John Major's intervention is interesting. Two nights ago Michael Heseltine was on Newsnight saying the same thing. It made Johnson and his Party look grubby in a way that no attack from the opposition could. If they're still offering odds on opposition opinion poll leads I'd get on fast. They've not looked so in need of disinfectant in years.
Major and Heseltine eh? Which side did they campaign for in the Referendum?
"Nov 5 (Reuters) - British scientists have identified a version of a gene that may be associated with double the risk of lung failure from COVID-19, a finding that provides new insights into why some people are more susceptible than othersto severe illness and which opens possibilities for targeted medicine.
The high-risk genetic variant is in a chromosome region that is also tied to double the risk of death in COVID-19 patients under age 60.
Report ad Around 60% of people with South Asian ancestry carry the high-risk version of the gene, researchers at Oxford University said on Friday, adding the discovery may partly explain the high number of deaths seen in some British communities, and the devastation wrought by COVID-19 in the Indian subcontinent."
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
John Major's intervention is interesting. Two nights ago Michael Heseltine was on Newsnight saying the same thing. It made Johnson and his Party look grubby in a way that no attack from the opposition could. If they're still offering odds on opposition opinion poll leads I'd get on fast. They've not looked so in need of disinfectant in years.
Major and Heseltine eh? Which side did they campaign for in the Referendum?
Indeed. Right and wrong mean different things if you are a Brexiteer.
I have to tell the House that, without progress towards lifting the ban, we cannot be expected to co-operate normally on other Community business. I say this with great reluctance, but the European Union operates through good will.
If we do not benefit from good will from partners, clearly we cannot reciprocate. Progress will not be possible in the intergovernmental conference or elsewhere until we have agreement on lifting the ban on beef derivatives and a clear framework in place leading to lifting of the wider ban
We will raise the question of the ban at all Councils, including the Foreign Affairs Council. If necessary, we shall seek special Councils. I shall make it clear that I expect agreement on how to deal with those problems to be behind us by the time the European Council meets in Florence on 21 and 22 June. If it is not, the Florence meeting is bound to be dominated by the issue. It could not proceed with our normal co-operation unless it faced up to the crisis of confidence affecting not only consumers but also Governments throughout Europe.
That is not how I wish to do business in Europe - but I see no alternative. We cannot continue business as usual within Europe when we are faced with the clear disregard by some of our partners of reason, of common sense and of Britain's national interests. We continue to want to make progress through negotiations; but if that is not possible, we are bound to use the legal avenues open to us and the political means at our disposal. 3
Catching up on the Mass Effect discussion, the third is excellent and emotionally powerful, albeit the ending was indeed poorly done. The rest of the game does make up for it.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
But, once again, you're on here suggesting a party you won't vote for should adopt a policy you don't like which you also think will be unpopular. It's very strange behaviour, G.
Not really
We all want honesty in politics and the lib dems policy is disingenuous as they want to rejoin
Be honest and say so, they would take quite some seats down south
It's not up to me to "say so" since I'm not a member of the Lib Dems, and probably won't vote for them next time. I think you're attracted to the idea of them adopting a rejoin policy because you think it'll drive votes towards the Conservatives. And you'd be right, but I think you're the one who's being sneaky here, not the Lib Dems.
No I honestly am not
Politics needs frank and honest positions and as a side issue I think they would do quite well
I see that OKC has usefully highlighted the current Lib Dem position.
Can you tell us what is dishonest about it?
Is there anything honest about the LD position on anything?
And here you come with your usual generic post devoid of any content whatsoever just being rude about Lab normally (although in fairness it is the LDs today). Try debating with someone.
And to answer your question without any need of any thought - Constitutional reform.
100%
He is one of the dullest, most nakedly partisan posters on this forum. A sheep.
I am glad you hold me in such high esteem. People seem to get frustrated why I point out some of the truths of the things they write.
I am not nakedly partisan. I dislike Boris and I don't like the direction of the Tory Party. ...but I know I will almost certainly vote Tory because the alternative is too awful to contemplate. Many many people are in the same position as I am. The LDs are hopeless set with a remain.policy , Labour's competely split between boring Starmer and the hard left Corbynistas with Angela Rayner thrown in to.make things even worse.
I advise the left to look at themselves before venting their spleens on me and or on the site. Perhaps I am doing a public service on offering you the opportunity to you vent your frustrations. Dura Ace always feels better after a jizz ridden rant.
There's plenty of time before the next general election. There seem to be lots of people who profess not to like Boris Johnson, but feel forced in to voting for him for lack of an alternative. That's a cop out.
You're free to create your own alternative. We shouldn't let the existing parties force us in to choosing between them if we don't think they're good enough.
I have to tell the House that, without progress towards lifting the ban, we cannot be expected to co-operate normally on other Community business. I say this with great reluctance, but the European Union operates through good will.
If we do not benefit from good will from partners, clearly we cannot reciprocate. Progress will not be possible in the intergovernmental conference or elsewhere until we have agreement on lifting the ban on beef derivatives and a clear framework in place leading to lifting of the wider ban
We will raise the question of the ban at all Councils, including the Foreign Affairs Council. If necessary, we shall seek special Councils. I shall make it clear that I expect agreement on how to deal with those problems to be behind us by the time the European Council meets in Florence on 21 and 22 June. If it is not, the Florence meeting is bound to be dominated by the issue. It could not proceed with our normal co-operation unless it faced up to the crisis of confidence affecting not only consumers but also Governments throughout Europe.
That is not how I wish to do business in Europe - but I see no alternative. We cannot continue business as usual within Europe when we are faced with the clear disregard by some of our partners of reason, of common sense and of Britain's national interests. We continue to want to make progress through negotiations; but if that is not possible, we are bound to use the legal avenues open to us and the political means at our disposal. 3
Shame that despite this strategy he didn't get it lifted, then.
A more effective strategy would have been to remind everybody that the worst affected country was France, in the form of 'vache tremble' and demand there be a ban on their beef too.
I think the ban on our beef would have been lifted faster than Mitterand lifted women's skirts...
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
It was a stay in the private home if a friend therefore not disclosable on the MP register
It was a significant gift from one minister to another and therefore disclosed on the ministerial register
That’s actually a reasonable approach
Oh come on. The MPs code of conduct says that ministers are not different to other MPs in requiring them to report on the MPs register (para 16) The code of conduct says that gifts from ministers are no different to gifts from others (para 9) So based on that, he has to declare on the MPs register as well as the ministerial register
The declarable categories include gifts from UK sources (category 3) and visits outside the UK (category 4), both if they're over £300. Johnson, B.'s argument seems to be that as they're from a friend (but see para 9) the value is zero so not declarable. You've gone for a variant, saying that it's not possible to calculate a value. But obviously it is, a point you glossed over from my previous post.
So the reasonable, and indeed lawful approach, is to declare it, and its value. So why won't he?
A value would be made up. I saw the mirror said “up to £25k per week”. *
But actually the specific value really doesn’t matter. It was a lot. A big expense that Boris have had to pay. Goldsmith doesn’t really care since it is only theoretical lost income (the house isn’t rented out anyway) and he’s rich enough not to notice anyway.
The “credit” that Goldsmith would get from lending a friend and her husband the house is exactly the same regardless of the nominal figure.
What matters is the declaration of the gift. And that has been declared.
* for example a friend and client once invited my to join him for lunch at ascot and flew me there from battersea to avoid traffic. I disclosed that, of course, but what is the value of a seat on a chopper that would be flying anyway?
Again, you being disingenuous and hoping people won't notice. It has been declared in one register, but needs to be declared in both. He declared his holiday in Mustique in both registers only last year? What has changed? Nothing.
I find your desire to accuse me of bad acting strange. Im not involved, have no agenda and am just posting what I think on website.
It does not need to be posted on the Mp register of interest as it is a gift from a friend. It does need to be posted on the minister register because it is a gift from one minister to another.
I know you have a specific view on how the rules ought to be interpreted. I don’t have a view, but if the PM has interpreted it incorrectly I am sure that he will correct the error.
The fundamental point is the existence of the gift has been disclosed. That’s actually what matters
Edit: what is different vs mustique is he is staying at the holiday home of a friend vs staying at a rental vacation home that happens to be owned by someone he knows
The question is, why not declare the approximate value? Its not an onerous requirement.
Boris is the PRIME MINISTER, and one might hope he would set an example.
He does the precise opposite, at any given opportunity. If he visited your house, you’d need to count the spoons after he left (and perhaps advise the scullery maids to take a pregnancy test).
Expecting higher standards the higher someone is should be a given. More power given we expect more in return. I dont think that's unreasonable and powerful people whinging about such an imposition is very unedifying.
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Well she’s got a point about O’Brien.
I'm old enough to remember when the usual PB suspects were decrying randoms hurling vitriol and contempt at GB News and their stable of fuckwits. Don't think any opposition pols did so in those terms, publicly anyway, if they had the screeching would have burst eardrums.
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Well she’s got a point about O’Brien.
Does Ampleforth count as a public school?
Fair point. Given recent events, it's stretching it a bit to call it a 'school'...
A very respectable 157 from the WIndies, with a couple of big sixes at the end from Russell to help things along. That’s quite the target for the Aussies to chase.
"Since the Catholic emancipation, Ampleforth gained a reputation as one of several schools, alongside The Oratory School and Stonyhurst, popular within the Roman Catholic aristocracy and labelled the "Catholic Eton"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampleforth_College
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Fair comment and GE24 will be a moment when each party has to outline its strategy on Europe
For me I could vote to rejoin the single market but will not vote for any party who wants to rejoin or rejoin in a disingenuous way
How do you distinguish between rejoin the SM and a disingenuous first step to rejoining the EU?
