Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 I've just been told that the entire executive of the Wakefield Constituency Labour Party has resigned in protest at the national Labour party breaking its own rules and refusing to allow local members to freely choose their own candidate.
A statement is being released shortly.
Sounds like an HQ parachute candidate the locals don’t want to support.
Someone needs to get that sorted PDQ. And surely it shouldn't be that difficult. Thought; not trying to parachute in Lancastrian Andy Burnham are they.
The longlist (of four!) has already been published, and no, Burnham isn't on it. The issue is that the deputy leader of the council put himself forward and didn't make the list. I think he's quite corbynite.
Much as you'd expect me to be furious at the idea of a senatorial delegation flying here to lay down the law, and certainly we must reserve the right to tell them politely to fuck off, I also find that the Americans, even in the upper echelons of politics, seem mostly to be utterly ignorant of British (and Irish) issues and life. In that regard, it's quite good that their Senatorial Eminences are travelling here to speak to real people, regardless of their stated aim. I'm pretty confident that by the time they leave, they'll have a far more nuanced idea of the rights and wrongs of the situation, which can only be a good thing.
New YouGov, not sure if posted Lab 38 Con 33 Ld 12 Green 6 2 point swings Con to Lab and green to ld Normal service
So the 1% lab lead was an outlier
The last fieldwork dates included the day Durham police put out their statement so this newer poll looks like the Starmer offer to resign has helped Labour .
Even if he has to resign as long as Labour pick someone that won’t frighten voters they should still do okay . Much depends on whether the Tories stick by the liar in chief .
I don't know if anyone heard J R-M on radio 4 this morning but he was dreadful. He's an ongoing car crash......
While I was listening I wondered why Johnson would choose someone as unattractive to be the face of the Party. The only thing I could think-and it was a long shot-was that Rees Mogg is the closest in accent and demeanour to Johnson himself and he thought the comparison might show him in a good light.
Tory members love the Mogg though.
He is the Tory Corbyn
And look what that did to labour
Landslide defeat in 2019 maybe but got a hung parliament in 2017 and frightened the life out of Tories and centrists
He frightened the life of the entire country
Not those who voted for him in 2017 and 2019
I rather liked him. Promoted way above his ability, of course, and beyond any reasonable computation of public support, but he had his fans. Good in a gadfly role, but not PM material.
I can think of someone else like that. In a very senior, in fact the most senior role...
Much as you'd expect me to be furious at the idea of a senatorial delegation flying here to lay down the law, and certainly we must reserve the right to tell them politely to fuck off, I also find that the Americans, even in the upper echelons of politics, seem mostly to be utterly ignorant of British (and Irish) issues and life. In that regard, it's quite good that their Senatorial Eminences are travelling here to speak to real people, regardless of their stated aim. I'm pretty confident that by the time they leave, they'll have a far more nuanced idea of the rights and wrongs of the situation, which can only be a good thing.
Hmm. Works both ways, sometimes. Especially with people who seem to be ignorant of NI.
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 I've just been told that the entire executive of the Wakefield Constituency Labour Party has resigned in protest at the national Labour party breaking its own rules and refusing to allow local members to freely choose their own candidate.
A statement is being released shortly.
Sounds like an HQ parachute candidate the locals don’t want to support.
Someone needs to get that sorted PDQ. And surely it shouldn't be that difficult. Thought; not trying to parachute in Lancastrian Andy Burnham are they.
The longlist (of four!) has already been published, and no, Burnham isn't on it. The issue is that the deputy leader of the council put himself forward and didn't make the list. I think he's quite corbynite.
Lab List says the longlist is now a short list of two. Hustings on Sunday. Both not locals.
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 I've just been told that the entire executive of the Wakefield Constituency Labour Party has resigned in protest at the national Labour party breaking its own rules and refusing to allow local members to freely choose their own candidate.
A statement is being released shortly.
Christ, the Labour Party's capacity for shooting itself in the foot is truly impressive.
Losing Wakefield would be a black swan level narrative changer. But given the noncery of the outgoing Tory, even this won't hurt. Unless they run an 'alt labour' candidate........
Gut feel is might be the Tory party's Batley and Spen - expectations high they lose but they pull it out of the bag.
Can't see it myself, I think mid term and inconsequential in terms of majority, Wakefield will send a message If labour aren't taking this by double digits it's not encouraging for them ultimately
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 I've just been told that the entire executive of the Wakefield Constituency Labour Party has resigned in protest at the national Labour party breaking its own rules and refusing to allow local members to freely choose their own candidate.
A statement is being released shortly.
Sounds like an HQ parachute candidate the locals don’t want to support.
Someone needs to get that sorted PDQ. And surely it shouldn't be that difficult. Thought; not trying to parachute in Lancastrian Andy Burnham are they.
The longlist (of four!) has already been published, and no, Burnham isn't on it. The issue is that the deputy leader of the council put himself forward and didn't make the list. I think he's quite corbynite.
All politics is local. Which sounds fine until you meet local politicians.
(Not all of them, some of my best friends really are local councillors, or were until last week. But then there are others...)
Much as you'd expect me to be furious at the idea of a senatorial delegation flying here to lay down the law, and certainly we must reserve the right to tell them politely to fuck off, I also find that the Americans, even in the upper echelons of politics, seem mostly to be utterly ignorant of British (and Irish) issues and life. In that regard, it's quite good that their Senatorial Eminences are travelling here to speak to real people, regardless of their stated aim. I'm pretty confident that by the time they leave, they'll have a far more nuanced idea of the rights and wrongs of the situation, which can only be a good thing.
Hmm. Works both ways, sometimes. Especially with people who seem to be ignorant of NI.
We can all agree that more knowledge is a good thing.
Who would I trust to pick a winning by-election candidate? The folk who couldn't shut down a relatively trivial story which escalated to the leader having to promise to resign. And who made virtually no progress across England in favourable circumstances? Or the ones on the ground who just won the constituency with over 50% of the vote? Mmm.
