There is no requirement for PM to resign immediately after an election.
An incumbent PM is entitled to remain in office if he wishes until he loses the confidence of the Commons.
In hung parliament situation that may have to be actually tested with a vote.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
But Labour weren't in a position to govern. So surely he was obliged to stay on until Labour could demonstrate that they could win a confidence vote in the Commons.
No, not quite. Heath should have resigned when he did, when it became clear that he could not command a majority in the Commons. Then Wilson got a go. If Wilson had failed there would likely have been soundings taken about Liberal support for either party under a different leader, and failing that another election. Heath got it right and it took four days. Brown took five. No great difference.
The difference is that in 1974, the incumbent was looking to do a deal. That wasn't the case in 2010. The incumbent should have accepted that the game was up as soon the results were in.
But it was the case in 2010 that Labour was seeking a deal. Brown even offered to step aside in return for LibDem support of Labour.
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
Inexplicably they have missed out blue passports (that look black and take 3 months to actually get renewed).
Because that's already happened. And they are definitely blue - they just aren't royal blue. Put one on a black background and you'll see the difference.
Of course they are blue, but they still look black in normal light and backgrounds.
None of them are USC Title 10 though and therefore not subject to UCMJ. Though, quite why the weather and public health people have to be is something for the conspiraloons to chew on.
Weather: perhaps becvause of the old weather ships that used to bob around in the middle of the Atlantic before the satellites took over. THey also have a fleet of weather recce planes too for hurricane surveys and the like.
Public health - no idea!
Probably because a lot of early "public" health stuff came from the military.
Lots of research into tropical diseases came from trying to keep armies alive, for example.
Of course, yes; the yellow fever research by Reed et al when it killed many US troops in Cuba.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
The drive for Johnson to go is not based on any big policy being a problem, but on Johnson's own personal trickiness, so I think candidates who are serving in the current cabinet are in with more of a chance than Tugendhat/Hunt.
Zahawi and Javid seem to me underrated on that list to me. Javid has many of the advantages Hunt has while being more interesting. Zahawi has the advantage of being an early supporter of both Brexit and then Johnson for the leadership. Javid has run at least two very difficult departments (Home Office, Health) without presiding over any big disasters. Either would also be an opportunity for party members to be 'first movers' in party leadership choice again: they had the first Jewish leader, the first and second female leader, why not the first of a Muslim backround? Could possibly discombobulate some Labour critics, which Tories always like to see.
Wallace perfectly respectable, seems to have friends in the media. Not sure of his views on areas outside of his brief of defense and foreign policy, so a bit of an unknown quantity. Suspect he is in agreement with most government policy but might imagine he could make a better job of it.
It is right that Patel is not on there - it would seem to me that neither the parliamentary party, party membership, nor public as a whole would see her as leader material, for all manner of sensible reasons.
I don't personally have the visceral reaction against Truss that many seem to have. But she represents one side of the party - on the 'wet to dry' scale she is positively desiccated. Not appealing to new voters Tories picked up in 2019. Too divisive in public discourse.
Gove very interesting character but I suspect most Tories prefer him to serve as consigliere at most. Can be impulsive, latches on to new causes with all the zealoutry of a convert.
Tugendhat very good on foreign policy but that seems to be one area where this government actually knows what it is doing already. Comes off as statesman-like but that is frankly easy to do when you chair a comittee (and are not Chris Bryant).
Rishi a non-starter if you have set yourself against 'lockdown bandits'.
Hunt... I still don't quite see why he is any kind of solution for the Tories. Only certainty for me is that he would not be able to keep the voting coalition of 2019. A sign that the Tories have accepted they will lose the next election. Hunt himself is not without his own scandals.
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
Ah, the HS2 fallacy.
Er -how?
HS2 critics tended to contrast the whole of the cost of the project with just one of the benefits, usually a very minor one. eg "why spend all these billions just so you can get from Birmingham to London 20 minutes quicker?"
Hunt 16% - Much too high Tugendhat 11% - About right Truss 11% - About right, maybe a bit high Wallace 9% - Too low (but does he want the gig?) Sunak 9% - No chance, have the punters in this market not been reading the news? Mordaunt 8% - A bit low, but she lacks experience Zahawi 5% - OKish I suppose. Very dull media performer. Gove 4% - About right Javid 4% - Too low. "When you've eliminated the impossible..."
And don't forget Raab and Barclay, also both possible.
A pretty wide-open field, which may well mean the contest doesn't actually happen.
It's all a bit irresistible force (BoJo really has to go) meets immovable object (or two- Johnson seems determined to stay, and there's no standout alternative who will obviously do better). And in that sceanario, anything can happen, usually in a bad way.
Must dig out Alan Clark's account of November 1990.
Who will be BJ’s Clark, urging him to go for a final stand, raging against traitors then sobbing into their claret? Nadine?
This includes a bit of Thatcher’s Untergang, quite proud that I’d remembered it pretty well though maybe a tribute to the vividness of Clark’s writing. The Edwina vignette is hilarious.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of arithmetic could see that Labour could not carry on and a deal with the Liberal Democrats would still leave them well short of a majority. You needed to add the SNP and Plaid for a majority of 1. So there was no way Labour could carry on.
I appreciate the point about arithmetic doesn't apply to O'Donnell, who is after all an economist (not a very good one).
If the Tories could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 306 seats, then Labour/Lib Dems could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 315 seats. More so, as the SNP and Plaid could be seen as more likely to oppose the Tories than Labour/Lib Dems.
Wouldn't have been very stable, mind you, but then again, the Tory minority one would likely have been even less stable. If one minority is valid, so's the other.
If, however, Lab plus Lib Dem had added up to less than the Tory total, that wouldn't have been feasible. But it didn't, so it was.
For the Tories to govern for twelve months the Liberal Democrats had the option of abstaining on a Queen's Speech and a budget. The Liberal Democrats would have had to *actively support* Labour for them to form a government.
And since the Liberal Democrats had already expressed a preference for the largest party to form a government that wasn't a starter.
But *in any case* O'Donnell's advice was still wrong. The fact that Heath made an abortive attempt to do something lower key under what has to be said were somewhat different circumstances (and was incidentally equally wrong to do so for a whole host of reasons) doesn't alter that fact.
And finally, to come back to the point people keep missing, it was catastrophic for the Labour party. They should have told O'Donnell that he was one of the FIs who had got them into this mess, and he could take a hike.
I haven't missed that point. I said it was irrelevant constitutionally.
What Labour / the LibDems should have done *politically* is a very different discussion to what the powers that be should have done *constitutionally*. Your arguments about GOD being wrong are based on political assumptions about what party x would have done in relation to party y in scenario z. I'm not disagreeing with your points there, just saying that the constitutional arrangements don't care. They are stupid, but they are what they are.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
Ah, the HS2 fallacy.
Er -how?
HS2 critics tended to contrast the whole of the cost of the project with just one of the benefits, usually a very minor one. eg "why spend all these billions just so you can get from Birmingham to London 20 minutes quicker?"
Right, now I understand.
HS2, Brown's squatting and the minutiae of Tory leadership procedures. Pretty hardcore stuff on here this mornning...
Shocked to see that of JRM's top nine Brexit ideas, fully one third are electrical. And none about the price of it. Does anyone have any idea why this should be so?
Once, speaking to a Tory friend (I've even kissed a Tory, two in fact, though growing up in the North you can never tell if the Tories are secret Kippers or worse), he got really angry about the 1945 election result. It was almost like the electorate had betrayed the Great Man himself.
I'm currently reading Citizen Clem and I'm struck by two things. Firstly, how boring Clement Atlee is as a person. He's living through these incredibly turbulent times, he's facing down bitter fights from within his own party but he is dull. It seems he was a very competent manager, and able to tap into the public mood very well. His skill appears to me to be able to appraise his choices, make what he feels is the best and then (mostly) bring the party and country with him.