Lib dems position
Look, I don't like the Lib Dems either. But if their manifesto says "In the 2023-8 Parliament, we will support returning to the Single Market and won't seek to rejoin the EU", will you oppose that because of the likelihood that they will push further sometime in the 2030's?
Democracies reverse policy all the time. It's an important way that democratic politics isn't like making babies.
Why the fear of reversing this?
Personally, I do like the LDs in some respects.
However, I would be aware of the debate within the LD party which has set that up as a politically sellable position for now, leading to a full Rejoin when the frog has been half-boiled.
Close alignment was the most sensible way to have delivered Brexit, and returning to close alignment remains the most sensible path to take now. Instead of inflicting hassle and grief, and in some cases misery, to a whole host of businesses and individuals in order to score a political point in areas where we have little intention of adopting different standards or rules in the first place.
Whether, further down the road, people start asking why we aren’t members if we are observing common standards, is another matter. The Norway population has been asked from time to time and they keep saying no. Yet they have the benefits of free trade and free movement that this obstinate government denies from our population.
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Well she’s got a point about O’Brien.
Does Ampleforth count as a public school?
It’s down as one on Wikipedia. That may not always be 100% accurate admittedly
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
You regard any criticism of Brexit as “not accepting we’ve left” to be fair
It depends where it is coming from
FBPE and similar do not accept we have left, but it is not perfect and needs improving while remaining outside the EU
It strikes me that it's Brexiteers who haven't accepted that we've left. They are the ones still blaming the EU and they won't even accept the oven ready deal that they themselves negotiated.
There’s probably a psychological or anthropological term for this.
Brexiters must all know on some level that Brexit is damaging, but insist that everyone worship the same false idol.
A very respectable 157 from the WIndies, with a couple of big sixes at the end from Russell to help things along. That’s quite the target for the Aussies to chase.
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
You regard any criticism of Brexit as “not accepting we’ve left” to be fair
It depends where it is coming from
FBPE and similar do not accept we have left, but it is not perfect and needs improving while remaining outside the EU
It strikes me that it's Brexiteers who haven't accepted that we've left. They are the ones still blaming the EU and they won't even accept the oven ready deal that they themselves negotiated.
There’s probably a psychological or anthropological term for this.
Brexiters must all know on some level that Brexit is damaging, but insist that everyone worship the same false idol.
Bit like one of those mad religions which asked devotees to sacrifice their children.
John Major's intervention is interesting. Two nights ago Michael Heseltine was on Newsnight saying the same thing. It made Johnson and his Party look grubby in a way that no attack from the opposition could. If they're still offering odds on opposition opinion poll leads I'd get on fast. They've not looked so in need of disinfectant in years.
Major and Heseltine eh? Which side did they campaign for in the Referendum?
Indeed. Right and wrong mean different things if you are a Brexiteer.
Not at all, but for all the nonsense that "Brexit it all over and its just Brexiteers talking about it" it's clear as day that bitter Remainers scream and shout about everything Brexiteers do, whilst pretending they are over their defeat. I know they think they're the clever ones, but how are they so stupid to think we don't notice?!
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
But, once again, you're on here suggesting a party you won't vote for should adopt a policy you don't like which you also think will be unpopular. It's very strange behaviour, G.
Not really
We all want honesty in politics and the lib dems policy is disingenuous as they want to rejoin
Be honest and say so, they would take quite some seats down south
It's not up to me to "say so" since I'm not a member of the Lib Dems, and probably won't vote for them next time. I think you're attracted to the idea of them adopting a rejoin policy because you think it'll drive votes towards the Conservatives. And you'd be right, but I think you're the one who's being sneaky here, not the Lib Dems.
No I honestly am not
Politics needs frank and honest positions and as a side issue I think they would do quite well
I see that OKC has usefully highlighted the current Lib Dem position.
Can you tell us what is dishonest about it?
Is there anything honest about the LD position on anything?
And here you come with your usual generic post devoid of any content whatsoever just being rude about Lab normally (although in fairness it is the LDs today). Try debating with someone.
And to answer your question without any need of any thought - Constitutional reform.
100%
He is one of the dullest, most nakedly partisan posters on this forum. A sheep.
I am glad you hold me in such high esteem. People seem to get frustrated why I point out some of the truths of the things they write.
I am not nakedly partisan. I dislike Boris and I don't like the direction of the Tory Party. ...but I know I will almost certainly vote Tory because the alternative is too awful to contemplate. Many many people are in the same position as I am. The LDs are hopeless set with a remain.policy , Labour's competely split between boring Starmer and the hard left Corbynistas with Angela Rayner thrown in to.make things even worse.
I advise the left to look at themselves before venting their spleens on me and or on the site. Perhaps I am doing a public service on offering you the opportunity to you vent your frustrations. Dura Ace always feels better after a jizz ridden rant.
There's plenty of time before the next general election. There seem to be lots of people who profess not to like Boris Johnson, but feel forced in to voting for him for lack of an alternative. That's a cop out.
You're free to create your own alternative. We shouldn't let the existing parties force us in to choosing between them if we don't think they're good enough.
If your politics are on the right, for most flavours of "right", then the Tories are pretty much the only game in town. You vote for the party you least dislike. Even if you object to Boris, he won't be there forever. And while some people on here appear to have an absolutist view against Boris, which nothing can override, I imagine most voters see it in plusses and minuses. Brexit is a big plus, and the vaccines, and the fact we are no longer under restrictions, offset against borderline corruption and incompetence. Don't forget many people are cynical and would expect any other government to display similar levels of incompetence and corruption, maybe in slightly different ways.
I recall I narrowly decided to vote for Major in 1992 (making up my mind on the way to the polling station) but by 1997 had had enough and voted LibDem (in Ed Davey's constituency). It might take a while for voters to decide a government is tired and needs replacing.
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Well she’s got a point about O’Brien.
Perfectly put, in fact. The embodiment of a bitter Remainer who smugly thinks he's got all the answers. An absolute prick
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Well she’s got a point about O’Brien.
Does Ampleforth count as a public school?
Odd that Nads felt the need to crowbar that into her online abuse, but she certainly seems to suffer from a bit of class chippiness.
'two arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk – who show no remorse, no contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others'
I wonder how BJ does on knowing the price of milk front?
I thought this was parody....but apparently not.....
Recent unionist/Tory propaganda polls are suggesting that we might lose #IndyRef2. I will be working with the SNP team in Glasgow so that we are already starting a campaign for #IndyRef3 should Scotland make the wrong decision again. #ScottishIndependence14 #DemocracyShallWin
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
You regard any criticism of Brexit as “not accepting we’ve left” to be fair
It depends where it is coming from
FBPE and similar do not accept we have left, but it is not perfect and needs improving while remaining outside the EU
It strikes me that it's Brexiteers who haven't accepted that we've left. They are the ones still blaming the EU and they won't even accept the oven ready deal that they themselves negotiated.
There’s probably a psychological or anthropological term for this.
Brexiters must all know on some level that Brexit is damaging, but insist that everyone worship the same false idol.
It's amazing that Remainers appear to believe that everyone voted Brexit in the knowledge it was the wrong thing to do.
You don't seem to understand that some people believe that we are better off outside the EU. Plenty of countries are outside the EU, it's not a prerequisite for national success, you know.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
I thought this was parody....but apparently not.....
Recent unionist/Tory propaganda polls are suggesting that we might lose #IndyRef2. I will be working with the SNP team in Glasgow so that we are already starting a campaign for #IndyRef3 should Scotland make the wrong decision again. #ScottishIndependence14 #DemocracyShallWin
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
You regard any criticism of Brexit as “not accepting we’ve left” to be fair
It depends where it is coming from
FBPE and similar do not accept we have left, but it is not perfect and needs improving while remaining outside the EU
It strikes me that it's Brexiteers who haven't accepted that we've left. They are the ones still blaming the EU and they won't even accept the oven ready deal that they themselves negotiated.
There’s probably a psychological or anthropological term for this.
Brexiters must all know on some level that Brexit is damaging, but insist that everyone worship the same false idol.
It's amazing that Remainers appear to believe that everyone voted Brexit in the knowledge it was the wrong thing to do.
You don't seem to understand that some people believe that we are better off outside the EU. Plenty of countries are outside the EU, it's not a prerequisite for national success, you know.
I think most Brexiters believed the promises about sunny uplands.
Some people will believe anything, but polling shows increasingly that Brexit is understood as “not going well”.
Your last sentence is the sort of facile argument that got us into this mess.
I thought this was parody....but apparently not.....
Recent unionist/Tory propaganda polls are suggesting that we might lose #IndyRef2. I will be working with the SNP team in Glasgow so that we are already starting a campaign for #IndyRef3 should Scotland make the wrong decision again. #ScottishIndependence14 #DemocracyShallWin
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
You regard any criticism of Brexit as “not accepting we’ve left” to be fair
It depends where it is coming from
FBPE and similar do not accept we have left, but it is not perfect and needs improving while remaining outside the EU
It strikes me that it's Brexiteers who haven't accepted that we've left. They are the ones still blaming the EU and they won't even accept the oven ready deal that they themselves negotiated.
There’s probably a psychological or anthropological term for this.
Brexiters must all know on some level that Brexit is damaging, but insist that everyone worship the same false idol.
Bit like one of those mad religions which asked devotees to sacrifice their children.
Brexit is a cult, right down to having a cult leader of dubious and insatiable sexual appetites.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
Including someone who spoke up for Paterson !
It’s the usual PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE clowns pushing it.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
It would indeed be interesting to hear Bercow and Stewart’s side of the story.
