Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
For all that the signs are currently encouraging, the situation is quite finely balanced and we won't really know what will happen with COVID-19 until we get into Winter.
If things did go wrong, and a media narrative developed about the Tories having been reckless about lifting restrictions on the one hand, and corruptly helping contractors to make money out of the pandemic on the other, that could be devastating for them.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
“The main issues that Congress and others have been concerned about is safety of flight concerns and counterintelligence issues. Always there’s also the question of ‘is there something else that we simply do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially?”
This is the second DNI in a row to publicly link UAP to non human intelligence. Ratcliffe was very explicit after he left office, far more so than this, but what he said apparently doesn’t count because Trump hired him. His Biden appointed successor now leaning into it in a similar way.
Which takes us back to the central point identified by Leon ages ago. Either there is the wildest senior bipartisan conspiracy underway in the US establishment to fool the world into thinking we are being visited by aliens/interdimensionals/time travellers etc... Or, there is no conspiracy and that is just what they believe is happening.
Here for example are highly explicit comments from Rep. Carson, who while not a Gang of Eight Member, will have at least seen the unredacted UAP report to Congress as a member of the House Intelligience Committee and STAR sub committee:
Anyway nothing to see here, back to council bi-elections / MPs’ billable hours / Megan Markle.
Either people aren't telling us there are aliens because there are aliens, or they aren't telling us there are aliens because it's a bipartisan conspiracy to hide the existence of aliens from us. Whatever evidence comes along, so long as you look at it from just the right angle, confirms the existence of aliens.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
There is detail in the link, and opinion in NI is shifting to more strongly favour the NIP.
"Figure 1. Opinion of Brexit and the Protocol Larger shifts can be seen regarding views more specifically on the Protocol. The proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the Protocol provides an appropriate means for managing the effects of Brexit for Northern Ireland has increased to 53% compared to 46% in June. A slightly larger increase can be seen in responses to whether the Protocol is on balance ‘a good thing’ for Northern Ireland. In the latest poll, 52% of respondents agree, whereas in June it was 43%. "
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
I don't quite see how you can come to that view unless you know how opinions are divided among the two religious communities and the growing non-religious one.
So whilst we look at one and two percent polls leads either way, it appears the US has informed its counterparts in EU capitals that Russia appears to be genuinely weighing up military action against Ukraine. The assumption is they expect the EU to show a bit of backbone.
Should hear the breeze and rustling tumbleweeds out of Berlin shortly.
Drowned out by the rattle of an empty scabbard from Westminster surely?
It appears little known that UK MOD types make visits to Ukraine during times of tension and have done so again recently.
The Black Sea resorts are delightful at this time of year
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
This sounded interesting so I went and looked up some info on it: So, an astronomer wrote a paper that was essentially sociology research. He used subjective assessments from a panel of assessors who were selected purely from his own judgment, who then assessed a sample of work that was too small to be significant and from a time period that would of itself embody bias, as well as being heavily board towards the US (in a field that has a long history of international cooperation). Essentially, he didn't understand what he was doing, and got his methods completely wrong. So he didn't withdraw it because it wasn't popular, he withdrew it because it was wrong.
I have learnt a few things from COP26 and related coverage. It seems the military is responsible for 6% of World CO2 production but no one is counting. International flights also do not count in individual countries counting either.
I predict... when the GE comes all these mid term polls will mean nothing 👍
That's because the GE will be an outlier?
There was a comment earlier about how they had won 4 general elections - which of course was compared to the last time that happened.
The two aren't the same. The Tories didn't win in 2010 - they lost by less than Labour and needed to form a coalition to take office. 2015 was a big win, as was 2019. 2017 - again they lost but by less than everyone else lost - a deal with the DUP this time. Whats more, 2017 was a rerun election - not required.
Had Thatcher had an election in 1985 then yes she'd have won an additional election, but not one that added any extra time to things. 4 full terms with majorities is very different to 1 full term and a pair of part-term ones where you win a majority only half the time.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
There is detail in the link, and opinion in NI is shifting to more strongly favour the NIP.
"Figure 1. Opinion of Brexit and the Protocol Larger shifts can be seen regarding views more specifically on the Protocol. The proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the Protocol provides an appropriate means for managing the effects of Brexit for Northern Ireland has increased to 53% compared to 46% in June. A slightly larger increase can be seen in responses to whether the Protocol is on balance ‘a good thing’ for Northern Ireland. In the latest poll, 52% of respondents agree, whereas in June it was 43%. "
Incidentally 87% distrust the UK government on the issue, only 44% distrust the EU.
You were trying to read a breakdown into that, the way to do that is to look at the data tables which should be published typically under polling BPC rules. Where are the data tables?
Without data tables, its not possible to properly analyse the poll at all.
I don't quite see how you can come to that view unless you know how opinions are divided among the two religious communities and the growing non-religious one.
Exactly my point! You'd need the data for that, and unless the data tables have been released as per BPC rules, that doesn't seem to be published.
A poll without its data published is meaningless. That's why BPC rules exist.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
So whilst we look at one and two percent polls leads either way, it appears the US has informed its counterparts in EU capitals that Russia appears to be genuinely weighing up military action against Ukraine. The assumption is they expect the EU to show a bit of backbone.