The second are the contrasting fates of the United Kingdom and the United States. I'm only at 1947, and the world order seems very fluid. However, the War has made the United States and broken the British Empire. Atlee himself sees this, and sells the Imperial Preference for $5 billion in loans and attempts to make the Commonwealth the next phase of the British Empire. Twenty years prior, Britain had been the hegemon, though in decline, and America an isolated great power. After the war, Britain was a regional power with a legacy Empire and the United States was a Superpower. As we approach the jubilee holiday, I wonder if tying the Commonwealth together with something stronger than the Crown and 'shared values' would have resulted in some kind of CANZUK in the 50s? Probably not.
Was there ever a victory quite like the USA's in WWII? They comprehensively defeated their military rival in the Pacific. British dependents now looked to America for security, the British been demonstrated to be unable to provide it. They ended up with half of Europe dependent on American goods, and gained access to the closed system of British Empire, which severed the economic dependence between the colonies and Britain. Unable to guarantee security, superfluous for economic needs, what would be the point of being in a Commonwealth with teeth? The USA were able to dismantle and occupy and use the strategic and economic resources of the previous hegemon while tying them so close that no future British PM could ever contemplate strategic independence. Not bad for four years of fighting.
To sum up this long, unnecessary post, I find it interesting how some wars make some countries, and the same war fought in the same side, breaks others.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of arithmetic could see that Labour could not carry on and a deal with the Liberal Democrats would still leave them well short of a majority. You needed to add the SNP and Plaid for a majority of 1. So there was no way Labour could carry on.
I appreciate the point about arithmetic doesn't apply to O'Donnell, who is after all an economist (not a very good one).
If the Tories could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 306 seats, then Labour/Lib Dems could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 315 seats. More so, as the SNP and Plaid could be seen as more likely to oppose the Tories than Labour/Lib Dems.
Wouldn't have been very stable, mind you, but then again, the Tory minority one would likely have been even less stable. If one minority is valid, so's the other.
If, however, Lab plus Lib Dem had added up to less than the Tory total, that wouldn't have been feasible. But it didn't, so it was.
For the Tories to govern for twelve months the Liberal Democrats had the option of abstaining on a Queen's Speech and a budget. The Liberal Democrats would have had to *actively support* Labour for them to form a government.
And since the Liberal Democrats had already expressed a preference for the largest party to form a government that wasn't a starter.
But *in any case* O'Donnell's advice was still wrong. The fact that Heath made an abortive attempt to do something lower key under what has to be said were somewhat different circumstances (and was incidentally equally wrong to do so for a whole host of reasons) doesn't alter that fact.
And finally, to come back to the point people keep missing, it was catastrophic for the Labour party. They should have told O'Donnell that he was one of the FIs who had got them into this mess, and he could take a hike.
I haven't missed that point. I said it was irrelevant constitutionally.
What Labour / the LibDems should have done *politically* is a very different discussion to what the powers that be should have done *constitutionally*. Your arguments about GOD being wrong are based on political assumptions about what party x would have done in relation to party y in scenario z. I'm not disagreeing with your points there, just saying that the constitutional arrangements don't care. They are stupid, but they are what they are.
Sigh.
The constitutional arrangements were not what O'Donnell thought. As anybody with a passing knowledge of them would have known. He didn't have it, because he doesn't understand the constitution (or much else as far as I can see).
The point is that in ignoring them Brown did more damage to his party than anything else. And the damage may not have been finished yet, because the uncodified nature of our constitution means a new precedent has now probably been set.
But this is becoming an increasingly sterile debate. So shall we agree to differ and leave it there?
The thing about that raspberry picking robot is that technical progress is an interaction between the machinery and the new types of raspberry that will be bred to be capable of being picked by the robot. This has happened with the strawberry varieties we find in the shops. Greater productivity from mechanised harvesting and the new varieties bred to cope with it have led to a decline in the quality of the product. But they are harvested earlier and are visually more perfect than those which only came into the shops for Wimbledon week 50 years ago. However the strawberries were vastly better tasting in those days, even if they were squishier and had a shorter shelf life.
Grow wild strawberries in your garden - tiny, ugly and absolutely packed with flavor.
Shocked to see that of JRM's top nine Brexit ideas, fully one third are electrical. And none about the price of it. Does anyone have any idea why this should be so?
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
Inexplicably they have missed out blue passports (that look black and take 3 months to actually get renewed).
Because that's already happened. And they are definitely blue - they just aren't royal blue. Put one on a black background and you'll see the difference.
Of course they are blue, but they still look black in normal light and backgrounds.
Rather like Brexit itself as RP explained the other day - we still follow EU standards, except in name.
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
You've always been able to buy one (if you want one) as the regs exluded W&D and industrial vacs. I've got a 2kw Nilfisk W&D I used for sorting out car interiors.
There is no requirement for PM to resign immediately after an election.
An incumbent PM is entitled to remain in office if he wishes until he loses the confidence of the Commons.
In hung parliament situation that may have to be actually tested with a vote.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He tried to do a deal with Jeremy Thorpe but it failed. Without the Liberals there was no way Heath could stay in office.
But he didn't need to resign. Labour weren't in a much different position to govern.
Remember the slogan was 'Who governs Britain'? The answer very clearly was 'not you'.
Heath accepted the verdict. Boris, in similar circumstances, would try harder to carry on.
That was a spectacular own goal
“If you’ve got to ask, it’s not you mate”.
A bit like the old “Being powerful’s like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you ain’t”.
There is no requirement for PM to resign immediately after an election.
An incumbent PM is entitled to remain in office if he wishes until he loses the confidence of the Commons.
In hung parliament situation that may have to be actually tested with a vote.
Yes, in fact not only is the outgoing PM entitled to remain in office, he is obliged to do so if there's no alternative who is in a position to win a confidence vote. He should however resign as soon as it becomes reasonably clear, or at least likely, that there is such an alternative. Brown's behaviour was exactly correct on this.
So why did Heath resign in 1974?
He didn't resign immediately (on the Friday) but spent the weekend seeing if something could be cobbled together with Thorpe. He only quit on Monday evening.
But Labour weren't in a position to govern. So surely he was obliged to stay on until Labour could demonstrate that they could win a confidence vote in the Commons.
No, not quite. Heath should have resigned when he did, when it became clear that he could not command a majority in the Commons. Then Wilson got a go. If Wilson had failed there would likely have been soundings taken about Liberal support for either party under a different leader, and failing that another election. Heath got it right and it took four days. Brown took five. No great difference.
The difference is that in 1974, the incumbent was looking to do a deal. That wasn't the case in 2010. The incumbent should have accepted that the game was up as soon the results were in.
But it was the case in 2010 that Labour was seeking a deal. Brown even offered to step aside in return for LibDem support of Labour.
But it was clear that the Lib Dems were dealing with the Conservatives first. Brown's statement on the Monday was a final act of desperation. The Conservatives should have been in government on the Friday and everything should have gone from there.
Hunt 16% - Much too high Tugendhat 11% - About right Truss 11% - About right, maybe a bit high Wallace 9% - Too low (but does he want the gig?) Sunak 9% - No chance, have the punters in this market not been reading the news? Mordaunt 8% - A bit low, but she lacks experience Zahawi 5% - OKish I suppose. Very dull media performer. Gove 4% - About right Javid 4% - Too low. "When you've eliminated the impossible..."
And don't forget Raab and Barclay, also both possible.
A pretty wide-open field, which may well mean the contest doesn't actually happen.
It's all a bit irresistible force (BoJo really has to go) meets immovable object (or two- Johnson seems determined to stay, and there's no standout alternative who will obviously do better). And in that sceanario, anything can happen, usually in a bad way.
Must dig out Alan Clark's account of November 1990.
Who will be BJ’s Clark, urging him to go for a final stand, raging against traitors then sobbing into their claret? Nadine?
This includes a bit of Thatcher’s Untergang, quite proud that I’d remembered it pretty well though maybe a tribute to the vividness of Clark’s writing. The Edwina vignette is hilarious.
