. Just change it back.
The main problems with F1 stem from it's governance. Team principals can veto changes but have a vested interest in keeping it the same way (for successful teams) and changing it (for failing teams). Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA don't have the power to impose, and there needs to be someone to set the direction, though I think Bernie has lost the plot. The way teams are paid is incredibly unfair, too, and needs to be changed too.
If the governance was sorted, maybe we could get some good regulations formed to make cars which can overtake. I like the ideas of faster, wider cars with bigger tyres. Reduce the aerodynamics, reduce the number of planes on the front wing, take away some of the turning vanes and barge boards. Increase the ground effects and mechanical grip.
If these three things were fixed, F1 would be on the mend.
Instead F1 is heading in the wrong direction, and today proved it.
Squiffy.
Monday 29 February 2016
The question the Remain camp has to answer: What does IN look like?
Ever since the EU referendum campaign started, the INners have been shouting out 'What does Out look like?'. Today Dan Hodges sent the same in a tweet:
I don't know the fine details, but I'm pretty sure that Out will look like the UK having control over all its legislation again, but having to adhere to EU constraints on products and services we supply to the EU. It may be that we have some requirement to adhere to a portion of free movement of peoples, but we are a big country and will have clout when the negotiations happen. I also think we will have free trade with the EU as it is in nobody's interest to put up trade barriers.
And that's where I would expect to be 2 years after we vote to leave. I expect we'll be in the same position 5 years after that, and 10 years and 15...
The OUTters need to be throwing the question back at the INners. What does IN look like? I know what it will look like in one year. It will have a Euro & migrant crisis. I think it will be the same state in two years.
But what about 5 years after? Will the Euro still be in crisis, will the problem be solved and how? What about the migrant crisis? Will Shengen be restored or will it have completely dissolved? Will Greece still be a member or will it have been thrown out. Will the banking union be complete? Will there be Euro-bonds? What about 5 years after that? Will there be a Euro-army? Will there be two Euro-zones? Will the EU have taken our place on the UN security council? Will Turkey be a member? Will Ukraine? Will the migrants let in by Angela Merkel have German citizenship and be making their way en mass to the UK? What about a further 5 years after that? Will there be a country called Europe?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions and I doubt the remain camp do too. In my mind the bigger unknowns are with IN rather than OUT.
Squiffy.
"Some people say there's a shark in the water. They're just trying to scare you. There almost certainly isn't". That Project Fear rebutle.— Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) February 29, 2016
I don't know the fine details, but I'm pretty sure that Out will look like the UK having control over all its legislation again, but having to adhere to EU constraints on products and services we supply to the EU. It may be that we have some requirement to adhere to a portion of free movement of peoples, but we are a big country and will have clout when the negotiations happen. I also think we will have free trade with the EU as it is in nobody's interest to put up trade barriers.
And that's where I would expect to be 2 years after we vote to leave. I expect we'll be in the same position 5 years after that, and 10 years and 15...
The OUTters need to be throwing the question back at the INners. What does IN look like? I know what it will look like in one year. It will have a Euro & migrant crisis. I think it will be the same state in two years.
But what about 5 years after? Will the Euro still be in crisis, will the problem be solved and how? What about the migrant crisis? Will Shengen be restored or will it have completely dissolved? Will Greece still be a member or will it have been thrown out. Will the banking union be complete? Will there be Euro-bonds? What about 5 years after that? Will there be a Euro-army? Will there be two Euro-zones? Will the EU have taken our place on the UN security council? Will Turkey be a member? Will Ukraine? Will the migrants let in by Angela Merkel have German citizenship and be making their way en mass to the UK? What about a further 5 years after that? Will there be a country called Europe?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions and I doubt the remain camp do too. In my mind the bigger unknowns are with IN rather than OUT.
Squiffy.
Tuesday 9 February 2016
Why it's time to leave the sinking ship
After the outcome of the EU draft text was released this weekend, I made
a quick post to say that I had decided that we should now leave the EU. I've
now found the time to give my reasons.
It has been a journey for me. I thought for a long time that our destiny
was better served by being a member of a large trading block, with shared
regulation to tackle problems such as climate change. Over time my enthusiasm
has lessened as the EU has pushed ever further into grabbing more powers whilst
being completely inept at handling the responsibilities it already has. The EU
has been pushing my buttons for a while and the renegotiation was the last
chance to keep me wanting to stay in.
Initial negotiations
Let's first look at the Bloomberg speech David Cameron in January 2013.
