Wasn't it excellent hearing Mark Francois criticising Mark Zuckerberg in the Commons today.
Yes, although it is easy to point the finger of blame at the companies, but we should remember it is the users themselves who post the material. Of course Facebook etc can do more, but we also need to look at why people feel they can post the things that they do, when they wouldn’t say them face to face. I’m pretty sure it’s complex, a bit like the venting some footy fans do at footy matches. That’s often about much more than the team being not that good.
What’s the reason why they’re making such a horlicks of the booster programme? Do we have the doses or not? All this “people are difficult to reach” makes no sense to me. The over 70s I know are beating the door down for their third dose to be told, “don’t call us we’ll call you”.
What’s the reason why they’re making such a horlicks of the booster programme? Do we have the doses or not? All this “people are difficult to reach” makes no sense to me. The over 70s I know are beating the door down for their third dose to be told, “don’t call us we’ll call you”.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
This poll has me intrigued, like David, it made me sit up.
'Rejoin' has always polled some way below 'Remain', never mind 'wrong to leave', so it's a notable moment that Rejoin has for the first time taken a (very slender) lead in this poll.
Tucked away in latest Opinium poll, 61% to 31% think Brexit is going badly, and for the first time, a majority* of people - on being asked how they would vote in a future referendum, rather than reviewing their choice in the last one - come out for 'rejoin' above 'stay out'.
Yes, it's got a lot of Remainers excited - including David, I'm afraid to say - who see it as a straw in the wind to push for full EU membership in future, including joining the Euro and federalism.
There's a cadre out there who - having had a full fat Brexit inflicted on them - are desperate to one day push for a full fat Rejoin in response.
If we rejoin it'll be via incrementalism.
First rejoin the single market and customs union, then before you know it....
You're assuming the French would allow us back incrementally?
Why?
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres
What better sign for the rest of the EU that those who leave will come back.
If we do rejoin it'll be because Brexit has turned out badly and thus we'd be supplicants in any deal.
Exactly which is why if we're supplicants then they'd have no reason to want it dealing with incrementally. They'd want their pound of flesh.
And the only way to avoid a hokey-cokey membership would be to say that we can rejoin provided we join the Euro and Schengen on the day we accede, no backsliding then.
Even if the UK wanted to, that couldn't happen. IIRC a country has to be in the ERM for something like three years before it can adopt the Euro, and there are a lot of requirements to accede to Schengen, not least actual exit controls with border guards stamping passports which the UK does not do.
Accession requires unanimity anyway and unanimity allows the Treaties to be changed.
I see no reason why as part of the negotiations over the Acquis Communitaire if we were to crawl back to the EU to ask to be let back in, that the EU couldn't demand that we join (or shadow join) the ERM II. Then have the 3 years of ERM as part of our joining procedure and then accession to the EU and Euro simultaneously.
Any barriers on the UK acceding to Schengen could similarly be dealt with as part of the Acquis Communitaire process.
Personally, I'd be all in favour of joining Schengen. But I realise that is a minority view.
Don’t have to be in the EU to join schengen — Iceland is in…
As is Monaco. And they're not even in the EEA or EFTA.
Incidentally, I wonder if UK citizens still have the right to stay in Monaco 180/365 as before rather than 90/180 as with Schengen? No idea how that works in practice when all the airports are in France.
Ditto when Gibraltar becomes a quasi-schengen member. At the moment a UK citizen can stay 180/365 in Gibraltar, and the border doesn’t scan passports in either direction (the spanish border force just glance at them as one wanders past).
Wasn't it excellent hearing Mark Francois criticising Mark Zuckerberg in the Commons today.
Yes, although it is easy to point the finger of blame at the companies, but we should remember it is the users themselves who post the material. Of course Facebook etc can do more, but we also need to look at why people feel they can post the things that they do, when they wouldn’t say them face to face. I’m pretty sure it’s complex, a bit like the venting some footy fans do at footy matches. That’s often about much more than the team being not that good.
Anonymity has a lot to do with it. I know there are a few people who behave badly online despite using their real names, but they're probably in a small minority.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
The other black swan I think is possible is the NHS keeling over before the next GE, I suspect some will understand it is related to the NHS but given the way the public views the NHS the party that allows the NHS to collapse will take a huge hit in the polls and ballot box.
I'm in a few Tory WhatsApp groups and there's real fury about the government not doing enough to force face to face GP appointments.
Which is ironic as 1 face to face interview probably takes the same time as 2 or even 3 phone a electronic or phone appointments
Which is why, until quite recently, the government was pushing remote appointments and more tirage. It's significantly more efficient.
But it's not what the punters want.
And there would be a regular supply of 'person died because GP did not see him' stories.
Here's one today:
The family of a law student believe he would not have died had he been seen face-to-face by a GP.
David Nash, 26, had four remote consultations with staff at Burley Park Medical Centre in Leeds over 19 days before he died on 4 November 2020.
No-one picked up that he had developed an infection in his ear which caused a brain abscess, leading to meningitis.
It's why I didn't even think about going into medicine. I know that I would have really struggled with the whole "sometimes, you will have to make a decision that can't end well" thing.
If there are any would-be medics out there, have a good answer to the question "Tell me about a time you failed and how you coped."
When I was at University, a (very drunk) medical student said to me "you're not a real doctor until you've killed your first patient".
If he/she was still a Medical Student, how would they know?
The key is to learn by your mistakes, and preferably by your near mistakes, and the mistakes of others. The difference between a good doctor and a bad one is how they learn and react to such things. It is why we have morbidity and mortality meetings and Schwarz rounds at my hospital, to share experiences of these things.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
This poll has me intrigued, like David, it made me sit up.
'Rejoin' has always polled some way below 'Remain', never mind 'wrong to leave', so it's a notable moment that Rejoin has for the first time taken a (very slender) lead in this poll.
Tucked away in latest Opinium poll, 61% to 31% think Brexit is going badly, and for the first time, a majority* of people - on being asked how they would vote in a future referendum, rather than reviewing their choice in the last one - come out for 'rejoin' above 'stay out'.
Yes, it's got a lot of Remainers excited - including David, I'm afraid to say - who see it as a straw in the wind to push for full EU membership in future, including joining the Euro and federalism.
There's a cadre out there who - having had a full fat Brexit inflicted on them - are desperate to one day push for a full fat Rejoin in response.
If we rejoin it'll be via incrementalism.
First rejoin the single market and customs union, then before you know it....
You're assuming the French would allow us back incrementally?
Why?
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres
What better sign for the rest of the EU that those who leave will come back.
If we do rejoin it'll be because Brexit has turned out badly and thus we'd be supplicants in any deal.
Exactly which is why if we're supplicants then they'd have no reason to want it dealing with incrementally. They'd want their pound of flesh.
And the only way to avoid a hokey-cokey membership would be to say that we can rejoin provided we join the Euro and Schengen on the day we accede, no backsliding then.
Even if the UK wanted to, that couldn't happen. IIRC a country has to be in the ERM for something like three years before it can adopt the Euro, and there are a lot of requirements to accede to Schengen, not least actual exit controls with border guards stamping passports which the UK does not do.
Accession requires unanimity anyway and unanimity allows the Treaties to be changed.
I see no reason why as part of the negotiations over the Acquis Communitaire if we were to crawl back to the EU to ask to be let back in, that the EU couldn't demand that we join (or shadow join) the ERM II. Then have the 3 years of ERM as part of our joining procedure and then accession to the EU and Euro simultaneously.
Any barriers on the UK acceding to Schengen could similarly be dealt with as part of the Acquis Communitaire process.
Personally, I'd be all in favour of joining Schengen. But I realise that is a minority view.
I think Schengen has it the wrong way round. I am in favour of people having he right to freedom of movement - something that exists within the EEA without the need for Schengen but which I would like to see extended to much, if not all, of the rest of the world. But Schengen creates security and crime risks by removing the border controls. The state - by which I include the EU as well as the UK and other countries - should not be allowed to stop people travelling where they like so long as they do not pose a security or crime risk. But they do need to be able to monitor and control the borders to ensure that those people who do pose such risks are stopped. Schengen seems to me to remove the necessary controls without adding anything to the ability of most people to move freely throughout the EEA and beyond.
Shall we compromise? I think that a drivers license should constitute acceptable identification to travel on a plane or across a European border.
Yep that seems reasonable. But I would prefer it to have a much wider scope than just the EEA.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
This poll has me intrigued, like David, it made me sit up.
'Rejoin' has always polled some way below 'Remain', never mind 'wrong to leave', so it's a notable moment that Rejoin has for the first time taken a (very slender) lead in this poll.
Tucked away in latest Opinium poll, 61% to 31% think Brexit is going badly, and for the first time, a majority* of people - on being asked how they would vote in a future referendum, rather than reviewing their choice in the last one - come out for 'rejoin' above 'stay out'.
Yes, it's got a lot of Remainers excited - including David, I'm afraid to say - who see it as a straw in the wind to push for full EU membership in future, including joining the Euro and federalism.
There's a cadre out there who - having had a full fat Brexit inflicted on them - are desperate to one day push for a full fat Rejoin in response.
If we rejoin it'll be via incrementalism.
First rejoin the single market and customs union, then before you know it....
You're assuming the French would allow us back incrementally?
Why?
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres
What better sign for the rest of the EU that those who leave will come back.
If we do rejoin it'll be because Brexit has turned out badly and thus we'd be supplicants in any deal.
Exactly which is why if we're supplicants then they'd have no reason to want it dealing with incrementally. They'd want their pound of flesh.
And the only way to avoid a hokey-cokey membership would be to say that we can rejoin provided we join the Euro and Schengen on the day we accede, no backsliding then.