But I am inclined to think that the Party in the House has just got sick of her. She hasn't promoted her "own" people much. Her "constituency" in this place depends solely on her proven ability to win General Elections. But now this is in jeopardy she has no real Praetorian Guard to fall back on.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Have a look at vacs on Screwfix etc. Umpteen at 1.4kW and above. Right now.
The thing about that raspberry picking robot is that technical progress is an interaction between the machinery and the new types of raspberry that will be bred to be capable of being picked by the robot. This has happened with the strawberry varieties we find in the shops. Greater productivity from mechanised harvesting and the new varieties bred to cope with it have led to a decline in the quality of the product. But they are harvested earlier and are visually more perfect than those which only came into the shops for Wimbledon week 50 years ago. However the strawberries were vastly better tasting in those days, even if they were squishier and had a shorter shelf life.
Grow wild strawberries in your garden - tiny, ugly and absolutely packed with flavor.
Once in, they spread like the pox though. R off the scale.
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
Ah, the HS2 fallacy.
Er -how?
HS2 critics tended to contrast the whole of the cost of the project with just one of the benefits, usually a very minor one. eg "why spend all these billions just so you can get from Birmingham to London 20 minutes quicker?"
I'm happy to add in electric pedal bikes if that helps on the Brexit side of the argument. I'm a bit puzzled by the one about simplifying the calculation of holiday pay, though. Apparently 12.07% is too hard a sum for the Brexiteers to manage in their heads, which is fair enough, but if that's an advantage then presumably another of the advantages must be that Brexit will mean computers and pocket calculators can be banned.
Once, speaking to a Tory friend (I've even kissed a Tory, two in fact, though growing up in the North you can never tell if the Tories are secret Kippers or worse), he got really angry about the 1945 election result. It was almost like the electorate had betrayed the Great Man himself.
I'm currently reading Citizen Clem and I'm struck by two things. Firstly, how boring Clement Atlee is as a person. He's living through these incredibly turbulent times, he's facing down bitter fights from within his own party but he is dull. It seems he was a very competent manager, and able to tap into the public mood very well. His skill appears to me to be able to appraise his choices, make what he feels is the best and then (mostly) bring the party and country with him.
The second are the contrasting fates of the United Kingdom and the United States. I'm only at 1947, and the world order seems very fluid. However, the War has made the United States and broken the British Empire. Atlee himself sees this, and sells the Imperial Preference for $5 billion in loans and attempts to make the Commonwealth the next phase of the British Empire. Twenty years prior, Britain had been the hegemon, though in decline, and America an isolated great power. After the war, Britain was a regional power with a legacy Empire and the United States was a Superpower. As we approach the jubilee holiday, I wonder if tying the Commonwealth together with something stronger than the Crown and 'shared values' would have resulted in some kind of CANZUK in the 50s? Probably not.
Was there ever a victory quite like the USA's in WWII? They comprehensively defeated their military rival in the Pacific. British dependents now looked to America for security, the British been demonstrated to be unable to provide it. They ended up with half of Europe dependent on American goods, and gained access to the closed system of British Empire, which severed the economic dependence between the colonies and Britain. Unable to guarantee security, superfluous for economic needs, what would be the point of being in a Commonwealth with teeth? The USA were able to dismantle and occupy and use the strategic and economic resources of the previous hegemon while tying them so close that no future British PM could ever contemplate strategic independence. Not bad for four years of fighting.
To sum up this long, unnecessary post, I find it interesting how some wars make some countries, and the same war fought in the same side, breaks others.
I think we're probably better off with dull, boring and uncharismatic political leaders. Because charismatic leaders have the ability to persuade people to believe and do things they'd be better off not believing and doing. No-one was ever going to do the wrong thing because John Major or Gordon Brown tried to persuade them to do it. With a charismatic leader it's easy to get caught up in the moment so to speak.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Would be interesting to see how many of them were actually mandated by EU law. I find it difficult to see how the qualifications of pharmacists were an EU requirement for example. Though I may be wrong. Fracking also. The EU has wildly differing energy policies. Nuclear France, non-nuclear Germany, most blindingly. Also. What does "all the attributes of an employee" mean exactly?
Talking of less innocent times, what is it with naked tv dating shows?
After Decadence came Fascism last time round. Will history repeat itself?
Channel 4's idea of being edgy and taboo-breaking.
Not just Channel 4. I read today that Sweden is getting one. There seem to be quite a lot of naked tv shows around the world.
Is this not just history and media orgs endlessly repeating themselves, and the latest lot of self-appointed Lord Chancellors getting themselves into a fluff?
What happened to "Naked News" from whenever it was from, or the 'controversial' Czech 'get undressed for the weather conditions' weather forecast (available for both sexes iirc)?
Or for that matter, Chris Tarrant's Bizarre from the 1980s?
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
I forget what the units used were, possibly a pressure differential, but when we last went looking for a vacuum cleaner we were able to find information on the actual physical suction created. It would make sense to establish a standard test for measuring vacuum cleaner suction, and then mandate that vacuum cleaners should be sold with that measurement, and with their efficiency of converting W into suction.
Had a look into dryers recently and the efficiency improvements for new heat pump dryers compared to existing condensing dryers are impressive. There is still a lot that could be done to encourage energy efficiency improvements.
Alliance being a sister party to the Lib Dem would have backed the Lab/Lib Dem deal, as likely would the SDLP (For Labour). So we're up to 319 Ayes. So it'd be up to Plaid and the SNP (Sinn Fein is a given to abstain) - I'd have thought there would be a good chance they'd let a Lab/LD Queen's speech pass given the alternative could be seen to be backing the Tories/DUP.
I think Brown was right to stay on till it became clear the Lib Dems & Tories had a deal.
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
The drive for Johnson to go is not based on any big policy being a problem, but on Johnson's own personal trickiness, so I think candidates who are serving in the current cabinet are in with more of a chance than Tugendhat/Hunt.
Zahawi and Javid seem to me underrated on that list to me. Javid has many of the advantages Hunt has while being more interesting. Zahawi has the advantage of being an early supporter of both Brexit and then Johnson for the leadership. Javid has run at least two very difficult departments (Home Office, Health) without presiding over any big disasters. Either would also be an opportunity for party members to be 'first movers' in party leadership choice again: they had the first Jewish leader, the first and second female leader, why not the first of a Muslim backround? Could possibly discombobulate some Labour critics, which Tories always like to see.
Wallace perfectly respectable, seems to have friends in the media. Not sure of his views on areas outside of his brief of defense and foreign policy, so a bit of an unknown quantity. Suspect he is in agreement with most government policy but might imagine he could make a better job of it.
It is right that Patel is not on there - it would seem to me that neither the parliamentary party, party membership, nor public as a whole would see her as leader material, for all manner of sensible reasons.
I don't personally have the visceral reaction against Truss that many seem to have. But she represents one side of the party - on the 'wet to dry' scale she is positively desiccated. Not appealing to new voters Tories picked up in 2019. Too divisive in public discourse.
Gove very interesting character but I suspect most Tories prefer him to serve as consigliere at most. Can be impulsive, latches on to new causes with all the zealoutry of a convert.
Tugendhat very good on foreign policy but that seems to be one area where this government actually knows what it is doing already. Comes off as statesman-like but that is frankly easy to do when you chair a comittee (and are not Chris Bryant).
Rishi a non-starter if you have set yourself against 'lockdown bandits'.
Hunt... I still don't quite see why he is any kind of solution for the Tories. Only certainty for me is that he would not be able to keep the voting coalition of 2019. A sign that the Tories have accepted they will lose the next election. Hunt himself is not without his own scandals.
That's an interesting post. Conclusion seems to be that this would be a very open race, and much will depend on how the various candidates conduct themselves. I wonder if we could have a rerun of 2005 when they make their initial pitches at the party conference? That resulted in the early favourite, David Davis, making such a hash that he never recovered. It's a pity Ken Clarke is in the Lords now - he always brightens a contest!