Buried under this unholy rubble are legitimate questions about the standards process, for sure.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
"Mr Paterson did not, in my view, use the meeting to advocate specifically for this company. Instead he approached the conversation as someone with concern for UK tax-funded programs, lab testing, and an interest in improving health care – and an expertise in UK government.
As with any official engagement, we were careful as a department to ensure that officials were present at the meeting, along with the Minister. The Officials would not have permitted the meeting to continue if it breach the rules on Conduct of Members of the House. We listened carefully to the description of the problem and the proposed solution.
..
Owen Paterson was totally clear with me as to his capacity as a consultant, but he was not in my view conducting himself in that particular meeting as a paid advocate for that product. Instead he made arguments about the principle of good laboratory testing, as someone who was concerned to make sure that UK tax money was well spent overseas, and to achieve better healthcare outcomes."
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
Including someone who spoke up for Paterson !
It’s the usual PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE clowns pushing it.
Is it worth the tactile and visual annoyance of alternate caps to conjure up a crowd of people who barely exist outside certain corners of Twitter?
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
A bit behind the times there, Mr Sandpit. The Labour Party has already said it will put up a candidate, and from what I can see, the Lib Dems are organising steadily. The Lib Dems had a string a seats last May where they were very close behind the Tories. Labour was nowhere.
I expect OGH will place his traditional bet at long odds in due course.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
And Bercow, from my post yesterday (I haven't seen the whole letter)
"Bercow presumably knows how disciplinary procedures should occur in Parliament and he wrote, the process leading to the ban was 'indefensible' and was not 'conducted in accordance with natural justice'.
In a letter to Mr Paterson, Mr Bercow said: 'You have experienced a protracted, Kafkaesque process.'
And he said it was 'wrong and indefensible, 14 months after launching her investigation, that [Miss Stone] should write her first memorandum to you to announce that she considers you guilty of transgressions when she has not troubled to interview you', according to The Times."
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
By FBPE twits I mean people on twitter with FBPE in their name, many of whom have been proposing Bercow and Stewart as anti sleaze unity candidates.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
Including someone who spoke up for Paterson !
It’s the usual PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE clowns pushing it.
Is it worth the tactile and visual annoyance of alternate caps to conjure up a crowd of people who barely exist outside certain corners of Twitter?
Poor show, twitter loons use random not alternate caps as any ful should kno.
It comes to something when John Major has become, de facto, the leader of the opposition. BBC Radio 4, 8.10 am.
Not so fast!
The Opposition including (late in the day, Starmer) have had a good and effective week. Hat tip in particular to Rayner and Lady Fugee.
The last week has seen multiple Labour voices attacking the government, rather than each other. It's been coherent, and coherence works.
It's not rocket science, but it's shocking how rare it has been in recent years.
I sort of agree with that, but I'd also argue (and have done for the last 18 months) that it's been hard for Labour to get a hearing since Starmer was elected because of Covid dominating absolutely everything. Nobody was much interested in anything else. Now that Covid is taking more of a backseat and Parliament is back to its former glory(!), there's more scope for opposition voices to be heard.
And, of course, it helps that we have a government mired in sleaze.
That only stopped Starmer get a hearing because he agreed with the government strategy.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Fair comment and GE24 will be a moment when each party has to outline its strategy on Europe
For me I could vote to rejoin the single market but will not vote for any party who wants to rejoin or rejoin in a disingenuous way
How do you distinguish between rejoin the SM and a disingenuous first step to rejoining the EU?
Lib dems position
Look, I don't like the Lib Dems either. But if their manifesto says "In the 2023-8 Parliament, we will support returning to the Single Market and won't seek to rejoin the EU", will you oppose that because of the likelihood that they will push further sometime in the 2030's?
Democracies reverse policy all the time. It's an important way that democratic politics isn't like making babies.
Why the fear of reversing this?
Great question. The Remainers always knew that it was going to be harder to win a Rejoin referendum than a second Remain/Leave referendum, which is why they fought so hard for the latter.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
But, once again, you're on here suggesting a party you won't vote for should adopt a policy you don't like which you also think will be unpopular. It's very strange behaviour, G.
Not really
We all want honesty in politics and the lib dems policy is disingenuous as they want to rejoin
Be honest and say so, they would take quite some seats down south
It's not up to me to "say so" since I'm not a member of the Lib Dems, and probably won't vote for them next time. I think you're attracted to the idea of them adopting a rejoin policy because you think it'll drive votes towards the Conservatives. And you'd be right, but I think you're the one who's being sneaky here, not the Lib Dems.
No I honestly am not
Politics needs frank and honest positions and as a side issue I think they would do quite well
I see that OKC has usefully highlighted the current Lib Dem position.
Can you tell us what is dishonest about it?
Is there anything honest about the LD position on anything?
And here you come with your usual generic post devoid of any content whatsoever just being rude about Lab normally (although in fairness it is the LDs today). Try debating with someone.
And to answer your question without any need of any thought - Constitutional reform.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. They say they want to change the voting system for fairness - but in fact at least part of the reason they want to do it is to get more LDs elected.
Sir John Major: "This government has done a number of things that have concerned me deeply: they have broken the law, the illegal prorogation of parliament. They have broken treaties, I have in mind the Northern Ireland Protocol. They have broken their word on many occasions." https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1456899066604949505
Interesting comments from Lord Major, though he's picked up too many EuCo talking points imo.
The stuff about "illegal prorogation of Parliament" is rhetoric imo - the 'breach of the law' was declared later, and reversed when known, and I still find the judgement questionable. "Broken treaties" - have they? He means the NIP, and certain elements have been delayed by both sides - UK required rapidity of change; EU Trusted Trader scheme which would solve many problems. Commentators on Eurotwitter usually limit themselves to 'threatened to break international law in a limited way', ie a comment from a junior Parliamentarian being hung on BJ.
The one that interests me is the sense of "we are the masters now". I agree with that one, and it leads to negligence / lack of thoroughness, which imo is the one that will get BJ in the end.
You seem to have become an apologist for shabby behaviour by the government.
The attempted prorogation created an outrage when it was first mooted, even if only later found to be illegal.
As for Northern Ireland, it is pretty clear that Boris and Frost never intended to honour the NIP. They negotiated in bad faith.
They have honoured the NIP. The EU negotiated in bad faith, they've not agreed a Trusted Trader scheme.
Since there's been no Trusted Trader Scheme, the NIP has created difficulties that allow the safeguarding element of the NIP to be invoked. There's nothing "bad faith" about that, its the whole frigging point of having a safeguarding element in the Protocol.
Why bother having a safeguarding article in the Protocol if you're not prepared to use it?
According to the research I have done a Trusted Trader Scheme was agreed in january 2021. It was estimated to cover 98% of our goods.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
I imagine he could find a seat to stand in as a Tory if he wanted to - I don't think he'd be blocked in any way. I'd very much like to see that.
If so he might face the awkward question of why he wants to represent a party led by Liey McLieface. Wanting to bring the party back to its senses and its honour might be viable motives but maybe not great in your interview with a selection panel.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
By FBPE twits I mean people on twitter with FBPE in their name, many of whom have been proposing Bercow and Stewart as anti sleaze unity candidates.
Not just FBPE twits proposing them. Nor is the Tory corruption anything to do with Brexit - they are bent. Pointing out they are bent isn't some kind of plot against Brexit, unless somehow it is only Brexit that is forcing them to hand out contracts without tender to donors etc etc
The resignation was the day after the scandal was at it's height though. Incredible that the Tories lead has increased
Joe Twyman @JoeTwyman · 12m Replying to @JoeTwyman Please note that the majority of fieldwork was completed before Owen Paterson's resignation and Claudia Webb's sentencing.
For the first time in a long time (ever?) Worldometer reports more German new cases than British
35.806
over
34,029
That can't be right. iSAGE have assured us that we are doing appallingly compared to europe.
e.g.
Danny Altmann @Daltmann10 · Nov 2 Hard to emphasise sufficiently the importance and impact of these points. I’m often asked why UK is fairing abysmally compared to mainland Europe.
So the hypothesis is, it’s down the the weather (climate) and most of the precautions are now of negligible real value.
Which is why it was the correct strategy to run hot in summer and autumn to build up natural immunity in the "won't vaccinate" cohort. No one was ever really able to explain what displacement of cases would get us in June and July when we were going for full unlockdown and in the end no answer was ever given, just screeching about being worse than Europe and other unnecessary politicisation of the issue. The people who wanted neverending NPIs got their wish in the EU and those countries have got no way out and chances are loads of them will have to go into pretty tough lockdown measures similar to last year because there isn't enough natural immunity to supplement diluted/waning vaccine immunity.
The people of Europe have been badly let down by their governments and been fed a diet of fear to keep them in line and critical of countries who have made the lead to endemic COVID like the UK has done. I have friends in Italy who don't want to come to the UK because they think it's a COVID wasteland where people are dying in the streets. Their officials feed them this constant bullshit about how reaching herd immunity is impossible so will have to live with permanent NPIs. The major worry in Italy is that the UK gets past the herd immunity threshold in the next two to three weeks and we're down to a trivial number of cases over Xmas and suddenly the Italian public wake up to the fact that they've been sold on a completely false pretence.
That's not just a European story. Fox News did a piece earlier this week about how Britain is struggling with a third wave, and how American vaccines (Moderna) were better than the British ones.
Weird, I had an American vaccine and my wife did as well! What's very odd is that everyone wants to shit on the UK. I think there is a lot of fear that we've chosen the right path and now it's too late for them to do the same thing so need to try and justify to themselves that we've fucked up. For those of us living through the "disaster" it's barely been noticeable. Now that government data shows cases falling we're also at minimal risk of having plan b shoved on us too.
