I just cannot understand why Boris or his advisors thought this was a good idea.
Paterson should take his punishment, and if there is an issue with the procedures then it is sensible to address it in the future
The media say this morning that Paterson's 30 day exclusion has been suspended pending this new procedure but we all know that that is a long way away
@HYUFD comments last night have rightly been called out as I did when he made them
And to add to Parliament's woes Claudia Webbe is to be sentenced today
Easy.
Boris hates scrutiny.
How much that is the temperament of an overgrown schoolboy caught with something inappropriate, how much that is because he doesn't have a brain that works well when being questioned, I don't know and don't particularly care.
But it's a pattern throughout his political career. Getting rid of a body that questions politicians is in his interests. And who cares about the voters? They can't do anything until 2024. And then what? Vote for Boring Old Starmer?
Mr. NorthWales, if that's the Labour MP I think it is then not only has the idiot in Number 10 been stupid with the vote yesterday all by itself, he's also created a negative Conservative headline to eclipse a negative Labour one.
And for what? One man, to be suspended for 30 days?
I agree, the arrogance of Paterson is breathtaking and deeply unedifying by bringing his wife's suicide into the equation
If this does not damage the conservative party in the polls then what will
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
Watching the Liverpool - Athletico match last night, a player seemed to ignore the referee in a display of defiance. EUFA officials claim he was sent off for the original foul, but for once, I wish they had some backbone like rugby referees.
It seems in Parliament, the players can make up the rules as they go along.
Attorney General and Solicitor General voted to stop normal disciplinary process against Owen Patterson just as it was about to find him in breach. Flagrant breach of the rule of law. They are supposed to be law officers, with obligations to the law, not just government stooges. https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1456035773896171523
Isn't it about time the Bar Council started thinking about getting involved? The Government's law officers being independent, or at least acting independently, is a fundamental protection within the UK constitution. Presumably only the Bar Council can take steps to ensure that this independence is upheld?
Shades of Donald Trump and "his" Department of Justice.
I'm amazed anyone is surprised about yesterday's vote. As a fish rots from its head, so a political party does from its leader. Corbyn rotted the Labour Party; Johnson's doing the same for the Conservatives.
Johnson has a long history of avoiding any inquiries into his actions. The Garden Bridge debacle is typical: a vainunglorious project, wanted by few except him and his sycophants, with little useful purpose, and which wasted £43 million of public money. He did not cooperate with the inquiry, preferring to ignore and debase it.
I'm unsurprised his party is making this move now. I have some sympathy for Owen Paterson; the actions of his party overwhelm the sympathy. There may be problems with the defined processes; there may be problems with the way Paterson's case was handled. Even if those are both true, that truth will be lose beneath the stinking slurry of yesterday's vote, and those MPs who are swimming in the pigswill.
Ultimately it is the policy and decision making that count. Especially since he was ill Johnson has been a disaster, hard to think of anything he has got right. The costs of his decisions will compel our young to a life of debt slavery. His place in History will be a dark one. Free market Liberal he certainly isn't.
I do hope that every time Paterson makes a contribution in the House or otherwise every opposition party makes sure to include in their response that he was found in breach and recommended for a major suspension.
It might not be parliamentary language to just state he is corrupt, but its perfectly accurate to constantly bring up he was found in breach and escaped punishment.
It should stick to him forever, as he's forfeited the right to seek to move on by not accepting consequences, and his apparent belief a personal tragedy means poor behaviour in public office is excusable is offensive.
His name should be permanently associated with evasion of responsibility and brazen poor conduct.
Am I the only optimist about global warning? The CO2 levels will eventually fall owing to a combination of PR and technology. The Times' dire warning about horse-shit levels in London were superseded by the invention of the motor car with no one nailing themselves to the floor.
Activists never 'do' anything - they perform a mutual onanism ritual to show they are better than the hoi poloi. But they will claim they are the cause. Even the recalcitrant nations will eventually take a bribe to fall into line.
From a scientific point of view, it will be interesting to see how much effect the fall in CO2 has. No one can predict what percentage of global warming is caused by this gas. I won't live to see it but I think I know what will be claimed.
If there's no change - it would have been much worse if we hadn't done it. If there's little change - we didn't reduce methane and X, Y, and Z. And reducing pollution in the air cooled the atmosphere, but it had to be done. If there's a large change, the onanists did it all.
Then they'll have to find another six-year-old with a cause.
There was a good article on this in the FT yesterday, and projections. Basically for every degree of warming, 1 billion people have to live in tperatures over 29C. Currently only 58 million do, but on current trajectory 3 billion will by 2070. Most are in Africa, Middle East, India and SE Asia.
The penalty for complacency would be a billion or so climate refugees in Europe by 2070.
It was reported on R4 this am that c.20,000 refugees/migrants have made the Channel crossing so far this year. You can probably add a zero for every couple of degrees of warming.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
The news cycle may well move on but yesterday was a bleak day for honesty and integrity and shamed the conservative party, or at least 250 of its mps
Even Paterson voted for it when he should have had the decency not to vote
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
The news cycle may well move on but yesterday was a bleak day for honesty and integrity and shamed the conservative party, or at least 250 of its mps
Quite. It was wrong because it was wrong. Whether it has any effect is separate to that. I doubt it will.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
The Daily Mail hates Boris. It hates everyone. Its a filthy nasty rag that shoukd be ignored.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
There are plenty of sources of natural gas in the UK that are orders of magnitude more economic than coal.
I'm amazed anyone is surprised about yesterday's vote. As a fish rots from its head, so a political party does from its leader. Corbyn rotted the Labour Party; Johnson's doing the same for the Conservatives.
Johnson has a long history of avoiding any inquiries into his actions. The Garden Bridge debacle is typical: a vainunglorious project, wanted by few except him and his sycophants, with little useful purpose, and which wasted £43 million of public money. He did not cooperate with the inquiry, preferring to ignore and debase it.
I'm unsurprised his party is making this move now. I have some sympathy for Owen Paterson; the actions of his party overwhelm the sympathy. There may be problems with the defined processes; there may be problems with the way Paterson's case was handled. Even if those are both true, that truth will be lose beneath the stinking slurry of yesterday's vote, and those MPs who are swimming in the pigswill.