Even if the UK wanted to, that couldn't happen. IIRC a country has to be in the ERM for something like three years before it can adopt the Euro, and there are a lot of requirements to accede to Schengen, not least actual exit controls with border guards stamping passports which the UK does not do.
Accession requires unanimity anyway and unanimity allows the Treaties to be changed.
I see no reason why as part of the negotiations over the Acquis Communitaire if we were to crawl back to the EU to ask to be let back in, that the EU couldn't demand that we join (or shadow join) the ERM II. Then have the 3 years of ERM as part of our joining procedure and then accession to the EU and Euro simultaneously.
Any barriers on the UK acceding to Schengen could similarly be dealt with as part of the Acquis Communitaire process.
Personally, I'd be all in favour of joining Schengen. But I realise that is a minority view.
I think Schengen has it the wrong way round. I am in favour of people having he right to freedom of movement - something that exists within the EEA without the need for Schengen but which I would like to see extended to much, if not all, of the rest of the world. But Schengen creates security and crime risks by removing the border controls. The state - by which I include the EU as well as the UK and other countries - should not be allowed to stop people travelling where they like so long as they do not pose a security or crime risk. But they do need to be able to monitor and control the borders to ensure that those people who do pose such risks are stopped. Schengen seems to me to remove the necessary controls without adding anything to the ability of most people to move freely throughout the EEA and beyond.
Shall we compromise? I think that a drivers license should constitute acceptable identification to travel on a plane or across a European border.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
This poll has me intrigued, like David, it made me sit up.
'Rejoin' has always polled some way below 'Remain', never mind 'wrong to leave', so it's a notable moment that Rejoin has for the first time taken a (very slender) lead in this poll.
Tucked away in latest Opinium poll, 61% to 31% think Brexit is going badly, and for the first time, a majority* of people - on being asked how they would vote in a future referendum, rather than reviewing their choice in the last one - come out for 'rejoin' above 'stay out'.
Yes, it's got a lot of Remainers excited - including David, I'm afraid to say - who see it as a straw in the wind to push for full EU membership in future, including joining the Euro and federalism.
There's a cadre out there who - having had a full fat Brexit inflicted on them - are desperate to one day push for a full fat Rejoin in response.
If we rejoin it'll be via incrementalism.
First rejoin the single market and customs union, then before you know it....
You're assuming the French would allow us back incrementally?
Why?
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres
What better sign for the rest of the EU that those who leave will come back.
If we do rejoin it'll be because Brexit has turned out badly and thus we'd be supplicants in any deal.
Exactly which is why if we're supplicants then they'd have no reason to want it dealing with incrementally. They'd want their pound of flesh.
And the only way to avoid a hokey-cokey membership would be to say that we can rejoin provided we join the Euro and Schengen on the day we accede, no backsliding then.
Even if the UK wanted to, that couldn't happen. IIRC a country has to be in the ERM for something like three years before it can adopt the Euro, and there are a lot of requirements to accede to Schengen, not least actual exit controls with border guards stamping passports which the UK does not do.
Accession requires unanimity anyway and unanimity allows the Treaties to be changed.
I see no reason why as part of the negotiations over the Acquis Communitaire if we were to crawl back to the EU to ask to be let back in, that the EU couldn't demand that we join (or shadow join) the ERM II. Then have the 3 years of ERM as part of our joining procedure and then accession to the EU and Euro simultaneously.
Any barriers on the UK acceding to Schengen could similarly be dealt with as part of the Acquis Communitaire process.
Personally, I'd be all in favour of joining Schengen. But I realise that is a minority view.
I think Schengen has it the wrong way round. I am in favour of people having he right to freedom of movement - something that exists within the EEA without the need for Schengen but which I would like to see extended to much, if not all, of the rest of the world. But Schengen creates security and crime risks by removing the border controls. The state - by which I include the EU as well as the UK and other countries - should not be allowed to stop people travelling where they like so long as they do not pose a security or crime risk. But they do need to be able to monitor and control the borders to ensure that those people who do pose such risks are stopped. Schengen seems to me to remove the necessary controls without adding anything to the ability of most people to move freely throughout the EEA and beyond.
Shall we compromise? I think that a drivers license should constitute acceptable identification to travel on a plane or across a European border.
Yep that seems reasonable. But I would prefer it to have a much wider scope than just the EEA.
Oh, me too.
It just needs mutual recognition of standards. Or an organisation like IATA to publish a standard for drivers licenses that contained biometric information, and which could be read and validated in multiple countries.
The US has the RealID standard for drivers licenses - why don't we look to copy it?
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
The 61% who think Brexit is going badly... because they (we) believe Brexit is going badly.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
I know it is Guido so caveat emptor,however it looks like many of the newly approved future candidates are All open border supporting remainers. Hardly a mix of opinions to bring a long term compromise.
Yes, so representative of the party. The Leavers in the Labour party are a few hard left relics and a few opportunists, as well as a number of "it's happened and we have to live with it" pragmatists.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
I know it is Guido so caveat emptor,however it looks like many of the newly approved future candidates are All open border supporting remainers. Hardly a mix of opinions to bring a long term compromise.
Yes, so representative of the party. The Leavers in the Labour party are a few hard left relics and a few opportunists, as well as a number of "it's happened and we have to live with it" pragmatists.
I'm not sure where I fit in to that categorisation!
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
I know it is Guido so caveat emptor,however it looks like many of the newly approved future candidates are All open border supporting remainers. Hardly a mix of opinions to bring a long term compromise.
Yes, so representative of the party. The Leavers in the Labour party are a few hard left relics and a few opportunists, as well as a number of "it's happened and we have to live with it" pragmatists.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
I know it is Guido so caveat emptor,however it looks like many of the newly approved future candidates are All open border supporting remainers. Hardly a mix of opinions to bring a long term compromise.
Yes, so representative of the party. The Leavers in the Labour party are a few hard left relics and a few opportunists, as well as a number of "it's happened and we have to live with it" pragmatists.
I'm not sure where I fit in to that categorisation!
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
I know it is Guido so caveat emptor,however it looks like many of the newly approved future candidates are All open border supporting remainers. Hardly a mix of opinions to bring a long term compromise.
Yes, so representative of the party. The Leavers in the Labour party are a few hard left relics and a few opportunists, as well as a number of "it's happened and we have to live with it" pragmatists.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
I know it is Guido so caveat emptor,however it looks like many of the newly approved future candidates are All open border supporting remainers. Hardly a mix of opinions to bring a long term compromise.
Yes, so representative of the party. The Leavers in the Labour party are a few hard left relics and a few opportunists, as well as a number of "it's happened and we have to live with it" pragmatists.
I'm not sure where I fit in to that categorisation!
Hard left relic?
More soft left reverse watermelon. And I hope I'm not old enough to be classed as a relic!
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
This poll has me intrigued, like David, it made me sit up.
'Rejoin' has always polled some way below 'Remain', never mind 'wrong to leave', so it's a notable moment that Rejoin has for the first time taken a (very slender) lead in this poll.
Tucked away in latest Opinium poll, 61% to 31% think Brexit is going badly, and for the first time, a majority* of people - on being asked how they would vote in a future referendum, rather than reviewing their choice in the last one - come out for 'rejoin' above 'stay out'.
Yes, it's got a lot of Remainers excited - including David, I'm afraid to say - who see it as a straw in the wind to push for full EU membership in future, including joining the Euro and federalism.
There's a cadre out there who - having had a full fat Brexit inflicted on them - are desperate to one day push for a full fat Rejoin in response.
If we rejoin it'll be via incrementalism.
First rejoin the single market and customs union, then before you know it....
You're assuming the French would allow us back incrementally?
Why?
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres
What better sign for the rest of the EU that those who leave will come back.
If we do rejoin it'll be because Brexit has turned out badly and thus we'd be supplicants in any deal.
Exactly which is why if we're supplicants then they'd have no reason to want it dealing with incrementally. They'd want their pound of flesh.
And the only way to avoid a hokey-cokey membership would be to say that we can rejoin provided we join the Euro and Schengen on the day we accede, no backsliding then.
Even if the UK wanted to, that couldn't happen. IIRC a country has to be in the ERM for something like three years before it can adopt the Euro, and there are a lot of requirements to accede to Schengen, not least actual exit controls with border guards stamping passports which the UK does not do.
Accession requires unanimity anyway and unanimity allows the Treaties to be changed.
I see no reason why as part of the negotiations over the Acquis Communitaire if we were to crawl back to the EU to ask to be let back in, that the EU couldn't demand that we join (or shadow join) the ERM II. Then have the 3 years of ERM as part of our joining procedure and then accession to the EU and Euro simultaneously.
Any barriers on the UK acceding to Schengen could similarly be dealt with as part of the Acquis Communitaire process.
Personally, I'd be all in favour of joining Schengen. But I realise that is a minority view.
I think Schengen has it the wrong way round. I am in favour of people having he right to freedom of movement - something that exists within the EEA without the need for Schengen but which I would like to see extended to much, if not all, of the rest of the world. But Schengen creates security and crime risks by removing the border controls. The state - by which I include the EU as well as the UK and other countries - should not be allowed to stop people travelling where they like so long as they do not pose a security or crime risk. But they do need to be able to monitor and control the borders to ensure that those people who do pose such risks are stopped. Schengen seems to me to remove the necessary controls without adding anything to the ability of most people to move freely throughout the EEA and beyond.
Shall we compromise? I think that a drivers license should constitute acceptable identification to travel on a plane or across a European border.
Or driving licence even? ;-)
I doubt my UK paper driving license (which has no photograph) would be a suitable mode of identification for that purpose. However it is accepted on the other side of the world as being valid for hiring a local car.
Edit: what is interesting to me is it is doing a very consistent 300 likes an hour for the last 8 hours. It is an insight into the algorithm.