I was looking at our own data model of cases today and it was saying an average of 30k per week in December for England.
Macron is doing a covid address to the nation on Tuesday, so it will be interesting to see what he announces.
France is now allowing everyone who's six months since their second vaccine jab to get the booster. I wouldn't be surprised if he introduces measures to encourage people to get it.
Does he not realise the damage this is doing to poorer countries, or does he not care? In Africa 9% - nine percent - have had a dose.
Macron was elected to serve the people of France. As a general rule, when you forget to whom you answer, you rapidly end up out of a job.
Sure. But is there any significant benefit to giving people - at least in lower risk groups - a third dose? Is there even significant demand for a third dose? There was clamour for the original two-dose regimen, so it's understandable that got rolled out to all adults and even to some children - but it strikes me that whilst that was the people saying "we want a vaccine" this is the politicians saying "you should have a booster".
(1) There are plenty of vaccination regimes people take today with are three or more doses, such as HPV or Hepititis B.
(2) There is ample evidence that protection from CV19 - particularly thanks to Delta - wanes if you have two doses close together.
(3) There is approximately a 10-fold increase in antibody levels once one is given a third dose.
It is highly likely that we will all take Covid booster shots every couple of years, probably bundled up with one's annual flu vaccine.
Even if this wasn't true, it's still not the case that vaccines are fungible. Most of Africa lacks the infrastructure to distribute the Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines (which is pretty much all the inventory in Europe).
(1) is true - but these were supposed to be two doses and done. To take a personal example, I managed to convince my wife (who's in a vulnerable group) to get the two doses - but to get the booster is an uphill task. She doesn't want to have to go to get another dose every six months for the rest of her life, and that's quite understandable.
The last point is fair - I had forgotten how much damage Macron (amongst others, but he was one of the worst culprits) did by demonising AZ.
You should remember the vaccines are being distributed rapidly with a much smaller gap than normal to cover the whole trial and testing process. Therefore it's all really part of a giant experiment and we simply cannot yet know the optimum amount of dose and number of doses for sure. That could take several years to be determined. I'm not sure anyone seriously thought or claimed that 2 doses would give protection in perpetuity.
I must have imagined the term "fully vaccinated".
Things change and we have to change with them.
As may be. But the previous claim was that people didn't think 2 doses would be enough, and that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
Including someone who spoke up for Paterson !
It’s the usual PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE clowns pushing it.
Is it worth the tactile and visual annoyance of alternate caps to conjure up a crowd of people who barely exist outside certain corners of Twitter?
Poor show, twitter loons use random not alternate caps as any ful should kno.
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
"Mr Paterson did not, in my view, use the meeting to advocate specifically for this company. Instead he approached the conversation as someone with concern for UK tax-funded programs, lab testing, and an interest in improving health care – and an expertise in UK government.
As with any official engagement, we were careful as a department to ensure that officials were present at the meeting, along with the Minister. The Officials would not have permitted the meeting to continue if it breach the rules on Conduct of Members of the House. We listened carefully to the description of the problem and the proposed solution.
..
Owen Paterson was totally clear with me as to his capacity as a consultant, but he was not in my view conducting himself in that particular meeting as a paid advocate for that product. Instead he made arguments about the principle of good laboratory testing, as someone who was concerned to make sure that UK tax money was well spent overseas, and to achieve better healthcare outcomes."
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
I imagine he could find a seat to stand in as a Tory if he wanted to - I don't think he'd be blocked in any way. I'd very much like to see that.
If so he might face the awkward question of why he wants to represent a party led by Liey McLieface. Wanting to bring the party back to its senses and its honour might be viable motives but maybe not great in your interview with a selection panel.
It doesnt help your case to abuse Boris in such a manner.
Any of the 'argue black is white' lads want to have a go at why Nadine is an excellent appointment as culture secretary? Tbf she definitely represents a certain spasm currently inhabiting the zeitgeist.
Well she’s got a point about O’Brien.
Does Ampleforth count as a public school?
Odd that Nads felt the need to crowbar that into her online abuse, but she certainly seems to suffer from a bit of class chippiness.
'two arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk – who show no remorse, no contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others'
I wonder how BJ does on knowing the price of milk front?
I know an arrogant posh boy with a sprawling dairy operation and I'm willing to bet he knows the price of milk to the nearest £100.
As for Ampleforth, isn't it a Roman Catholic madrassa? When asked if they prepared boys "for life" one of the monks famously replied "no, we prepare them for death".
My wife is much improved this morning, to the point where she is currently in the kitchen making a cake.
It will be my turn to feel like crap for a day in December. Good to see that the powers that be have realised that it is a good idea to let people book their booster ahead of the due date. Imagine if you weren't allowed to phone the garage until after your MOT had already expired. That's the system for booking your booster.
They have made a total horlicks of the booster campaign so far.
AIUI it was taken out of the hands of the local NHS management, which had run the initial campaign very well indeed.
Other way around, the initial campaign was run by a private company who created the provisioning service, text alerts and online booking system. The NHS is in charge of it this time from end to end and unsurprisingly they've gone back to sending out letters and relying on GPs. My guess is that the Saj has brought back the private company to run the online booking system again.
Locally, certainly, the service back in the early part of the year was largely GP's, or consortia of GPs. Now it's a mish-mash. Locally again, GP's seem to be out of the loop.
It's the online booking system and provisioning service that was the big innovation which the NHS decided not to bother with this time. That decision seems to have been reversed by the Saj because people are now being provisioned a dose in advance of eligibility which is how the old system worked. Relying on letters is also a tell tale sign that it's the same failed NHS thinking involved.
See my earlier post about individual experience. My wife and I are both registered with the same practice. I've had a text from the NHS, she's had no communication whatsoever and when she inquired of the local surgery was told that they 'had no idea'. So we went on line and booked. We've both booked for the same day, which, in the light of comments from other Pb-ers might be a mistake. However, we're going on a Friday so any weekend shopping will have been done!
Yeah that online system was created by a private contractor right at the start along with the provisioning service which allocates doses to areas based on likely need. For some reason there was a decision made not to use it for booster doses but it's been reversed which is why you were both able to book third doses using the online system. My parents couldn't two weeks ago, they had to contact their GP and then a local pharmacy to get an appointment.
So in the end it's been fixed but there was some definite poor decision making at the beginning to not use the existing successful formula and go back to the old style NHS appointment booking service.
Rather different system in Scotland. Notifications out by NHS letter - about 2 weeks before the offered date (which in my case was 6 months plus one daY) but with scope to change date and time by phone or online. But also possible to book in using the details from the first vacs and see what was offered, independently of the letter.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
By FBPE twits I mean people on twitter with FBPE in their name, many of whom have been proposing Bercow and Stewart as anti sleaze unity candidates.
Not just FBPE twits proposing them. Nor is the Tory corruption anything to do with Brexit - they are bent. Pointing out they are bent isn't some kind of plot against Brexit, unless somehow it is only Brexit that is forcing them to hand out contracts without tender to donors etc etc
Bercow as anti sleaze ... you cannot be serious...
For the first time in a long time (ever?) Worldometer reports more German new cases than British
35.806
over
34,029
That can't be right. iSAGE have assured us that we are doing appallingly compared to europe.
e.g.
Danny Altmann @Daltmann10 · Nov 2 Hard to emphasise sufficiently the importance and impact of these points. I’m often asked why UK is fairing abysmally compared to mainland Europe.
So the hypothesis is, it’s down the the weather (climate) and most of the precautions are now of negligible real value.
Which is why it was the correct strategy to run hot in summer and autumn to build up natural immunity in the "won't vaccinate" cohort. No one was ever really able to explain what displacement of cases would get us in June and July when we were going for full unlockdown and in the end no answer was ever given, just screeching about being worse than Europe and other unnecessary politicisation of the issue. The people who wanted neverending NPIs got their wish in the EU and those countries have got no way out and chances are loads of them will have to go into pretty tough lockdown measures similar to last year because there isn't enough natural immunity to supplement diluted/waning vaccine immunity.
The people of Europe have been badly let down by their governments and been fed a diet of fear to keep them in line and critical of countries who have made the lead to endemic COVID like the UK has done. I have friends in Italy who don't want to come to the UK because they think it's a COVID wasteland where people are dying in the streets. Their officials feed them this constant bullshit about how reaching herd immunity is impossible so will have to live with permanent NPIs. The major worry in Italy is that the UK gets past the herd immunity threshold in the next two to three weeks and we're down to a trivial number of cases over Xmas and suddenly the Italian public wake up to the fact that they've been sold on a completely false pretence.
That's not just a European story. Fox News did a piece earlier this week about how Britain is struggling with a third wave, and how American vaccines (Moderna) were better than the British ones.
Weird, I had an American vaccine and my wife did as well! What's very odd is that everyone wants to shit on the UK. I think there is a lot of fear that we've chosen the right path and now it's too late for them to do the same thing so need to try and justify to themselves that we've fucked up. For those of us living through the "disaster" it's barely been noticeable. Now that government data shows cases falling we're also at minimal risk of having plan b shoved on us too.
I was looking at our own data model of cases today and it was saying an average of 30k per week in December for England.
Macron is doing a covid address to the nation on Tuesday, so it will be interesting to see what he announces.
France is now allowing everyone who's six months since their second vaccine jab to get the booster. I wouldn't be surprised if he introduces measures to encourage people to get it.
Does he not realise the damage this is doing to poorer countries, or does he not care? In Africa 9% - nine percent - have had a dose.