Perhaps you thought the Conservative party took partygate seriously. Last night a champagne bottle signed by @BorisJohnson was donated to a charity event in Hertfordshire by local MP and Tory party chairman @OliverDowden.
Is there a remote possibility that the description wasn't written by Boris or by Dowden, but was written by someone working for the charity hosting the event who isn't a fan of theirs?
"Mr Dowden, who has been the MP for Hertsmere since 2015 and co-chairman of the Conservative Party since 2021, confirmed he donated the item – but had no knowledge of the description.
The MP’s spokesperson said: “This item was donated in good faith several months ago for a local charity auction.
The 5th Circuit’s Reinstatement of Texas’ Internet Censorship Law Could Break Social Media
https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/texas-internet-censorship-social-media-first-amendment-fifth-circuit.html ...Other aspects of the law all but compel companies to cease editorial control over their own products. The intrusive disclosure requirements are almost comically impractical: They oblige companies to give Texas heaps of information about their algorithms, curation, and search functions, as well as a “biannual transparency report” with information about every single “action” taken against “content.” (These provisions are a far cry from the good-faith movement to mandate algorithmic transparency, which would not chill any speech but rather require developers to provide algorithmic impact assessments.) Platforms must also establish a complex process of notice and appeal any time it “removes content.”
It would be impossible for any target of H.B. 20 to comply with these standards. Platforms like Facebook use automated editorial tools to remove billions of posts and comments every year. They lack the resources, by orders to magnitude, to review and resolve each appeal, especially not within the 14-day limit that H.B. 20 provides. The only solution would be to stop monitoring content. Yet the law forces companies to assess complaints of “illegal content” within 48 hours, so they cannot adopt a true laissez-faire policy either.
The only way out of this mess, then, would be for social media companies to cease all operations in Texas. But H.B. 20 orders them to continue providing their services in Texas. So there is truly no escape—except the courts....
There's not a chance that Hunt will lose his seat. SW Surrey was a Lib Dem target for years (and they held Waverley council for a long time) but now he has a lead of 8,000.
WRT Ukraine, it's plain that both the "realists" (Russia is too powerful to resist in its own sphere of influence) and the Chomskyist left (wringing their hands about how the NATO will make things worse by intervening) have had a bad war.
One to bookmark. I cite Scotland and the Red Wall.
Waverley/SW Surrey has often been pretty marginal, going back to the 1984 by-election. It's not a seat where Conservative support has suddenly fallen off a cliff.
Since 2010, the Tory vote has been about 55%. Sometimes the anti-Tory vote coalesces around one candidate, other times, it breaks up.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Sky confirms the teen angel Jones scoop. Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
Wakefield still has a CLP. It's just that the CLP has no Executive.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Sky confirms the teen angel Jones scoop. Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
Wakefield still has a CLP. It's just that the CLP has no Executive.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Sky confirms the teen angel Jones scoop. Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
Wakefield still has a CLP. It's just that the CLP has no Executive.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Thanks. So it looks like Labour Central are trying to make sure that the CLP doesn't select a chap who is a Corbynite and who has some social media history (on anti-semitism) that is a concern. I can see why Labour Central might do that.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Look what's - supposedly - happeniung in Scotland after the local elections, under a system which very often ends up with a minority administration or working alliance in the council in question.
In complete contrast to previous policy, including his own very recent approval of a notorious alliance with the Tories in one local authority, Mr Sarwar has forbidden any cooperation with other parties in sorting out new administrations. Ergo no involvement and no credit for the results, [edit] except where as in West Dumbartons they have a majority.
This is very odd in a country where the Holyrood voting system was specifically set up to fiddle a permanent Slab/SLD coalition (cf. the, however, somewhat different system proposed for the Senedd at present).
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
Known as a Lee Dixon.
Holding had a good go at it yesterday, enjoyed watching Assna press the self destruct button, hopefully they do it again on Monday at the toon.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
If Labour hadn't stood and every one of their votes had gone to the Greens, the lead Conservative would have won by 1 vote. Sadly, Brian Adams died, hence the by-election. The Green challenger stood again and Labour and LibDems, um, didn't find suitable candidates. But a deselected Conservative, the former PCC for Surrey David Munro, decided to stand.
I'm not sure what to conclude from that! Name recognition as the former PCC, perhaps?
David is indeed a most pleasant and engaging chap. He was also previously a member of both Waverely (returning to his roots) and Surrey County Councils (and its Chair for two years), before becoming PCC.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
He's an identikit cut out and keep Tory.
So compared to the current freak show Cabinet he looks like a colossus.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
I think that they are citizens of nowhere which is exactly where they are going.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
Seems to me more like a stick to encourage civil servants back to the office. If the prospect of redundancies is looming you want to be in the office stabbing your colleagues in the back not working from your garden shed missing out on sucking up to the boss who is making the decisions on who gets chopped.
Sky confirms the teen angel Jones scoop. Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
Wakefield still has a CLP. It's just that the CLP has no Executive.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Thanks. So it looks like Labour Central are trying to make sure that the CLP doesn't select a chap who is a Corbynite and who has some social media history (on anti-semitism) that is a concern. I can see why Labour Central might do that.
Indeed. However. A fundamental of negotiation is that the answer to "we want x" isn't "you can't you are having A or B. Choose." "Is there a y you could suggest which we both would be OK with?" Is usually a better gambit.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
Known as a Lee Dixon.
Holding had a good go at it yesterday, enjoyed watching Assna press the self destruct button, hopefully they do it again on Monday at the toon.
The airport style security at Tottenham was a new one on me, I must say.