BTW - on the by-elections. Not sure why anyone should wait for them. They are both slam-dunk opposition gains. Tiverton and Honiton will go LibDem by a country-mile and Wakefield will go Labour by a fair margin. If Boris is hoping they will keep him in the game, then it's a forlorn hope.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Its an interesting list. Though I'm not sure that its the vote winner they think it is. Initial response was "is that it?". Then you start to dig into it: 1. People don't want fracking and definitely don't want to be told there is no democratic oversight. 2. Having clutched their new super sucker Dyson made somewhere forrin and used it the voter has to admit its the same as their previous one 3. The food industry and farmers will cheer the GM crops move. But it won't offset the rising costs generally and consumers are already resistant to "frankenstein foods" 4. Basically they want more people driving vehicles they aren't competent to drive. Want to cut H&S laws on things like drivers hours as well, and combined with point 7 means more accidents and more deaths 5. Most people don't own one and don't want one 6. Great news for medical malpractice lawyers 7. Great news for big corporates wanting to exploit people, less good for the workers expecting better jobs with more pay and security from all the eastern europeans leaving 8. Will allow employers to pay shift / casual workers less money. See point 7 9. Lower electrical standards means more fires. Great for insurers who will find loads of clauses to avoid payouts. Less good for people who die in fires or lose everything.
Again, is that it? "We delivered Brexit and that means you get to work longer hours for less rights"
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of arithmetic could see that Labour could not carry on and a deal with the Liberal Democrats would still leave them well short of a majority. You needed to add the SNP and Plaid for a majority of 1. So there was no way Labour could carry on.
I appreciate the point about arithmetic doesn't apply to O'Donnell, who is after all an economist (not a very good one).
If the Tories could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 306 seats, then Labour/Lib Dems could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 315 seats. More so, as the SNP and Plaid could be seen as more likely to oppose the Tories than Labour/Lib Dems.
Wouldn't have been very stable, mind you, but then again, the Tory minority one would likely have been even less stable. If one minority is valid, so's the other.
If, however, Lab plus Lib Dem had added up to less than the Tory total, that wouldn't have been feasible. But it didn't, so it was.
For the Tories to govern for twelve months the Liberal Democrats had the option of abstaining on a Queen's Speech and a budget. The Liberal Democrats would have had to *actively support* Labour for them to form a government.
And since the Liberal Democrats had already expressed a preference for the largest party to form a government that wasn't a starter.
But *in any case* O'Donnell's advice was still wrong. The fact that Heath made an abortive attempt to do something lower key under what has to be said were somewhat different circumstances (and was incidentally equally wrong to do so for a whole host of reasons) doesn't alter that fact.
And finally, to come back to the point people keep missing, it was catastrophic for the Labour party. They should have told O'Donnell that he was one of the FIs who had got them into this mess, and he could take a hike.
I haven't missed that point. I said it was irrelevant constitutionally.
What Labour / the LibDems should have done *politically* is a very different discussion to what the powers that be should have done *constitutionally*. Your arguments about GOD being wrong are based on political assumptions about what party x would have done in relation to party y in scenario z. I'm not disagreeing with your points there, just saying that the constitutional arrangements don't care. They are stupid, but they are what they are.
Sigh.
The constitutional arrangements were not what O'Donnell thought. As anybody with a passing knowledge of them would have known. He didn't have it, because he doesn't understand the constitution (or much else as far as I can see).
The point is that in ignoring them Brown did more damage to his party than anything else. And the damage may not have been finished yet, because the uncodified nature of our constitution means a new precedent has now probably been set.
But this is becoming an increasingly sterile debate. So shall we agree to differ and leave it there?
Perhaps we can both meet in the middle and agree that GOD's problem was that we don't have a constitution...!
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
There has been a sudden appearance of "pedal powered" e-bikes that look like scramblers round Edinburgh in the last month or so.
There are people taking the absolute piss with these things.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
How many actually anything to do with the EU, though? I'd question 1, the medicines bit of 3 (I know EMA, but still off-label prescribing and national autonomy, see e.g. Covid vaccinations approvals), 6 and 9 being anything to do with EU.
I'm also in favour of keeping 2*, 4, 5 from the likely part of EU list and 7 for some agency workers (i.e. protections at the bottom end, with flexibility for high end consultants etc). I've absolutely no idea what 8 is about.
*As noted, if you really need a more powerful vac they're not hard to get. But it stops Jo Public going down to Currys and just buying the one with the biggest 'power' number (or, at least, reduces that biggest power number).
Alliance being a sister party to the Lib Dem would have backed the Lab/Lib Dem deal, as likely would the SDLP (For Labour). So we're up to 319 Ayes. So it'd be up to Plaid and the SNP (Sinn Fein is a given to abstain) - I'd have thought there would be a good chance they'd let a Lab/LD Queen's speech pass given the alternative could be seen to be backing the Tories/DUP.
I think Brown was right to stay on till it became clear the Lib Dems & Tories had a deal.
But as @ydoethur has pointed out, the Tories didn't need a deal with the Lib Dems. They just needed the Lib Dems to abstain. That wasn't the case for Labour. They needed everyone bar the Tories and DUP to vote for them.
And whilst it might be fine to lump the Lib Dems with Labour now, that was most certainly not the case in 2010.
Talking of less innocent times, what is it with naked tv dating shows?
After Decadence came Fascism last time round. Will history repeat itself?
Channel 4's idea of being edgy and taboo-breaking.
Not just Channel 4. I read today that Sweden is getting one. There seem to be quite a lot of naked tv shows around the world.
Is this not just history and media orgs endlessly repeating themselves, and the latest lot of self-appointed Lord Chancellors getting themselves into a fluff?
What happened to "Naked News" from whenever it was from, or the 'controversial' Czech 'get undressed for the weather conditions' weather forecast (available for both sexes iirc)?
Or for that matter, Chris Tarrant's Bizarre from the 1980s?
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Its an interesting list. Though I'm not sure that its the vote winner they think it is. Initial response was "is that it?". Then you start to dig into it: 1. People don't want fracking and definitely don't want to be told there is no democratic oversight. 2. Having clutched their new super sucker Dyson made somewhere forrin and used it the voter has to admit its the same as their previous one 3. The food industry and farmers will cheer the GM crops move. But it won't offset the rising costs generally and consumers are already resistant to "frankenstein foods" 4. Basically they want more people driving vehicles they aren't competent to drive. Want to cut H&S laws on things like drivers hours as well, and combined with point 7 means more accidents and more deaths 5. Most people don't own one and don't want one 6. Great news for medical malpractice lawyers 7. Great news for big corporates wanting to exploit people, less good for the workers expecting better jobs with more pay and security from all the eastern europeans leaving 8. Will allow employers to pay shift / casual workers less money. See point 7 9. Lower electrical standards means more fires. Great for insurers who will find loads of clauses to avoid payouts. Less good for people who die in fires or lose everything.
Again, is that it? "We delivered Brexit and that means you get to work longer hours for less rights"
You look at the people bankrolling the Brexit campaign, and it is wholly unsurprising that working longer hours for less rights is the result.
On vacuum cleaners, our EU compliant Miele cleaner works very well with excellent suction. I'm not sure why a machine would need any more power, unless it was very inefficient.
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
Who do you think the old geezers vote for? They want to hark back to their Easy Rider days without having to ride a Japanese bike or mess arond maintaining an antique from Brum.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
I thought most of our domestic electrical safety regulations were just that, domestic. BS7671 and all that. Our regulations have always been very strict, even if they weren't always adhered to by cowboys. What are the actual proposals? Allowing people to do their own electrics? I do this already because I do a better job than the last 'qualified' electrician I had in. Sod the rules.
Moving from CE to some other standard won't make much difference, as all that Chinese tat never complied in the first place. Have you ever taken apart some of their cheap battery chargers? Jeez.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Have a look at vacs on Screwfix etc. Umpteen at 1.4kW and above. Right now.
Are the Screwfix vacuum cleaners intended for domestic use though? Presumably not.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Have a look at vacs on Screwfix etc. Umpteen at 1.4kW and above. Right now.
Are the Screwfix vacuum cleaners intended for domestic use though? Presumably not.
Talking of less innocent times, what is it with naked tv dating shows?