In this great oratory the Prime Minister spoke eloquently about how as Britain
we had a different outlook but shared many aims of the EU for prosperity and
peace. He set out a series of issues on which he wanted fundamental reform.
- Fix the issues regarding the
Euro and our place outside the Eurozone should not diminish our influence.
We should not have Eurozone policies foisted on us.
- Increase EU competitiveness
by restricting regulation.
- The EU is seen as remote
from the people
In answer
to these issues he made some suggestions. He wanted to limit the size of the EU
commission, control its spending, simplify its controlling structures and
complete the single market. He wanted flexibility without the same level of
integration, and to abandon the principle of 'ever closer union'. He wanted
power to be placed back with member states and a more significant role for
national parliaments. He mentioned legal judgements of the European Court of
Human Rights should be subservient to the EU.
When I
heard this speech I thought "some good ideas, maybe not far enough in some
cases but enough to convince me."
When this
was filtered into negotiating points by November 2015, it became:
- Protection of the single market for Britain and other non-euro
countries
- Boosting competitiveness by setting a target for the reduction of
the "burden" of red tape
- Exempting Britain from "ever-closer union" and bolstering
national parliaments
- Restricting EU migrants' access to in-work benefits such as tax
credits ad child benefit for 4 years.
At this stage, completion of the single market had become protection,
there was still mention of boosting competitiveness and exempting Britain from
ever-closer union. But there is no mention of the size of the commission, its
spending, the controlling structures, or the position of the ECHR. At this
stage about half his proposals had disappeared.
Outcome
Finally, this week the draft was published which had:
- Removing Britain from the
compulsion of 'ever closer union' and red card system for national
parliaments to block legislation from the commision (if 55% of parliaments
agreed)
- Some words about
strengthening the internal market.
- Some words about there being
more than one currency in the EU.
- A gradual increase in
in-work benefits and child benefit to be paid at the rate of country from
where the migrate came
As can be
seen, the migrants access to benefits has been watered down, boosting
competitiveness has been reduced to the same loose words as previous treaties,
and that there being more than one currency in the EU is self evident. We will
be removed from ever closer union but the red card system will never fly, not
enough national parliaments would ever organise to block a regulation.
A disappointment.
A big disappointment.
I have no reason to believe that the EU would be any better if the draft
is enacted. There would be very little change. Rules and regulations would come
from on high as now, our parliament would be as subservient as it is now. The
EU will be just as un-democratic. They would continue to ride roughshod, in
fact I believe more so as I will explain later,
Overall position
We now know that the renegotiation is pretty insignificant so let's look
at the overall position of the arguments in favour of the EU or Brexit.
The main reason for being in the EU is access to the single market. But
do we need to be a member for access? Norway, Iceland, Switzerland all have
access, but still have to adhere to regulations without much influence. Canada
has access with not quite so onerous terms. If we were to leave I'm pretty sure
that during the negotiations to leave we would quickly have an arrangement for
access to the free market. The other countries would not want to put up
barriers to the fifth largest economy in the world.
And how much influence do we have anyway? We've objected to regulations
55 times since David Cameron came to power, and 55 times we've been outvoted.
So no influence.
Erm, is there any other reason we would want to be a member of the EU? I
can't think of any.
So, what problems would we be rid of or alleviate by not being a member?
- The British parliament would
regain full sovereignty
- We would be able to get rid
of the hated Common Agriculture and Fisheries policy and stop the crazy
incentives for growing stuff we don't need
- We would regain full control
of our borders and be able handle immigration in the way we wanted
- We would not have
regulations foisted upon us arbitrarily, we would only need to abide by
regulations to trade with the single market when trading with the single
market
- We would be free of the EU
attempts to try to get a common foreign policy
- We would be able to set our
own VAT rates in the way we wished
- We would be free of threats
to take away our seat as a permanent member of the UN security council and
to set up an EU army.
- We would be able to sign
free trade agreements with other major trading partners such as the US,
China and India (we have been waiting for 40 years for the EU to do such
things)
- We would be able to save
money being spent by the EU bureaucracy
- Our EU contributions could
be spent at home in better ways and we could be forever rid of our EU
partners trying to reduce our EU rebate
- We would be able to provide
aid to some badly hit industries such as steel
- The democratic deficit would
be vastly reduced
There are so many political reasons to leave, but the arguments will
inevitable come down to economic arguments. Will we be better off?