Nice one. I know virtually nothing about Twitter. How does an algorithm get people to like your post?
It doesn't force people to like my post but it does put my post in people's feeds who aren't following me.
Theres two ways to view twitter, in the 'classic' mode it is a straight cronological lost of the people you follow's tweets. You noenhave to activelly adjust your setting to get classic mode, by defauly you get Algorithimc mode
In Algorithmic mode twitter decides which tweets it thinks you will engage with most and not only curates posts fron people you follow bit will also suggest posts fron people you don't follow too based on the shared network of what posts you and other people related to to you (followers, followeesand people you have liked posts feom) have liked and retweeted and followed in the past.
My tweet had enough initial impact to make it onto people's algorithmic feed and they are engaging with it enough to keep spreading the Tweets influence onto more and more feeds.
The consistency of the volume of likes I'm getting is a pretty impressive testament to the algorithm getting it in front of people who will lile it.
Got a 3rd reply from a 3rd bet365 agent who still cant understand or answer my Strictly betting query. Utterly clueless.
It's hardly difficult - have you pointed out that strictly doesn't rank the finalists so you only know 1st place and 5th through to 13th (this years contestant count goes here).
Edit: what is interesting to me is it is doing a very consistent 300 likes an hour for the last 8 hours. It is an insight into the algorithm.
Nice one. I know virtually nothing about Twitter. How does an algorithm get people to like your post?
It doesn't force people to like my post but it does put my post in people's feeds who aren't following me.
Theres two ways to view twitter, in the 'classic' mode it is a straight cronological lost of the people you follow's tweets. You noenhave to activelly adjust your setting to get classic mode, by defauly you get Algorithimc mode
In Algorithmic mode twitter decides which tweets it thinks you will engage with most and not only curates posts fron people you follow bit will also suggest posts fron people you don't follow too based on the shared network of what posts you and other people related to to you (followers, followeesand people you have liked posts feom) have liked and retweeted and followed in the past.
My tweet had enough initial impact to make it onto people's algorithmic feed and they are engaging with it enough to keep spreading the Tweets influence onto more and more feeds.
The consistency of the volume of likes I'm getting is a pretty impressive testament to the algorithm getting it in front of people who will lile it.
Got a 3rd reply from a 3rd bet365 agent who still cant understand or answer my Strictly betting query. Utterly clueless.
It's hardly difficult - have you pointed out that strictly doesn't rank the finalists so you only know 1st place and 5th through to 13th (this years contestant count goes here).
I've tried to explain as clearly as I can, and you have. The latest response I got was that if all the finalists were male, top female would be the last eliminated. I think their whole CS team are alumni of No Shit Sherlock Academy.
Edit: what is interesting to me is it is doing a very consistent 300 likes an hour for the last 8 hours. It is an insight into the algorithm.
Nice one. I know virtually nothing about Twitter. How does an algorithm get people to like your post?
It doesn't force people to like my post but it does put my post in people's feeds who aren't following me.
Theres two ways to view twitter, in the 'classic' mode it is a straight cronological lost of the people you follow's tweets. You noenhave to activelly adjust your setting to get classic mode, by defauly you get Algorithimc mode
In Algorithmic mode twitter decides which tweets it thinks you will engage with most and not only curates posts fron people you follow bit will also suggest posts fron people you don't follow too based on the shared network of what posts you and other people related to to you (followers, followeesand people you have liked posts feom) have liked and retweeted and followed in the past.
My tweet had enough initial impact to make it onto people's algorithmic feed and they are engaging with it enough to keep spreading the Tweets influence onto more and more feeds.
The consistency of the volume of likes I'm getting is a pretty impressive testament to the algorithm getting it in front of people who will lile it.
I think it's more that it's a reply to a super viral tweet, and because yours has had lots of engagement, it's getting shown to people as one of the first replies, rather than appearing directly in their feeds.
Edit: what is interesting to me is it is doing a very consistent 300 likes an hour for the last 8 hours. It is an insight into the algorithm.
Nice one. I know virtually nothing about Twitter. How does an algorithm get people to like your post?
It doesn't force people to like my post but it does put my post in people's feeds who aren't following me.
Theres two ways to view twitter, in the 'classic' mode it is a straight cronological lost of the people you follow's tweets. You noenhave to activelly adjust your setting to get classic mode, by defauly you get Algorithimc mode
In Algorithmic mode twitter decides which tweets it thinks you will engage with most and not only curates posts fron people you follow bit will also suggest posts fron people you don't follow too based on the shared network of what posts you and other people related to to you (followers, followeesand people you have liked posts feom) have liked and retweeted and followed in the past.
My tweet had enough initial impact to make it onto people's algorithmic feed and they are engaging with it enough to keep spreading the Tweets influence onto more and more feeds.
The consistency of the volume of likes I'm getting is a pretty impressive testament to the algorithm getting it in front of people who will lile it.
I think it's more that it's a reply to a super viral tweet, and because yours has had lots of engagement, it's getting shown to people as one of the first replies, rather than appearing directly in their feeds.
I'm a reply to a reply though, and you need the context of the first reply to make me funny.
I checked in an incognito browser and neither myself or the guy I reply to are shown early in the reply list.
Got a 3rd reply from a 3rd bet365 agent who still cant understand or answer my Strictly betting query. Utterly clueless.
It's hardly difficult - have you pointed out that strictly doesn't rank the finalists so you only know 1st place and 5th through to 13th (this years contestant count goes here).
I've tried to explain as clearly as I can, and you have. The latest response I got was that if all the finalists were male, top female would be the last eliminated. I think their whole CS team are alumni of No Shit Sherlock Academy.
Just had a 4th reply. Should there be 2 females in the final Top female would be settled as the female who won the final.
This is the UKs biggest betting company and I've had 4 idiots now.
I decided long ago that a political career wasn't for me - I don't have a thick enough skin and, quite frankly, although I find it interesting I suspect it'd make me miserable.
No idea why anybody would want it frankly:
- constant exposure - often punishing hours - pretty awful money - being blamed for things you've nothing to do with, especially when it was what the journalist was advocating yesterday - low job security - one trivial slip and you're out. - and, apparently, the threat of assassination.
I've seen better job adverts.
For many, it's like a *normally* non-lethal equivalent of volunteering for a war that you believe is right. Nobody does that for a comfortable life or a good salary, or if they do they are ill-informed. Some do it for transient fame, but most simply want to help their cause/community/country, and the self-centred bit of that is that people like you will think it's amazing if you win, so you're admired by people whose opinion matters to you.
Before I was elected I had a well-paid, comfortable IT job, but neither I nor anyone I knew felt there was anything especially important about it - it was just a pleasant job. The feeling that you're part of a joint effort to make the world better (regardless of which party that leads you to join) is incomparably better.
Edit: what is interesting to me is it is doing a very consistent 300 likes an hour for the last 8 hours. It is an insight into the algorithm.
Nice one. I know virtually nothing about Twitter. How does an algorithm get people to like your post?
It doesn't force people to like my post but it does put my post in people's feeds who aren't following me.
Theres two ways to view twitter, in the 'classic' mode it is a straight cronological lost of the people you follow's tweets. You noenhave to activelly adjust your setting to get classic mode, by defauly you get Algorithimc mode
In Algorithmic mode twitter decides which tweets it thinks you will engage with most and not only curates posts fron people you follow bit will also suggest posts fron people you don't follow too based on the shared network of what posts you and other people related to to you (followers, followeesand people you have liked posts feom) have liked and retweeted and followed in the past.
My tweet had enough initial impact to make it onto people's algorithmic feed and they are engaging with it enough to keep spreading the Tweets influence onto more and more feeds.
The consistency of the volume of likes I'm getting is a pretty impressive testament to the algorithm getting it in front of people who will lile it.
I think it's more that it's a reply to a super viral tweet, and because yours has had lots of engagement, it's getting shown to people as one of the first replies, rather than appearing directly in their feeds.
I'm a reply to a reply though, and you need the context of the first reply to make me funny.
I checked in an incognito browser and neither myself or the guy I reply to are shown early in the reply list.
When I load the original tweet I see this a few tweets below it:
I’m very ill tonight. Have a raging fever and can’t get out of bed without shaking violently from the cold and every minute that ticks by is another minute closer to having to wake up to go to work.
Booked a pcr test for tomorrow evening but i dont think its covid
I’m very ill tonight. Have a raging fever and can’t get out of bed without shaking violently from the cold and every minute that ticks by is another minute closer to having to wake up to go to work.
Booked a pcr test for tomorrow evening but i dont think its covid
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
The 61% who think Brexit is going badly... because they (we) believe Brexit is going badly.
Labour opening the floodgates on immigration again (both EU and non EU) is the one thing stopping me voting for them. If they made a promise to not make immigration easier, I would back Starmer as a decent moderate to punish Boris for a multitude of sins.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
I’m very ill tonight. Have a raging fever and can’t get out of bed without shaking violently from the cold and every minute that ticks by is another minute closer to having to wake up to go to work.
Booked a pcr test for tomorrow evening but i dont think its covid
French Covid vaccine abandoned by UK found to be more effective than AstraZeneca jab
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. ... Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.” ... However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
The 61% who think Brexit is going badly... because they (we) believe Brexit is going badly.
Labour opening the floodgates on immigration again (both EU and non EU) is the one thing stopping me voting for them. If they made a promise to not make immigration easier, I would back Starmer as a decent moderate to punish Boris for a multitude of sins.
Labour would simply do it for ideological purposes rather than to benefit the economy and label anyone who raised a concern about it ‘racist’. You’ve seen it here and he labour candidates on the future candidate approved list predominantly seem to be FBPE type,remain very pro open borders.
We do need immigration and probably more than we get now, but it must be for the benefit of the wider economy.