Should hear the breeze and rustling tumbleweeds out of Berlin shortly.
Drowned out by the rattle of an empty scabbard from Westminster surely?
It appears little known that UK MOD types make visits to Ukraine during times of tension and have done so again recently.
The Black Sea resorts are delightful at this time of year
Maybe they had heard that Sevastopol Cathedral has an amazing dome…..
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
So whilst we look at one and two percent polls leads either way, it appears the US has informed its counterparts in EU capitals that Russia appears to be genuinely weighing up military action against Ukraine. The assumption is they expect the EU to show a bit of backbone.
Should hear the breeze and rustling tumbleweeds out of Berlin shortly.
Drowned out by the rattle of an empty scabbard from Westminster surely?
It appears little known that UK MOD types make visits to Ukraine during times of tension and have done so again recently.
The Black Sea resorts are delightful at this time of year
Maybe they had heard that Sevastopol Cathedral has an amazing dome…..
I don't think they would be visiting Russian occupied Crimea!
At 11 degrees today, I am not sure that it is bikini weather in Odessa.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
Replacing ministers surely falls under the same thing?
The judicial system shouldn't have any standing to review that.
I hope you're sitting down, because it really is a shocker on which MPs and their parties... It mentions Geoffrey Cox and then says "Other MPs, nearly all Tory, who rent properties in the capital while letting their own homes include John Whittingdale and Liam Fox"
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
I hope you're sitting down, because it really is a shocker on which MPs and their parties... It mentions Geoffrey Cox and then says "Other MPs, nearly all Tory, who rent properties in the capital while letting their own homes include John Whittingdale and Liam Fox"
There's a strange and constant correlation to supporting Brexit. Some of the most common names in the media the past few days have been Boris, Paterson, Cox, JRM, Fox, Whittingdale, IDS, etc.
I see this poll was done on 10 November, the day Geoffrey Cox dominated the news. Yet I was reassured by PB Tories that Labour were barking up the wrong tree. It seems not...
I don't know about Tories, but objections to the Cox stuff from my end at least was nothing to do with whether it would aid Labour in the polls to do so or not do so. It was because there were better examples to target to make a substantive point about behaviour.
It was the perfect example of the rotten to the core grifters running the country, only objective is to fill their own pockets and as many of their family/chums as possible. Bring out the tumbrils.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
Replacing ministers surely falls under the same thing?
The judicial system shouldn't have any standing to review that.
The review is into the operation of the ministerial code. Namely what the point of having said code is when it can be set aside at will by the PM. So was the PM within his powers to overturn the findings against Patel?
That isn't the same as the courts deciding ministerial appointments. The convention is that when a minister is found to have broken the code they resign. Patel could have chosen not to do so, Johnson could have chosen to have supporter her non-resignation.
Those would have been political choices. Instead he has made it a process question about the code itself. If - as is very possible - they find that once again he is operating without regard of the rules - it really doesn't help the ongoing story does it? Nor that he has said "rule breakers will be punished". So the RCJ overturns the PM overturning the finding against Patel. Making her a rule breaker.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Sky and the BBC are reporting on the latest communication issued half an hour ago
“The main issues that Congress and others have been concerned about is safety of flight concerns and counterintelligence issues. Always there’s also the question of ‘is there something else that we simply do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially?”
This is the second DNI in a row to publicly link UAP to non human intelligence. Ratcliffe was very explicit after he left office, far more so than this, but what he said apparently doesn’t count because Trump hired him. His Biden appointed successor now leaning into it in a similar way.
Which takes us back to the central point identified by Leon ages ago. Either there is the wildest senior bipartisan conspiracy underway in the US establishment to fool the world into thinking we are being visited by aliens/interdimensionals/time travellers etc... Or, there is no conspiracy and that is just what they believe is happening.
Here for example are highly explicit comments from Rep. Carson, who while not a Gang of Eight Member, will have at least seen the unredacted UAP report to Congress as a member of the House Intelligience Committee and STAR sub committee:
Anyway nothing to see here, back to council bi-elections / MPs’ billable hours / Megan Markle.
Either people aren't telling us there are aliens because there are aliens, or they aren't telling us there are aliens because it's a bipartisan conspiracy to hide the existence of aliens from us. Whatever evidence comes along, so long as you look at it from just the right angle, confirms the existence of aliens.
Only because people insist on believing the lizards are aliens.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Sky and the BBC are reporting on the latest communication issued half an hour ago
Sky have wholeheartedly embraced a 'green' zealot agenda with their climate show etc and have publicly said they view it as their responsibility to not be neutral and instead to push the agenda along to get climate change dealt with. So they're not exactly neutral here. Nothing will ever be 'good enough' for them.
Again, would you have thought three years ago that at COP26 the USA, China and India would have all committed to Net Zero? Yes or no?
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
That ministerial appointments are the perogative of the PM, and ministers can’t be fired by civil servants.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
There is detail in the link, and opinion in NI is shifting to more strongly favour the NIP.
"Figure 1. Opinion of Brexit and the Protocol Larger shifts can be seen regarding views more specifically on the Protocol. The proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the Protocol provides an appropriate means for managing the effects of Brexit for Northern Ireland has increased to 53% compared to 46% in June. A slightly larger increase can be seen in responses to whether the Protocol is on balance ‘a good thing’ for Northern Ireland. In the latest poll, 52% of respondents agree, whereas in June it was 43%. "
Incidentally 87% distrust the UK government on the issue, only 44% distrust the EU.