After Decadence came Fascism last time round. Will history repeat itself?
Channel 4's idea of being edgy and taboo-breaking.
Not just Channel 4. I read today that Sweden is getting one. There seem to be quite a lot of naked tv shows around the world.
Is this not just history and media orgs endlessly repeating themselves, and the latest lot of self-appointed Lord Chancellors getting themselves into a fluff?
What happened to "Naked News" from whenever it was from, or the 'controversial' Czech 'get undressed for the weather conditions' weather forecast (available for both sexes iirc)?
Or for that matter, Chris Tarrant's Bizarre from the 1980s?
Topless Darts, which was banned from sponsoring Millwall...
Alliance being a sister party to the Lib Dem would have backed the Lab/Lib Dem deal, as likely would the SDLP (For Labour). So we're up to 319 Ayes. So it'd be up to Plaid and the SNP (Sinn Fein is a given to abstain) - I'd have thought there would be a good chance they'd let a Lab/LD Queen's speech pass given the alternative could be seen to be backing the Tories/DUP.
I think Brown was right to stay on till it became clear the Lib Dems & Tories had a deal.
But as @ydoethur has pointed out, the Tories didn't need a deal with the Lib Dems. They just needed the Lib Dems to abstain. That wasn't the case for Labour. They needed everyone bar the Tories and DUP to vote for them.
And whilst it might be fine to lump the Lib Dems with Labour now, that was most certainly not the case in 2010.
The incumbent has the right to remain and test via a confidence vote in the Commons.
So the comedy scenario is thus: 1. Graham Brady books a big room in parliament early next week and announces a contest 2. Consternation and uproar from the Tories. The loon wing angrily attack their traitor colleagues, the moral / nervous ones attack back 3. Johnson scrapes over the line. Badly damaged, with ongoing attacks by the moral vs the vacuous. 4. We really now must move on says team clown 5. "Oh hell no" says the public, with a fresh poll plunge for the Tories 6. Tories get smashed in both Wakefield and Devon. 7. Despite the "he's safe for 12 months" rule the slide into the mire only accelerates. 8. He resigns, but instead of a swift contest and a sane leader paraded at conference we have a fractious battle with the remaining loons desperate to hold onto control of the party. 9. Instead Conference is a contest where the membership listen to "vote for me" speeches from favoured candidates. A choice of Patel or Baker becomes their option...
Rees-Mogg invented his own constitutional convention that a leader who survives a VONC, but not by enough, should resign anyway, when he was whinging about May winning hers.
I would love to see how he reverses position if Boris wins such a vote.
7. Is definitely possible. The rule is meant to prevent challenges but doesnt mean people magically become happy.
Didn't bother Labour when in 2010 they said a PM was a PM was a PM until he resigned, and then in 2015 briefed a PM who didn't win outright should resign at once.
Interestingly on both occasions they were completely wrong, and both times it militated against their own best interests.
They were right in 2010 and wrong in 2015. Regardless of elections we always have ministers including the PM. The Queen asks someone to form a government who then needs to be supported by the Commons.
So in 2010 it was unclear after the election whether any leader could command confidence in the Commons. So for 5 days we waited for negotiations. During that time all ministers remain in place until the government resigns.
The situation in 2015 was very different. It seemed likely that Cameron would be able to have the confidence of the house if the Tories were at least the largest party. And if Labour were the largest party but again no majority it would be incumbent on the government to stay in office until a viable replacement could be appointed.
No, the precedent from 1929 is that when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on the largest party be invited to form a government. Which did eventually happen, but took far too long.
O'Donnell didn't have a clue what he was doing, in this as in many other matters.
But - unfortunately for Labour - their mistake in listening to his stupid advice was enormously damaging. First, because it made them look like sore losers. They got the lowest share of the vote ever by a governing party, lost a hundred seats, and were clearly trying to cling on to power. Not a good look. Second, because it forced Cameron's backbenchers to concede a coalition with the Liberal Democrats rather than trying for a minority government. Which meant no prospect of a quick rematch. Third, because they left before the agreement was signed which undercut their own credibility on point 1 anyway. Fourth, because the five years of coalition allowed a head of steam to build behind UKIP and the SNP with distinctly unfortunate consequences.
If Brown had done the sane thing, accepted the verdict of the voters and resigned at once, things might have been very different. And very much better all around.
The key phrase being "when the governing party is clearly unable to carry on". That was not clear in the immediate aftermath of that election. Even Cameron believed that a Labour / LibDem deal was more likely.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of arithmetic could see that Labour could not carry on and a deal with the Liberal Democrats would still leave them well short of a majority. You needed to add the SNP and Plaid for a majority of 1. So there was no way Labour could carry on.
I appreciate the point about arithmetic doesn't apply to O'Donnell, who is after all an economist (not a very good one).
If the Tories could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 306 seats, then Labour/Lib Dems could be viewed as viable to run a minority Government with 315 seats. More so, as the SNP and Plaid could be seen as more likely to oppose the Tories than Labour/Lib Dems.
Wouldn't have been very stable, mind you, but then again, the Tory minority one would likely have been even less stable. If one minority is valid, so's the other.
If, however, Lab plus Lib Dem had added up to less than the Tory total, that wouldn't have been feasible. But it didn't, so it was.
For the Tories to govern for twelve months the Liberal Democrats had the option of abstaining on a Queen's Speech and a budget. The Liberal Democrats would have had to *actively support* Labour for them to form a government.
And since the Liberal Democrats had already expressed a preference for the largest party to form a government that wasn't a starter.
But *in any case* O'Donnell's advice was still wrong. The fact that Heath made an abortive attempt to do something lower key under what has to be said were somewhat different circumstances (and was incidentally equally wrong to do so for a whole host of reasons) doesn't alter that fact.
And finally, to come back to the point people keep missing, it was catastrophic for the Labour party. They should have told O'Donnell that he was one of the FIs who had got them into this mess, and he could take a hike.
I haven't missed that point. I said it was irrelevant constitutionally.
What Labour / the LibDems should have done *politically* is a very different discussion to what the powers that be should have done *constitutionally*. Your arguments about GOD being wrong are based on political assumptions about what party x would have done in relation to party y in scenario z. I'm not disagreeing with your points there, just saying that the constitutional arrangements don't care. They are stupid, but they are what they are.
Sigh.
The constitutional arrangements were not what O'Donnell thought. As anybody with a passing knowledge of them would have known. He didn't have it, because he doesn't understand the constitution (or much else as far as I can see).
The point is that in ignoring them Brown did more damage to his party than anything else. And the damage may not have been finished yet, because the uncodified nature of our constitution means a new precedent has now probably been set.
But this is becoming an increasingly sterile debate. So shall we agree to differ and leave it there?
Perhaps we can both meet in the middle and agree that GOD's problem was that we don't have a constitution...!
We do have a constitution. It's just not written down in one place.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Have a look at vacs on Screwfix etc. Umpteen at 1.4kW and above. Right now.
Are the Screwfix vacuum cleaners intended for domestic use though? Presumably not.
Well, rather a lot of stuff [edit: generally] at Screwfix is for DIY, domestic, garden etc. It's certainly not a trade only shop.
PS But AIUI I can't see why you would need more than a kW, let alone 1.4, if you had a decent machine anyway and didn't have it full of clag. A Henry is pretty good and it's only about half the max power rating.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Its an interesting list. Though I'm not sure that its the vote winner they think it is. Initial response was "is that it?". Then you start to dig into it: 1. People don't want fracking and definitely don't want to be told there is no democratic oversight. 2. Having clutched their new super sucker Dyson made somewhere forrin and used it the voter has to admit its the same as their previous one 3. The food industry and farmers will cheer the GM crops move. But it won't offset the rising costs generally and consumers are already resistant to "frankenstein foods" 4. Basically they want more people driving vehicles they aren't competent to drive. Want to cut H&S laws on things like drivers hours as well, and combined with point 7 means more accidents and more deaths 5. Most people don't own one and don't want one 6. Great news for medical malpractice lawyers 7. Great news for big corporates wanting to exploit people, less good for the workers expecting better jobs with more pay and security from all the eastern europeans leaving 8. Will allow employers to pay shift / casual workers less money. See point 7 9. Lower electrical standards means more fires. Great for insurers who will find loads of clauses to avoid payouts. Less good for people who die in fires or lose everything.