Ultimately it is the policy and decision making that count. Especially since he was ill Johnson has been a disaster, hard to think of anything he has got right. The costs of his decisions will compel our young to a life of debt slavery. His place in History will be a dark one. Free market Liberal he certainly isn't.
Boris is a Conservative not a free market Liberal, he took us out of the EU and out of the Single Market, ended free movement from the EU and is relatively centrist on economics, not averse to state spending and certainly no classical liberal.
However that was clear even before the election. He won because the Tory vote is now more comprised of working class Leavers than free market liberal Remainers or pro EEA types.
There are few of the former on here, plenty of the latter, hence PB is now far more anti Tory and anti Boris than the national average
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
There are plenty of sources of natural gas in the UK that are orders of magnitude more economic than coal.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am comparing British natural gas to British coal.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Actually that's a fallacy. The pollution from moving goods long distances is inconsequential.
The issue with the Chinese is the economic and security concerns, plus the fact their energy is dirtier than ours. Shipping costs are meaningless.
Its better to ship goods in volume ten thousand miles if they're made with clean energy, than it is to move them five miles if made with coal.
I do hope that every time Paterson makes a contribution in the House or otherwise every opposition party makes sure to include in their response that he was found in breach and recommended for a major suspension.
It might not be parliamentary language to just state he is corrupt, but its perfectly accurate to constantly bring up he was found in breach and escaped punishment.
It should stick to him forever, as he's forfeited the right to seek to move on by not accepting consequences, and his apparent belief a personal tragedy means poor behaviour in public office is excusable is offensive.
His name should be permanently associated with evasion of responsibility and brazen poor conduct.
The story today seems to be moving towards Paterson being seen a useful idiot behind whom Johnson can now hide his own dirty laundry...dirty curtains in particular.
Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?
I mean - seriously?
He did. Also that its not corruption as the finding of corruption by the independent standards panel was apparently rendered null and void by the vote.
Absurd. Even Charles is calling it corruption and he was loathe to call out all of the previous Tory corruption.
Its the front page of the Daily Mail. The top of all the news bulletins. Remember the expenses scandal? That was also "obscure parliamentary procedure" but it ran and ran and ran. Why - because of the clear sense of right and wrong.
What happened last night is wrong. You don't need to put it through a partisan filter for that judgement - its wrong. And the dripping sneering arrogance of the Tory party - loathsome Leadsom on C4 News, HYUFD on here, Paterson saying "I'd do it all again".
And there's more. People didn't really poke the stick too hard at connections between donations to Tory HQ and MPs and the awarding of vast contracts without tender, peerages, planning consent etc etc etc. Paterson is so outrageous in waving his shilling for Randox that I expect the rest of it to be given another run over by the media as this story continues to have legs.
HYUFD can foam on about voters, but all that is needed to remove this disgrace of a government from office is Tory voters abstaining. They don't need to be persuaded to vote Starmer or Davey or Farage or anyone else. Just to stay at home.
I didn’t call this case corruption because I have no knowledge of the facts.
But I was disturbed by @HYUFD argument that it was all ok because the House had voted it was ok.
The idea of a completely independent body having the ability to suspend elected representatives doesn’t sit well with me. But a system where MPs vote in judgement on their peers falls apart when it becomes partisan. May be you need something like a panel of former Speakers? I don’t see a particularly good way out.
We have a framework set up by MPs. A standards committee who provide oversight into the rules. An independent commissioner appointed by MPs to investigate and report. With MPs oversight and approval.
If it was an external someone operating without license then I would agree with you. the fact is that this is the system MPs voted for and her report was approved by MPs including Tory ones. Now to be replaced by a new "standards" committee run entirely by Tory MPs.
I know the difference between change and rate of change, however one big factor in this subject are the confounding factors. Will the rate of change change - difficult to assess unless you know all the factors. As old Donald once said, the big problems are the unknown unknowns. I've refereed scientific papers (not in climate change, I admit) and it's essential to include caveats.
Global warming is a product of its own success. We now have journalists producing the headlines.
Mr. NorthWales, if that's the Labour MP I think it is then not only has the idiot in Number 10 been stupid with the vote yesterday all by itself, he's also created a negative Conservative headline to eclipse a negative Labour one.
And for what? One man, to be suspended for 30 days?
No. As others have reported above this is Number 10 going after the Standards Commissioner before the Standards Commissioner goes after Number 10 and the "money was only resting in my account" flat refurb scandal.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
As we stand at present with two strands of Social Democrats to choose from, many who voted Tory last time wouldn't vote at all. Big Business v Public Sector Unions interests is the current choice. If you are a traditional Conservative or Liberal, or work in private small business there isn't much to entice you to vote. It is big taxes for the masses but a massive tax code ripe for avoidance to the elites. Corbyn did nothing to change that and nor will Starmer.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Coal is not coming back and I am surprised you think it is
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
His argument lacks credibility, to put it mildly. Effectively he's arguing that if an MP believes he's exempt from the rules, that should be the end of the matter. And it is not an argument which would be significantly altered by any witness statements. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute.
I see Paterson is saying that the process of having his lobbying examined was a major contributor to his wife’s suicide while also saying that he would act in exactly the same way if he had the time again.
Apart from all the other egregiousness, he strikes me as a deeply stupid man.
I've refrained from comment on that aspect of the case, as it's impossible for an outsider to know what might have motivated her suicide..
Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?
I mean - seriously?
He did. Also that its not corruption as the finding of corruption by the independent standards panel was apparently rendered null and void by the vote.
Absurd. Even Charles is calling it corruption and he was loathe to call out all of the previous Tory corruption.
Its the front page of the Daily Mail. The top of all the news bulletins. Remember the expenses scandal? That was also "obscure parliamentary procedure" but it ran and ran and ran. Why - because of the clear sense of right and wrong.
What happened last night is wrong. You don't need to put it through a partisan filter for that judgement - its wrong. And the dripping sneering arrogance of the Tory party - loathsome Leadsom on C4 News, HYUFD on here, Paterson saying "I'd do it all again".
And there's more. People didn't really poke the stick too hard at connections between donations to Tory HQ and MPs and the awarding of vast contracts without tender, peerages, planning consent etc etc etc. Paterson is so outrageous in waving his shilling for Randox that I expect the rest of it to be given another run over by the media as this story continues to have legs.