You were trying to read a breakdown into that, the way to do that is to look at the data tables which should be published typically under polling BPC rules. Where are the data tables?
Without data tables, its not possible to properly analyse the poll at all.
I don't quite see how you can come to that view unless you know how opinions are divided among the two religious communities and the growing non-religious one.
Exactly my point! You'd need the data for that, and unless the data tables have been released as per BPC rules, that doesn't seem to be published.
A poll without its data published is meaningless. That's why BPC rules exist.
LucidTalk are members of the BPC and their 13 000 opinion panel in NI has a very good record on accuracy.
"Using this methodology, LucidTalk predicted the NI EU Referendum result to within 1% three days before the actual EU Referendum vote day – NI SUN newspaper 20th June 2016. Plus, LucidTalk predicted the 2017 NI Assembly election results, and the 2019 NI Westminster Election results to within 1%, in terms of the NI-Wide political-party vote shares."
So does have a good track record. What polling evidence are you using to form your opinion of how the NIP is working there?
Bearing in mind that there are Stormont elections in May, it would seem reasonable to have a referendum on the NIP, as it currently stands, on the same day.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
That ministerial appointments are the perogative of the PM, and ministers can’t be fired by civil servants.
If this judicial review does go ahead and the court doesn't dismiss it, then it is entirely appropriate that the ability to launch political judicial reviews gets curtailed. Which is a shame, so hopefully the court dismisses it entirely.
Judicial reviews really are getting weaponised and its getting ridiculous.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
How binding is the ministerial code ?
1.6 Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
There is detail in the link, and opinion in NI is shifting to more strongly favour the NIP.
"Figure 1. Opinion of Brexit and the Protocol Larger shifts can be seen regarding views more specifically on the Protocol. The proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the Protocol provides an appropriate means for managing the effects of Brexit for Northern Ireland has increased to 53% compared to 46% in June. A slightly larger increase can be seen in responses to whether the Protocol is on balance ‘a good thing’ for Northern Ireland. In the latest poll, 52% of respondents agree, whereas in June it was 43%. "
Incidentally 87% distrust the UK government on the issue, only 44% distrust the EU.
You were trying to read a breakdown into that, the way to do that is to look at the data tables which should be published typically under polling BPC rules. Where are the data tables?
Without data tables, its not possible to properly analyse the poll at all.
I don't quite see how you can come to that view unless you know how opinions are divided among the two religious communities and the growing non-religious one.
Exactly my point! You'd need the data for that, and unless the data tables have been released as per BPC rules, that doesn't seem to be published.
A poll without its data published is meaningless. That's why BPC rules exist.
LucidTalk are members of the BPC and their 13 000 opinion panel in NI has a very good record on accuracy.
"Using this methodology, LucidTalk predicted the NI EU Referendum result to within 1% three days before the actual EU Referendum vote day – NI SUN newspaper 20th June 2016. Plus, LucidTalk predicted the 2017 NI Assembly election results, and the 2019 NI Westminster Election results to within 1%, in terms of the NI-Wide political-party vote shares."
So does have a good track record. What polling evidence are you using to form your opinion of how the NIP is working there?
Bearing in mind that there are Stormont elections in May, it would seem reasonable to have a referendum on the NIP, as it currently stands, on the same day.
So where are the data tables under BPC rules?
If you want to analyse it, lets analyse it. Where is the data?
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
This sounded interesting so I went and looked up some info on it: So, an astronomer wrote a paper that was essentially sociology research. He used subjective assessments from a panel of assessors who were selected purely from his own judgment, who then assessed a sample of work that was too small to be significant and from a time period that would of itself embody bias, as well as being heavily board towards the US (in a field that has a long history of international cooperation). Essentially, he didn't understand what he was doing, and got his methods completely wrong. So he didn't withdraw it because it wasn't popular, he withdrew it because it was wrong.
That is a fair assessment of the failures of the paper (though you are perhaps a bit easy on the statistical gibberish the author uses to justify his results).
But, the paper does raise a very interesting question.
How should citation metrics be used in academic appointments? Or grant evaluations? Or research assessment exercises ?
An attractive job is offered at a good University. There are ~ 250 applicants.
The citation statistics of the applicants are readily available. They clearly contain some information (albeit with some biases). How should the citation information be used?
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Sky and the BBC are reporting on the latest communication issued half an hour ago
Sky have wholeheartedly embraced a 'green' zealot agenda with their climate show etc and have publicly said they view it as their responsibility to not be neutral and instead to push the agenda along to get climate change dealt with. So they're not exactly neutral here. Nothing will ever be 'good enough' for them.
Again, would you have thought three years ago that at COP26 the USA, China and India would have all committed to Net Zero? Yes or not?
The commitment has been made but according to many it is not enough to reduce the emissions below 2.5%
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
There is detail in the link, and opinion in NI is shifting to more strongly favour the NIP.