The arguments are often made that three million jobs are dependent upon
our membership of the EU, which may be true. But they don't mean to say that we
would lose 3m jobs they just mean to sound like that. There is no reason to
believe that we would lose jobs, many investors in Britain have gone out of
their way to say that it wouldn't matter to them.
We are also told that half of our trade is with Europe, which is true,
but it is declining. It used to be more than half, it is now less than half.
The continent's economy has been in poor shape for far too long and there
doesn't appear to be much appetite for change. Do we need to be continually
shackled to this aging behemoth?
We need to raise our sights on the rest of the world where new
opportunities lie. So I have come to the conclusion being in or out of the EU
will not have much of a difference on how wealthy we are as a country or
individually in the short term.
In the longer term though, with increasing globalisation, I think a
large organisation such as the EU is doomed to gradually fail while smaller,
faster acting countries will sweep all before them. We should be a part of the
fast thinking free world, able to exploit new opportunities and not be tethered
to the ideas of the last fifty years. I think we will be better off in the
longer term being outside the EU.
We have also seen how undemocratic the EU is. Greece and Italy had Prime
Ministers foisted upon them. Portugal elected left leaning anti-austerity
parties in their election but has been told not to allow them to form a
Government by the EU.
When the public has a say, and the EU elite does not like what it hears
it either asks the public to think again or finds a way to ignore them
completely.
As for Britain, we are seen as trouble makers sniping from the sidelines
and are brushed aside as much as possible.
We finally have our chance to have a say. What does it imply that even
if we have the chance to leave, we choose to stay? They will then completely
ignore us and be deaf to our whinging, even more than now. We will be locked in
forever. We will not be able to threaten to leave again and be taken seriously.
I fear staying far more than leaving.
It is time to go.
Squiffy.
Tuesday 2 February 2016
EU Turn if you want to. I want to: Tatty Bye
Today David Cameron unveiled his plans for a renegotiation of our arrangement with the EU.
When he announced in his Bloomberg speech that he was planning for a comprehensive renegotiation of Britain's place in the EU I was ecstatic. Finally a Prime Minister who would have the guts to take us back to a trading relationship with our EU partners. We could lay the EU matter to rest at last knowing there would be no more power grabs from the bureaucrats.
By the time of the election I was disappointed, three platitudinous aims worthy of an EdStone and one small tactic to try to nudge immigrants into not coming here. Nothing about the ruinous Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies, nothing about the primacy of the British parliament, nothing about protecting our service industries such as finance away from the loony schemes on the continent. Still, I thought, maybe he was trying to give us low expectations so that we could be amazed by the sheer scale of his renegotiation when it was revealed.
It's become clear, and today's reveal makes it crystal clear, that we haven't even got the crappy aims of the manifesto.
It's with a heavy heart that I will have to refuse the appeal of the Prime Minister and vote Leave at the referendum. I will give my fuller reasons this weekend, but it has come time to get off the fence, and say that I don't think we can ever get a good deal from Europe and so it would be better for us to be out.
Squiffy.
Sunday 24 January 2016
The Report of Reports
This week there have been two reports published into the failures of the 2015 General Election, one by the Labour party and one by the pollsters.
The Labour Party's report shows how far the party has to travel in order to be electable. Not by the eloquent way in which it describes how Labour had piecemeal populist policies, but no overriding economic plan. Or by the way in which it aptly suggests that they chose the wrong leader in 2010 and couldn't ever recover from that. Or even that Labour became a complete joke with the EdStone.
No, the report didn't tackle these issues. It said that Labour had let them be blamed for the economic crisis but it wasn't their fault. Ed Miliband was a great leader, but those nasty media types had it in for him. Or that their policies were great but most people didn't know about them.
Ostriches and sand come to mind.
Labour lost due to the horrible Tories, the nasty media, and I guess, the public's stupidity. Not a problem with Labour at all.
It should be remembered that only three Labour leaders have ever commanded a majority in parliament in their 100 year odd history. In my lifetime there has only been one, in which there have been three Tory PMs. The only Labour leader in recent times to be successful has been the one nearest the centre of the electorate and not on the left. This is where the public is. And if there is no viable centre, the public likes to dress to the right rather than the less.
Since the election Labour has moved even further left under Jeremy Corbyn. I guess Labour will have to wait for the next electoral disaster report.
The second report went into the reasons why the pollsters got it all wrong in the lead up to the election. This report was more reasoned and explained that the methodologies weren't really to blame. It also said that there wasn't much bunching of polls, although that is slightly hard to believe. Their main finding was that they hadn't sampled enough Tories.