HYUFD can foam on about voters, but all that is needed to remove this disgrace of a government from office is Tory voters abstaining. They don't need to be persuaded to vote Starmer or Davey or Farage or anyone else. Just to stay at home.
I didn’t call this case corruption because I have no knowledge of the facts.
But I was disturbed by @HYUFD argument that it was all ok because the House had voted it was ok.
The idea of a completely independent body having the ability to suspend elected representatives doesn’t sit well with me. But a system where MPs vote in judgement on their peers falls apart when it becomes partisan. May be you need something like a panel of former Speakers? I don’t see a particularly good way out.
We have a framework set up by MPs. A standards committee who provide oversight into the rules. An independent commissioner appointed by MPs to investigate and report. With MPs oversight and approval.
If it was an external someone operating without license then I would agree with you. the fact is that this is the system MPs voted for and her report was approved by MPs including Tory ones. Now to be replaced by a new "standards" committee run entirely by Tory MPs.
Aren't we being a little unfair on Boris Mugabe this morning?
I wonder what it is that makes Boris want to continue as PM?
The fact that they have pushed this through yesterday was just so stupid - I could understand it maybe if they had a tiny majority and couldn’t risk losing Patterson in a recall by-election but to risk dying in a ditch for Patterson and damaging even further the perception of the govt and politics is beyond stupid.
So I again ask myself why Boris wants to be PM - he could step down and earn millions from writing, tv, talks etc and not have any of the stress.
I can’t think of anything he wants to achieve as PM that’s especially unique to him.
Is he like Brown where he has convinced himself he alone can deliver something special to the country when in fact it’s just an egotistical desire to be in control?
There really isn’t anything surely that’s worth it for Boris, Brexit is done, Cop26 is over for what good he did or not, Middle Eastern adventures over, he won’t want to be in any hot seat if things go south with China as he surely realised that he isn’t going to be Churchill if that kicks off….
I honestly just wish someone would dangle £20m under his nose for some role so he would step down and hopefully leave some more sensible and less venal people to move things forward.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
They won't abstain.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
Leader of ReformUK Richard Tice is standing in the Old Bexley by-election AFAIK. They really need to register a good result because this is the best seat for them in a by-election for a long time, (including when they used to be known as the Brexit Party).
Pulled some punches surely, blaming "shameless MPs" not "shameless Tories".
The opposition had the numbers to defeat the government yesterday. Labour has forgotten how to win at politics, on so many occasions in the last two years we've relied on the Tory backbenches to provide opposition to the government instead of the bloody opposition party. The Tories are at fault and they own this corruption and sleaze. Labour will own the vote loss. They had the numbers.
Am I the only optimist about global warning? The CO2 levels will eventually fall owing to a combination of PR and technology. The Times' dire warning about horse-shit levels in London were superseded by the invention of the motor car with no one nailing themselves to the floor.
Activists never 'do' anything - they perform a mutual onanism ritual to show they are better than the hoi poloi. But they will claim they are the cause. Even the recalcitrant nations will eventually take a bribe to fall into line.
From a scientific point of view, it will be interesting to see how much effect the fall in CO2 has. No one can predict what percentage of global warming is caused by this gas. I won't live to see it but I think I know what will be claimed.
If there's no change - it would have been much worse if we hadn't done it. If there's little change - we didn't reduce methane and X, Y, and Z. And reducing pollution in the air cooled the atmosphere, but it had to be done. If there's a large change, the onanists did it all.
Then they'll have to find another six-year-old with a cause.
I wonder what it is that makes Boris want to continue as PM?
The fact that they have pushed this through yesterday was just so stupid - I could understand it maybe if they had a tiny majority and couldn’t risk losing Patterson in a recall by-election but to risk dying in a ditch for Patterson and damaging even further the perception of the govt and politics is beyond stupid.
So I again ask myself why Boris wants to be PM - he could step down and earn millions from writing, tv, talks etc and not have any of the stress.
I can’t think of anything he wants to achieve as PM that’s especially unique to him.
Is he like Brown where he has convinced himself he alone can deliver something special to the country when in fact it’s just an egotistical desire to be in control?
There really isn’t anything surely that’s worth it for Boris, Brexit is done, Cop26 is over for what good he did or not, Middle Eastern adventures over, he won’t want to be in any hot seat if things go south with China as he surely realised that he isn’t going to be Churchill if that kicks off….
I honestly just wish someone would dangle £20m under his nose for some role so he would step down and hopefully leave some more sensible and less venal people to move things forward.
Well now there is only Mr Whittingdale between Mr Johnson being PM AND collecting the 20milliin. I call that a win, win.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Actually that's a fallacy. The pollution from moving goods long distances is inconsequential.
The issue with the Chinese is the economic and security concerns, plus the fact their energy is dirtier than ours. Shipping costs are meaningless.
Its better to ship goods in volume ten thousand miles if they're made with clean energy, than it is to move them five miles if made with coal.
That is not a fallacy at all, if more countries produced their own rather than relying on China and increasingly India pollution would be lower. They produce coal without the checks we would have and will continue to do so.
You are using the logic of politicians, many who have made much money working with the devil.
I mentioned the other day that excess deaths from covid might be 2-3x the official figures, and it seems that the Economist has concluded just that. 17 million deaths so far.
I particularly recommend looking at the data for Asia. Far more people have died in Asia than has been reported. The excess death charts for countries like India are truly shocking. India had days on which 40,000 excess deaths were occuring earlier this year. Indonesia has had some very rough months. Pakistan's excess deaths are over 20 times the official deaths from covid. China may have had a million excess death, presumably at a time when things like flu should also have been suppressed by measures against covid.
One thing for sure is that official tallies of covid deaths are not a good reflection of what has occurred.
I wonder what it is that makes Boris want to continue as PM?
The fact that they have pushed this through yesterday was just so stupid - I could understand it maybe if they had a tiny majority and couldn’t risk losing Patterson in a recall by-election but to risk dying in a ditch for Patterson and damaging even further the perception of the govt and politics is beyond stupid.
So I again ask myself why Boris wants to be PM - he could step down and earn millions from writing, tv, talks etc and not have any of the stress.
I can’t think of anything he wants to achieve as PM that’s especially unique to him.
Is he like Brown where he has convinced himself he alone can deliver something special to the country when in fact it’s just an egotistical desire to be in control?