Labour don’t really learn, they just assume the voters are wrong.
Unfortunately, with the partial exception of Mark Rutte, no EU political leaders have seriously taken up the mantle of promoting reconciliation between Brussels, Paris and London to encourage Britain to invest further in the defence of the continent. Now would be a good moment. …..
A question for @carlbildt and others in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe arguing for the UK to maintain upwards of 20k troops it deems no longer necessary for its security. What would your offer be for the UK to maintain them? A new and improved TCA? Observer status in CFSP?…
Britain views its security as better served through a maritime tilt than more armed forces for operations on the continent, with a sense EU powers, which have been proudly uncharitable over Brexit, should shoulder more of than burden — what do you propose to change that?.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
I’m very ill tonight. Have a raging fever and can’t get out of bed without shaking violently from the cold and every minute that ticks by is another minute closer to having to wake up to go to work.
Booked a pcr test for tomorrow evening but i dont think its covid
If you're -ve lft and this sick it's unlikely to be covid I think
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Apart from houses what exactly is it that you think is "so expensive"? If you look at the figures then actually Food for instance has never represented less of a household's budget, which is why people can afford so many takeaways instead of cooking for themselves at a fraction of the cost nowadays.
Most goods prices are associated with global prices and those that aren't like petrol are distorted due to taxation. So how exactly do you plan to lower the cost of living?
French Covid vaccine abandoned by UK found to be more effective than AstraZeneca jab
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. ... Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.” ... However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
Wait a second, wasn't Prof Finn one of those loudly on Twitter stalling the UK's booster campaign and rollout to teenagers? Seemingly in favour of sending vaccines overseas instead? And he had a vested interest in us having a contract for a vaccine that wasn't ready to be used yet?
Did he recuse himself from the decision making for the JCVI? Because he sure didn't seem to recuse himself from the debates before the decision was made on Twitter.
French Covid vaccine abandoned by UK found to be more effective than AstraZeneca jab
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. ... Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.” ... However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
If they’re just reporting their Phase 3 results now, as the UK rollout has finished but for a few booster doses, why wouldn’t the UK government have cancelled their contract?
It was the nature of the vaccine race, that governments backed every horse hoping that one of them won - even if they lost money on the race overall.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
The housing one is odd in the UK though. Since 1981, a good year in err many ways... our population has gone from 56 to roughly 68 million. That's about the same as France, now I know we don't have as much land but still the migration has been balanced out by a relatively low fertility rate over my lifetime
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Apart from houses what exactly is it that you think is "so expensive"? If you look at the figures then actually Food for instance has never represented less of a household's budget, which is why people can afford so many takeaways instead of cooking for themselves at a fraction of the cost nowadays.
Most goods prices are associated with global prices and those that aren't like petrol are distorted due to taxation. So how exactly do you plan to lower the cost of living?
I could answer this with you usual laughable shrug, but never mind.
We both agree that the cost of housing is a major driver, we just disagree with the solution. My tuppence ha'penny for you to pick apart and sneer at: 1. Make house builders build the houses they have permission for. Too many councils being held hostage over "not enough houses" when permissions have been given and construction not started. Then suddenly its houses everywhere and locals understandibly go nuts 2. War on 2nd homes and empty homes. If we actually had people living in the homes that are empty, we would have much less of a problem. We are going to have to price holiday home owners out in tourist areas - lots of today's labour shortage is locals unable to afford to live where they grew up. You can't "just build more" in the Lake District as one example. 3. Allow councils to build affordable homes. Too many housing developments are yet more "executive" homes that the people in need of accommodation can't afford. Build homes that people need, not ones that make the biggest profit for Tory-donating property developers.
I lived in Edmonton 2000 - 2002. A one-bed flat in zone 4 cost me £477 a month. Now the equivalent is more like £1,250 minimum. As wages have not more than doubled in that period my 2021 counterpart must be even more working poor than I was. As all these flats are private sector there is no control over rents and the market sets the price. A permanent rentier class is no good to anyone.
French Covid vaccine abandoned by UK found to be more effective than AstraZeneca jab
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. ... Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.” ... However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
I would have thought Javid’s comment would likely be a mis-speak for ‘in time to be of practical value.’
Which seems judging on these timeframes to be an issue. It’s nearly a whole year behind Oxford and Pfizer, or even Sputnik and the placebos Chinese vaccines.
It was only to be expected that even better vaccines would come along later as we got more data and researchers had more time to analyse it, but speed was crucial at the start.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
The housing one is odd in the UK though. Since 1981, a good year in err many ways... our population has gone from 56 to roughly 68 million. That's about the same as France, now I know we don't have as much land but still the migration has been balanced out by a relatively low fertility rate over my lifetime
And remember that we opened the doors to migration not because we wanted to dramatically increase housing costs. We had swathes of jobs we couldn't fill. "Full Employment" - the structural definition where there is minimal headroom left in the labour pool - had been achieved. You couldn't get a plumber or a tradesperson or people to work in factories.
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
Wait a second, wasn't Prof Finn one of those loudly on Twitter stalling the UK's booster campaign and rollout to teenagers? Seemingly in favour of sending vaccines overseas instead? And he had a vested interest in us having a contract for a vaccine that wasn't ready to be used yet?
Did he recuse himself from the decision making for the JCVI? Because he sure didn't seem to recuse himself from the debates before the decision was made on Twitter.
Haven't a clue but you seem to be playing the man, not the ball. You could just as easily complain from the other angle that he has a vested interest in promoting more vaccine use. As an aside, it seems unlikely that a trial would be run by someone with a vested interest in the first place.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Apart from houses what exactly is it that you think is "so expensive"? If you look at the figures then actually Food for instance has never represented less of a household's budget, which is why people can afford so many takeaways instead of cooking for themselves at a fraction of the cost nowadays.
Most goods prices are associated with global prices and those that aren't like petrol are distorted due to taxation. So how exactly do you plan to lower the cost of living?
I could answer this with you usual laughable shrug, but never mind.
We both agree that the cost of housing is a major driver, we just disagree with the solution. My tuppence ha'penny for you to pick apart and sneer at: 1. Make house builders build the houses they have permission for. Too many councils being held hostage over "not enough houses" when permissions have been given and construction not started. Then suddenly its houses everywhere and locals understandibly go nuts 2. War on 2nd homes and empty homes. If we actually had people living in the homes that are empty, we would have much less of a problem. We are going to have to price holiday home owners out in tourist areas - lots of today's labour shortage is locals unable to afford to live where they grew up. You can't "just build more" in the Lake District as one example. 3. Allow councils to build affordable homes. Too many housing developments are yet more "executive" homes that the people in need of accommodation can't afford. Build homes that people need, not ones that make the biggest profit for Tory-donating property developers.
I lived in Edmonton 2000 - 2002. A one-bed flat in zone 4 cost me £477 a month. Now the equivalent is more like £1,250 minimum. As wages have not more than doubled in that period my 2021 counterpart must be even more working poor than I was. As all these flats are private sector there is no control over rents and the market sets the price. A permanent rentier class is no good to anyone.
Well housing is an issue, I agree with you on that. Though I don't see how denying builders the permission for more homes (which you've been objecting to) and importing more people who need homes helps that. I completely agree with you that the rise in housing costs has exceeded the rise in wage costs, I've been vehemently making that point for a long time. So while I disagree on fixes to that, I'm happy to draw a line there on what we can agree on.
However excluding housing, most other costs are less as a proportion of income than they have been in the past and are associated with global commodity prices. So other than housing how would you plan to address a "cost of living crisis" or by that did you just mean housing?
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Apart from houses what exactly is it that you think is "so expensive"? If you look at the figures then actually Food for instance has never represented less of a household's budget, which is why people can afford so many takeaways instead of cooking for themselves at a fraction of the cost nowadays.
Most goods prices are associated with global prices and those that aren't like petrol are distorted due to taxation. So how exactly do you plan to lower the cost of living?
I could answer this with you usual laughable shrug, but never mind.
We both agree that the cost of housing is a major driver, we just disagree with the solution. My tuppence ha'penny for you to pick apart and sneer at: 1. Make house builders build the houses they have permission for. Too many councils being held hostage over "not enough houses" when permissions have been given and construction not started. Then suddenly its houses everywhere and locals understandibly go nuts 2. War on 2nd homes and empty homes. If we actually had people living in the homes that are empty, we would have much less of a problem. We are going to have to price holiday home owners out in tourist areas - lots of today's labour shortage is locals unable to afford to live where they grew up. You can't "just build more" in the Lake District as one example. 3. Allow councils to build affordable homes. Too many housing developments are yet more "executive" homes that the people in need of accommodation can't afford. Build homes that people need, not ones that make the biggest profit for Tory-donating property developers.
I lived in Edmonton 2000 - 2002. A one-bed flat in zone 4 cost me £477 a month. Now the equivalent is more like £1,250 minimum. As wages have not more than doubled in that period my 2021 counterpart must be even more working poor than I was. As all these flats are private sector there is no control over rents and the market sets the price. A permanent rentier class is no good to anyone.
Just on the last point, at that level it is not just the market that sets the rent. LHA rates effectively set a floor for the bottom of the market. In Edmonton for a one bed it is £246 pw = £1066 pm. Reduce those LHA rates and you may see those flats going for £900pm instead of your £1250pm example.
It is just a public sector bung to landlords, at the expense of working renters, especially those who are renting properties just above the LHA rate levels.
French Covid vaccine abandoned by UK found to be more effective than AstraZeneca jab
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. ... Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.” ... However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
If they’re just reporting their Phase 3 results now, as the UK rollout has finished but for a few booster doses, why wouldn’t the UK government have cancelled their contract?
It was the nature of the vaccine race, that governments backed every horse hoping that one of them won - even if they lost money on the race overall.