"Figure 1. Opinion of Brexit and the Protocol Larger shifts can be seen regarding views more specifically on the Protocol. The proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the Protocol provides an appropriate means for managing the effects of Brexit for Northern Ireland has increased to 53% compared to 46% in June. A slightly larger increase can be seen in responses to whether the Protocol is on balance ‘a good thing’ for Northern Ireland. In the latest poll, 52% of respondents agree, whereas in June it was 43%. "
Incidentally 87% distrust the UK government on the issue, only 44% distrust the EU.
You were trying to read a breakdown into that, the way to do that is to look at the data tables which should be published typically under polling BPC rules. Where are the data tables?
Without data tables, its not possible to properly analyse the poll at all.
I don't quite see how you can come to that view unless you know how opinions are divided among the two religious communities and the growing non-religious one.
Exactly my point! You'd need the data for that, and unless the data tables have been released as per BPC rules, that doesn't seem to be published.
A poll without its data published is meaningless. That's why BPC rules exist.
LucidTalk are members of the BPC and their 13 000 opinion panel in NI has a very good record on accuracy.
"Using this methodology, LucidTalk predicted the NI EU Referendum result to within 1% three days before the actual EU Referendum vote day – NI SUN newspaper 20th June 2016. Plus, LucidTalk predicted the 2017 NI Assembly election results, and the 2019 NI Westminster Election results to within 1%, in terms of the NI-Wide political-party vote shares."
So does have a good track record. What polling evidence are you using to form your opinion of how the NIP is working there?
Bearing in mind that there are Stormont elections in May, it would seem reasonable to have a referendum on the NIP, as it currently stands, on the same day.
So where are the data tables under BPC rules?
If you want to analyse it, lets analyse it. Where is the data?
I suspect the data tables don't need to be published when the work is done for a third party (i.e. the University of Belfast).
I wonder if you would ask the university for them but I suspect they wouldn't want to.
I hope you're sitting down, because it really is a shocker on which MPs and their parties... It mentions Geoffrey Cox and then says "Other MPs, nearly all Tory, who rent properties in the capital while letting their own homes include John Whittingdale and Liam Fox"
There's a strange and constant correlation to supporting Brexit. Some of the most common names in the media the past few days have been Boris, Paterson, Cox, JRM, Fox, Whittingdale, IDS, etc.
Pretty inevitable though as the Tory party required all candidates to sign up to support the "Oven Ready Deal*" in order to stand in Dec 2019.
* Said Deal no longer supported by the government of course!
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability & your boss has no standing to be the 'ultimate judge'.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
‘This century’ is a pretty soft target, and wouldn’t have looked at all implausible three years ago (Trump notwithstanding).
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Sky and the BBC are reporting on the latest communication issued half an hour ago
Sky have wholeheartedly embraced a 'green' zealot agenda with their climate show etc and have publicly said they view it as their responsibility to not be neutral and instead to push the agenda along to get climate change dealt with. So they're not exactly neutral here. Nothing will ever be 'good enough' for them.
Again, would you have thought three years ago that at COP26 the USA, China and India would have all committed to Net Zero? Yes or no?
That isn't the point that they are making. It may be the one that you are making but so what.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability & your boss has no standing to be the 'ultimate judge'.
Why don't we just have a non-binding "Driving Code" that motorists are free to interpret and judge their behaviour against as they see fit? If it's good enough for ministers of the realm surely it's good enough for the rest of us?
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability…
@Dura_Ace has reportedly had some success in challenging them. (In several ways.)
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
So what we have is political activists wasting the judge’s time, purely to try and embarrass the PM. It’s like Gina Miller all over again.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
How binding is the ministerial code ?
1.6 Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
Yes I had seen that - will be an interesting one.
The simple reality is that whilst the ministerial code and rules for MPs are seen as binding, there is always this get out of jail free card of political judgement. Johnson isn't unique in deploying it, but the frequency that he and his cabinet breach the rules and he then ignores them is unique.
I can totally understand why the FDA is bringing the action - the code is supposed to be the rule book that protects both sides. From their perspective it would have been better for Sir Alex to take Patel to tribunal instead of accepting the £340,000 settlement.
Either way, it brings back into focus that he thinks the normal rules do not apply to him. With various investigations ongoing into the refurb funding fandango there will be plenty of opportunities for the PM to carry out his threat to use para 1.6 to exonerate himself having been found in breach. Not something those who wrote the code would have conceived of as being politically possible.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
i see Sadiq Khan has struck again with his grim view of the world and no imagination or soul. His legacy will be forced wearing of facemasks and the stopping of a highly innovative and world landmark tulip tower. Great legacy that
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
So what we have is political activists wasting the judge’s time, purely to try and embarrass the PM. It’s like Gina Millar all over again.
It's not a waste of time holding the government to account for illegal actions. Perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to live in a constitutional democracy?
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
So what we have is political activists wasting the judge’s time, purely to try and embarrass the PM. It’s like Gina Millar all over again.
It's not a waste of time holding the government to account for illegal actions. Perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to live in a constitutional democracy?
There is no illegal action here. The code is for the PM to be the ultimate judge of, not a court.
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
So what we have is political activists wasting the judge’s time, purely to try and embarrass the PM. It’s like Gina Miller all over again.
Not political activists. The First Division Association is a Trade Union of senior Civil Servants. The Ministerial Code is an important protection of their Terms and Conditions. Establishing its limitations is a very reasonable thing to have a Judicial Review of. My understanding is that the PM can overrule the report, but not claim that the report was wrong.