Again, is that it? "We delivered Brexit and that means you get to work longer hours for less rights"
Talking of less innocent times, what is it with naked tv dating shows?
After Decadence came Fascism last time round. Will history repeat itself?
Channel 4's idea of being edgy and taboo-breaking.
Not just Channel 4. I read today that Sweden is getting one. There seem to be quite a lot of naked tv shows around the world.
Is this not just history and media orgs endlessly repeating themselves, and the latest lot of self-appointed Lord Chancellors getting themselves into a fluff?
What happened to "Naked News" from whenever it was from, or the 'controversial' Czech 'get undressed for the weather conditions' weather forecast (available for both sexes iirc)?
Or for that matter, Chris Tarrant's Bizarre from the 1980s?
Topless Darts, which was banned from sponsoring Millwall...
Talking of less innocent times, what is it with naked tv dating shows?
After Decadence came Fascism last time round. Will history repeat itself?
Channel 4's idea of being edgy and taboo-breaking.
Not just Channel 4. I read today that Sweden is getting one. There seem to be quite a lot of naked tv shows around the world.
Is this not just history and media orgs endlessly repeating themselves, and the latest lot of self-appointed Lord Chancellors getting themselves into a fluff?
What happened to "Naked News" from whenever it was from, or the 'controversial' Czech 'get undressed for the weather conditions' weather forecast (available for both sexes iirc)?
Or for that matter, Chris Tarrant's Bizarre from the 1980s?
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
Where is this "end to electrical safety thing" from? Hyperbole, I suggest.
How do you know that the current EU defined regs are correct?
I only have to have an inspection of my rented houses by a trained electrician once every 5 years, rather than every year? Does that make them dangerous?
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Would be interesting to see how many of them were actually mandated by EU law. I find it difficult to see how the qualifications of pharmacists were an EU requirement for example. Though I may be wrong. Fracking also. The EU has wildly differing energy policies. Nuclear France, non-nuclear Germany, most blindingly. Also. What does "all the attributes of an employee" mean exactly?
I was around pharmaceutical politics when the four academic year plus one approved practical one scheme was introduced. AFAIR it was nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, although the EU, in moving towards exchangeability of qualifications, wanted to ensure parity of educational standards. Higher academic standards had been DoH and Royal Pharmaceutical Society policy since the late 50's. Mr turbotubbs may well know better.
Dunno about you, but I can't help feeling that losing 4% of GDP in exchange for the possibility of being able to buy a more powerful vacuum cleaner isn't a compelling deal.
Ah, the HS2 fallacy.
Er -how?
HS2 critics tended to contrast the whole of the cost of the project with just one of the benefits, usually a very minor one. eg "why spend all these billions just so you can get from Birmingham to London 20 minutes quicker?"
I'm happy to add in electric pedal bikes if that helps on the Brexit side of the argument. I'm a bit puzzled by the one about simplifying the calculation of holiday pay, though. Apparently 12.07% is too hard a sum for the Brexiteers to manage in their heads, which is fair enough, but if that's an advantage then presumably another of the advantages must be that Brexit will mean computers and pocket calculators can be banned.
You could undecimalise it to one eighth, and then to two shillings and sixpence in the pound.
I might start manufacturing vacuum cleaners with 100W suction and a 1900W heating element and pitch it as a 2000W device. It's not ethical, but someone's got to... clean up?
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
Essentially it removes the 250cc limit on driving a motorbike without passing the motorbike test, by the sleight of hand of pretending that a bicycle with unlimited electrical power is safer than a motorbike powered by a combustion engine.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Its an interesting list. Though I'm not sure that its the vote winner they think it is. Initial response was "is that it?". Then you start to dig into it: 1. People don't want fracking and definitely don't want to be told there is no democratic oversight. 2. Having clutched their new super sucker Dyson made somewhere forrin and used it the voter has to admit its the same as their previous one 3. The food industry and farmers will cheer the GM crops move. But it won't offset the rising costs generally and consumers are already resistant to "frankenstein foods" 4. Basically they want more people driving vehicles they aren't competent to drive. Want to cut H&S laws on things like drivers hours as well, and combined with point 7 means more accidents and more deaths 5. Most people don't own one and don't want one 6. Great news for medical malpractice lawyers 7. Great news for big corporates wanting to exploit people, less good for the workers expecting better jobs with more pay and security from all the eastern europeans leaving 8. Will allow employers to pay shift / casual workers less money. See point 7 9. Lower electrical standards means more fires. Great for insurers who will find loads of clauses to avoid payouts. Less good for people who die in fires or lose everything.
Again, is that it? "We delivered Brexit and that means you get to work longer hours for less rights"
Once again, the HS2 fallacy.
I have literally no idea what you "HS2 Fallacy" is.
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Have a look at vacs on Screwfix etc. Umpteen at 1.4kW and above. Right now.
Are the Screwfix vacuum cleaners intended for domestic use though? Presumably not.
This whole vacuum cleaner perfectly crystallises the absolute pointlessness of Brexit and the dishonest inanity of those that trumpet it.
You've always been able to buy a powerful vacuum cleaner if you really need one. Yet, we've now got that etoliated streak of precum JRM telling us that being able to buy a powerful vacuum cleaner is a potential Brexit benefit. Fuck me.
Once, speaking to a Tory friend (I've even kissed a Tory, two in fact, though growing up in the North you can never tell if the Tories are secret Kippers or worse), he got really angry about the 1945 election result. It was almost like the electorate had betrayed the Great Man himself.
I'm currently reading Citizen Clem and I'm struck by two things. Firstly, how boring Clement Atlee is as a person. He's living through these incredibly turbulent times, he's facing down bitter fights from within his own party but he is dull. It seems he was a very competent manager, and able to tap into the public mood very well. His skill appears to me to be able to appraise his choices, make what he feels is the best and then (mostly) bring the party and country with him.
The second are the contrasting fates of the United Kingdom and the United States. I'm only at 1947, and the world order seems very fluid. However, the War has made the United States and broken the British Empire. Atlee himself sees this, and sells the Imperial Preference for $5 billion in loans and attempts to make the Commonwealth the next phase of the British Empire. Twenty years prior, Britain had been the hegemon, though in decline, and America an isolated great power. After the war, Britain was a regional power with a legacy Empire and the United States was a Superpower. As we approach the jubilee holiday, I wonder if tying the Commonwealth together with something stronger than the Crown and 'shared values' would have resulted in some kind of CANZUK in the 50s? Probably not.
Was there ever a victory quite like the USA's in WWII? They comprehensively defeated their military rival in the Pacific. British dependents now looked to America for security, the British been demonstrated to be unable to provide it. They ended up with half of Europe dependent on American goods, and gained access to the closed system of British Empire, which severed the economic dependence between the colonies and Britain. Unable to guarantee security, superfluous for economic needs, what would be the point of being in a Commonwealth with teeth? The USA were able to dismantle and occupy and use the strategic and economic resources of the previous hegemon while tying them so close that no future British PM could ever contemplate strategic independence. Not bad for four years of fighting.
To sum up this long, unnecessary post, I find it interesting how some wars make some countries, and the same war fought in the same side, breaks others.
75 years this week since the Marshall Plan.
David Reynolds has an interesting piece in this week's New Statesman.
A GOP controlled congress passed the proposals even though some of them had been strong isolationists. An era of bipartisanship that seems incredible these days.
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
You mean an electric bike encourages you to try and match Vincenzo Nibali downhill and, entirely predictably, proceed to fall off and fracture your pelvis?
(The issue I can see is that 250W is at the high end for city cycling and shared-use paths, but quite low for rural cycling in hilly areas. I don't know how you can fix that.)