A fair question, though my impression was that we will continue to need booster shots into the future.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
The housing one is odd in the UK though. Since 1981, a good year in err many ways... our population has gone from 56 to roughly 68 million. That's about the same as France, now I know we don't have as much land but still the migration has been balanced out by a relatively low fertility rate over my lifetime
And remember that we opened the doors to migration not because we wanted to dramatically increase housing costs. We had swathes of jobs we couldn't fill. "Full Employment" - the structural definition where there is minimal headroom left in the labour pool - had been achieved. You couldn't get a plumber or a tradesperson or people to work in factories.
But you can't structurally fill vacancies via immigration any more than migrants "steal jobs", its a lump of labour fallacy.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then importing people temporarily fills those vacancies as part of the general churn of the labour market (so suppressing wages) but the structural gap of needing more labour remains as the immigrants create demand by themselves.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then the only actual solution to close the gap is to see wages go up which will destroy jobs that aren't productive at higher wages.
French Covid vaccine abandoned by UK found to be more effective than AstraZeneca jab
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. ... Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.” ... However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
If they’re just reporting their Phase 3 results now, as the UK rollout has finished but for a few booster doses, why wouldn’t the UK government have cancelled their contract?
It was the nature of the vaccine race, that governments backed every horse hoping that one of them won - even if they lost money on the race overall.
A fair question, though my impression was that we will continue to need booster shots into the future.
But those booster shots might be gen 2 vaccines, better tweaked to the new variants. Valneva is a Gen 1 vaccine. We have plenty of Gen 1 vaccines.
On current polling the likeliest results are either a narrow Conservative majority or a hung parliament with the DUP holding the balance of power again
The DUP wouldn’t hold the balance of power because the alternative would be a grotesque rainbow coalition in which they would been teaming up with SNP, PC, Irish nationalists etc
They would be able to choose between Tory majority and Tory minority though
However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
Wait a second, wasn't Prof Finn one of those loudly on Twitter stalling the UK's booster campaign and rollout to teenagers? Seemingly in favour of sending vaccines overseas instead? And he had a vested interest in us having a contract for a vaccine that wasn't ready to be used yet?
Did he recuse himself from the decision making for the JCVI? Because he sure didn't seem to recuse himself from the debates before the decision was made on Twitter.
Haven't a clue but you seem to be playing the man, not the ball. You could just as easily complain from the other angle that he has a vested interest in promoting more vaccine use. As an aside, it seems unlikely that a trial would be run by someone with a vested interest in the first place.
Absolutely I'm playing the man. He was from memory long stalling the UK's decision to offer vaccines to children and boosters to adults.
Search on this site and there've been countless comments by people who couldn't understand what Prof Finn was playing at. Especially but not just Pulpstar and TheScreamingEagles and MaxPB kept bringing him up in frustration.
French Covid vaccine abandoned by UK found to be more effective than AstraZeneca jab
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. ... Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.” ... However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
If they’re just reporting their Phase 3 results now, as the UK rollout has finished but for a few booster doses, why wouldn’t the UK government have cancelled their contract?
It was the nature of the vaccine race, that governments backed every horse hoping that one of them won - even if they lost money on the race overall.
A fair question, though my impression was that we will continue to need booster shots into the future.
But those booster shots might be gen 2 vaccines, better tweaked to the new variants. Valneva is a Gen 1 vaccine. We have plenty of Gen 1 vaccines.
Perhaps, and leaving aside its apparently greater effectiveness, but in that case, why not say so?
The Tories are in trouble next election and it really is irrelevant what the current polling is. Inflation will be a big factor and so will be the effects of Brexit
Inflation is scaring the fuck out of me given my UC budget.
For some reason my TV gives me access to CNBC and they showed today Andrew Bailey over the weekend hinting that a rise in interest rates is on the cards - Can't come early enough if you ask me.
Inflation is a grave concern. THe central,banks are convinced it is transitory. We shall see.
They are saying it is transitory but acting as if it isn’t. Signalling rate rises is an attempt to drive rates higher in the markets- and it is working.
On current polling the likeliest results are either a narrow Conservative majority or a hung parliament with the DUP holding the balance of power again
The DUP wouldn’t hold the balance of power because the alternative would be a grotesque rainbow coalition in which they would been teaming up with SNP, PC, Irish nationalists etc
They would be able to choose between Tory majority and Tory minority though
The DUP is facing decimation anyway, but many of them already feel much the same as Lib Dems feel about the Tories: you can not trust them in any way and it is very dangerous to even try.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Apart from houses what exactly is it that you think is "so expensive"? If you look at the figures then actually Food for instance has never represented less of a household's budget, which is why people can afford so many takeaways instead of cooking for themselves at a fraction of the cost nowadays.
Most goods prices are associated with global prices and those that aren't like petrol are distorted due to taxation. So how exactly do you plan to lower the cost of living?
I could answer this with you usual laughable shrug, but never mind.
We both agree that the cost of housing is a major driver, we just disagree with the solution. My tuppence ha'penny for you to pick apart and sneer at: 1. Make house builders build the houses they have permission for. Too many councils being held hostage over "not enough houses" when permissions have been given and construction not started. Then suddenly its houses everywhere and locals understandibly go nuts 2. War on 2nd homes and empty homes. If we actually had people living in the homes that are empty, we would have much less of a problem. We are going to have to price holiday home owners out in tourist areas - lots of today's labour shortage is locals unable to afford to live where they grew up. You can't "just build more" in the Lake District as one example. 3. Allow councils to build affordable homes. Too many housing developments are yet more "executive" homes that the people in need of accommodation can't afford. Build homes that people need, not ones that make the biggest profit for Tory-donating property developers.
I lived in Edmonton 2000 - 2002. A one-bed flat in zone 4 cost me £477 a month. Now the equivalent is more like £1,250 minimum. As wages have not more than doubled in that period my 2021 counterpart must be even more working poor than I was. As all these flats are private sector there is no control over rents and the market sets the price. A permanent rentier class is no good to anyone.
Just on the last point, at that level it is not just the market that sets the rent. LHA rates effectively set a floor for the bottom of the market. In Edmonton for a one bed it is £246 pw = £1066 pm. Reduce those LHA rates and you may see those flats going for £900pm instead of your £1250pm example.
It is just a public sector bung to landlords, at the expense of working renters, especially those who are renting properties just above the LHA rate levels.
Would lowering LHA rents really lower private rents? Are there empty LHA properties as an alternative for private renters? If I was a business landlord I'd charge what I can. If all LHA property is full at £800 or £1000 demand for my private flat wouldn't change. You'd just have more people wishing they were in LHA.
Southend given City status I see. Nice one whoever made the decision
The Queen…
Wouldn’t she just be told to sign it and the decision be a governmental one ?
Yes.
The PM probably made the decision but it will be done in the Queen's name.
Quite right for Boris not to seek 'credit' for this decision. If any politicians name will be associated with this it will be Amess, so the Queen can do her constitutional job of being the foil.
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
Hydrogen is the future, air and ground source heat pumps are not especially good, expensive and not suitable for everyone.
The current govt intervention is merely a subsidy to the wealthy who can afford the difference and will doubtless, see money going into the hands of middle men and companies offering little like various Green New Deals did. Cameron’s scheme being the worst of the lot for that.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Apart from houses what exactly is it that you think is "so expensive"? If you look at the figures then actually Food for instance has never represented less of a household's budget, which is why people can afford so many takeaways instead of cooking for themselves at a fraction of the cost nowadays.
Most goods prices are associated with global prices and those that aren't like petrol are distorted due to taxation. So how exactly do you plan to lower the cost of living?
I could answer this with you usual laughable shrug, but never mind.
We both agree that the cost of housing is a major driver, we just disagree with the solution. My tuppence ha'penny for you to pick apart and sneer at: 1. Make house builders build the houses they have permission for. Too many councils being held hostage over "not enough houses" when permissions have been given and construction not started. Then suddenly its houses everywhere and locals understandibly go nuts 2. War on 2nd homes and empty homes. If we actually had people living in the homes that are empty, we would have much less of a problem. We are going to have to price holiday home owners out in tourist areas - lots of today's labour shortage is locals unable to afford to live where they grew up. You can't "just build more" in the Lake District as one example. 3. Allow councils to build affordable homes. Too many housing developments are yet more "executive" homes that the people in need of accommodation can't afford. Build homes that people need, not ones that make the biggest profit for Tory-donating property developers.
I lived in Edmonton 2000 - 2002. A one-bed flat in zone 4 cost me £477 a month. Now the equivalent is more like £1,250 minimum. As wages have not more than doubled in that period my 2021 counterpart must be even more working poor than I was. As all these flats are private sector there is no control over rents and the market sets the price. A permanent rentier class is no good to anyone.
Just on the last point, at that level it is not just the market that sets the rent. LHA rates effectively set a floor for the bottom of the market. In Edmonton for a one bed it is £246 pw = £1066 pm. Reduce those LHA rates and you may see those flats going for £900pm instead of your £1250pm example.
It is just a public sector bung to landlords, at the expense of working renters, especially those who are renting properties just above the LHA rate levels.
Would lowering LHA rents really lower private rents? Are there empty LHA properties as an alternative for private renters? If I was a business landlord I'd charge what I can. If all LHA property is full at £800 or £1000 demand for my private flat wouldn't change. You'd just have more people wishing they were in LHA.
Many private renters are on UC and getting Housing Benefit which is associated with that going rate.