Macron was elected to serve the people of France. As a general rule, when you forget to whom you answer, you rapidly end up out of a job.
Sure. But is there any significant benefit to giving people - at least in lower risk groups - a third dose? Is there even significant demand for a third dose? There was clamour for the original two-dose regimen, so it's understandable that got rolled out to all adults and even to some children - but it strikes me that whilst that was the people saying "we want a vaccine" this is the politicians saying "you should have a booster".
(1) There are plenty of vaccination regimes people take today with are three or more doses, such as HPV or Hepititis B.
(2) There is ample evidence that protection from CV19 - particularly thanks to Delta - wanes if you have two doses close together.
(3) There is approximately a 10-fold increase in antibody levels once one is given a third dose.
It is highly likely that we will all take Covid booster shots every couple of years, probably bundled up with one's annual flu vaccine.
Even if this wasn't true, it's still not the case that vaccines are fungible. Most of Africa lacks the infrastructure to distribute the Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines (which is pretty much all the inventory in Europe).
(1) is true - but these were supposed to be two doses and done. To take a personal example, I managed to convince my wife (who's in a vulnerable group) to get the two doses - but to get the booster is an uphill task. She doesn't want to have to go to get another dose every six months for the rest of her life, and that's quite understandable.
The last point is fair - I had forgotten how much damage Macron (amongst others, but he was one of the worst culprits) did by demonising AZ.
You should remember the vaccines are being distributed rapidly with a much smaller gap than normal to cover the whole trial and testing process. Therefore it's all really part of a giant experiment and we simply cannot yet know the optimum amount of dose and number of doses for sure. That could take several years to be determined. I'm not sure anyone seriously thought or claimed that 2 doses would give protection in perpetuity.
I must have imagined the term "fully vaccinated".
Things change and we have to change with them.
As may be. But the previous claim was that people didn't think 2 doses would be enough, and that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Why did you sign up to spread misinformation about vaccines?
2 doses was fully vaccinated when the full schedule was 2 doses. It wasn't full and final vaccination, nor did anyone ever say it was.
The possibility, nay probability, of booster jabs has been said all along.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
And IMV he's right about Boris. I think it's hard to argue he isn't right. Which is why I, and many others, won't vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris.
But this was all open knowledge a decade or more ago, and the public still vote for him. It's priced in - at the moment. Attacking Boris doesn't work - and some of the overwrought attacks go far too far, damaging their arguments, rather than Boris.
What the opposition need to do is just laugh at him and provide a meaningful, solid trajectory for the country. A sane, workable way forward.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
I imagine he could find a seat to stand in as a Tory if he wanted to - I don't think he'd be blocked in any way. I'd very much like to see that.
If so he might face the awkward question of why he wants to represent a party led by Liey McLieface. Wanting to bring the party back to its senses and its honour might be viable motives but maybe not great in your interview with a selection panel.
It doesnt help your case to abuse Boris in such a manner.
Agreed. The accepted terminology is the Fat Lying Sack of Jizz.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Fair comment and GE24 will be a moment when each party has to outline its strategy on Europe
For me I could vote to rejoin the single market but will not vote for any party who wants to rejoin or rejoin in a disingenuous way
How do you distinguish between rejoin the SM and a disingenuous first step to rejoining the EU?
Lib dems position
Look, I don't like the Lib Dems either. But if their manifesto says "In the 2023-8 Parliament, we will support returning to the Single Market and won't seek to rejoin the EU", will you oppose that because of the likelihood that they will push further sometime in the 2030's?
Democracies reverse policy all the time. It's an important way that democratic politics isn't like making babies.
Why the fear of reversing this?
Personally, I do like the LDs in some respects.
However, I would be aware of the debate within the LD party which has set that up as a politically sellable position for now, leading to a full Rejoin when the frog has been half-boiled.
Close alignment was the most sensible way to have delivered Brexit, and returning to close alignment remains the most sensible path to take now.
Which makes it a tragedy that so many Remainers simply failed to accept the result. Close alignment was possible if the bulk of Remainers had allied with marginal Leavers. Instead they fought it, allowing the idea to devolop (in Theresa May's head) that Leave had to mean leaving everything.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
By FBPE twits I mean people on twitter with FBPE in their name, many of whom have been proposing Bercow and Stewart as anti sleaze unity candidates.
Not just FBPE twits proposing them. Nor is the Tory corruption anything to do with Brexit - they are bent. Pointing out they are bent isn't some kind of plot against Brexit, unless somehow it is only Brexit that is forcing them to hand out contracts without tender to donors etc etc
Bercow as anti sleaze ... you cannot be serious...
I haven't said anything about Bercow. I advocated for Rory.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Fair comment and GE24 will be a moment when each party has to outline its strategy on Europe
For me I could vote to rejoin the single market but will not vote for any party who wants to rejoin or rejoin in a disingenuous way
How do you distinguish between rejoin the SM and a disingenuous first step to rejoining the EU?
Lib dems position
Look, I don't like the Lib Dems either. But if their manifesto says "In the 2023-8 Parliament, we will support returning to the Single Market and won't seek to rejoin the EU", will you oppose that because of the likelihood that they will push further sometime in the 2030's?
Democracies reverse policy all the time. It's an important way that democratic politics isn't like making babies.
Why the fear of reversing this?
Personally, I do like the LDs in some respects.
However, I would be aware of the debate within the LD party which has set that up as a politically sellable position for now, leading to a full Rejoin when the frog has been half-boiled.
Close alignment was the most sensible way to have delivered Brexit, and returning to close alignment remains the most sensible path to take now.
Which makes it a tragedy that so many Remainers simply failed to accept the result. Close alignment was possible if the bulk of Remainers had allied with marginal Leavers. Instead they fought it, allowing the idea to devolop (in Theresa May's head) that Leave had to mean leaving everything.
Yes if only Remainers had fought for close alignment by eg repeatedly voting for it in the Commons only to be outvoted by the Tory party's hard Brexit whipping operation. This idea that Remainers haven't accepted Brexit is a fiction that lives only in the heads of Leavers who are searching for someone to blame for the shitshow they have created. It's Brexiteers who can't accept Brexit, to the extent that they are currently trying to unpick the deal that they negotiated.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Fair comment and GE24 will be a moment when each party has to outline its strategy on Europe
For me I could vote to rejoin the single market but will not vote for any party who wants to rejoin or rejoin in a disingenuous way
How do you distinguish between rejoin the SM and a disingenuous first step to rejoining the EU?
Lib dems position
Look, I don't like the Lib Dems either. But if their manifesto says "In the 2023-8 Parliament, we will support returning to the Single Market and won't seek to rejoin the EU", will you oppose that because of the likelihood that they will push further sometime in the 2030's?
Democracies reverse policy all the time. It's an important way that democratic politics isn't like making babies.
Why the fear of reversing this?
Personally, I do like the LDs in some respects.
However, I would be aware of the debate within the LD party which has set that up as a politically sellable position for now, leading to a full Rejoin when the frog has been half-boiled.
Close alignment was the most sensible way to have delivered Brexit, and returning to close alignment remains the most sensible path to take now.
Which makes it a tragedy that so many Remainers simply failed to accept the result. Close alignment was possible if the bulk of Remainers had allied with marginal Leavers. Instead they fought it, allowing the idea to devolop (in Theresa May's head) that Leave had to mean leaving everything.
Ultimately its all on May. She pulled the trigger on a re-election and despite increasing their vote share by 20%, they lost their majority. That 2017 parliament was not beholden to decisions of previous parliaments, so free to do what it wanted.
The problem is that it couldn't agree on what that was. The opportunity was there to settle on "Norway+" and they missed it. The damage to our democracy was done in that parliament. Its literally our electoral system that no parliament is bound by its predecessors, yet we had all that anti-democracy "Enemies of the People" crap.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Fair comment and GE24 will be a moment when each party has to outline its strategy on Europe
For me I could vote to rejoin the single market but will not vote for any party who wants to rejoin or rejoin in a disingenuous way
How do you distinguish between rejoin the SM and a disingenuous first step to rejoining the EU?
Lib dems position
Look, I don't like the Lib Dems either. But if their manifesto says "In the 2023-8 Parliament, we will support returning to the Single Market and won't seek to rejoin the EU", will you oppose that because of the likelihood that they will push further sometime in the 2030's?
Democracies reverse policy all the time. It's an important way that democratic politics isn't like making babies.
Why the fear of reversing this?
Personally, I do like the LDs in some respects.
However, I would be aware of the debate within the LD party which has set that up as a politically sellable position for now, leading to a full Rejoin when the frog has been half-boiled.
Close alignment was the most sensible way to have delivered Brexit, and returning to close alignment remains the most sensible path to take now.
Which makes it a tragedy that so many Remainers simply failed to accept the result. Close alignment was possible if the bulk of Remainers had allied with marginal Leavers. Instead they fought it, allowing the idea to devolop (in Theresa May's head) that Leave had to mean leaving everything.
Quite. As a marginal Brexiteer (the case was balanced about 52/48 to my mind) the obvious destination was 'Norway for Now' with an undertaking to work on the issue of independence over the medium term.
But the bus has now left due to the bad tactics of remainers, and it isn't politically possible to take a step back which includes FoM. As, I think, Labour will show us at the next election.
The ageing establishment (Heseltine, Blair, Major, Brown, Ken Clarke et al) are united in being responsible for doing everything apart from actually asking the UK population about the big constitutional decisions when it was essential to do so, and when we saw other countries being asked in referendums; which is why we are where we are. By the time we got asked it was too late for the EU to adapt or for an easy way out. John Major completely fails to recognise this.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Fair comment and GE24 will be a moment when each party has to outline its strategy on Europe
For me I could vote to rejoin the single market but will not vote for any party who wants to rejoin or rejoin in a disingenuous way
How do you distinguish between rejoin the SM and a disingenuous first step to rejoining the EU?