Currently making my way to Newcastle via the Lake District. Cost of petrol doesn’t seem to be deterring people from driving.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed. I think they could start with convincing themselves. There's the kind of dysfunction which doesn't spring from an innate self-confidence.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
It is impossible to understand the politics of the centre left/left unless you genuinely take on board that it is a battle between those who want to be in power by democratic means and those who don't.
The right/centre right has its own fascinating paradoxes and oxymorons (or oxymora), but by and large not that one.
The 'Overton window' of those in national (UK) politics who actually want to take responsibility and accountability for running the country is quite narrow. Brexit was and is fascinating because it split that centrist group in a unique way.
For a parallel imagine that those who really wanted power in the UK were split on the question of whether the NHS should become a privately funded insurance system.
(And BTW I have a minority conviction that among those who have no desire or intention of running a country is the present leadership of the SNP).
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
False modesty rather undermines the very good point. The bad news is that AEP has forecast that Macron is opening the door to a rapprochment through his EUropean federation thing. So war is probably imminent.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
Known as a Lee Dixon.
Holding had a good go at it yesterday, enjoyed watching Assna press the self destruct button, hopefully they do it again on Monday at the toon.
The airport style security at Tottenham was a new one on me, I must say.
Currently making my way to Newcastle via the Lake District. Cost of petrol doesn’t seem to be deterring people from driving.
Yeah it's not always like that, I think they make a nutcase assessment and obviously the NLD is a huge target for nutcases.
Public servants, Whitehall, being told by PM that 91,000 are surplus to requirements and a pay rise of 3% is sufficient when inflation is heading for 10%. They’re also being told they are slackers if they work from home. Morale among public servants being tested, to put it mildly https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1525012331293511680
Lucky the Government doesn't need goodwill from civil servants to advance any of its agenda...
You mean like those that partied in Downing Street and Whitehall
A good start would be by sacking each and everyone of them
Glad to see you aren't condemning a hundred thousand on the basis of a couple of hundred.
And even some of the partiers will be doing a job that needs doing - sure, sack them all, but some will need replacing, so not much progress toward the target number.
I also wonder how the industrial tribunals would go if BigG were HR manager. Sure, some got FPN, but is that sufficient for instant dismissal? Especially if each event was sanctioned/ordered by senior management and political management.
The defenders of Mr J et al tell us a FPN is like a parking offence - but that wouldn't be sufficient for summary dismissal in itself, even if in the government car. Bollocking and perhaps warning, I'd think.
I am fed up with the way partygate is being run by the police. we are seeing victimisation of one set of people - those at No 10 with investigations that are not happening to any other people in the country, aside of the ridiculous Starmer event (so yes they are being victimised too). The level of the offences is so tiny and the money and time being put into it is totally out of proportion.
No-one else will ever be investigated for a lock down breach from 2020 to 2021. No-one. Those given FPN's should really be contesting their cases in a court of law. I strongly suspect most would win. Sunak for sure.
They were wrong to have behaved as they did. Yes government made the rules, but they were stupid, badly written rules which NO-ONE to this day fully understands. And yet partygate is dragging on and on over trivial offences. And we wonder why politicians get frustrated at the media.
There's a strong argument for it not being a police matter. The sheer number of events at Downing Street IS a legitimate political scandal though, and probably should have been judged that way.
I'd argue it has been. The Gray report and now the investigation into whether Johnson misled the house (he did).
And the consequences will be at the ballot box...
I agree - I meant that it didn't need the extra police involvement, and the Gray report would probably have had a lot more impact than the confidential and slow police process.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
Seems to me more like a stick to encourage civil servants back to the office. If the prospect of redundancies is looming you want to be in the office stabbing your colleagues in the back not working from your garden shed missing out on sucking up to the boss who is making the decisions on who gets chopped.
Garden shed? They are complaining about not being able to work from abroad.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
For an outright majority yes but that would still be enough for a Labour minority government with the LDs and if necessary the SNP
Yesterday's sequel to the disastrous failed river crossing.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524974467146866690 On May 12, the 🇺🇦artillery destroyed another 🇷🇺pontoon bridge and equipment. 4 days of 🇷🇺unsuccessful attempts to cross the Siverskyi Donets river in Luhansk Oblast saw the 🇷🇺losses of more than 70 units of equipment & 2 battalions of infantry & engineers...
A thought for the Armchair Admiral Generals - a lot has been made of the dangers in modern warfare of fixed positions. Parking your artillery in a neat line and setting up the tea tent is now considered suicide.
What about military bridges and other military engineering? - they create fixed, obvious targets.
What will be the solution there?
They are temporary expedients. The Russians are trying to capture a strategic town which controls several river crossings nearby. So far they've failed.
The lesson here is probably more about the huge disparity in battlefield information available to the two sides. Not in Russia's favour.
What I mean is this - we have an example of a battlefield with continuous, full spectrum surveillance. That is, instead of a once a day spy flight, we have 24/7 (probably) coverage from a variety of systems. See JSTARS and the first Gulf War. Instead of occasional picture, the West (and probably the Ukrainians) are seeing what is happening. Near real time.
When you tie that to the target generating and allocating system that the Ukrainians are supposed to be using (described the other day) - the gap between starting to assemble your bridge and steel rain could be *minutes*.
In this case, it must have been hours, since the bridge was in place. Or did they wait to get the whole bridge, the engineers and the equipment crossing it?
This is the probable shape of future conflicts.
I'm not a military strategist, but I guess you'd need to look at scenarios with more evenly matched opponents to draw useful conclusions.
The Russians used to build bridges below the surface of the water, as one example tactic.
Another is to reinstall it after dark every night - limited use perhaps for a longish span like this one, and if the area has been pre-measured for bombardment. And given the night capability of some drones.
On the current attack, my impression was that Ukr forces waited for 50 vehicles to be on the "trapped" side of the river once the bridge was a not-a-bridge.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
False modesty rather undermines the very good point. The bad news is that AEP has forecast that Macron is opening the door to a rapprochment through his EUropean federation thing. So war is probably imminent.