There really isn’t anything surely that’s worth it for Boris, Brexit is done, Cop26 is over for what good he did or not, Middle Eastern adventures over, he won’t want to be in any hot seat if things go south with China as he surely realised that he isn’t going to be Churchill if that kicks off….
I honestly just wish someone would dangle £20m under his nose for some role so he would step down and hopefully leave some more sensible and less venal people to move things forward.
Crowdfunder? Save Boris for the benefit of the nation. I suspect £20m may not be enough though.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
As we stand at present with two strands of Social Democrats to choose from, many who voted Tory last time wouldn't vote at all. Big Business v Public Sector Unions interests is the current choice. If you are a traditional Conservative or Liberal, or work in private small business there isn't much to entice you to vote. It is big taxes for the masses but a massive tax code ripe for avoidance to the elites. Corbyn did nothing to change that and nor will Starmer.
The biggest tax rise under this government has actually been in corporation tax. Yes NI may have gone up but income tax, inheritance tax etc has not.
As you say Starmer as PM would tax and spend even more than Boris so if you a fiscally conservative Tory at most you would go Reform UK not Labour and probably not LD either
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
They won't abstain.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
What an Arrogant Fool, telling voters what they will do and how they think.
There is literally no difference between you and Corbynite hard left nutters on the doorstep telling Labour voters they were wrong.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
They won't abstain.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
Only diehard woke remainders care about corruption ? They seem to be surprisingly well represented among Daily Mail readers.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
Leader of ReformUK Richard Tice is standing in the Old Bexley by-election AFAIK. They really need to register a good result because this is the best seat for them in a by-election for a long time, (including when they used to be known as the Brexit Party).
Tice and ReformUK have a shot of beating the LDs in this by election, maybe Labour too even if the Tories still win it comfortably.
I agree it is tailor made for them, over 60% Leave and full of traditional Tories having still elected a Tory MP even from 1997-2005.
Tice is the candidate disillusioned Tories in Old Bexley could go to as he is a fiscally conservative Leaver like they are. If we get more lockdown restrictions come December, Tice as a libertarian anti lockdown figure could also get some protest vote
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Coal is not coming back and I am surprised you think it is
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
Things will change when the lights go out, after that it is a whole new ball game. It nearly happened last year and last year was a mild winter. People under 50 don't know what it is like, big shock to the system it would be.
I wonder if we need to look out for big Government announcements in the next couple of days to try and deflect attention from the headlines? Reintroduction of Covid restrictions perhaps? Although maybe they've left that too late, with probably falling case numbers, hospitalisations and maybe deaths providing a triple from today or tomorrow...
I wonder if we need to look out for big Government announcements in the next couple of days to try and deflect attention from the headlines? Reintroduction of Covid restrictions perhaps? Although maybe they've left that too late, with probably falling case numbers, hospitalisations and maybe deaths providing a triple from today or tomorrow...
Mr. Alex, if they tried reintroducing restrictions and it's seen as a means to try and divert attention away from this it'll backfire as badly as a drunk trying to impregnate a beehive.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
They won't abstain.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
Only diehard woke remainders care about corruption ? They seem to be surprisingly well represented among Daily Mail readers.
Many Mail readers want Conservatives not Social Democrats in disguise.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
Making a comparison in one area is not the same as saying it’s the same in all areas. Give it time though..
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
His Commons performance a lot more sober - and effective - than R4 this morning and well worth a listen.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
They won't abstain.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
Only diehard woke remainders care about corruption ? They seem to be surprisingly well represented among Daily Mail readers.
They are still not going to vote for Starmer though or abstain and let him become PM
I wonder if we need to look out for big Government announcements in the next couple of days to try and deflect attention from the headlines? Reintroduction of Covid restrictions perhaps? Although maybe they've left that too late, with probably falling case numbers, hospitalisations and maybe deaths providing a triple from today or tomorrow...
Mr. Alex, if they tried reintroducing restrictions and it's seen as a means to try and divert attention away from this it'll backfire as badly as a drunk trying to impregnate a beehive.
Whether that's true or not, doesn't mean it won't happen. If the Government is looking around for a big "quick win" and it has those nice juicy polls to back them up then i wouldn't have any confidence that they don't go for it. There isn't too much else hanging around that they could grab onto.
I wonder if we need to look out for big Government announcements in the next couple of days to try and deflect attention from the headlines? Reintroduction of Covid restrictions perhaps? Although maybe they've left that too late, with probably falling case numbers, hospitalisations and maybe deaths providing a triple from today or tomorrow...
Less and less people believe their stats, you only have to look at the NHS website to see how misleading the daily death certificate stats are. The only hospitalisation stats that count are not readily available, how many with real NCIP ViRUS (the original name) have been in for 2 or more days.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
They won't abstain.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
What an Arrogant Fool, telling voters what they will do and how they think.
There is literally no difference between you and Corbynite hard left nutters on the doorstep telling Labour voters they were wrong.
Well Corbynites do seem to hate Starmer even more than we Tories sometimes, that is true
I wonder if we need to look out for big Government announcements in the next couple of days to try and deflect attention from the headlines? Reintroduction of Covid restrictions perhaps? Although maybe they've left that too late, with probably falling case numbers, hospitalisations and maybe deaths providing a triple from today or tomorrow...
Less and less people believe their stats, you only have to look at the NHS website to see how misleading the daily death certificate stats are. The only hospitalisation stats that count are not readily available, how many with real NCIP ViRUS (the original name) have been in for 2 or more days.
Yes but they don't believe them because they are too high. So if even the 'high' ones start to come down...
I do hope that every time Paterson makes a contribution in the House or otherwise every opposition party makes sure to include in their response that he was found in breach and recommended for a major suspension.
It might not be parliamentary language to just state he is corrupt, but its perfectly accurate to constantly bring up he was found in breach and escaped punishment.
It should stick to him forever, as he's forfeited the right to seek to move on by not accepting consequences, and his apparent belief a personal tragedy means poor behaviour in public office is excusable is offensive.
His name should be permanently associated with evasion of responsibility and brazen poor conduct.
Often MPs will be referred to in the Commons by their constituency, "the honourable member for Doncaster North" sort of thing.