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
So what we have is political activists wasting the judge’s time, purely to try and embarrass the PM. It’s like Gina Millar all over again.
It's not a waste of time holding the government to account for illegal actions. Perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to live in a constitutional democracy?
There is no illegal action here. The code is for the PM to be the ultimate judge of, not a court.
Why not let the court be the judge of that? Why are you so scared of this kind of independent scrutiny?
yes and CEO gone . Lost nearly 20% of its share value yesterday and therefore cost me a grand in my SIPP!
Sorry about that. It’s sadly emblematic of the UK’s failure to build a significant domestic industry.
Thanks - These things happen from time to time when invested in shares (or indeed in pure punting ) . Whilst I woudl like more of my pension to be of the defined benefit variety (public sector way) I do enjoy picking shares and investments for a SIPP not least becasue it maintains an interest in the world and the way it works. For instance the Johnson Matthey story would have been ignored by me unless I had a SIPP portfolio
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability…
@Dura_Ace has reportedly had some success in challenging them. (In several ways.)
Usually because the police don't have complete and accurate paperwork - they've caught on to that now and often have a civilian or 2 whose job is doing just that.
The one for Kent police is currently downstairs drinking Coffee (family friend).
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
I didn't suggest it could force him to sack Patel. As I said, Johnson could choose not to remove her from her post having had her break the code - that's politics. They're going to court challenging whether he can overturn the ministerial code itself - what he did.
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
So what we have is political activists wasting the judge’s time, purely to try and embarrass the PM. It’s like Gina Miller all over again.
Its the same as any company where there is an HR policy on bullying. Here we have a director investigated for bullying her team, found to have done so and the policy being clear on the consequences. The CEO declares "form a protective ring" and declares that he is the arbiter of the HR policy and finds her not guilty.
Staff have the right to employment protections. I know that from your Sandpit that isn't always the case with local firms, perhaps that is why you consider such protections to be political activism?
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
There is detail in the link, and opinion in NI is shifting to more strongly favour the NIP.
"Figure 1. Opinion of Brexit and the Protocol Larger shifts can be seen regarding views more specifically on the Protocol. The proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the Protocol provides an appropriate means for managing the effects of Brexit for Northern Ireland has increased to 53% compared to 46% in June. A slightly larger increase can be seen in responses to whether the Protocol is on balance ‘a good thing’ for Northern Ireland. In the latest poll, 52% of respondents agree, whereas in June it was 43%. "
Incidentally 87% distrust the UK government on the issue, only 44% distrust the EU.
You were trying to read a breakdown into that, the way to do that is to look at the data tables which should be published typically under polling BPC rules. Where are the data tables?
Without data tables, its not possible to properly analyse the poll at all.
I don't quite see how you can come to that view unless you know how opinions are divided among the two religious communities and the growing non-religious one.
Exactly my point! You'd need the data for that, and unless the data tables have been released as per BPC rules, that doesn't seem to be published.
A poll without its data published is meaningless. That's why BPC rules exist.
LucidTalk are members of the BPC and their 13 000 opinion panel in NI has a very good record on accuracy.
"Using this methodology, LucidTalk predicted the NI EU Referendum result to within 1% three days before the actual EU Referendum vote day – NI SUN newspaper 20th June 2016. Plus, LucidTalk predicted the 2017 NI Assembly election results, and the 2019 NI Westminster Election results to within 1%, in terms of the NI-Wide political-party vote shares."
So does have a good track record. What polling evidence are you using to form your opinion of how the NIP is working there?
Bearing in mind that there are Stormont elections in May, it would seem reasonable to have a referendum on the NIP, as it currently stands, on the same day.
So where are the data tables under BPC rules?
If you want to analyse it, lets analyse it. Where is the data?
I suspect the data tables don't need to be published when the work is done for a third party (i.e. the University of Belfast).
I wonder if you would ask the university for them but I suspect they wouldn't want to.
They do report the composition of their panel in other published reports though. The link is on this page:
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
You could fit the current non sleazy Tory MPs in a phone box.
A Conservative MP who is paid £30,000 a year by lobbyists for the packaging industry asked ministers to limit laws to tackle plastic pollution.
Mark Pawsey, the MP for Rugby since 2010, used parliamentary questions to urge ministers not to introduce tougher laws on single-use plastics.
At the same time he was paid £2,500 a month to be chairman of the Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA), a lobbying group that represents some of the largest manufacturers of plastic packaging in the UK, according to City AM. Greenpeace described the revelations as “deeply concerning”.
In June last year, a few months after Pawsey took up his role at the FPA, he told MPs that he was upset that the government was banning single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers and he welcomed a delay in introducing the law.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
LOL and it is likely any of those two jellies will be firm.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
So what we have is political activists wasting the judge’s time, purely to try and embarrass the PM. It’s like Gina Miller all over again.
Not political activists. The First Division Association is a Trade Union of senior Civil Servants. The Ministerial Code is an important protection of their Terms and Conditions. Establishing its limitations is a very reasonable thing to have a Judicial Review of. My understanding is that the PM can overrule the report, but not claim that the report was wrong.