Lib dems position
Look, I don't like the Lib Dems either. But if their manifesto says "In the 2023-8 Parliament, we will support returning to the Single Market and won't seek to rejoin the EU", will you oppose that because of the likelihood that they will push further sometime in the 2030's?
Democracies reverse policy all the time. It's an important way that democratic politics isn't like making babies.
Why the fear of reversing this?
Personally, I do like the LDs in some respects.
However, I would be aware of the debate within the LD party which has set that up as a politically sellable position for now, leading to a full Rejoin when the frog has been half-boiled.
Close alignment was the most sensible way to have delivered Brexit, and returning to close alignment remains the most sensible path to take now.
Which makes it a tragedy that so many Remainers simply failed to accept the result. Close alignment was possible if the bulk of Remainers had allied with marginal Leavers. Instead they fought it, allowing the idea to devolop (in Theresa May's head) that Leave had to mean leaving everything.
Ultimately its all on May. She pulled the trigger on a re-election and despite increasing their vote share by 20%, they lost their majority. That 2017 parliament was not beholden to decisions of previous parliaments, so free to do what it wanted.
The problem is that it couldn't agree on what that was. The opportunity was there to settle on "Norway+" and they missed it. The damage to our democracy was done in that parliament. Its literally our electoral system that no parliament is bound by its predecessors, yet we had all that anti-democracy "Enemies of the People" crap.
No Parliament is bound and if a majority had been won on overturning Brexit democratically then that'd be democracy.
But it wasn't. Grieve etc were all elected pledging to honour the referendum result and then spent two years trying to do the opposite.
Grieve attempting to overturn the referendum after being elected pledging to honour it was every bit as undemocratic as Senator Hawley voting to reject Biden and install Trump as President.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
Not easy to find a 'clean skin Tory' these days. In order to prevent extinction they've retreated to a remote settlement in the New Forest. No phones, no broadband.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
I imagine he could find a seat to stand in as a Tory if he wanted to - I don't think he'd be blocked in any way. I'd very much like to see that.
If so he might face the awkward question of why he wants to represent a party led by Liey McLieface. Wanting to bring the party back to its senses and its honour might be viable motives but maybe not great in your interview with a selection panel.
It doesnt help your case to abuse Boris in such a manner.
Yet you are rude about everything and everyone one you don't like which appears to be everything and everyone.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Fair comment and GE24 will be a moment when each party has to outline its strategy on Europe
For me I could vote to rejoin the single market but will not vote for any party who wants to rejoin or rejoin in a disingenuous way
How do you distinguish between rejoin the SM and a disingenuous first step to rejoining the EU?
Lib dems position
Look, I don't like the Lib Dems either. But if their manifesto says "In the 2023-8 Parliament, we will support returning to the Single Market and won't seek to rejoin the EU", will you oppose that because of the likelihood that they will push further sometime in the 2030's?
Democracies reverse policy all the time. It's an important way that democratic politics isn't like making babies.
Why the fear of reversing this?
Personally, I do like the LDs in some respects.
However, I would be aware of the debate within the LD party which has set that up as a politically sellable position for now, leading to a full Rejoin when the frog has been half-boiled.
Close alignment was the most sensible way to have delivered Brexit, and returning to close alignment remains the most sensible path to take now.
Which makes it a tragedy that so many Remainers simply failed to accept the result. Close alignment was possible if the bulk of Remainers had allied with marginal Leavers. Instead they fought it, allowing the idea to devolop (in Theresa May's head) that Leave had to mean leaving everything.
Ultimately its all on May. She pulled the trigger on a re-election and despite increasing their vote share by 20%, they lost their majority. That 2017 parliament was not beholden to decisions of previous parliaments, so free to do what it wanted.
The problem is that it couldn't agree on what that was. The opportunity was there to settle on "Norway+" and they missed it. The damage to our democracy was done in that parliament. Its literally our electoral system that no parliament is bound by its predecessors, yet we had all that anti-democracy "Enemies of the People" crap.
I'd almost forgotten that, and there was I putting the culture that killed Mr Amess exclusively at the door of Rayner.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
Not easy to find a 'clean skin Tory' these days. In order to prevent extinction they've retreated to a remote settlement in the New Forest. No phones, no broadband.
Glad to see Major speaking up, whilst Boris’ supporters here circle the wagons.
Yes but remember we support Brexit and that isn't going to change
Brexit trumps everything for you, yes we know.
It does for very many and you should ask why no UK party, ex the SNP and Plaid, support rejoining, unless of course the Lib Dems finally discover honesty and say they will campaign to rejoin, not some silly fudge
Why? Brexit isn’t the key issue for me.
It makes everything a bit harder than it was before, we’re all a bit poorer and seems to be used by its supporters to justify/excuse/deflect from all sorts of poor practices like we saw this week.
Beyond that 🤷♀️
Johnson understands that the British voter does not do gratitude; so having got Brexit 'done' (for low values of done) is not going to be enough at the next GE. The electoral strategy is going to be to depict the oppostion as wanting to reverse Brexit and that it is only secure with the tories.
You can see tories on here already starting to push this line.
Yeah, Boris and his minions want the Brexit wars to continue forever.
I would suggest many on the remain side are doing a good job on that, ensuring that by not accepting we have left it continues ad nfinitum
But, once again, you're on here suggesting a party you won't vote for should adopt a policy you don't like which you also think will be unpopular. It's very strange behaviour, G.
Not really
We all want honesty in politics and the lib dems policy is disingenuous as they want to rejoin
Be honest and say so, they would take quite some seats down south
It's not up to me to "say so" since I'm not a member of the Lib Dems, and probably won't vote for them next time. I think you're attracted to the idea of them adopting a rejoin policy because you think it'll drive votes towards the Conservatives. And you'd be right, but I think you're the one who's being sneaky here, not the Lib Dems.
No I honestly am not
Politics needs frank and honest positions and as a side issue I think they would do quite well
I see that OKC has usefully highlighted the current Lib Dem position.
Can you tell us what is dishonest about it?
Is there anything honest about the LD position on anything?
And here you come with your usual generic post devoid of any content whatsoever just being rude about Lab normally (although in fairness it is the LDs today). Try debating with someone.
And to answer your question without any need of any thought - Constitutional reform.
100%
He is one of the dullest, most nakedly partisan posters on this forum. A sheep.
I am glad you hold me in such high esteem. People seem to get frustrated why I point out some of the truths of the things they write.
I am not nakedly partisan. I dislike Boris and I don't like the direction of the Tory Party. ...but I know I will almost certainly vote Tory because the alternative is too awful to contemplate. Many many people are in the same position as I am. The LDs are hopeless set with a remain.policy , Labour's competely split between boring Starmer and the hard left Corbynistas with Angela Rayner thrown in to.make things even worse.
I advise the left to look at themselves before venting their spleens on me and or on the site. Perhaps I am doing a public service on offering you the opportunity to you vent your frustrations. Dura Ace always feels better after a jizz ridden rant.
You are very much not "doing a public service" . You are the personification of Fox News. Take that as a compliment if you wish.
When Sky had to send an engineer out midweek I was unlucky enough to have my Sky F1 pack upgraded to all Sky Sports channels for -£1 a month. Which means I am watching United vs Citeh.
The demolition of Spurs will be looked back on as the big missed opportunity. Could have sacked Ole and brought in Conte by now. Instead we either get to keep him or hire a megastar replacement like Steve Bruce...
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
Not saying he's an FBPE twit, but does he not know Rory is Paterson's witness?
Matthew Shaddick @shadsy If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be? I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better. https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
Trying to get a ‘man in a white suit’ to stand against a clean skin Tory in a safe seat, is pretty much doomed to failure - even before we see that all the names put forward are very metropolitan FBPE twits.
Including someone who spoke up for Paterson !
It’s the usual PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE clowns pushing it.
I agree that an Anti-Sleaze candidate wouldn't be the right way to go, as Paterson isn't standing again. Any new Tory candidate would presumably be "clean". The interesting idea would be if Johnson was suspended for 30 days due to his corruption over wallpaper and holidays. If he was recalled and stood again, an anti-sleaze candidate would be ideal. Someone like Rashford?
Late to the thread, but thanks Pip for a very good thread header.
What this means is that the congressional investigations into Trump and 6 January have one more year to get results before they get binned by the new GOP majorities.
When Sky had to send an engineer out midweek I was unlucky enough to have my Sky F1 pack upgraded to all Sky Sports channels for -£1 a month. Which means I am watching United vs Citeh.
The demolition of Spurs will be looked back on as the big missed opportunity. Could have sacked Ole and brought in Conte by now. Instead we either get to keep him or hire a megastar replacement like Steve Bruce...
Mick McCarthy is available now too. Spoilt for choice. Oh and Big Sam... what more could you ask for?
It was a stay in the private home if a friend therefore not disclosable on the MP register
It was a significant gift from one minister to another and therefore disclosed on the ministerial register
That’s actually a reasonable approach
Oh come on. The MPs code of conduct says that ministers are not different to other MPs in requiring them to report on the MPs register (para 16) The code of conduct says that gifts from ministers are no different to gifts from others (para 9) So based on that, he has to declare on the MPs register as well as the ministerial register
The declarable categories include gifts from UK sources (category 3) and visits outside the UK (category 4), both if they're over £300. Johnson, B.'s argument seems to be that as they're from a friend (but see para 9) the value is zero so not declarable. You've gone for a variant, saying that it's not possible to calculate a value. But obviously it is, a point you glossed over from my previous post.