I'd suggest that Paterson could be referred to as "the member for Randox" in order to remind people who has bought his voice and advocacy.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
They won't abstain.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
Only diehard woke remainders care about corruption ? They seem to be surprisingly well represented among Daily Mail readers.
They are still not going to vote for Starmer though or abstain and let him become PM
Just watch them. People are well attuned to "the state of the country". It "going to the dogs" is not something people tend to acquiesce to.
Face it. Normal people just aren't as amoral as you are.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
The news cycle may well move on but yesterday was a bleak day for honesty and integrity and shamed the conservative party, or at least 250 of its mps
Even Paterson voted for it when he should have had the decency not to vote
Chris Bryant, chair of the standards committee, wound things up. More in sorrow than in anger. The process had been absolutely transparent. It had moved at Paterson’s pace. His witnesses had been heard. And he’d had right of reply at various stages along the way. It was calm, forensic and devastating.
Paterson, who had been sitting wordlessly on the Conservative benches throughout, looked as if the penny had finally dropped – and he had begun to question his innocence.
Though not enough to vote against himself. Which was just as well as the government only won its three-line whip by 18 votes. There were a few Tories that had voted against the amendment and more that had abstained. And most of those who had voted for it had done so knowing they had sold what remained of their souls.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Actually that's a fallacy. The pollution from moving goods long distances is inconsequential.
The issue with the Chinese is the economic and security concerns, plus the fact their energy is dirtier than ours. Shipping costs are meaningless.
Its better to ship goods in volume ten thousand miles if they're made with clean energy, than it is to move them five miles if made with coal.
That is not a fallacy at all, if more countries produced their own rather than relying on China and increasingly India pollution would be lower. They produce coal without the checks we would have and will continue to do so.
You are using the logic of politicians, many who have made much money working with the devil.
I thought you were referring to shipping pollution?
As I said the issue is their energy is dirtier than ours. I've been vocally saying exporting our production to China increases global CO2 due to the fact they use dirty energy.
But the shipping CO2 is an inconsequential rounding error. It would be cleaner for someone in East Asia to import a good from the UK where its produced via wind power or cleaner gas, than it is to import it from China despite China being closer.
As shipping containers are so large, the pollution per item is inconsequential, what energy you use producing the good absolutely dwarfs any shipping pollution.
I mentioned the other day that excess deaths from covid might be 2-3x the official figures, and it seems that the Economist has concluded just that. 17 million deaths so far.
I particularly recommend looking at the data for Asia. Far more people have died in Asia than has been reported. The excess death charts for countries like India are truly shocking. India had days on which 40,000 excess deaths were occuring earlier this year. Indonesia has had some very rough months. Pakistan's excess deaths are over 20 times the official deaths from covid. China may have had a million excess death, presumably at a time when things like flu should also have been suppressed by measures against covid.
One thing for sure is that official tallies of covid deaths are not a good reflection of what has occurred.
Thanks for the link.
The article is just so, so, so good.
It is a balanced, sober appraisal of the facts with real statistical expertise.
"Read our methodology here, and inspect all our code, data, and models on GitHub."
Unbelievable.
This isn't journalism. It hasn't been written by a self-important fuckwit with no knowledge of the subject.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
I mentioned the other day that excess deaths from covid might be 2-3x the official figures, and it seems that the Economist has concluded just that. 17 million deaths so far.
I particularly recommend looking at the data for Asia. Far more people have died in Asia than has been reported. The excess death charts for countries like India are truly shocking. India had days on which 40,000 excess deaths were occuring earlier this year. Indonesia has had some very rough months. Pakistan's excess deaths are over 20 times the official deaths from covid. China may have had a million excess death, presumably at a time when things like flu should also have been suppressed by measures against covid.
One thing for sure is that official tallies of covid deaths are not a good reflection of what has occurred.
Thanks for the link.
The article is just so, so, so good.
It is a balanced, sober appraisal of the facts with real statistical expertise.
"Read our methodology here, and inspect all our code, data, and models on GitHub."
Unbelievable.
This isn't journalism. It hasn't been written by a self-important fuckwit with no knowledge of the subject.
The Economist have had the best reporting on excess deaths etc consistently throughout the pandemic.
On some things The Economist have really gone downhill over the past couple of decades but when it comes to raw data handling and data analytics they actually understand what they're doing. That basic skill makes them almost unique amongst journalists, only the FT is a close second, with no-one else even close.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
By "delivering Brexit" he means putting Boris and chums in No 10 for their own aggrandisement. Nothing more or less.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Actually that's a fallacy. The pollution from moving goods long distances is inconsequential.
The issue with the Chinese is the economic and security concerns, plus the fact their energy is dirtier than ours. Shipping costs are meaningless.
Its better to ship goods in volume ten thousand miles if they're made with clean energy, than it is to move them five miles if made with coal.
That is not a fallacy at all, if more countries produced their own rather than relying on China and increasingly India pollution would be lower. They produce coal without the checks we would have and will continue to do so.
You are using the logic of politicians, many who have made much money working with the devil.
You're both right, aren't you? Philip is correct that long-distance container shipping has very little impact on climate change, so for example it's better for the climate to eat Kenyan fruit and veg than anything grown here in a greenhouse. But Chinese exports may well be produced with coal power. As he says, that's the issue, not the transport.
Just read an interesting piece about the Morrisons "non-EU seasoning" debacle. Apparently this is UK labelling law - primary ingredients that are not local must be marked as "non-EU".
Mozzas are changing the label to explain this, but they can't change either the "non-EU" wording or the font size both of which are required by UK law.
Suspect the appropriate buyer will already be onto whichever meat processor supplies this product with instructions to source different salt and pepper that won't need said labelling...
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
The government are trying to stop judicial review as well!
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
The government are trying to stop judicial review as well!
Perhaps the Suburban Samurai needs to have that one Judicially Reviered
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Coal is not coming back and I am surprised you think it is
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
AIUI at the moment the Conservative Govt is in favour of the new Cumbrian mine.
Although our PM is saying 'Nothing to do with me Guv.; I'm only the Prime Minister.'
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
There was no need for immediate challenge. What we have now is inertia, which is way worse than the (possibly slightly faulty) checks and balances we had in place yesterday. However, inertia helps Paterson, and dare I mention it, Johnson, so all is good.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Coal is not coming back and I am surprised you think it is
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
AIUI at the moment the Conservative Govt is in favour of the new Cumbrian mine.