It should be a truth universally acknowledged that the same folk who were slavering in anticipation of Sturgeon being found guilty of breaking the ministerial code also think it’s a code that shouldn’t even be applied to the not remotely corrupt BJ regime.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
Its failing because its lost the support of the Unionist community, plus its leading to trade diversion which of course is a trigger for Article 16.
I’m sure there were recently folk on here telling everyone winning a by-election by 1% was still a win.
Which is the case.
This isn't a by-election though.
A very slender majority in a poll isn’t a majority? Gotcha.
Mixed issues here. Of course a slender majority is a majority. In the politics of NI everything has to face both ways, so there needs to be a plurality of support from more than one group for anything to work.
And of course NI is a place where you can set fire to a bus because you are either for or against, or indeed indifferent towards, the same thing.
I think the JR can find the PM wrong to deem the report incorrect, but it can't compel Johnson to sack Patel. Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
So what we have is political activists wasting the judge’s time, purely to try and embarrass the PM. It’s like Gina Millar all over again.
It's not a waste of time holding the government to account for illegal actions. Perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to live in a constitutional democracy?
There is no illegal action here. The code is for the PM to be the ultimate judge of, not a court.
Yes, but he is obliged to exercise his judgment lawfully. A judicial review does not take the decision away from him, it tells him to guess again.
You could fit the current non sleazy Tory MPs in a phone box.
A Conservative MP who is paid £30,000 a year by lobbyists for the packaging industry asked ministers to limit laws to tackle plastic pollution.
Mark Pawsey, the MP for Rugby since 2010, used parliamentary questions to urge ministers not to introduce tougher laws on single-use plastics.
At the same time he was paid £2,500 a month to be chairman of the Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA), a lobbying group that represents some of the largest manufacturers of plastic packaging in the UK, according to City AM. Greenpeace described the revelations as “deeply concerning”.
In June last year, a few months after Pawsey took up his role at the FPA, he told MPs that he was upset that the government was banning single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers and he welcomed a delay in introducing the law.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Very obvious that the PoW is an entirely honourable man led astray by wrong uns. His only failing was to be loyal to his toothpaste squeezer for far too long.
You could fit the current non sleazy Tory MPs in a phone box.
A Conservative MP who is paid £30,000 a year by lobbyists for the packaging industry asked ministers to limit laws to tackle plastic pollution.
Mark Pawsey, the MP for Rugby since 2010, used parliamentary questions to urge ministers not to introduce tougher laws on single-use plastics.
At the same time he was paid £2,500 a month to be chairman of the Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA), a lobbying group that represents some of the largest manufacturers of plastic packaging in the UK, according to City AM. Greenpeace described the revelations as “deeply concerning”.
In June last year, a few months after Pawsey took up his role at the FPA, he told MPs that he was upset that the government was banning single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers and he welcomed a delay in introducing the law.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Very obvious that the PoW is an entirely honourable man led astray by wrong uns. His only failing was to be loyal to his toothpaste squeezer for far too long.
Indeed, oddly he was more loyal to his toothpaste squeezer than he was to his first wife, a trait he shares with the PM.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Sky and the BBC are reporting on the latest communication issued half an hour ago
Sky have wholeheartedly embraced a 'green' zealot agenda with their climate show etc and have publicly said they view it as their responsibility to not be neutral and instead to push the agenda along to get climate change dealt with. So they're not exactly neutral here. Nothing will ever be 'good enough' for them.
Again, would you have thought three years ago that at COP26 the USA, China and India would have all committed to Net Zero? Yes or not?
The commitment has been made but according to many it is not enough to reduce the emissions below 2.5%
We'll see.
Remember that we are already at 1.2 so only 1.3 more degrees from here at the worst case, it could have been a lot worse than that.
If it is kept to 1.5 then that's not even a third of a degree from here.
You could fit the current non sleazy Tory MPs in a phone box.
A Conservative MP who is paid £30,000 a year by lobbyists for the packaging industry asked ministers to limit laws to tackle plastic pollution.
Mark Pawsey, the MP for Rugby since 2010, used parliamentary questions to urge ministers not to introduce tougher laws on single-use plastics.
At the same time he was paid £2,500 a month to be chairman of the Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA), a lobbying group that represents some of the largest manufacturers of plastic packaging in the UK, according to City AM. Greenpeace described the revelations as “deeply concerning”.
In June last year, a few months after Pawsey took up his role at the FPA, he told MPs that he was upset that the government was banning single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers and he welcomed a delay in introducing the law.
It's the paucity of ambition that staggers me. This guy is worth millions to the plastics industry, not 30,000 a year. Unless that's just the tip of an iceberg...
F1: I think 'qualifying' is at 7pm today due to the money-grubbing tedium of the vile and wretched sprint race on Saturday.
Yes. Qualifying 19:00 today Sprint 19:30 tomorrow Race 17:00 Sunday (All times GMT) Last of the weird-timed evening races, we should really make the Amercians get up early in the morning for these things.
Rumours abound that Sir Lewis might be taking a new engine this weekend, the reliability rules having broken down completely in a 23-race season.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
Its failing because its lost the support of the Unionist community, plus its leading to trade diversion which of course is a trigger for Article 16.
I’m sure there were recently folk on here telling everyone winning a by-election by 1% was still a win.
Which is the case.
This isn't a by-election though.
A very slender majority in a poll isn’t a majority? Gotcha.