So the reasonable, and indeed lawful approach, is to declare it, and its value. So why won't he?
A value would be made up. I saw the mirror said “up to £25k per week”. *
But actually the specific value really doesn’t matter. It was a lot. A big expense that Boris have had to pay. Goldsmith doesn’t really care since it is only theoretical lost income (the house isn’t rented out anyway) and he’s rich enough not to notice anyway.
The “credit” that Goldsmith would get from lending a friend and her husband the house is exactly the same regardless of the nominal figure.
What matters is the declaration of the gift. And that has been declared.
* for example a friend and client once invited my to join him for lunch at ascot and flew me there from battersea to avoid traffic. I disclosed that, of course, but what is the value of a seat on a chopper that would be flying anyway?
Again, you being disingenuous and hoping people won't notice. It has been declared in one register, but needs to be declared in both. He declared his holiday in Mustique in both registers only last year? What has changed? Nothing.
I find your desire to accuse me of bad acting strange. Im not involved, have no agenda and am just posting what I think on website.
It does not need to be posted on the Mp register of interest as it is a gift from a friend. It does need to be posted on the minister register because it is a gift from one minister to another.
I know you have a specific view on how the rules ought to be interpreted. I don’t have a view, but if the PM has interpreted it incorrectly I am sure that he will correct the error.
The fundamental point is the existence of the gift has been disclosed. That’s actually what matters
Edit: what is different vs mustique is he is staying at the holiday home of a friend vs staying at a rental vacation home that happens to be owned by someone he knows
It was a stay in the private home if a friend therefore not disclosable on the MP register
It was a significant gift from one minister to another and therefore disclosed on the ministerial register
That’s actually a reasonable approach
Oh come on. The MPs code of conduct says that ministers are not different to other MPs in requiring them to report on the MPs register (para 16) The code of conduct says that gifts from ministers are no different to gifts from others (para 9) So based on that, he has to declare on the MPs register as well as the ministerial register
The declarable categories include gifts from UK sources (category 3) and visits outside the UK (category 4), both if they're over £300. Johnson, B.'s argument seems to be that as they're from a friend (but see para 9) the value is zero so not declarable. You've gone for a variant, saying that it's not possible to calculate a value. But obviously it is, a point you glossed over from my previous post.
So the reasonable, and indeed lawful approach, is to declare it, and its value. So why won't he?
A value would be made up. I saw the mirror said “up to £25k per week”. *
But actually the specific value really doesn’t matter. It was a lot. A big expense that Boris have had to pay. Goldsmith doesn’t really care since it is only theoretical lost income (the house isn’t rented out anyway) and he’s rich enough not to notice anyway.
The “credit” that Goldsmith would get from lending a friend and her husband the house is exactly the same regardless of the nominal figure.
What matters is the declaration of the gift. And that has been declared.
* for example a friend and client once invited my to join him for lunch at ascot and flew me there from battersea to avoid traffic. I disclosed that, of course, but what is the value of a seat on a chopper that would be flying anyway?
Again, you being disingenuous and hoping people won't notice. It has been declared in one register, but needs to be declared in both. He declared his holiday in Mustique in both registers only last year? What has changed? Nothing.
I find your desire to accuse me of bad acting strange. Im not involved, have no agenda and am just posting what I think on website.
It does not need to be posted on the Mp register of interest as it is a gift from a friend. It does need to be posted on the minister register because it is a gift from one minister to another.
I know you have a specific view on how the rules ought to be interpreted. I don’t have a view, but if the PM has interpreted it incorrectly I am sure that he will correct the error.
The fundamental point is the existence of the gift has been disclosed. That’s actually what matters
Edit: what is different vs mustique is he is staying at the holiday home of a friend vs staying at a rental vacation home that happens to be owned by someone he knows
LOL, Tories you could not beat them with a stick. Just happened to be a friend who he knighted and made a government minister. Next you will be telling us Owen Patterson was hard done by and is a paragon of virtue.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
I imagine he could find a seat to stand in as a Tory if he wanted to - I don't think he'd be blocked in any way. I'd very much like to see that.
If so he might face the awkward question of why he wants to represent a party led by Liey McLieface. Wanting to bring the party back to its senses and its honour might be viable motives but maybe not great in your interview with a selection panel.
It doesnt help your case to abuse Boris in such a manner.
Yet you are rude about everything and everyone one you don't like which appears to be everything and everyone.
No one can abuse Boris enough , he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
Is there any way back for Rory Stewart representing the current manifestation of the Tory party on any level?
I imagine he could find a seat to stand in as a Tory if he wanted to - I don't think he'd be blocked in any way. I'd very much like to see that.
If so he might face the awkward question of why he wants to represent a party led by Liey McLieface. Wanting to bring the party back to its senses and its honour might be viable motives but maybe not great in your interview with a selection panel.
It doesnt help your case to abuse Boris in such a manner.
Yet you are rude about everything and everyone one you don't like which appears to be everything and everyone.
No one can abuse Boris enough , he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town
Flown out of town on a private jet. Collected by a pair of Supercharged Range Rovers at the other end and driven to a men-only club to eat peasant.
Wow. Boris's admirers are now blaming Remainers for Boris's ultra-hard Brexit.
Johnson believes in nothing other than personal gratification/advancement and Brexit, of any flavour, is no exception to this. He chose Leave because he knew that when he got to run for leader of a heavily Leave party he'd need that badge. When Leave won, which surprised him, he mismanaged his tilt for the crown and May got it. She blew the Con majority in a snap election and rendered herself abject, unable to get Brexit through. Johnson leeched on the chaos and brought her down, telling everyone what they wanted to hear about his intentions in order to secure power. Once installed in Number 10 he lied to the EU to get the Brexit deal he needed for his general election platform and he lied to the voters about the deal in order to win that election. All of this worked for him, it's worked at every stage, and so he continues on his merry way. He breathes, he lies, he breathes, he lies ... until the day comes when enough of the public both see it and decide they care.
My wife is much improved this morning, to the point where she is currently in the kitchen making a cake.
It will be my turn to feel like crap for a day in December. Good to see that the powers that be have realised that it is a good idea to let people book their booster ahead of the due date. Imagine if you weren't allowed to phone the garage until after your MOT had already expired. That's the system for booking your booster.
They have made a total horlicks of the booster campaign so far.
AIUI it was taken out of the hands of the local NHS management, which had run the initial campaign very well indeed.
Other way around, the initial campaign was run by a private company who created the provisioning service, text alerts and online booking system. The NHS is in charge of it this time from end to end and unsurprisingly they've gone back to sending out letters and relying on GPs. My guess is that the Saj has brought back the private company to run the online booking system again.
Locally, certainly, the service back in the early part of the year was largely GP's, or consortia of GPs. Now it's a mish-mash. Locally again, GP's seem to be out of the loop.
It's the online booking system and provisioning service that was the big innovation which the NHS decided not to bother with this time. That decision seems to have been reversed by the Saj because people are now being provisioned a dose in advance of eligibility which is how the old system worked. Relying on letters is also a tell tale sign that it's the same failed NHS thinking involved.
See my earlier post about individual experience. My wife and I are both registered with the same practice. I've had a text from the NHS, she's had no communication whatsoever and when she inquired of the local surgery was told that they 'had no idea'. So we went on line and booked. We've both booked for the same day, which, in the light of comments from other Pb-ers might be a mistake. However, we're going on a Friday so any weekend shopping will have been done!
Yeah that online system was created by a private contractor right at the start along with the provisioning service which allocates doses to areas based on likely need. For some reason there was a decision made not to use it for booster doses but it's been reversed which is why you were both able to book third doses using the online system. My parents couldn't two weeks ago, they had to contact their GP and then a local pharmacy to get an appointment.
So in the end it's been fixed but there was some definite poor decision making at the beginning to not use the existing successful formula and go back to the old style NHS appointment booking service.
Rather different system in Scotland. Notifications out by NHS letter - about 2 weeks before the offered date (which in my case was 6 months plus one daY) but with scope to change date and time by phone or online. But also possible to book in using the details from the first vacs and see what was offered, independently of the letter.
I am beyond 6 months and yet to get my letter, my wife had hers during the week.
Having been quite surprised to learn yesterday that Bercow supports Paterson, I'm equally intrigued to learn today that Rory Stewart is one of the witnesses who corroborated his non-lobbying claims and that the standards' committee refused to interview.
That's two of the FBPE twits' favourites to run as their "anti-sleaze" candidate..
I'd like Rory Stewart to run. I don't care if it's as an 'anti-sleaze' candidate, or as one for the Tories (yeah, right). Unsure where FBPE comes into it.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
"Mr Paterson did not, in my view, use the meeting to advocate specifically for this company. Instead he approached the conversation as someone with concern for UK tax-funded programs, lab testing, and an interest in improving health care – and an expertise in UK government.
As with any official engagement, we were careful as a department to ensure that officials were present at the meeting, along with the Minister. The Officials would not have permitted the meeting to continue if it breach the rules on Conduct of Members of the House. We listened carefully to the description of the problem and the proposed solution.
..
Owen Paterson was totally clear with me as to his capacity as a consultant, but he was not in my view conducting himself in that particular meeting as a paid advocate for that product. Instead he made arguments about the principle of good laboratory testing, as someone who was concerned to make sure that UK tax money was well spent overseas, and to achieve better healthcare outcomes."
Thanks. An interesting intervention.
Violins playing and find myself rolling about the floor. What a saint, he really was not a greedy grasping no good Tory.