Although our PM is saying 'Nothing to do with me Guv.; I'm only the Prime Minister.'
Isn't the Cumbrian mine for steel and not power generation?
Coal is needed for the next few years for steel. That's not it coming back.
Its worth noting that steel-grade coal and coal for burning in power plants are two very different products that are not interchangeable.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
The government are trying to stop judicial review as well!
Likely with the formally independent law officers leading the charge to remove the Rule of Law from Downing Street. They're all enemies of the people don't forget.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
The government are trying to stop judicial review as well!
Perhaps the Suburban Samurai needs to have that one Judicially Reviered
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
The news cycle may well move on but yesterday was a bleak day for honesty and integrity and shamed the conservative party, or at least 250 of its mps
Even Paterson voted for it when he should have had the decency not to vote
Chris Bryant, chair of the standards committee, wound things up. More in sorrow than in anger. The process had been absolutely transparent. It had moved at Paterson’s pace. His witnesses had been heard. And he’d had right of reply at various stages along the way. It was calm, forensic and devastating.
Paterson, who had been sitting wordlessly on the Conservative benches throughout, looked as if the penny had finally dropped – and he had begun to question his innocence.
Though not enough to vote against himself. Which was just as well as the government only won its three-line whip by 18 votes. There were a few Tories that had voted against the amendment and more that had abstained. And most of those who had voted for it had done so knowing they had sold what remained of their souls.
Voting against a three-line whip normally has consequences. We've seen one bag-carrier forced out; I wonder if action will be taken against other MP's. Tissue Price for example.
I mentioned the other day that excess deaths from covid might be 2-3x the official figures, and it seems that the Economist has concluded just that. 17 million deaths so far.
I particularly recommend looking at the data for Asia. Far more people have died in Asia than has been reported. The excess death charts for countries like India are truly shocking. India had days on which 40,000 excess deaths were occuring earlier this year. Indonesia has had some very rough months. Pakistan's excess deaths are over 20 times the official deaths from covid. China may have had a million excess death, presumably at a time when things like flu should also have been suppressed by measures against covid.
One thing for sure is that official tallies of covid deaths are not a good reflection of what has occurred.
Thanks for the link.
The article is just so, so, so good.
It is a balanced, sober appraisal of the facts with real statistical expertise.
"Read our methodology here, and inspect all our code, data, and models on GitHub."
Unbelievable.
This isn't journalism. It hasn't been written by a self-important fuckwit with no knowledge of the subject.
The Economist have had the best reporting on excess deaths etc consistently throughout the pandemic.
On some things The Economist have really gone downhill over the past couple of decades but when it comes to raw data handling and data analytics they actually understand what they're doing. That basic skill makes them almost unique amongst journalists, only the FT is a close second, with no-one else even close.
It's interesting to compare the two maps heading that article. On the whole, the official figures for Western European countries are a pretty good match to the excess death rate, the discrepancy growing as you head east. Broadly speaking, the discrepancy in the figures seems to be roughly inversely correlated with the quality of governance. Sound democracies produce better figures than authoritarian regimes, which isn't really surprising.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Coal is not coming back and I am surprised you think it is
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
AIUI at the moment the Conservative Govt is in favour of the new Cumbrian mine.
Although our PM is saying 'Nothing to do with me Guv.; I'm only the Prime Minister.'
Isn't the Cumbrian mine for steel and not power generation?
Coal is needed for the next few years for steel. That's not it coming back.
Its worth noting that steel-grade coal and coal for burning in power plants are two very different products that are not interchangeable.
While that's true, and more than nit picking, it's still coal extraction.
Just read an interesting piece about the Morrisons "non-EU seasoning" debacle. Apparently this is UK labelling law - primary ingredients that are not local must be marked as "non-EU".
Mozzas are changing the label to explain this, but they can't change either the "non-EU" wording or the font size both of which are required by UK law.
Suspect the appropriate buyer will already be onto whichever meat processor supplies this product with instructions to source different salt and pepper that won't need said labelling...
You missed out the best bit. It's not UK Law, it's former EU Law that we teleported into UK Law a couple of year's ago to (make sure we did not lose any of it / defang the 'Brexit will lower standards" allegations). FBPErs maintain their desperation to have a go at the UK regardless, and got in a huge flap. That's where my Q about the EuCo e-border system came from - media lines blaming the UK for problems when it is late / falls over are already being stoked.
It is perhaps the most absurd aspect of the furore that while Twitter users screeched over Morrisons’ “exclusion of EU condiments”, in reality, the supermarket was following rules laid down in… Brussels.
For under EU labelling law – which the UK transposed into British law after Brexit – any ‘British’ marked food must clearly state “non-EU” against “primary” ingredients that are not local. For Morrisons and its salt and pepper chicken, this means its non-EU origin seasoning must be clearly shown at 75% of the size of the word “British”.
I mentioned the other day that excess deaths from covid might be 2-3x the official figures, and it seems that the Economist has concluded just that. 17 million deaths so far.
I particularly recommend looking at the data for Asia. Far more people have died in Asia than has been reported. The excess death charts for countries like India are truly shocking. India had days on which 40,000 excess deaths were occuring earlier this year. Indonesia has had some very rough months. Pakistan's excess deaths are over 20 times the official deaths from covid. China may have had a million excess death, presumably at a time when things like flu should also have been suppressed by measures against covid.
One thing for sure is that official tallies of covid deaths are not a good reflection of what has occurred.
Thanks for the link.
The article is just so, so, so good.
It is a balanced, sober appraisal of the facts with real statistical expertise.
"Read our methodology here, and inspect all our code, data, and models on GitHub."
Unbelievable.
This isn't journalism. It hasn't been written by a self-important fuckwit with no knowledge of the subject.
The Economist have had the best reporting on excess deaths etc consistently throughout the pandemic.
On some things The Economist have really gone downhill over the past couple of decades but when it comes to raw data handling and data analytics they actually understand what they're doing. That basic skill makes them almost unique amongst journalists, only the FT is a close second, with no-one else even close.
It's interesting to compare the two maps heading that article. On the whole, the official figures for Western European countries are a pretty good match to the excess death rate, the discrepancy growing as you head east. Broadly speaking, the discrepancy in the figures seems to be roughly inversely correlated with the quality of governance. Sound democracies produce better figures than authoritarian regimes, which isn't really surprising.