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
Who do you think the old geezers vote for? They want to hark back to their Easy Rider days without having to ride a Japanese bike or mess arond maintaining an antique from Brum.
I'm trading my (Dutch) e-bike in for some sort of electric wheelchair. Or scooter.
Alliance being a sister party to the Lib Dem would have backed the Lab/Lib Dem deal, as likely would the SDLP (For Labour). So we're up to 319 Ayes. So it'd be up to Plaid and the SNP (Sinn Fein is a given to abstain) - I'd have thought there would be a good chance they'd let a Lab/LD Queen's speech pass given the alternative could be seen to be backing the Tories/DUP.
I think Brown was right to stay on till it became clear the Lib Dems & Tories had a deal.
But as @ydoethur has pointed out, the Tories didn't need a deal with the Lib Dems. They just needed the Lib Dems to abstain. That wasn't the case for Labour. They needed everyone bar the Tories and DUP to vote for them.
And whilst it might be fine to lump the Lib Dems with Labour now, that was most certainly not the case in 2010.
They realistically to vote with them to be bigger than the Tories. And there were negotiations to try to make that happen, which failed. Brown was willing to offer to step aside to get that to happen.
Precedent's a funny business. It used to be precedent for the incumbent government to wait to be voted out by the House (see 1923). That was an election which had the larger Tory party attempt to run as a minority government but get voted out immediately by the Liberals. All Baldwin needed was for the Liberals to abstain on his King's Speech; they didn't. And then Labour, by far the smaller of the top two, succeeded in getting their King's Speech passed.
Talking of less innocent times, what is it with naked tv dating shows?
After Decadence came Fascism last time round. Will history repeat itself?
Channel 4's idea of being edgy and taboo-breaking.
Not just Channel 4. I read today that Sweden is getting one. There seem to be quite a lot of naked tv shows around the world.
Is this not just history and media orgs endlessly repeating themselves, and the latest lot of self-appointed Lord Chancellors getting themselves into a fluff?
What happened to "Naked News" from whenever it was from, or the 'controversial' Czech 'get undressed for the weather conditions' weather forecast (available for both sexes iirc)?
Or for that matter, Chris Tarrant's Bizarre from the 1980s?
Do you mean OTT, the adult spin-off from Tiswas?
I think that was another similar one. I may well be thinking of both.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
Where is this "end to electrical safety thing" from? Hyperbole, I suggest.
How do you know that the current EU defined regs are correct?
I only have to have an inspection of my rented houses by a trained electrician once every 5 years, rather than every year? Does that make them dangerous?
As @Flatlander pointed out electrical safety is already domestic. There is no EU standard for electrical connectors is there, hence the need for adaptors when on holiday.
So when they propose only a reduction in PAT testing at the moment, with the other suggested wins we know the idea is to reduce our standards. Which are domestic not EU.
Did anyone vote for lower electrical safety standards and thus more fires?
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
Essentially it removes the 250cc limit on driving a motorbike without passing the motorbike test, by the sleight of hand of pretending that a bicycle with unlimited electrical power is safer than a motorbike powered by a combustion engine.
Who came up with that idea?
They are currently supposed to be limited to 15mph but many clearly are not.
Just read the Susanne Moore Dominic cummings Unherd article. If there's even one person mentioned in the whole sorry story you might want to spend a train journey with I can't think who it is. Certainly not Johnson Cummings Carrie Moore Farage or Hancock.
The Cabinet Manual says that "an incumbent government is entitled to wait until a new parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative". In 1924, Stanley Baldwin resigned after being defeated on a King’s Speech
At other times, prime ministers will resign if it is self-evident that they will not be able to command confidence. In February 1974, Edward Heath resigned after a weekend attempting to negotiate an agreement with the Liberal Party. He was replaced by Harold Wilson, who led a minority Labour government. In May 2010, Gordon Brown resigned five days after the election when it became clear that negotiations with the Liberal Democrats would not produce an agreement with Labour and that the Conservatives were more likely to be able to form a coalition.
The key bit for me is the bit in bold. The idea that there could have been a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems on the basis that Brown would be replaced, but not immediately, is utterly absurd. Of course, Brown had to play the stand-down as leader but stay on as PM card because otherwise, he had to resign as PM.
All of this should have been obvious at 5am on Friday 7 May 2010. Cameron should have been PM later that morning.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
Where is this "end to electrical safety thing" from? Hyperbole, I suggest.
How do you know that the current EU defined regs are correct?
I only have to have an inspection of my rented houses by a trained electrician once every 5 years, rather than every year? Does that make them dangerous?
As @Flatlander pointed out electrical safety is already domestic. There is no EU standard for electrical connectors is there, hence the need for adaptors when on holiday.
So when they propose only a reduction in PAT testing at the moment, with the other suggested wins we know the idea is to reduce our standards. Which are domestic not EU.
Did anyone vote for lower electrical safety standards and thus more fires?
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Its an interesting list. Though I'm not sure that its the vote winner they think it is. Initial response was "is that it?". Then you start to dig into it: 1. People don't want fracking and definitely don't want to be told there is no democratic oversight. 2. Having clutched their new super sucker Dyson made somewhere forrin and used it the voter has to admit its the same as their previous one 3. The food industry and farmers will cheer the GM crops move. But it won't offset the rising costs generally and consumers are already resistant to "frankenstein foods" 4. Basically they want more people driving vehicles they aren't competent to drive. Want to cut H&S laws on things like drivers hours as well, and combined with point 7 means more accidents and more deaths 5. Most people don't own one and don't want one 6. Great news for medical malpractice lawyers 7. Great news for big corporates wanting to exploit people, less good for the workers expecting better jobs with more pay and security from all the eastern europeans leaving 8. Will allow employers to pay shift / casual workers less money. See point 7 9. Lower electrical standards means more fires. Great for insurers who will find loads of clauses to avoid payouts. Less good for people who die in fires or lose everything.
Again, is that it? "We delivered Brexit and that means you get to work longer hours for less rights"
Once again, the HS2 fallacy.
I have literally no idea what you "HS2 Fallacy" is.
I explained it a few minutes ago in this very thread.
Alliance being a sister party to the Lib Dem would have backed the Lab/Lib Dem deal, as likely would the SDLP (For Labour). So we're up to 319 Ayes. So it'd be up to Plaid and the SNP (Sinn Fein is a given to abstain) - I'd have thought there would be a good chance they'd let a Lab/LD Queen's speech pass given the alternative could be seen to be backing the Tories/DUP.
I think Brown was right to stay on till it became clear the Lib Dems & Tories had a deal.
But as @ydoethur has pointed out, the Tories didn't need a deal with the Lib Dems. They just needed the Lib Dems to abstain. That wasn't the case for Labour. They needed everyone bar the Tories and DUP to vote for them.
And whilst it might be fine to lump the Lib Dems with Labour now, that was most certainly not the case in 2010.
They realistically to vote with them to be bigger than the Tories. And there were negotiations to try to make that happen, which failed. Brown was willing to offer to step aside to get that to happen.
Precedent's a funny business. It used to be precedent for the incumbent government to wait to be voted out by the House (see 1923). That was an election which had the larger Tory party attempt to run as a minority government but get voted out immediately by the Liberals. All Baldwin needed was for the Liberals to abstain on his King's Speech; they didn't. And then Labour, by far the smaller of the top two, succeeded in getting their King's Speech passed.
Surely one of the 'problems' in 2010 was that Labour were fighting each other as much was the other parties. Could Brown have actually put a Queens Speech together that would have attracted support from all his own MP's?
The Cabinet Manual says that "an incumbent government is entitled to wait until a new parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative". In 1924, Stanley Baldwin resigned after being defeated on a King’s Speech
At other times, prime ministers will resign if it is self-evident that they will not be able to command confidence. In February 1974, Edward Heath resigned after a weekend attempting to negotiate an agreement with the Liberal Party. He was replaced by Harold Wilson, who led a minority Labour government. In May 2010, Gordon Brown resigned five days after the election when it became clear that negotiations with the Liberal Democrats would not produce an agreement with Labour and that the Conservatives were more likely to be able to form a coalition.