If Housing Benefit came down, then landlords would likely find themselves able to command a lower rent.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
The housing one is odd in the UK though. Since 1981, a good year in err many ways... our population has gone from 56 to roughly 68 million. That's about the same as France, now I know we don't have as much land but still the migration has been balanced out by a relatively low fertility rate over my lifetime
And remember that we opened the doors to migration not because we wanted to dramatically increase housing costs. We had swathes of jobs we couldn't fill. "Full Employment" - the structural definition where there is minimal headroom left in the labour pool - had been achieved. You couldn't get a plumber or a tradesperson or people to work in factories.
But you can't structurally fill vacancies via immigration any more than migrants "steal jobs", its a lump of labour fallacy.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then importing people temporarily fills those vacancies as part of the general churn of the labour market (so suppressing wages) but the structural gap of needing more labour remains as the immigrants create demand by themselves.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then the only actual solution to close the gap is to see wages go up which will destroy jobs that aren't productive at higher wages.
Your argument breaks down because we clearly did fill the vacancies via migration just as we have now created vacancies due to emigration.
I've just read a piece in the Telegraph bemoaning the lack of Brits to fill "up to £30 an hour" picking jobs. The problem is very simple - the jobs are seasonal, unsociable hours, located scores or hundreds of miles from the larger unemployment pools and is back-breaking.
If we don't want migrants then we need to create a WWII-style "land army". Create opportunities for young people to spend a summer in the country working on farms. No issues with childcare or living away for a few months or hard work or being able to socialise in the evening with others.
"Just make people on benefits do it" - as I keep reading in the Mail - is not a solution. They can't.
Edit: what is interesting to me is it is doing a very consistent 300 likes an hour for the last 8 hours. It is an insight into the algorithm.
Nice one. I know virtually nothing about Twitter. How does an algorithm get people to like your post?
It doesn't force people to like my post but it does put my post in people's feeds who aren't following me.
Theres two ways to view twitter, in the 'classic' mode it is a straight cronological lost of the people you follow's tweets. You noenhave to activelly adjust your setting to get classic mode, by defauly you get Algorithimc mode
In Algorithmic mode twitter decides which tweets it thinks you will engage with most and not only curates posts fron people you follow bit will also suggest posts fron people you don't follow too based on the shared network of what posts you and other people related to to you (followers, followeesand people you have liked posts feom) have liked and retweeted and followed in the past.
My tweet had enough initial impact to make it onto people's algorithmic feed and they are engaging with it enough to keep spreading the Tweets influence onto more and more feeds.
The consistency of the volume of likes I'm getting is a pretty impressive testament to the algorithm getting it in front of people who will lile it.
I think it's more that it's a reply to a super viral tweet, and because yours has had lots of engagement, it's getting shown to people as one of the first replies, rather than appearing directly in their feeds.
I'm a reply to a reply though, and you need the context of the first reply to make me funny.
I checked in an incognito browser and neither myself or the guy I reply to are shown early in the reply list.
When I load the original tweet I see this a few tweets below it:
The algorithm has identified that you would appreciate a high quality but non malicious put down!
The other black swan I think is possible is the NHS keeling over before the next GE, I suspect some will understand it is related to the NHS but given the way the public views the NHS the party that allows the NHS to collapse will take a huge hit in the polls and ballot box.
I'm in a few Tory WhatsApp groups and there's real fury about the government not doing enough to force face to face GP appointments.
As always with the NHS it’s one-size-fits-all that’s the problem. From the work I’ve done in HCIT digital triage absolutely has a role, but it’s not suitable for everything and it’s not suitable for everyone. It should be part of a menu of options.
But then I would also completely restructure the whole set up - bring the GPs in house as part of a comprehensive NHS Primary Care that is managed separately from the NHS Hospitals, NHS Social Care etc
The whole setup is just too big and complicated to manage as it is
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
The housing one is odd in the UK though. Since 1981, a good year in err many ways... our population has gone from 56 to roughly 68 million. That's about the same as France, now I know we don't have as much land but still the migration has been balanced out by a relatively low fertility rate over my lifetime
And remember that we opened the doors to migration not because we wanted to dramatically increase housing costs. We had swathes of jobs we couldn't fill. "Full Employment" - the structural definition where there is minimal headroom left in the labour pool - had been achieved. You couldn't get a plumber or a tradesperson or people to work in factories.
But you can't structurally fill vacancies via immigration any more than migrants "steal jobs", its a lump of labour fallacy.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then importing people temporarily fills those vacancies as part of the general churn of the labour market (so suppressing wages) but the structural gap of needing more labour remains as the immigrants create demand by themselves.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then the only actual solution to close the gap is to see wages go up which will destroy jobs that aren't productive at higher wages.
Your argument breaks down because we clearly did fill the vacancies via migration just as we have now created vacancies due to emigration.
I've just read a piece in the Telegraph bemoaning the lack of Brits to fill "up to £30 an hour" picking jobs. The problem is very simple - the jobs are seasonal, unsociable hours, located scores or hundreds of miles from the larger unemployment pools and is back-breaking.
If we don't want migrants then we need to create a WWII-style "land army". Create opportunities for young people to spend a summer in the country working on farms. No issues with childcare or living away for a few months or hard work or being able to socialise in the evening with others.
"Just make people on benefits do it" - as I keep reading in the Mail - is not a solution. They can't.
Good morning everyone. Last day of my personal lockdown. And some good news on my Ancestry researches yesterday. Mr P; how come you 'keep reading in the Mail'; reading that rag in detail regularly would drive me past drink!
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
The housing one is odd in the UK though. Since 1981, a good year in err many ways... our population has gone from 56 to roughly 68 million. That's about the same as France, now I know we don't have as much land but still the migration has been balanced out by a relatively low fertility rate over my lifetime
And remember that we opened the doors to migration not because we wanted to dramatically increase housing costs. We had swathes of jobs we couldn't fill. "Full Employment" - the structural definition where there is minimal headroom left in the labour pool - had been achieved. You couldn't get a plumber or a tradesperson or people to work in factories.
But you can't structurally fill vacancies via immigration any more than migrants "steal jobs", its a lump of labour fallacy.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then importing people temporarily fills those vacancies as part of the general churn of the labour market (so suppressing wages) but the structural gap of needing more labour remains as the immigrants create demand by themselves.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then the only actual solution to close the gap is to see wages go up which will destroy jobs that aren't productive at higher wages.
Your argument breaks down because we clearly did fill the vacancies via migration just as we have now created vacancies due to emigration.
I've just read a piece in the Telegraph bemoaning the lack of Brits to fill "up to £30 an hour" picking jobs. The problem is very simple - the jobs are seasonal, unsociable hours, located scores or hundreds of miles from the larger unemployment pools and is back-breaking.
If we don't want migrants then we need to create a WWII-style "land army". Create opportunities for young people to spend a summer in the country working on farms. No issues with childcare or living away for a few months or hard work or being able to socialise in the evening with others.
"Just make people on benefits do it" - as I keep reading in the Mail - is not a solution. They can't.
It doesn't break down because we never filled the vacancies, we permanently had labour vacancies, they were just churned.
Over a year hundreds of thousands of workers would move into the country to "fill vacancies" and hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created as a result. Because lump of labour is a fallacy.
Please name the last date pre-Covid that you think we had no vacancies. That the vacancies were "filled".
Edit: Also we haven't created vacancies due to emigration. We have the same vacancies we always have (plus a bit due to post Covid surging demand). The difference is that the ability to mask those vacancies via churn and importing people has been ended.
The hostility among Premier League clubs to the Newcastle United takeover was underlined on Monday when they voted through legislation designed to prevent the Saudi owners from striking lucrative sponsorship deals.
Newcastle made it clear at the emergency meeting of all 20 clubs that they considered the rule change, which will temporarily ban commercial arrangements that involve pre-existing business relationships, to be anti-competitive. They were represented by Lee Charnley, the incumbent managing director, rather than Amanda Staveley, the director and minority stakeholder, who is now responsible for running the club on a day-to-day basis. Charnley is understood to have made it clear that his club had legal advice to say that the amendment was unlawful.
But the clubs pressed on with the vote and it was passed 18-2. Standing in opposition with Newcastle were Manchester City, whose Abu Dhabi-based owners have benefitted in the past from what are known as related party transactions. An example was the deal that saw Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi-government owned carrier, sponsor them.
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
Gas plumbers and engineers may not be the most neutral source of information on the deprecation of using gas.
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
Gas plumbers and engineers may not be the most neutral source of information on the deprecation of using gas.
Fair comment but he knows far more about the subject then most and will be retired before 2035
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
Gas plumbers and engineers may not be the most neutral source of information on the deprecation of using gas.
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
Your engineer is exactly right, its amazes me the nonsense that is spouted about these heat exchangers. Unless technology develops significantly I doubt they will be installed in 5% of homes.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
I think that is not correct. Utilities are much further down the list on the average.
These are numbers from 2019-20. The list will adjust, but utilities will not go above food, household and recreation easily.
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
That's why the "Fabric First" approach is absolutely critical.
Were the government to fund the whole thing, money-grubbers would just jump blindly on the bandwagon. That needs to be avoided at all costs.
I would do something like grants limited to EPC level C and above.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Yet the EFTA countries are all high-wage economies…
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Apart from houses what exactly is it that you think is "so expensive"? If you look at the figures then actually Food for instance has never represented less of a household's budget, which is why people can afford so many takeaways instead of cooking for themselves at a fraction of the cost nowadays.
Most goods prices are associated with global prices and those that aren't like petrol are distorted due to taxation. So how exactly do you plan to lower the cost of living?
I could answer this with you usual laughable shrug, but never mind.