That's true but its not just East but West too. 20% extra deaths in the USA and Brazil is quite a considerable amount.
Which fits under your quality of governance hypothesis too. Brazil and the USA don't have the best governance (and compare USA to Canada).
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Coal is not coming back and I am surprised you think it is
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
AIUI at the moment the Conservative Govt is in favour of the new Cumbrian mine.
Although our PM is saying 'Nothing to do with me Guv.; I'm only the Prime Minister.'
Isn't the Cumbrian mine for steel and not power generation?
Coal is needed for the next few years for steel. That's not it coming back.
Its worth noting that steel-grade coal and coal for burning in power plants are two very different products that are not interchangeable.
It's coking coal for steel production.
Steel will transition away from coal, the technology is there, but for the time being steel production needs coking coal.
Still, empty gestures to pander to activists and cranks may matter more it seems.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Coal is not coming back and I am surprised you think it is
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
AIUI at the moment the Conservative Govt is in favour of the new Cumbrian mine.
Although our PM is saying 'Nothing to do with me Guv.; I'm only the Prime Minister.'
Isn't the Cumbrian mine for steel and not power generation?
Coal is needed for the next few years for steel. That's not it coming back.
Its worth noting that steel-grade coal and coal for burning in power plants are two very different products that are not interchangeable.
While that's true, and more than nit picking, it's still coal extraction.
Unless we're going to stop steel production overnight, we need coal still.
We need to be sensible about this and deliberately conflating coal for steel and coal for power is not seeing the woods for the trees.
Steel production can not be powered by wind turbines yet. There is work being done on developing cleaner methods to produce steel and we need to get there in order to get to Net Zero but we aren't there yet for steel - we are for power.
I do hope that every time Paterson makes a contribution in the House or otherwise every opposition party makes sure to include in their response that he was found in breach and recommended for a major suspension.
It might not be parliamentary language to just state he is corrupt, but its perfectly accurate to constantly bring up he was found in breach and escaped punishment.
It should stick to him forever, as he's forfeited the right to seek to move on by not accepting consequences, and his apparent belief a personal tragedy means poor behaviour in public office is excusable is offensive.
His name should be permanently associated with evasion of responsibility and brazen poor conduct.
Often MPs will be referred to in the Commons by their constituency, "the honourable member for Doncaster North" sort of thing.
I'd suggest that Paterson could be referred to as "the member for Randox" in order to remind people who has bought his voice and advocacy.
Introducing MPs on TV/Radio with disclosure of the organisations that had paid them within say, the last three months would be quite instructive.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
I think if judicial review were available sometime would have said so by now. I assume the reason it isn't is because this is parliament.
Am I the only optimist about global warning? The CO2 levels will eventually fall owing to a combination of PR and technology. The Times' dire warning about horse-shit levels in London were superseded by the invention of the motor car with no one nailing themselves to the floor.
Activists never 'do' anything - they perform a mutual onanism ritual to show they are better than the hoi poloi. But they will claim they are the cause. Even the recalcitrant nations will eventually take a bribe to fall into line.
From a scientific point of view, it will be interesting to see how much effect the fall in CO2 has. No one can predict what percentage of global warming is caused by this gas. I won't live to see it but I think I know what will be claimed.
If there's no change - it would have been much worse if we hadn't done it. If there's little change - we didn't reduce methane and X, Y, and Z. And reducing pollution in the air cooled the atmosphere, but it had to be done. If there's a large change, the onanists did it all.
Then they'll have to find another six-year-old with a cause.
There was a good article on this in the FT yesterday, and projections. Basically for every degree of warming, 1 billion people have to live in tperatures over 29C. Currently only 58 million do, but on current trajectory 3 billion will by 2070. Most are in Africa, Middle East, India and SE Asia.
The penalty for complacency would be a billion or so climate refugees in Europe by 2070.
It was reported on R4 this am that c.20,000 refugees/migrants have made the Channel crossing so far this year. You can probably add a zero for every couple of degrees of warming.
Quite interesting news on handling of refugees / migrants in Calais, not covered in UK media.
They have been running a policy for years of demolishing all the tents in the woods every 48 hours, but after a hunger strike by a local Roman Catholic priest the policy is being changed to provide decent food and shelter.
Comments
Boris hates scrutiny.
How much that is the temperament of an overgrown schoolboy caught with something inappropriate, how much that is because he doesn't have a brain that works well when being questioned, I don't know and don't particularly care.
But it's a pattern throughout his political career. Getting rid of a body that questions politicians is in his interests. And who cares about the voters? They can't do anything until 2024. And then what? Vote for Boring Old Starmer?
If this does not damage the conservative party in the polls then what will
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
It seems in Parliament, the players can make up the rules as they go along.
Shades of Donald Trump and "his" Department of Justice.
Coal in the UK is over
It might not be parliamentary language to just state he is corrupt, but its perfectly accurate to constantly bring up he was found in breach and escaped punishment.
It should stick to him forever, as he's forfeited the right to seek to move on by not accepting consequences, and his apparent belief a personal tragedy means poor behaviour in public office is excusable is offensive.
His name should be permanently associated with evasion of responsibility and brazen poor conduct.
Kwasi Kwarteng: "We had a manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit and we delivered Brexit"
@BBCr4today
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1456175002055761927
Why on earth would coal for power come back in the UK? And what economics?
Even Paterson voted for it when he should have had the decency not to vote
Why do you expect that to go into reverse?
However that was clear even before the election. He won because the Tory vote is now more comprised of working class Leavers than free market liberal Remainers or pro EEA types.
There are few of the former on here, plenty of the latter, hence PB is now far more anti Tory and anti Boris than the national average
The issue with the Chinese is the economic and security concerns, plus the fact their energy is dirtier than ours. Shipping costs are meaningless.
Its better to ship goods in volume ten thousand miles if they're made with clean energy, than it is to move them five miles if made with coal.
If it was an external someone operating without license then I would agree with you. the fact is that this is the system MPs voted for and her report was approved by MPs including Tory ones. Now to be replaced by a new "standards" committee run entirely by Tory MPs.
I actually thought Kwarteng was one of the less awful of the current government, an opinion I have had to revise.