I don't know what you mean, my modesty is known far and wide!
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
I thought the NEV was 35-30, similar to the current polling?
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
I thought the NEV was 35-30, similar to the current polling?
That was based on partial results, the calculation based on full results was 35-33, which is what the results show too, public unhappy with the Tories but not convinced by Labour either.
Nice example of how to make a red hot issue a bit cooler by showing how boring and complicated it is. Even the writer - and excellent anorak - starts giving up the unequal struggle on the subject of VAT and quotas.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
I thought the NEV was 35-30, similar to the current polling?
Depends if you believe Curtice or Thrasher, Curtice had it 35 30 I think and Thrasher 35 33
Sky confirms the teen angel Jones scoop. Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
Wakefield still has a CLP. It's just that the CLP has no Executive.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Thanks. So it looks like Labour Central are trying to make sure that the CLP doesn't select a chap who is a Corbynite and who has some social media history (on anti-semitism) that is a concern. I can see why Labour Central might do that.
Indeed. However. A fundamental of negotiation is that the answer to "we want x" isn't "you can't you are having A or B. Choose." "Is there a y you could suggest which we both would be OK with?" Is usually a better gambit.
Yes, I agree with that, and hopefully that's where they'll end up in Wakefield.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
Known as a Lee Dixon.
Holding had a good go at it yesterday, enjoyed watching Assna press the self destruct button, hopefully they do it again on Monday at the toon.
The airport style security at Tottenham was a new one on me, I must say.
Currently making my way to Newcastle via the Lake District. Cost of petrol doesn’t seem to be deterring people from driving.
Yeah it's not always like that, I think they make a nutcase assessment and obviously the NLD is a huge target for nutcases.
I went to a Conference game a couple of weeks ago with an attendance of 2500 ish and all 500+ of us in the away end got wanded. They still didn't catch the eejits with the smoke bombs though.
Much as you'd expect me to be furious at the idea of a senatorial delegation flying here to lay down the law, and certainly we must reserve the right to tell them politely to fuck off, I also find that the Americans, even in the upper echelons of politics, seem mostly to be utterly ignorant of British (and Irish) issues and life. In that regard, it's quite good that their Senatorial Eminences are travelling here to speak to real people, regardless of their stated aim. I'm pretty confident that by the time they leave, they'll have a far more nuanced idea of the rights and wrongs of the situation, which can only be a good thing.
A good chat with that bloke on QT would clear up a lot of stuff up for them.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
UK has been trying to sign up as many companies as possible who ship goods between GB and NI, to minimise friction caused by the arrangements.
The authorities in GB, NI and RoI can then target their efforts on actual cases of smuggling.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
I thought the NEV was 35-30, similar to the current polling?
Depends if you believe Curtice or Thrasher, Curtice had it 35 30 I think and Thrasher 35 33
I had a question about that. Not for you, necessarily. How come such a variance? It's not like an opinion poll with a small, possibly unrepresentative sample. It's literally millions of actual, real votes. I understand loads of places didn't vote, but having the two most respected academics differing on the Tory share by 3% seems very curious.
Perhaps you thought the Conservative party took partygate seriously. Last night a champagne bottle signed by @BorisJohnson was donated to a charity event in Hertfordshire by local MP and Tory party chairman @OliverDowden.
Is there a remote possibility that the description wasn't written by Boris or by Dowden, but was written by someone working for the charity hosting the event who isn't a fan of theirs?
"Mr Dowden, who has been the MP for Hertsmere since 2015 and co-chairman of the Conservative Party since 2021, confirmed he donated the item – but had no knowledge of the description.
The MP’s spokesperson said: “This item was donated in good faith several months ago for a local charity auction.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
UK has been trying to sign up as many companies as possible who ship goods between GB and NI, to minimise friction caused by the arrangements.
The authorities in GB, NI and RoI can then target their efforts on actual cases of smuggling.
Which means entities using brass-plates, or indeed nothing at all, to mask UK-EU trade. A la carte membership with trade and no obligations.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
Seems to me more like a stick to encourage civil servants back to the office. If the prospect of redundancies is looming you want to be in the office stabbing your colleagues in the back not working from your garden shed missing out on sucking up to the boss who is making the decisions on who gets chopped.
That's the incentive for the workers who know they are crap.
The good ones will be (as I pointed out earlier today) updating their CVs and starting on a plan to move into the private sector ASAP..
And as I pointed out before - unless Boris decides what tasks and services he no longer wants the civil service to perform - removing people isn't going to save them any money
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
I thought the NEV was 35-30, similar to the current polling?
Depends if you believe Curtice or Thrasher, Curtice had it 35 30 I think and Thrasher 35 33
I had a question about that. Not for you, necessarily. How come such a variance? It's not like an opinion poll with a small, possibly unrepresentative sample. It's literally millions of actual, real votes. I understand loads of places didn't vote, but having the two most respected academics differing on the Tory share by 3% seems very curious.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
Is that not about anticipated by whom?
Why can't such companies be a trusted trader? IMO they need to be traders to NI, not have a presence there.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
I thought the NEV was 35-30, similar to the current polling?
Depends if you believe Curtice or Thrasher, Curtice had it 35 30 I think and Thrasher 35 33
I had a question about that. Not for you, necessarily. How come such a variance? It's not like an opinion poll with a small, possibly unrepresentative sample. It's literally millions of actual, real votes. I understand loads of places didn't vote, but having the two most respected academics differing on the Tory share by 3% seems very curious.
I'm glad you're not coming to me for anything concrete!! Lol Ummm yeah uts a good question. Maybe it's down to shifting patterns and how they are extrapolating the non voting areas - is Thrasher expecting a better Red Wall or stronger blue wall defence maybe? Is one based on UNS and the other tweaked by 2019 realignments? Interesting
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
Seems to me more like a stick to encourage civil servants back to the office. If the prospect of redundancies is looming you want to be in the office stabbing your colleagues in the back not working from your garden shed missing out on sucking up to the boss who is making the decisions on who gets chopped.