We both agree that the cost of housing is a major driver, we just disagree with the solution. My tuppence ha'penny for you to pick apart and sneer at: 1. Make house builders build the houses they have permission for. Too many councils being held hostage over "not enough houses" when permissions have been given and construction not started. Then suddenly its houses everywhere and locals understandibly go nuts 2. War on 2nd homes and empty homes. If we actually had people living in the homes that are empty, we would have much less of a problem. We are going to have to price holiday home owners out in tourist areas - lots of today's labour shortage is locals unable to afford to live where they grew up. You can't "just build more" in the Lake District as one example. 3. Allow councils to build affordable homes. Too many housing developments are yet more "executive" homes that the people in need of accommodation can't afford. Build homes that people need, not ones that make the biggest profit for Tory-donating property developers.
I lived in Edmonton 2000 - 2002. A one-bed flat in zone 4 cost me £477 a month. Now the equivalent is more like £1,250 minimum. As wages have not more than doubled in that period my 2021 counterpart must be even more working poor than I was. As all these flats are private sector there is no control over rents and the market sets the price. A permanent rentier class is no good to anyone.
Just on the last point, at that level it is not just the market that sets the rent. LHA rates effectively set a floor for the bottom of the market. In Edmonton for a one bed it is £246 pw = £1066 pm. Reduce those LHA rates and you may see those flats going for £900pm instead of your £1250pm example.
It is just a public sector bung to landlords, at the expense of working renters, especially those who are renting properties just above the LHA rate levels.
Not wishing to be a defendent of rentiers, but isn't the problem there that were the LHA to be reduced surely the flats in question would either be sold, or done up and rented out to non LHA tenants; as there would be a huge incentive for the landlords to do so. Where would the LHA tenants be housed?
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
Gas plumbers and engineers may not be the most neutral source of information on the deprecation of using gas.
LOL
But £6,000 - £18,000 less £5,000.
People will do the math.
Exactly. It’s a cheap shot from Phillip. The guy is likely to be quite clued up.
Having worked for A boiler maker who also sold heat pumps I can say for what I gleaned when there the installer is quite right. Hydrogen is the future. There are houses already trialling hydrogen boilers, there are two in Gateshead. Heat pumps are not suitable for many properties. There is nothing controversial or incorrect in what the guy said and the transition really doesn’t threaten their jobs, their jobs will just evolve to the new technology in the same way they went from conventional boilers to Combi boilers. They will just retrain.
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
Gas plumbers and engineers may not be the most neutral source of information on the deprecation of using gas.
LOL
But £6,000 - £18,000 less £5,000.
People will do the math.
I hope they do .
Then they will invest the money in reducing their energy needs by 30-50% via insulation, airtightness etc, then they will find they can use a smaller, cheaper heat pump.
On current polling the likeliest results are either a narrow Conservative majority or a hung parliament with the DUP holding the balance of power again
The DUP wouldn’t hold the balance of power because the alternative would be a grotesque rainbow coalition in which they would been teaming up with SNP, PC, Irish nationalists etc
They would be able to choose between Tory majority and Tory minority though
The DUP is facing decimation anyway, but many of them already feel much the same as Lib Dems feel about the Tories: you can not trust them in any way and it is very dangerous to even try.
This LibDem whining is amusing displacement activity.
The truth is that the LibDems betrayed their voters on tuition fees - perhaps the most fundamental betrayal a party in government has done in living memory.
Not to mention that a LibDem party which had opposed Middle Eastern warmongering changed to supporting Middle Eastern warmongery while in government.
Yet somehow its not their fault but Cameron's lot were to blame.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Perhaps. Though the post-Brexit surge in wages is driven by a temporary labour shortage. It won't last - if these companies could afford higher wages someone would already have broken out to hire the best workers. They haven't because they can't.
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
The three biggest costs in most people’s lives are: 1. Accommodation 2. Transport 3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further. 2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology. 3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
I think that is not correct. Utilities are much further down the list on the average.
These are numbers from 2019-20. The list will adjust, but utilities will not go above food, household and recreation easily.
Okay, I got three of the top five, and recent experience suggests that utilities inflation is running well above inflation in other categories - and will continue to do so.
There's a world of economic hurt coming and the Tories should take a hit for that.
One theory I've heard spouted, May 2023 GE which allows the Tories to put up taxes in late 2023 and not have to face the electorate for nearly five years.
That won't look like such a good idea by 2022.
Maybe, I suspect the earlier he goes to the country he can keep the Brexit coalition together as he will say voting Labour risks ruining/overturning Brexit .
What worries me (much to my surprise) is how the numbers have shifted on that in the last two months, including eating into that coalition.
It might not stay solid forever or, if it does, shrink down from 45-50% to an irreducible core of true believers at sub 30% at which point it becomes a handicap not an asset.
Yes, Labour is holding onto Remainers well, and gaining Leavers with buyers remorse. Not enough yet, but if the dam breaks...
SKS needs to be careful or he may get it wrong on Brexit a second time by overcompensating.
If that does happen the risk is it goes to their heads and their hand is massively overplayed.
A very good politician would recognise Britain is divided and come up with a long-term compromise that 70%+ could be satisfied with.
The sensible option for rejoiners is to press Labour to commit the UK to join EFTA. Which they could sell as part of their 'Make Brexit Work' stance.
So you want to see Labour commit to following EU rules and having free movement again?
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
EFTA does not mean either free movement (sadly) nor following EU rules. Freedom of movement only comes in if you take the further step of joining the EEA and neither involve following EU rules any more than we have to now.
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
The EFTA agreement - IIRC - contains provisions for free movement between Lietchenstein - Iceland - Norway - Switzerland. (But does not, IIRC, contain the same provisions Maastricht did around treating foreigners as if they were citizens, which therefore made them eligible for benefits.)
As we have seem, the problem isn't benefits but the way open borders to the EU is a massive downwards drag on wages.
Yet the EFTA countries are all high-wage economies…
The EFTA countries don't have the UKs welfare state.
That someone can move to the UK, get a minimum wage job then immediately get housing allowance, tax credits or universal credit, child benefits etc isn't necessarily the same as in other nations.
For all the talk about the cost of replacing gas boilers, flip the argument over and look at the costs of not replacing them. The UK burned its gas reserves for profit and is now increasingly reliant on nice Mr Putin. I am sure new boilers will cost £dollah but so does gas.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
I had my boiler serviced last week and the engineer said the move to heat exchangers is not the answer for the vast majority of homes due to the huge cost of installation and that in winter they would not be able to produce the heat required
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
Your engineer is exactly right, its amazes me the nonsense that is spouted about these heat exchangers. Unless technology develops significantly I doubt they will be installed in 5% of homes.
The new policy will seemingly make little difference...
"But the £450m being allocated for the subsidies over three years will cover a maximum of 90,000 pumps"
French Covid vaccine abandoned by UK found to be more effective than AstraZeneca jab
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab. ... Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.” ... However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
Comments
How many nhs / care workers are captured by the poor figures in the 50-65 groups above I wonder.
80+ 66%
75-79 84%
70-74 101%
65-69 101%
60-64 83%
55-59 75%
50-54 72%
-50 42%
Aside from the low take up of the under 50s there's also a low take up among the very oldies.
Does that suggest that care homes are not being prioritised now as they previously were ?
Ditto when Gibraltar becomes a quasi-schengen member. At the moment a UK citizen can stay 180/365 in Gibraltar, and the border doesn’t scan passports in either direction (the spanish border force just glance at them as one wanders past).
And who do you think will vote for that and why? What will be gained from that?
The key is to learn by your mistakes, and preferably by your near mistakes, and the mistakes of others. The difference between a good doctor and a bad one is how they learn and react to such things. It is why we have morbidity and mortality meetings and Schwarz rounds at my hospital, to share experiences of these things.
About two months late!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCAw_HaWEAkCjqg?format=jpg&name=large
Oh and I would vote for EFTA like a shot.
https://twitter.com/twitonatrain/status/1450092575315173388
Only needs the two posts above for context.
Edit: what is interesting to me is it is doing a very consistent 300 likes an hour for the last 8 hours. It is an insight into the algorithm.
It just needs mutual recognition of standards. Or an organisation like IATA to publish a standard for drivers licenses that contained biometric information, and which could be read and validated in multiple countries.
The US has the RealID standard for drivers licenses - why don't we look to copy it?
Theres two ways to view twitter, in the 'classic' mode it is a straight cronological lost of the people you follow's tweets. You noenhave to activelly adjust your setting to get classic mode, by defauly you get Algorithimc mode
In Algorithmic mode twitter decides which tweets it thinks you will engage with most and not only curates posts fron people you follow bit will also suggest posts fron people you don't follow too based on the shared network of what posts you and other people related to to you (followers, followeesand people you have liked posts feom) have liked and retweeted and followed in the past.
My tweet had enough initial impact to make it onto people's algorithmic feed and they are engaging with it enough to keep spreading the Tweets influence onto more and more feeds.
The consistency of the volume of likes I'm getting is a pretty impressive testament to the algorithm getting it in front of people who will lile it.
I checked in an incognito browser and neither myself or the guy I reply to are shown early in the reply list.
This is the UKs biggest betting company and I've had 4 idiots now.
Before I was elected I had a well-paid, comfortable IT job, but neither I nor anyone I knew felt there was anything especially important about it - it was just a pleasant job. The feeling that you're part of a joint effort to make the world better (regardless of which party that leads you to join) is incomparably better.
I didnt realise until recently how bad Rolling Stones' Brown Sugar was. I thought it was just about finding black girls attractive. How wrong I was.
Booked a pcr test for tomorrow evening but i dont think its covid
Lead investigator left asking why a contract for the Valneva jab was cancelled before further testing and trial data could be reviewed
It could be politically embarrassing as well. Boris visited the site, we ordered 100 million doses then cancelled the contract. Why? And have ministers been straightforward? A couple of extracts from the Telegraph:-
Valneva said on Monday that its phase three results – which included more than 4,000 people across 26 sites in the UK – show it produces roughly 40 per cent more neutralising antibodies than the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab.