I know the difference between change and rate of change, however one big factor in this subject are the confounding factors. Will the rate of change change - difficult to assess unless you know all the factors. As old Donald once said, the big problems are the unknown unknowns. I've refereed scientific papers (not in climate change, I admit) and it's essential to include caveats.
Global warming is a product of its own success. We now have journalists producing the headlines.
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
The fact that they have pushed this through yesterday was just so stupid - I could understand it maybe if they had a tiny majority and couldn’t risk losing Patterson in a recall by-election but to risk dying in a ditch for Patterson and damaging even further the perception of the govt and politics is beyond stupid.
So I again ask myself why Boris wants to be PM - he could step down and earn millions from writing, tv, talks etc and not have any of the stress.
I can’t think of anything he wants to achieve as PM that’s especially unique to him.
Is he like Brown where he has convinced himself he alone can deliver something special to the country when in fact it’s just an egotistical desire to be in control?
There really isn’t anything surely that’s worth it for Boris, Brexit is done, Cop26 is over for what good he did or not, Middle Eastern adventures over, he won’t want to be in any hot seat if things go south with China as he surely realised that he isn’t going to be Churchill if that kicks off….
I honestly just wish someone would dangle £20m under his nose for some role so he would step down and hopefully leave some more sensible and less venal people to move things forward.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
You are using the logic of politicians, many who have made much money working with the devil.
https://econ.st/3nynptb
A very informative article.
I particularly recommend looking at the data for Asia. Far more people have died in Asia than has been reported. The excess death charts for countries like India are truly shocking. India had days on which 40,000 excess deaths were occuring earlier this year. Indonesia has had some very rough months. Pakistan's excess deaths are over 20 times the official deaths from covid. China may have had a million excess death, presumably at a time when things like flu should also have been suppressed by measures against covid.
One thing for sure is that official tallies of covid deaths are not a good reflection of what has occurred.
I suspect £20m may not be enough though.
As you say Starmer as PM would tax and spend even more than Boris so if you a fiscally conservative Tory at most you would go Reform UK not Labour and probably not LD either
There is literally no difference between you and Corbynite hard left nutters on the doorstep telling Labour voters they were wrong.
They seem to be surprisingly well represented among Daily Mail readers.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
I agree it is tailor made for them, over 60% Leave and full of traditional Tories having still elected a Tory MP even from 1997-2005.
Tice is the candidate disillusioned Tories in Old Bexley could go to as he is a fiscally conservative Leaver like they are. If we get more lockdown restrictions come December, Tice as a libertarian anti lockdown figure could also get some protest vote
WAR WITH FRANCE
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
I'd suggest that Paterson could be referred to as "the member for Randox" in order to remind people who has bought his voice and advocacy.
Face it. Normal people just aren't as amoral as you are.
Paterson, who had been sitting wordlessly on the Conservative benches throughout, looked as if the penny had finally dropped – and he had begun to question his innocence.
Though not enough to vote against himself. Which was just as well as the government only won its three-line whip by 18 votes. There were a few Tories that had voted against the amendment and more that had abstained. And most of those who had voted for it had done so knowing they had sold what remained of their souls.
As I said the issue is their energy is dirtier than ours. I've been vocally saying exporting our production to China increases global CO2 due to the fact they use dirty energy.
But the shipping CO2 is an inconsequential rounding error. It would be cleaner for someone in East Asia to import a good from the UK where its produced via wind power or cleaner gas, than it is to import it from China despite China being closer.
As shipping containers are so large, the pollution per item is inconsequential, what energy you use producing the good absolutely dwarfs any shipping pollution.
The article is just so, so, so good.
It is a balanced, sober appraisal of the facts with real statistical expertise.
"Read our methodology here, and inspect all our code, data, and models on GitHub."
Unbelievable.
This isn't journalism. It hasn't been written by a self-important fuckwit with no knowledge of the subject.
On some things The Economist have really gone downhill over the past couple of decades but when it comes to raw data handling and data analytics they actually understand what they're doing. That basic skill makes them almost unique amongst journalists, only the FT is a close second, with no-one else even close.
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
Mozzas are changing the label to explain this, but they can't change either the "non-EU" wording or the font size both of which are required by UK law.
Suspect the appropriate buyer will already be onto whichever meat processor supplies this product with instructions to source different salt and pepper that won't need said labelling...
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/the-grocer-blog-daily-bread/why-the-non-eu-labelling-at-morrisons-was-about-law-not-politics/661452.article?cid=DM984873&bid=1757142357
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
Although our PM is saying 'Nothing to do with me Guv.; I'm only the Prime Minister.'
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Coal is needed for the next few years for steel. That's not it coming back.
Its worth noting that steel-grade coal and coal for burning in power plants are two very different products that are not interchangeable.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
It is perhaps the most absurd aspect of the furore that while Twitter users screeched over Morrisons’ “exclusion of EU condiments”, in reality, the supermarket was following rules laid down in… Brussels.
For under EU labelling law – which the UK transposed into British law after Brexit – any ‘British’ marked food must clearly state “non-EU” against “primary” ingredients that are not local. For Morrisons and its salt and pepper chicken, this means its non-EU origin seasoning must be clearly shown at 75% of the size of the word “British”.
Which fits under your quality of governance hypothesis too. Brazil and the USA don't have the best governance (and compare USA to Canada).
Steel will transition away from coal, the technology is there, but for the time being steel production needs coking coal.
Still, empty gestures to pander to activists and cranks may matter more it seems.
We need to be sensible about this and deliberately conflating coal for steel and coal for power is not seeing the woods for the trees.
Steel production can not be powered by wind turbines yet. There is work being done on developing cleaner methods to produce steel and we need to get there in order to get to Net Zero but we aren't there yet for steel - we are for power.
They have been running a policy for years of demolishing all the tents in the woods every 48 hours, but after a hunger strike by a local Roman Catholic priest the policy is being changed to provide decent food and shelter.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20211103-france-says-will-provide-shelter-end-surprise-evictions-for-migrants-in-calais?ref=tw_i
#IfGStandards
https://twitter.com/timd_IFG/status/1456193185894567939
Lord Evans on Owen Paterson vote: “This extraordinary proposal is deeply at odds with the best traditions of British democracy.
“The political system in this country does not belong to one party, or even to one government.”
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1456193949543055361