Which when you think about it - is obvious, after all that was the outcome. But what they mean is that the voters they contacted - and had responses from - were more likely to be Labour voters and so were more represented. The theory is that Tories are less likely to answer the phone to pollsters and have less time to fill in online polls. That's probably a reasonable theory, but it's difficult to make adjustments, maybe they have to add more weight to the Tory voters. They already have to do this since the 1992 election fiasco. But it makes you wonder if the bias is so great smaller fluctuations will be exaggerated.
There's two ways joe public can handle these polls until any new polling techniques have been proven to tally accurately with election results. On normal voting intention polls, add three percent to the Tory percentage and subtract three from the Labour percentage.
Alternatively, if you just want to know who will win the general election for sure forget voting intention polls and look at the leader ratings, and who the voters trust with the economy. If both these are favouring one party (and they invariably do) then that party will win. This has been proven in each election since 1979 even in 1992 and 2015.
Maybe this is the last time to discuss the 2015 GE, but it's making me want to watch the election programmes again!
Squiffy.
Thursday 7 January 2016
The Labour re-shuffle has finally come to an end
Starting at Monday lunchtime, the Labour party has been having a re-shuffle, and it has finally come to an end. Four days later. The longest re-shuffle in history. So it must be a real night of the long knives with lots of changes then? Not at all. Two sackings from the front bench, and one move.
After briefing in December that Hilary Benn was going to be sacked, that Diane Abbott was going to be the new Foreign Secretary there was no change in this respect.
Michael Dugher was sacked, as was Pat McFadden. Maria Eagle was moved from defence to make way for Emily Thornberry, Corbyn's fellow unilateralist.
Dugher and McFadden were dismissed as being disloyal and incompetent - which when compared against Corbyn's record is pretty laughable.
The supposedly even handed review of Trident looks like a joke now, with both Thornberry and Ken Livingstone both being unilateralists. Livingstone even went so far to say we should pull out of NATO today.
Following the front bench re-shuffle, three shadow ministers went onto resign, one live on TV. There were bitter tweets from MPs. Some MPs have blocked other MPs on twitter. There was a spat between Diane Abbott and Jonathan Reynolds.
This is a party at war with itself.
To think that 8 months ago this party could have formed the Government. We had a lucky escape.
To Corbyn's credit, the re-shuffle has slightly moved the front bench his way, but Labour is heading for oblivion whilst the moderates do nothing but snipe. They need to act and soon, otherwise Labour will pass into history.
Squiffy.
Saturday 2 January 2016
2015 rolls into 2016
It's that time of year again when I have to review my predictions from the last year and make some new ones. So let's review the last year:
- The economy will continue to recover, and will grow by 2.5% this year. Wages growth will really begin to outstrip inflation. 1 point
- The General Election will be close, final tally Tories 36%, Labour 31%, Lib Dems 10%, UKIP 12%. 1 point (very close)
- Tories and Lib Dems will form a second coalition. 0 points
- Lewis Hamilton will win the F1 World Championship again. 1 point
- Sebastien Vettel will not perform as well as Alonso at Ferrari, and Ferrari will end the year in greater turmoil with Raikkonen being sacked. 0 points
- Labour will have a leadership election with Chukka Umuna winning. 1/4 points
- Vince Cable will lose his seat in the election (hopefully) 1 point
- UKIP will gain 2 seats at the General Election, but Rochester & Strood will not be one of them. Douglas Carswell will be re-elected. 1/2 point
- Hilary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul will all run for the US Presidential primaries. 1 point
- Nick Clegg will resign the leadership of the Lib Dems. 1 point
Overall 6.75 points is not bad. I was caught out by Ferrari being a lot stronger than planned, and who could have predicted Jeremy Corbyn being elected as Labour leader?
Now for 2016.
- Lewis Hamilton will win the F1 World Championship again.
- Sebastien Vettel will be second in the F1 World Championship and will win more races.
- Nico Rosberg will leave Mercedes at the end of the year, and Raikkonen will retire.
- It will be Hilary Clinton vs Marco Rubio for the US presidency.
- Marco Rubio will win the presidency.
- The EU referendum will happen this year with Remain winning by roughly 58% to 42%
- The Tories will beat Labour in the local elections by a small margin, with the Lib Dems coming back quite strongly in third.
- There will be a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership
- Douglas Carswell will leave UKIP and stay independent
- At least 2 MPs will defect from Labour
Let's see how well we go this year.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