That's the incentive for the workers who know they are crap.
The good ones will be (as I pointed out earlier today) updating their CVs and starting on a plan to move into the private sector ASAP..
And as I pointed out before - unless Boris decides what tasks and services he no longer wants the civil service to perform - removing people isn't going to save them any money
And whilst everyone agrees that there are things the government should stop doing (mostly things that each individual doesn't see the benefit of), there is much less agreement about what those somethings should be (because we all see the benefit of different things).
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
The increase of 90,000 is just since 2016. Racking my brains, but trying to think of anything that happened in 2016 that might have caused this.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
Is that not about anticipated by whom?
Why can't such companies be a trusted trader? IMO they need to be traders to NI, not have a presence there.
Pity that your opinion is not what the UK committed to - though of course the EU would never have agreed to one-way free trade with no agreement.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
I thought the NEV was 35-30, similar to the current polling?
Depends if you believe Curtice or Thrasher, Curtice had it 35 30 I think and Thrasher 35 33
I had a question about that. Not for you, necessarily. How come such a variance? It's not like an opinion poll with a small, possibly unrepresentative sample. It's literally millions of actual, real votes. I understand loads of places didn't vote, but having the two most respected academics differing on the Tory share by 3% seems very curious.
An interesting morning of work. Being a management consultant can be a frustrating business when stupid is happening, you politely detail why x is inadvisable and y would be a solution because z, they ignore you and then the wheels fall off as you warned.
Have largely been busy with the two clients (in the same group) these last 18 months. Whilst something in some form is still probably carrying on, its time I take the time opportunities now presenting themselves to me to focus on my flexi work space project and broadening my client base. And look at the other other opportunity I've been prodding to see if legs might emerge.
Either way, its a lot more fun than being employed in an actual job.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
Seems to me more like a stick to encourage civil servants back to the office. If the prospect of redundancies is looming you want to be in the office stabbing your colleagues in the back not working from your garden shed missing out on sucking up to the boss who is making the decisions on who gets chopped.
That's the incentive for the workers who know they are crap.
The good ones will be (as I pointed out earlier today) updating their CVs and starting on a plan to move into the private sector ASAP..
And as I pointed out before - unless Boris decides what tasks and services he no longer wants the civil service to perform - removing people isn't going to save them any money
Every year we make more and more laws, extend the reach of the state and make little or no provision for how to actually manage it. Sometimes we get away with it with productivity improvements, other times, especially in justice at the moment, we hit a brick wall and systemic failure.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
Christ Labour! What an own goal. And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside. One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
I sometimes wonder if Labour actually want to be in power. Much more fun to be pure and shout abuse from the sidelines. Utter madness.
Despite what the mid term polls say, LAB have a long way to go to convince the public that they are ready to return to power.
Indeed, that's why in an actual election the NEV was 35-33 rather than anything like 40-33 that they'd be looking at for a win.
I thought the NEV was 35-30, similar to the current polling?
Depends if you believe Curtice or Thrasher, Curtice had it 35 30 I think and Thrasher 35 33
I had a question about that. Not for you, necessarily. How come such a variance? It's not like an opinion poll with a small, possibly unrepresentative sample. It's literally millions of actual, real votes. I understand loads of places didn't vote, but having the two most respected academics differing on the Tory share by 3% seems very curious.
I'm glad you're not coming to me for anything concrete!! Lol Ummm yeah uts a good question. Maybe it's down to shifting patterns and how they are extrapolating the non voting areas - is Thrasher expecting a better Red Wall or stronger blue wall defence maybe? Is one based on UNS and the other tweaked by 2019 realignments? Interesting
And. They seem to agree on Labour. But not the Tories (and presumably LD's too). Is that due to more of the baseline Labour vote having elections? Don't know.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
UK has been trying to sign up as many companies as possible who ship goods between GB and NI, to minimise friction caused by the arrangements.
The authorities in GB, NI and RoI can then target their efforts on actual cases of smuggling.
Which means entities using brass-plates, or indeed nothing at all, to mask UK-EU trade. A la carte membership with trade and no obligations.
Trusted trader scheme means just that - the ones we trust. Not a cover for "lets not do any checks at all ever" which is the Tories preferred definition.
Can we come to an arrangement? Of course - if there is clear alignment between the two regulatory systems then its easy to envisage. And we both have said alignment and, having binned off our plans to have our own different standards, will be keeping it things can't be that hard.
Until you remember the problem. Its the UK government. Who can't accept that aligned reality. And can't be trusted.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
The increase of 90,000 is just since 2016. Racking my brains, but trying to think of anything that happened in 2016 that might have caused this.
The loss of Osborne maybe? What he showed from 2010-16 was that reducing civil servant numbers is a long, hard grind, not a matter of flash announcements that have not been thought through and simply wind up the pompous windbags in the Civil Service Unions to little benefit.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government no only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.
The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
The increase of 90,000 is just since 2016. Racking my brains, but trying to think of anything that happened in 2016 that might have caused this.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
It’s not acceptable.
The EU is demanding dynamic alignment to their rules. They have a different approach to the UK.
The UK wants equivalence with regular review.
From a purely rational, food safety based approach the UK piece is sufficient. But the EU thinks it’s a point of political leverage
I see QT last night had more non-politicians than politicians. I remember when they introduced the 5th guest to allow for a non-political voice, now its an F1 driver, a comedian, an economist, and 2 politicians.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
The increase of 90,000 is just since 2016. Racking my brains, but trying to think of anything that happened in 2016 that might have caused this.