Mixed issues here. Of course a slender majority is a majority. In the politics of NI everything has to face both ways, so there needs to be a plurality of support from more than one group for anything to work.
And of course NI is a place where you can set fire to a bus because you are either for or against, or indeed indifferent towards, the same thing.
Yes, but it is clear that ripping up the protocol has only minority support in NI, so fails to meet the "plurality of support from more than one group" measure.
Martina Anderson summarises it well in this little clip with Frost:
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
Its failing because its lost the support of the Unionist community, plus its leading to trade diversion which of course is a trigger for Article 16.
I’m sure there were recently folk on here telling everyone winning a by-election by 1% was still a win.
Which is the case.
This isn't a by-election though.
A very slender majority in a poll isn’t a majority? Gotcha.
Mixed issues here. Of course a slender majority is a majority. In the politics of NI everything has to face both ways, so there needs to be a plurality of support from more than one group for anything to work.
And of course NI is a place where you can set fire to a bus because you are either for or against, or indeed indifferent towards, the same thing.
Yes, but it is clear that ripping up the protocol has only minority support in NI, so fails to meet the "plurality of support from more than one group" measure.
Martina Anderson summarises it well in this little clip with Frost:
It is quite possible that she will be the First Minister of NI come May.
But no-one is talking about ‘ripping up the protocol’, the UK side is asking for intra-UK border checks to be suspended until the trusted trader scheme is in place, in order to satisfy both communities and not restrict cross-border trade, as defined within the protocol itself.
Lots of chat in the last couple of days about Covid cases in Germany. The Cologne Carnival started yesterday with up to 1M people on the street. Apparently there are a whole series of carnivals in Germany at this time of year.
By Germany colleague thinks this is crazy. I said it was probably like a weekend night out in London in the last few months. Clearly cases in Germany are not going to be coming down anytime soon.
Comments
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
If things did go wrong, and a media narrative developed about the Tories having been reckless about lifting restrictions on the one hand, and corruptly helping contractors to make money out of the pandemic on the other, that could be devastating for them.
From: https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/post-brexit-governance-ni/ProjectPublications/OpinionPolling/TestingTheTemperature3/
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
Its failing because its lost the support of the Unionist community, plus its leading to trade diversion which of course is a trigger for Article 16.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
And Good morning one and all. Boosters for the Coles today!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/11/blood-pressure-drugs-could-prevent-type-2-diabetes-study-finds
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
"Figure 1. Opinion of Brexit and the Protocol Larger shifts can be seen regarding views more specifically on the Protocol. The proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the Protocol provides an appropriate means for managing the effects of Brexit for Northern Ireland has increased to 53% compared to 46% in June. A slightly larger increase can be seen in responses to whether the Protocol is on balance ‘a good thing’ for Northern Ireland. In the latest poll, 52% of respondents agree, whereas in June it was 43%. "
From: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d2928bf7-8cf8-4465-87d3-dfb070f657e4
Incidentally 87% distrust the UK government on the issue, only 44% distrust the EU.
To be fair, must have been several others this year, although not, of course, with six digits.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
So, an astronomer wrote a paper that was essentially sociology research. He used subjective assessments from a panel of assessors who were selected purely from his own judgment, who then assessed a sample of work that was too small to be significant and from a time period that would of itself embody bias, as well as being heavily board towards the US (in a field that has a long history of international cooperation).
Essentially, he didn't understand what he was doing, and got his methods completely wrong.
So he didn't withdraw it because it wasn't popular, he withdrew it because it was wrong.
https://youtu.be/VcBWL809LhI
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/11/worlds-militaries-avoiding-scrutiny-over-emissions
The two aren't the same. The Tories didn't win in 2010 - they lost by less than Labour and needed to form a coalition to take office. 2015 was a big win, as was 2019. 2017 - again they lost but by less than everyone else lost - a deal with the DUP this time. Whats more, 2017 was a rerun election - not required.
Had Thatcher had an election in 1985 then yes she'd have won an additional election, but not one that added any extra time to things. 4 full terms with majorities is very different to 1 full term and a pair of part-term ones where you win a majority only half the time.
Without data tables, its not possible to properly analyse the poll at all. Exactly my point! You'd need the data for that, and unless the data tables have been released as per BPC rules, that doesn't seem to be published.
A poll without its data published is meaningless. That's why BPC rules exist.
That's ridiculous.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
At 11 degrees today, I am not sure that it is bikini weather in Odessa.
The judicial system shouldn't have any standing to review that.
It mentions Geoffrey Cox and then says "Other MPs, nearly all Tory, who rent properties in the capital while letting their own homes include John Whittingdale and Liam Fox"
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
(At least, in my time zone it is!)
That isn't the same as the courts deciding ministerial appointments. The convention is that when a minister is found to have broken the code they resign. Patel could have chosen not to do so, Johnson could have chosen to have supporter her non-resignation.
Those would have been political choices. Instead he has made it a process question about the code itself. If - as is very possible - they find that once again he is operating without regard of the rules - it really doesn't help the ongoing story does it? Nor that he has said "rule breakers will be punished". So the RCJ overturns the PM overturning the finding against Patel. Making her a rule breaker.
Will she be punished...?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
What if humans are the alien invaders?