Looks like there is excess wind generation on the Irish grid again today, that they're not using because they want to keep a minimum level of thermal plant operating (presumably for doing the frequency balancing). This sort of thing will happen more and more often and provides an opportunity for storage or other intermittent uses of cheap excess electricity.
Comments
The high-risk genetic variant is in a chromosome region that is also tied to double the risk of death in COVID-19 patients under age 60.
Report ad
Around 60% of people with South Asian ancestry carry the high-risk version of the gene, researchers at Oxford University said on Friday, adding the discovery may partly explain the high number of deaths seen in some British communities, and the devastation wrought by COVID-19 in the Indian subcontinent."
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/gene-linked-doubling-risk-covid-19-death-found-by-uk-scientists-2021-11-05/
I recall him adopting his own "No No No No No" strategy when he was trying to force Brussels to reverse the BSE beef ban.
If I recall, he simply instructed everybody to veto everything, to gum up even the routine decisions such as allocation of money.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP96-74/RP96-74.pdf
I have to tell the House that, without progress towards lifting the ban, we cannot be
expected to co-operate normally on other Community business.
I say this with great reluctance, but the European Union operates through good will.
If we do not benefit from good will from partners, clearly we cannot reciprocate.
Progress will not be possible in the intergovernmental conference or elsewhere until
we have agreement on lifting the ban on beef derivatives and a clear framework in
place leading to lifting of the wider ban
We will raise the question of the ban at all Councils, including the Foreign Affairs
Council. If necessary, we shall seek special Councils. I shall make it clear that I
expect agreement on how to deal with those problems to be behind us by the time the
European Council meets in Florence on 21 and 22 June. If it is not, the Florence
meeting is bound to be dominated by the issue. It could not proceed with our normal
co-operation unless it faced up to the crisis of confidence affecting not only
consumers but also Governments throughout Europe.
That is not how I wish to do business in Europe - but I see no alternative. We cannot
continue business as usual within Europe when we are faced with the clear disregard
by some of our partners of reason, of common sense and of Britain's national
interests. We continue to want to make progress through negotiations; but if that is
not possible, we are bound to use the legal avenues open to us and the political means
at our disposal.
3
You're free to create your own alternative. We shouldn't let the existing parties force us in to choosing between them if we don't think they're good enough.
A more effective strategy would have been to remind everybody that the worst affected country was France, in the form of 'vache tremble' and demand there be a ban on their beef too.
I think the ban on our beef would have been lifted faster than Mitterand lifted women's skirts...
"Since the Catholic emancipation, Ampleforth gained a reputation as one of several schools, alongside The Oratory School and Stonyhurst, popular within the Roman Catholic aristocracy and labelled the "Catholic Eton""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampleforth_College
Whether, further down the road, people start asking why we aren’t members if we are observing common standards, is another matter. The Norway population has been asked from time to time and they keep saying no. Yet they have the benefits of free trade and free movement that this obstinate government denies from our population.
ETA answered in the affirmative by @BlancheLivermore's post.
Brexiters must all know on some level that Brexit is damaging, but insist that everyone worship the same false idol.
Good total.
I recall I narrowly decided to vote for Major in 1992 (making up my mind on the way to the polling station) but by 1997 had had enough and voted LibDem (in Ed Davey's constituency). It might take a while for voters to decide a government is tired and needs replacing.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/11/mexico-pre-qualifying-2021.html
Edited extra bit: got to be off for a bit.
'two arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk – who show no remorse, no contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others'
I wonder how BJ does on knowing the price of milk front?
Recent unionist/Tory propaganda polls are suggesting that we might lose #IndyRef2. I will be working with the SNP team in Glasgow so that we are already starting a campaign for #IndyRef3 should Scotland make the wrong decision again. #ScottishIndependence14 #DemocracyShallWin
https://twitter.com/newsdoc999/status/1456666720945508367?s=20
Matthew Shaddick
@shadsy
If Labour, LDs & Greens all stood aside to let, say, Rory Stewart run against the Tories in North Shropshire, what would the odds be?
I think I'd still take the Tories at 1.5 or better.
https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1456944223501049863
You don't seem to understand that some people believe that we are better off outside the EU. Plenty of countries are outside the EU, it's not a prerequisite for national success, you know.
Some people will believe anything, but polling shows increasingly that Brexit is understood as “not going well”.
Your last sentence is the sort of facile argument that got us into this mess.
It'd be interesting to know what Bercow's and Stewart's arguments were - but as they weren't interviewed, we probably won't know them robustly.
It’s the usual PrOgReSsIvE aLlIaNcE clowns pushing it.
Buried under this unholy rubble are legitimate questions about the standards process, for sure.
https://twitter.com/brizy83/status/1456609002507362307?s=20
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmstandards/797/79705.htm
An excerpt -
"Mr Paterson did not, in my view, use the meeting to advocate specifically for this company. Instead he approached the conversation as someone with concern for UK tax-funded programs, lab testing, and an interest in improving health care – and an expertise in UK government.
As with any official engagement, we were careful as a department to ensure that officials were present at the meeting, along with the Minister. The Officials would not have permitted the meeting to continue if it breach the rules on Conduct of Members of the House. We listened carefully to the description of the problem and the proposed solution.
..
Owen Paterson was totally clear with me as to his capacity as a consultant, but he was not in my view conducting himself in that particular meeting as a paid advocate for that product. Instead he made arguments about the principle of good laboratory testing, as someone who was concerned to make sure that UK tax money was well spent overseas, and to achieve better healthcare outcomes."
I expect OGH will place his traditional bet at long odds in due course.
"Bercow presumably knows how disciplinary procedures should occur in Parliament and he wrote, the process leading to the ban was 'indefensible' and was not 'conducted in accordance with natural justice'.
In a letter to Mr Paterson, Mr Bercow said: 'You have experienced a protracted, Kafkaesque process.'
And he said it was 'wrong and indefensible, 14 months after launching her investigation, that [Miss Stone] should write her first memorandum to you to announce that she considers you guilty of transgressions when she has not troubled to interview you', according to The Times."
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1456952604009934853
Con 40, Lab 37.
https://twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1456962691462049792
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-14/businesses-call-for-new-push-from-uk-and-eu-over-ni-protocol
I haven't seen *any* detail on this.
My suggestion is that UK Gov just implement it, since it has been agreed, with appropriate facilities for EU inspectors.
Right, off to Sharjah to cheer for South Africa!
Boris 30/51
Sir Keir 23/33
Given 30% don't vote, I would still rather be Boris on those numbers
Joe Twyman
@JoeTwyman
·
12m
Replying to
@JoeTwyman
Please note that the majority of fieldwork was completed before Owen Paterson's resignation and Claudia Webb's sentencing.
As for Ampleforth, isn't it a Roman Catholic madrassa? When asked if they prepared boys "for life" one of the monks famously replied "no, we prepare them for death".
2 doses was fully vaccinated when the full schedule was 2 doses. It wasn't full and final vaccination, nor did anyone ever say it was.
The possibility, nay probability, of booster jabs has been said all along.
But this was all open knowledge a decade or more ago, and the public still vote for him. It's priced in - at the moment. Attacking Boris doesn't work - and some of the overwrought attacks go far too far, damaging their arguments, rather than Boris.
What the opposition need to do is just laugh at him and provide a meaningful, solid trajectory for the country. A sane, workable way forward.
And they're not doing it.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems are an 08: small, workable, and omnipresent, but never go anywhere.
This idea that Remainers haven't accepted Brexit is a fiction that lives only in the heads of Leavers who are searching for someone to blame for the shitshow they have created. It's Brexiteers who can't accept Brexit, to the extent that they are currently trying to unpick the deal that they negotiated.
The problem is that it couldn't agree on what that was. The opportunity was there to settle on "Norway+" and they missed it. The damage to our democracy was done in that parliament. Its literally our electoral system that no parliament is bound by its predecessors, yet we had all that anti-democracy "Enemies of the People" crap.
But the bus has now left due to the bad tactics of remainers, and it isn't politically possible to take a step back which includes FoM. As, I think, Labour will show us at the next election.
The ageing establishment (Heseltine, Blair, Major, Brown, Ken Clarke et al) are united in being responsible for doing everything apart from actually asking the UK population about the big constitutional decisions when it was essential to do so, and when we saw other countries being asked in referendums; which is why we are where we are. By the time we got asked it was too late for the EU to adapt or for an easy way out. John Major completely fails to recognise this.
But it wasn't. Grieve etc were all elected pledging to honour the referendum result and then spent two years trying to do the opposite.
Grieve attempting to overturn the referendum after being elected pledging to honour it was every bit as undemocratic as Senator Hawley voting to reject Biden and install Trump as President.
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 40% (+2)
LAB: 37% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
GRN: 6% (-)
via
@DeltapollUK
, 03 - 05 Nov
Chgs. w/ 15 Oct
You are very much not "doing a public service" . You are the personification of Fox News. Take that as a compliment if you wish.
Having said that, it’s remarkable how varying interpretation of even very recent history can be.
In my view, May deserves a lot of the blame and she needed no help from Remainers…
It doesn't matter what your views are about Brexit. Corruption is Corruption and the Tory Party is corrupt. Brexit has nothing to do with it.
The demolition of Spurs will be looked back on as the big missed opportunity. Could have sacked Ole and brought in Conte by now. Instead we either get to keep him or hire a megastar replacement like Steve Bruce...
"Can I interest you in a 1000 litre IBC of duty free Chateau Neuf Du Pap squire?"
What this means is that the congressional investigations into Trump and 6 January have one more year to get results before they get binned by the new GOP majorities.
http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all/wind