I suspect it is more a case of the Civil Service quietly reversing the drops of the previous 5 years. Under the Coalition the civil service dropped by 90,000 from 20011 to 2016 and it has now risen again by 70,000. The increase rate almost exactly mirrors the decrease.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government no only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.
The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
1. We are currently aligned with everything. Our standards are their standards are our standards 2. Having abandoned any efforts to check inbound goods we have de facto ceded control of UK standards to the EU. So whether we formally align with any amended standards they choose or not we will be accepting them without question 3. The only radical variance to existing UKEU standards would be if we say did a trade deal with the US to allow in hormone beef or weevil corn. As the US have flown in today to put down any remaining fantasy the government had about such a deal, that won't be happening.
So the truly sensible way forward is accept the reality on the ground. We are aligned, we're not doing deals to diverge, and we can't check standards even if we wanted to. We simply drop the subject and move the mouth foamers onto the next political issue. Irish border fixed because no need to check anything when we're all aligned already.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
The increase of 90,000 is just since 2016. Racking my brains, but trying to think of anything that happened in 2016 that might have caused this.
This government by press release is just so depressing. Nothing matters other than a quick hit headline that might attract a nano-second flicker of interest from red wall voters.
Sky confirms the teen angel Jones scoop. Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
Wakefield still has a CLP. It's just that the CLP has no Executive.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Having being heavily involved in CLP selection meetings, I can assure you the membership cannot always be trusted to choose the best candidate.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
Seems to me more like a stick to encourage civil servants back to the office. If the prospect of redundancies is looming you want to be in the office stabbing your colleagues in the back not working from your garden shed missing out on sucking up to the boss who is making the decisions on who gets chopped.
That's the incentive for the workers who know they are crap.
The good ones will be (as I pointed out earlier today) updating their CVs and starting on a plan to move into the private sector ASAP..
And as I pointed out before - unless Boris decides what tasks and services he no longer wants the civil service to perform - removing people isn't going to save them any money
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
It’s not acceptable.
The EU is demanding dynamic alignment to their rules. They have a different approach to the UK.
The UK wants equivalence with regular review.
From a purely rational, food safety based approach the UK piece is sufficient. But the EU thinks it’s a point of political leverage
OK lets set the difference in language and the politics aside, and talk practicalities. We are aligned here and now. Dynamic alignment would be the EU moves to a new standard and we follow. As we've abandoned all plans to check their standards that happens by default anyway.
So whatever we call it, what they are asking for we acquiesced to when Moggy went to Dover and said "you can knock those customs sheds down".
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government not only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
It’s not acceptable.
The EU is demanding dynamic alignment to their rules. They have a different approach to the UK.
The UK wants equivalence with regular review.
From a purely rational, food safety based approach the UK piece is sufficient. But the EU thinks it’s a point of political leverage
(IMO) Unfortunately in caving on the UK/EU border checks BJ & Co have reinforced a perception that they will give things of value away with no reciprocation.
So that may be more expected in the NIP dialogue by Brussels.
And trying to get what you want from Brussels by backing down is like trying to train a Labrador to sit-stay by feeding it sausages.
Sky confirms the teen angel Jones scoop. Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
Wakefield still has a CLP. It's just that the CLP has no Executive.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Having being heavily involved in CLP selection meetings, I can assure you the membership cannot always be trusted to choose the best candidate.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
The increase of 90,000 is just since 2016. Racking my brains, but trying to think of anything that happened in 2016 that might have caused this.
Khan became Mayor of London. Probably that.
Isn't 16 just the comparator year? Perhaps it is just the minimum point to make the number bigger.
I'd guestimate that most of the increase will be COVID-related - eg extra staff to process UC registrations.
BTW, I don't think that London Mayoral people are Civil Servants.
Sky confirms the teen angel Jones scoop. Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
Wakefield still has a CLP. It's just that the CLP has no Executive.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Thanks. So it looks like Labour Central are trying to make sure that the CLP doesn't select a chap who is a Corbynite and who has some social media history (on anti-semitism) that is a concern. I can see why Labour Central might do that.
Shouldn't Labour Central be getting antisemitic Corbynites out of the Party before it reaches candidate selection stage?
I can well understand why antisemitic Corbynites shouldn't be MPs, but why is it acceptable for them to be Councillors? Or Deputy Leader of the Council? Once the antisemitism has come out, shouldn't they be getting expelled from the Party?
Something's very wrong if you need to rig the rules to ensure your own local Councillor isn't the candidate, because you know your own local Councillor is a racist.
Does anybody know where these 90,000 civil servants getting the tin tack are working now? Pro-rata across all departments would mean 10,000 going at the MoD. And it wouldn't be the 10,000 least productive...
Seems to me more like a stick to encourage civil servants back to the office. If the prospect of redundancies is looming you want to be in the office stabbing your colleagues in the back not working from your garden shed missing out on sucking up to the boss who is making the decisions on who gets chopped.
That's the incentive for the workers who know they are crap.
The good ones will be (as I pointed out earlier today) updating their CVs and starting on a plan to move into the private sector ASAP..
And as I pointed out before - unless Boris decides what tasks and services he no longer wants the civil service to perform - removing people isn't going to save them any money
Allowing civil servants to work from home could be a massive boost for levelling up, whilst also raising cash and freeing up buildings that could be converted to residential in areas that need housing.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The acceptable strategy is obvious, but requires two things which this swivel-eyed government won't do. Firstly, reducing frictions by aligning with the EU on key things, especially food safety (virtually no downside*), and secondly build up the 'trust' bit of the relationship by not making ludicrous impotent threats and reneging on a deal which the government no only signed, but actually proposed and lauded to the skies.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
No, there's no need to align with anything and it's not a sensible way forwards and there's also no guarantee that they'd grant equivalence, as of today our laws in all areas are fully aligned and they haven't done so.