Again, would you have thought three years ago that at COP26 the USA, China and India would have all committed to Net Zero? Yes or no?
12/02/2021
12/11/21
and for people with utterly insane date formats
12/02/2021 on December 2nd
12/11/21 on December 11th.
- typical of Americans trying to cram everything into just over 1 week.
The full palindromes continue in the first 3 years of each decade up to 29/12/2192 after which we won't see any more for 800 years.
https://www.lucidtalk.co.uk/polling-background
"Using this methodology, LucidTalk predicted the NI EU Referendum result to within 1% three days before the actual EU Referendum vote day – NI SUN newspaper 20th June 2016. Plus, LucidTalk predicted the 2017 NI Assembly election results, and the 2019 NI Westminster Election results to within 1%, in terms of the NI-Wide political-party vote shares."
So does have a good track record. What polling evidence are you using to form your opinion of how the NIP is working there?
Bearing in mind that there are Stormont elections in May, it would seem reasonable to have a referendum on the NIP, as it currently stands, on the same day.
Judicial reviews really are getting weaponised and its getting ridiculous.
1.6 Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to
act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for
justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.
However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they
retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He is the ultimate
judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and
the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.
If you want to analyse it, lets analyse it. Where is the data?
It’s sadly emblematic of the UK’s failure to build a significant domestic industry.
But, the paper does raise a very interesting question.
How should citation metrics be used in academic appointments? Or grant evaluations? Or research assessment exercises ?
An attractive job is offered at a good University. There are ~ 250 applicants.
The citation statistics of the applicants are readily available. They clearly contain some information (albeit with some biases). How should the citation information be used?
I wonder if you would ask the university for them but I suspect they wouldn't want to.
* Said Deal no longer supported by the government of course!
Perhaps embarrassment is what the person launching the JR is after.
(In several ways.)
The simple reality is that whilst the ministerial code and rules for MPs are seen as binding, there is always this get out of jail free card of political judgement. Johnson isn't unique in deploying it, but the frequency that he and his cabinet breach the rules and he then ignores them is unique.
I can totally understand why the FDA is bringing the action - the code is supposed to be the rule book that protects both sides. From their perspective it would have been better for Sir Alex to take Patel to tribunal instead of accepting the £340,000 settlement.
Either way, it brings back into focus that he thinks the normal rules do not apply to him. With various investigations ongoing into the refurb funding fandango there will be plenty of opportunities for the PM to carry out his threat to use para 1.6 to exonerate himself having been found in breach. Not something those who wrote the code would have conceived of as being politically possible.
This isn't a by-election though.
As is known, I dislike both Boris Johnson and Priti Patel. Neither are fit to be in the Cabinet.
But the courts have no right to try and determine who should sit in the Cabinet. And nor should they.
The one for Kent police is currently downstairs drinking Coffee (family friend).
Staff have the right to employment protections. I know that from your Sandpit that isn't always the case with local firms, perhaps that is why you consider such protections to be political activism?
Gotcha.
https://www.lucidtalk.co.uk/single-post/lt-ni-tracker-poll-summer-2021
I don't think @Philip_Thompson has provided any contrary polling data to support his assertions about the NIP.
May is not that far off, and a plebiscite on the NIP as it stands would seem reasonable alongside the Stormont elections
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/princes-charless-top-aide-michael-fawcett-quits-charity-amid-honours-inquiry-ts0z0s2m9
A Conservative MP who is paid £30,000 a year by lobbyists for the packaging industry asked ministers to limit laws to tackle plastic pollution.
Mark Pawsey, the MP for Rugby since 2010, used parliamentary questions to urge ministers not to introduce tougher laws on single-use plastics.
At the same time he was paid £2,500 a month to be chairman of the Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA), a lobbying group that represents some of the largest manufacturers of plastic packaging in the UK, according to City AM. Greenpeace described the revelations as “deeply concerning”.
In June last year, a few months after Pawsey took up his role at the FPA, he told MPs that he was upset that the government was banning single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers and he welcomed a delay in introducing the law.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-mp-who-fought-plastic-law-has-30-000-packaging-job-26t2mzrx6
And of course NI is a place where you can set fire to a bus because you are either for or against, or indeed indifferent towards, the same thing.
The stupidity of the O-Patz strategy is that the government are going to have suck up whatever the Standards Commissioner and Committee agree.
Remember that we are already at 1.2 so only 1.3 more degrees from here at the worst case, it could have been a lot worse than that.
If it is kept to 1.5 then that's not even a third of a degree from here.
Qualifying 19:00 today
Sprint 19:30 tomorrow
Race 17:00 Sunday
(All times GMT)
Last of the weird-timed evening races, we should really make the Amercians get up early in the morning for these things.
Rumours abound that Sir Lewis might be taking a new engine this weekend, the reliability rules having broken down completely in a 23-race season.
Martina Anderson summarises it well in this little clip with Frost:
https://twitter.com/M_AndersonSF/status/1413525227280248832?t=3FrKXNMzvNOF1hXadNq2Jg&s=19
It is quite possible that she will be the First Minister of NI come May.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-carnival-season-kicks-off-amid-pandemic/g-41296839
By Germany colleague thinks this is crazy. I said it was probably like a weekend night out in London in the last few months. Clearly cases in Germany are not going to be coming down anytime soon.