...
Mr Javid, speaking in the House of Commons, added: “It was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK.”
...
However, Prof Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and lead investigator of the Valneva trial, said the reason for these comments remains a mystery.
“We don’t really know why he said that. It has been corrected in Hansards, so he has acknowledged that he got it wrong, but he hasn't actually explained, to me at least, exactly what led to that comment.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/18/covid-vaccine-abandoned-uk-government-found-effective-astrazeneca/ (£££)
We do need immigration and probably more than we get now, but it must be for the benefit of the wider economy.
Labour don’t really learn, they just assume the voters are wrong.
Mr. Gate, hope you get well soon.
A question for @carlbildt and others in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe arguing for the UK to maintain upwards of 20k troops it deems no longer necessary for its security. What would your offer be for the UK to maintain them? A new and improved TCA? Observer status in CFSP?…
Britain views its security as better served through a maritime tilt than more armed forces for operations on the continent, with a sense EU powers, which have been proudly uncharitable over Brexit, should shoulder more of than burden — what do you propose to change that?.
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1450130938256576512?s=21
What we really need to be doing is tacking the structural cost of living crisis - why is everything so expensive? Making everything even more expensive is not the easy solution that some think it is. Certainly isn't what the government thinks - the "revolution in wages" was an addendum having gone through all the stages of Brexit denial to "this was the plan all along".
1. Accommodation
2. Transport
3. Utilities
1. Is primarily as a result of immigration running above housebuilding for several decades, and is resolved building a *lot* more houses while not allowing the population to rise further.
2. The cost of motoring is mostly taxes to discourage its use, and the high cost of public transport is mostly unreformed labour practices and an unwillingness to invest in technology.
3. The easiest of the lot, government policy designed to replace the energy mix for environmental reasons over the past couple of decades, alongside a failure to maintain expertise in nuclear.
I’m expecting to see a massive backlash against the COP26 conference, as people start to realise how much more expensive life will become as a result of the measures being considered. Oh, and that everyone is turning up on private planes to lecture the rest of us about energy use. Again.
Apart from houses what exactly is it that you think is "so expensive"? If you look at the figures then actually Food for instance has never represented less of a household's budget, which is why people can afford so many takeaways instead of cooking for themselves at a fraction of the cost nowadays.
Most goods prices are associated with global prices and those that aren't like petrol are distorted due to taxation. So how exactly do you plan to lower the cost of living?
Did he recuse himself from the decision making for the JCVI? Because he sure didn't seem to recuse himself from the debates before the decision was made on Twitter.
It was the nature of the vaccine race, that governments backed every horse hoping that one of them won - even if they lost money on the race overall.
North Korea fires submarine-launched ballistic missile into waters off Japan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58963654
Since 1981, a good year in err many ways... our population has gone from 56 to roughly 68 million.
That's about the same as France, now I know we don't have as much land but still the migration has been balanced out by a relatively low fertility rate over my lifetime
We both agree that the cost of housing is a major driver, we just disagree with the solution. My tuppence ha'penny for you to pick apart and sneer at:
1. Make house builders build the houses they have permission for. Too many councils being held hostage over "not enough houses" when permissions have been given and construction not started. Then suddenly its houses everywhere and locals understandibly go nuts
2. War on 2nd homes and empty homes. If we actually had people living in the homes that are empty, we would have much less of a problem. We are going to have to price holiday home owners out in tourist areas - lots of today's labour shortage is locals unable to afford to live where they grew up. You can't "just build more" in the Lake District as one example.
3. Allow councils to build affordable homes. Too many housing developments are yet more "executive" homes that the people in need of accommodation can't afford. Build homes that people need, not ones that make the biggest profit for Tory-donating property developers.
I lived in Edmonton 2000 - 2002. A one-bed flat in zone 4 cost me £477 a month. Now the equivalent is more like £1,250 minimum. As wages have not more than doubled in that period my 2021 counterpart must be even more working poor than I was. As all these flats are private sector there is no control over rents and the market sets the price. A permanent rentier class is no good to anyone.
Which seems judging on these timeframes to be an issue. It’s nearly a whole year behind Oxford and Pfizer, or even Sputnik and the
placebosChinese vaccines.It was only to be expected that even better vaccines would come along later as we got more data and researchers had more time to analyse it, but speed was crucial at the start.
A strategic disengagement from our reliance on imported gas is a good idea - but we need something long-term to replace them with. The COP26 solution is wind, solar, tidal combined with battery storage. Invest in renewables so that we can actually have wind and solar installations that we made rather than imported, build the tidal generators that the environmentalists wet themselves over. And commission British Volt to build storage batteries..
We will still need gas and nuclear and we probably need to invest in nuclear instead of letting the Chinese do it. But we can move away from gas. All these boilers we are talking about will get replaced at some point - just have an incentive scheme to make the replacements renewable.
However excluding housing, most other costs are less as a proportion of income than they have been in the past and are associated with global commodity prices. So other than housing how would you plan to address a "cost of living crisis" or by that did you just mean housing?
It is just a public sector bung to landlords, at the expense of working renters, especially those who are renting properties just above the LHA rate levels.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then importing people temporarily fills those vacancies as part of the general churn of the labour market (so suppressing wages) but the structural gap of needing more labour remains as the immigrants create demand by themselves.
If you have full employment and still have vacancies then the only actual solution to close the gap is to see wages go up which will destroy jobs that aren't productive at higher wages.
They would be able to choose between Tory majority and Tory minority though
Search on this site and there've been countless comments by people who couldn't understand what Prof Finn was playing at. Especially but not just Pulpstar and TheScreamingEagles and MaxPB kept bringing him up in frustration.
https://twitter.com/lloydhardy/status/1450132327259123715?s=21
The PM probably made the decision but it will be done in the Queen's name.
Quite right for Boris not to seek 'credit' for this decision. If any politicians name will be associated with this it will be Amess, so the Queen can do her constitutional job of being the foil.
The current govt intervention is merely a subsidy to the wealthy who can afford the difference and will doubtless, see money going into the hands of middle men and companies offering little like various Green New Deals did. Cameron’s scheme being the worst of the lot for that.
If Housing Benefit came down, then landlords would likely find themselves able to command a lower rent.
I've just read a piece in the Telegraph bemoaning the lack of Brits to fill "up to £30 an hour" picking jobs. The problem is very simple - the jobs are seasonal, unsociable hours, located scores or hundreds of miles from the larger unemployment pools and is back-breaking.
If we don't want migrants then we need to create a WWII-style "land army". Create opportunities for young people to spend a summer in the country working on farms. No issues with childcare or living away for a few months or hard work or being able to socialise in the evening with others.
"Just make people on benefits do it" - as I keep reading in the Mail - is not a solution. They can't.
Please like and subscribe
But then I would also completely restructure the whole set up - bring the GPs in house as part of a comprehensive NHS Primary Care that is managed separately from the NHS Hospitals, NHS Social Care etc
The whole setup is just too big and complicated to manage as it is
Mr P; how come you 'keep reading in the Mail'; reading that rag in detail regularly would drive me past drink!
Over a year hundreds of thousands of workers would move into the country to "fill vacancies" and hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created as a result. Because lump of labour is a fallacy.
Please name the last date pre-Covid that you think we had no vacancies. That the vacancies were "filled".
Edit: Also we haven't created vacancies due to emigration. We have the same vacancies we always have (plus a bit due to post Covid surging demand). The difference is that the ability to mask those vacancies via churn and importing people has been ended.
Newcastle is being run day-to-day by a banker / investment type?
That''ll work well...
He went on to say he believes hydrogen will become much more sensible but he also said he expected gas in future to be from green sources much like the change from town gas to natural gas
CON 40 (-5)
LAB 32 (-2)
GRN 9 (+2)
LD 6 (+1)
SNP 6 (+1)
RUK 3 (=)
PC 1 (=)
OTH 2 (+1)
Fieldwork 11th-18th October (changes vs 7th-14th June)
n=1,000’
https://twitter.com/ncpoliticsuk/status/1450155243778592773?s=21
Actually, make that 3 dogs.
https://twitter.com/sahreports/status/1450086706238132230?s=21
But £6,000 - £18,000 less £5,000.
People will do the math.
These are numbers from 2019-20. The list will adjust, but utilities will not go above food, household and recreation easily.
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-uk-household-budget#nogo
Were the government to fund the whole thing, money-grubbers would just jump blindly on the bandwagon. That needs to be avoided at all costs.
I would do something like grants limited to EPC level C and above.
Having worked for A boiler maker who also sold heat pumps I can say for what I gleaned when there the installer is quite right. Hydrogen is the future. There are houses already trialling hydrogen boilers, there are two in Gateshead. Heat pumps are not suitable for many properties. There is nothing controversial or incorrect in what the guy said and the transition really doesn’t threaten their jobs, their jobs will just evolve to the new technology in the same way they went from conventional boilers to Combi boilers. They will just retrain.
Then they will invest the money in reducing their energy needs by 30-50% via insulation, airtightness etc, then they will find they can use a smaller, cheaper heat pump.
The truth is that the LibDems betrayed their voters on tuition fees - perhaps the most fundamental betrayal a party in government has done in living memory.
Not to mention that a LibDem party which had opposed Middle Eastern warmongering changed to supporting Middle Eastern warmongery while in government.
Yet somehow its not their fault but Cameron's lot were to blame.
That someone can move to the UK, get a minimum wage job then immediately get housing allowance, tax credits or universal credit, child benefits etc isn't necessarily the same as in other nations.
"But the £450m being allocated for the subsidies over three years will cover a maximum of 90,000 pumps"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58959045
The general feeling being that Whitehall was back in the 'lets save a few million here' rather than looking long term.
Its certainly good news that the Valneva is making progress.