The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
1. We are currently aligned with everything. Our standards are their standards are our standards 2. Having abandoned any efforts to check inbound goods we have de facto ceded control of UK standards to the EU. So whether we formally align with any amended standards they choose or not we will be accepting them without question 3. The only radical variance to existing UKEU standards would be if we say did a trade deal with the US to allow in hormone beef or weevil corn. As the US have flown in today to put down any remaining fantasy the government had about such a deal, that won't be happening.
So the truly sensible way forward is accept the reality on the ground. We are aligned, we're not doing deals to diverge, and we can't check standards even if we wanted to. We simply drop the subject and move the mouth foamers onto the next political issue. Irish border fixed because no need to check anything when we're all aligned already.
In this case then, in the context of your proposal, the problem is the EU not the UK. They are unwilling to settle for anything less than dynamic alignment so your suggestion cannot work. It is not a case of whether we choose to diverge but rather of whether they chose to make changes and force us to remain in alignment. Dropping the subject solves nothing as it will remain an active topic as EU regulations change.
Hunt? Too Coalition era, May era, yesterday's coming man. Would be like wingnut Davis standing again after Cameron stood down, a look backwards. He's too posh, too home counties, too Cameron frankly. He'd scare the horses amongst the new support they've garnered. He might save half a dozen threatened in the blue wall. Hunt vs Starmer and we are all asleep by elevenses. Utterly unispirational. Way too much a retrograde step. Lump on.
Never get why people push Hunt so much but then I share all those views.
He's the Tories' Andy Burnham
Easy, he'd implement "sensible" policies on Brexit and stop "being confrontational" with the EU. Which is ultimately code for they think he would set us on a path to rejoining the EU but of course he won't do either of those things.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
Problem is that UK government has been trying to extend trusted trader status way beyond what was anticipated, e.g. to companies with no real NI presence.
UK has been trying to sign up as many companies as possible who ship goods between GB and NI, to minimise friction caused by the arrangements.
The authorities in GB, NI and RoI can then target their efforts on actual cases of smuggling.
Which means entities using brass-plates, or indeed nothing at all, to mask UK-EU trade. A la carte membership with trade and no obligations.
Trusted trader scheme means just that - the ones we trust. Not a cover for "lets not do any checks at all ever" which is the Tories preferred definition.
Can we come to an arrangement? Of course - if there is clear alignment between the two regulatory systems then its easy to envisage. And we both have said alignment and, having binned off our plans to have our own different standards, will be keeping it things can't be that hard.
Until you remember the problem. Its the UK government. Who can't accept that aligned reality. And can't be trusted.
Trusted trader status should be eligible to any registered company which has not shown themselves to be untrustworthy.
If any reason is demonstrated why that trader can not be trusted, then action should be taken, but it should be eligible to all in the first place not to a few cherrypicked businesses.
Comments
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=33&LAB=38&LIB=12&Reform=2&Green=7&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=19&SCOTLAB=26.5&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=0.5&SCOTGreen=2&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=43.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
The issue is that the deputy leader of the council put himself forward and didn't make the list. I think he's quite corbynite.
Even if he has to resign as long as Labour pick someone that won’t frighten voters they should still do okay . Much depends on whether the Tories stick by the liar in chief .
If labour aren't taking this by double digits it's not encouraging for them ultimately
(Not all of them, some of my best friends really are local councillors, or were until last week. But then there are others...)
The folk who couldn't shut down a relatively trivial story which escalated to the leader having to promise to resign. And who made virtually no progress across England in favourable circumstances?
Or the ones on the ground who just won the constituency with over 50% of the vote?
Mmm.
https://mostfavourednation.substack.com/p/most-favoured-nation-what-does-the?s=w
Labour have no CLP in Wakefiekd
https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/texas-internet-censorship-social-media-first-amendment-fifth-circuit.html
...Other aspects of the law all but compel companies to cease editorial control over their own products. The intrusive disclosure requirements are almost comically impractical: They oblige companies to give Texas heaps of information about their algorithms, curation, and search functions, as well as a “biannual transparency report” with information about every single “action” taken against “content.” (These provisions are a far cry from the good-faith movement to mandate algorithmic transparency, which would not chill any speech but rather require developers to provide algorithmic impact assessments.) Platforms must also establish a complex process of notice and appeal any time it “removes content.”
It would be impossible for any target of H.B. 20 to comply with these standards. Platforms like Facebook use automated editorial tools to remove billions of posts and comments every year. They lack the resources, by orders to magnitude, to review and resolve each appeal, especially not within the 14-day limit that H.B. 20 provides. The only solution would be to stop monitoring content. Yet the law forces companies to assess complaints of “illegal content” within 48 hours, so they cannot adopt a true laissez-faire policy either.
The only way out of this mess, then, would be for social media companies to cease all operations in Texas. But H.B. 20 orders them to continue providing their services in Texas. So there is truly no escape—except the courts....
Since 2010, the Tory vote has been about 55%. Sometimes the anti-Tory vote coalesces around one candidate, other times, it breaks up.
Shares in Twitter crashed 25pc in pre-market trading.
Telegraph blog
What an own goal.
And not one where it comes back off the post and hits you on the backside.
One where you beat three of your own players and chip the goalie from 30 yards.
Utter madness.
It's a tricky one without knowing more. If the CLP Executive were about to choose a wholly unsuitable candidate, then I can see why the central LP would intervene given the profile of the by-election. Even then, though, they should usually trust the wider membership in Wakefield not to vote for the unsuitable candidate. But I don't know if that's the case or not. I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/labourlist.org/2022/05/exclusive-labour-accused-of-breaching-rules-in-wakefield-candidate-selection/?amp
Would totally rewrite the narrative
In complete contrast to previous policy, including his own very recent approval of a notorious alliance with the Tories in one local authority, Mr Sarwar has forbidden any cooperation with other parties in sorting out new administrations. Ergo no involvement and no credit for the results, [edit] except where as in West Dumbartons they have a majority.
This is very odd in a country where the Holyrood voting system was specifically set up to fiddle a permanent Slab/SLD coalition (cf. the, however, somewhat different system proposed for the Senedd at present).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im_sME-zlQA
"Is there a y you could suggest which we both would be OK with?" Is usually a better gambit.
Currently making my way to Newcastle via the Lake District. Cost of petrol doesn’t seem to be deterring people from driving.
I had a longish brunch with the team this morning (only just finished) and one of the points of discussion was the A16 stuff. Everyone very anti pulling the lever, one of the team is from NI and she, fairly, pointed out that it wouldn't be necessary if the EU implemented the trusted trader scheme and then the mood was, well why not link A16 to a timetable for implementation.
If a lowly group of analysts can figure out an acceptable strategy then it won't be beyond the wit of the government to also do it.
The right/centre right has its own fascinating paradoxes and oxymorons (or oxymora), but by and large not that one.
The 'Overton window' of those in national (UK) politics who actually want to take responsibility and accountability for running the country is quite narrow. Brexit was and is fascinating because it split that centrist group in a unique way.
For a parallel imagine that those who really wanted power in the UK were split on the question of whether the NHS should become a privately funded insurance system.
(And BTW I have a minority conviction that among those who have no desire or intention of running a country is the present leadership of the SNP).
A piece from 1943.
https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/submerged-bridge.html
Another is to reinstall it after dark every night - limited use perhaps for a longish span like this one, and if the area has been pre-measured for bombardment. And given the night capability of some drones.
On the current attack, my impression was that Ukr forces waited for 50 vehicles to be on the "trapped" side of the river once the bridge was a not-a-bridge.
The authorities in GB, NI and RoI can then target their efforts on actual cases of smuggling.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10812857/Queen-smiles-arrives-Royal-Windsor-Horse-Show.html
How come such a variance? It's not like an opinion poll with a small, possibly unrepresentative sample.
It's literally millions of actual, real votes.
I understand loads of places didn't vote, but having the two most respected academics differing on the Tory share by 3% seems very curious.
The good ones will be (as I pointed out earlier today) updating their CVs and starting on a plan to move into the private sector ASAP..
And as I pointed out before - unless Boris decides what tasks and services he no longer wants the civil service to perform - removing people isn't going to save them any money
[ETA: By Curtice]
Why can't such companies be a trusted trader? IMO they need to be traders to NI, not have a presence there.
Ummm yeah uts a good question. Maybe it's down to shifting patterns and how they are extrapolating the non voting areas - is Thrasher expecting a better Red Wall or stronger blue wall defence maybe? Is one based on UNS and the other tweaked by 2019 realignments?
Interesting
Racking my brains, but trying to think of anything that happened in 2016 that might have caused this.
Have largely been busy with the two clients (in the same group) these last 18 months. Whilst something in some form is still probably carrying on, its time I take the time opportunities now presenting themselves to me to focus on my flexi work space project and broadening my client base. And look at the other other opportunity I've been prodding to see if legs might emerge.
Either way, its a lot more fun than being employed in an actual job.
* There is one real downside, which is we'd have to sign up to the EU's completely daft blanket ban on gene-editing, but that looks likely to be changed quite soon anyway.
Is that due to more of the baseline Labour vote having elections? Don't know.
Can we come to an arrangement? Of course - if there is clear alignment between the two regulatory systems then its easy to envisage. And we both have said alignment and, having binned off our plans to have our own different standards, will be keeping it things can't be that hard.
Until you remember the problem. Its the UK government. Who can't accept that aligned reality. And can't be trusted.
The sensible way forwards is to get the NI stuff sorted separately and then go our separate ways as trading partners. You have been completely captured by the idea that the EU is some kind of regulatory super power but it's not true, within 5 years they will be playing catch up in a lot of areas to the UK for fear of being left behind. Gene editing is an example of this, they are playing catch up to the UK which is already moving on it post-Brexit.
The EU is demanding dynamic alignment to their rules. They have a different approach to the UK.
The UK wants equivalence with regular review.
From a purely rational, food safety based approach the UK piece is sufficient. But the EU thinks it’s a point of political leverage
2. Having abandoned any efforts to check inbound goods we have de facto ceded control of UK standards to the EU. So whether we formally align with any amended standards they choose or not we will be accepting them without question
3. The only radical variance to existing UKEU standards would be if we say did a trade deal with the US to allow in hormone beef or weevil corn. As the US have flown in today to put down any remaining fantasy the government had about such a deal, that won't be happening.
So the truly sensible way forward is accept the reality on the ground. We are aligned, we're not doing deals to diverge, and we can't check standards even if we wanted to. We simply drop the subject and move the mouth foamers onto the next political issue. Irish border fixed because no need to check anything when we're all aligned already.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/15/100-government-buildings-close-civil-servants-shun-return-office/ (£££ from last autumn)
So whatever we call it, what they are asking for we acquiesced to when Moggy went to Dover and said "you can knock those customs sheds down".
So that may be more expected in the NIP dialogue by Brussels.
And trying to get what you want from Brussels by backing down is like trying to train a Labrador to sit-stay by feeding it sausages.
I'd guestimate that most of the increase will be COVID-related - eg extra staff to process UC registrations.
BTW, I don't think that London Mayoral people are Civil Servants.
I can well understand why antisemitic Corbynites shouldn't be MPs, but why is it acceptable for them to be Councillors? Or Deputy Leader of the Council? Once the antisemitism has come out, shouldn't they be getting expelled from the Party?
Something's very wrong if you need to rig the rules to ensure your own local Councillor isn't the candidate, because you know your own local Councillor is a racist.
If any reason is demonstrated why that trader can not be trusted, then action should be taken, but it should be eligible to all in the first place not to a few cherrypicked businesses.