The key bit for me is the bit in bold. The idea that there could have been a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems on the basis that Brown would be replaced, but not immediately, is utterly absurd. Of course, Brown had to play the stand-down as leader but stay on as PM card because otherwise, he had to resign as PM.
All of this should have been obvious at 5am on Friday 7 May 2010. Cameron should have been PM later that morning.
And the only people this advantaged (in theory, at least) was the LDs, who could still (just about) play one side off against the other until Brown resigned.
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
Essentially it removes the 250cc limit on driving a motorbike without passing the motorbike test, by the sleight of hand of pretending that a bicycle with unlimited electrical power is safer than a motorbike powered by a combustion engine.
Who came up with that idea?
It hasn't been 250cc since the 80s. The Suzuki X7 killed it off when MCN tested it and got 100mph out of it causing a tabloid storm. It went to 125cc until the late 90s when the UK aligned with EU A1/A2/A scheme.
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
Essentially it removes the 250cc limit on driving a motorbike without passing the motorbike test, by the sleight of hand of pretending that a bicycle with unlimited electrical power is safer than a motorbike powered by a combustion engine.
Who came up with that idea?
They are currently supposed to be limited to 15mph but many clearly are not.
The 250cc motorcycle limit is cross-purposes imo, as this item is about the assist power of e-bikes. AQ 250cc engine is about 100x more powerful than 250w.
The current limit across Europe is 250W, plus a governed speed of 25 kph (ie assistance cuts out). And in some places assistance is required to be only available when the rider is pedalling. This is not the rule in the UK aiui, so an e-bike can function as a low power ride on (rather than assisted pedalling).
Yep - people not up to it can create carnage. But OTOH more powerful e-bikes mix with road traffic more easily, and more powerful motors make it more suitable for hilly areas or fat people. And equal carnage can be created by extendy dog leads if eg a dogwalker stands aside with the dog on the other side of the bridle path.
It is common for there to be a more powerful motor, and a menu option to turn off the restriction - which is technically not allowed.
More powerful e-bikes are an issue in eg Netherlands - should they be allowed on cycle paths, or not?
The whole issue needs to be considered, and choosing the dividing lines with the least problems.
Alliance being a sister party to the Lib Dem would have backed the Lab/Lib Dem deal, as likely would the SDLP (For Labour). So we're up to 319 Ayes. So it'd be up to Plaid and the SNP (Sinn Fein is a given to abstain) - I'd have thought there would be a good chance they'd let a Lab/LD Queen's speech pass given the alternative could be seen to be backing the Tories/DUP.
I think Brown was right to stay on till it became clear the Lib Dems & Tories had a deal.
But as @ydoethur has pointed out, the Tories didn't need a deal with the Lib Dems. They just needed the Lib Dems to abstain. That wasn't the case for Labour. They needed everyone bar the Tories and DUP to vote for them.
And whilst it might be fine to lump the Lib Dems with Labour now, that was most certainly not the case in 2010.
They realistically to vote with them to be bigger than the Tories. And there were negotiations to try to make that happen, which failed. Brown was willing to offer to step aside to get that to happen.
Precedent's a funny business. It used to be precedent for the incumbent government to wait to be voted out by the House (see 1923). That was an election which had the larger Tory party attempt to run as a minority government but get voted out immediately by the Liberals. All Baldwin needed was for the Liberals to abstain on his King's Speech; they didn't. And then Labour, by far the smaller of the top two, succeeded in getting their King's Speech passed.
In 1923, the Tories were quite a few seats ahead, so I don't think it's unreasonable that they got first dibs.
The Cabinet Manual says that "an incumbent government is entitled to wait until a new parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative". In 1924, Stanley Baldwin resigned after being defeated on a King’s Speech
At other times, prime ministers will resign if it is self-evident that they will not be able to command confidence. In February 1974, Edward Heath resigned after a weekend attempting to negotiate an agreement with the Liberal Party. He was replaced by Harold Wilson, who led a minority Labour government. In May 2010, Gordon Brown resigned five days after the election when it became clear that negotiations with the Liberal Democrats would not produce an agreement with Labour and that the Conservatives were more likely to be able to form a coalition.
The key bit for me is the bit in bold. The idea that there could have been a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems on the basis that Brown would be replaced, but not immediately, is utterly absurd. Of course, Brown had to play the stand-down as leader but stay on as PM card because otherwise, he had to resign as PM.
All of this should have been obvious at 5am on Friday 7 May 2010. Cameron should have been PM later that morning.
And the only people this advantaged (in theory, at least) was the LDs, who could still (just about) play one side off against the other until Brown resigned.
And yet, somehow, they managed to bugger it all up for themselves!
Has anyone posted the actual list of Brexit relaxation suggestions - Ian Dunt is just doing his habitual driveby sneer.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act. This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts. Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops. Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence. Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles. Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years. OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee. Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate. I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing. Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
Have a look at vacs on Screwfix etc. Umpteen at 1.4kW and above. Right now.
Are the Screwfix vacuum cleaners intended for domestic use though? Presumably not.
This whole vacuum cleaner perfectly crystallises the absolute pointlessness of Brexit and the dishonest inanity of those that trumpet it.
You've always been able to buy a powerful vacuum cleaner if you really need one. Yet, we've now got that etoliated streak of precum JRM telling us that being able to buy a powerful vacuum cleaner is a potential Brexit benefit. Fuck me.
re: 8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate.
You have to be out of your mind if you don't use (inexpensive) payroll software to do all of this, including the HMRC returns. So all this does is require payroll software vendors to make yet another change to the business rules.
On the other hand, HMRC is very good at providing test cases etc. for payroll so that's no big deal either.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
Where is this "end to electrical safety thing" from? Hyperbole, I suggest.
How do you know that the current EU defined regs are correct?
I only have to have an inspection of my rented houses by a trained electrician once every 5 years, rather than every year? Does that make them dangerous?
As @Flatlander pointed out electrical safety is already domestic. There is no EU standard for electrical connectors is there, hence the need for adaptors when on holiday.
So when they propose only a reduction in PAT testing at the moment, with the other suggested wins we know the idea is to reduce our standards. Which are domestic not EU.
Did anyone vote for lower electrical safety standards and thus more fires?
PAT testing is hardly a big burden, but on the other hand, it doesn't achieve a great deal. It only tells you that an appliance is OK at the time of testing, not after 10 months of abuse.
It might catch reversed live/neutral cockups and that kind of thing but now RCDs are ubiquitous (or should be) the risk factor is not that high.
All of this should have been obvious at 5am on Friday 7 May 2010. Cameron should have been PM later that morning.
"should" is a dangerous little word. There are still lots of people who think the rainbow coalition was a goer in 2010, and want to blame all and sundry for letting the Tories in.
Sometimes you need to take a bit of time to let the obvious sink in to people.
The Cabinet Manual says that "an incumbent government is entitled to wait until a new parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative". In 1924, Stanley Baldwin resigned after being defeated on a King’s Speech
At other times, prime ministers will resign if it is self-evident that they will not be able to command confidence. In February 1974, Edward Heath resigned after a weekend attempting to negotiate an agreement with the Liberal Party. He was replaced by Harold Wilson, who led a minority Labour government. In May 2010, Gordon Brown resigned five days after the election when it became clear that negotiations with the Liberal Democrats would not produce an agreement with Labour and that the Conservatives were more likely to be able to form a coalition.
The key bit for me is the bit in bold. The idea that there could have been a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems on the basis that Brown would be replaced, but not immediately, is utterly absurd. Of course, Brown had to play the stand-down as leader but stay on as PM card because otherwise, he had to resign as PM.
All of this should have been obvious at 5am on Friday 7 May 2010. Cameron should have been PM later that morning.
And the only people this advantaged (in theory, at least) was the LDs, who could still (just about) play one side off against the other until Brown resigned.
And yet, somehow, they managed to bugger it all up for themselves!
The one and only role they were ever going to play at a general election and they had no plan for it whatsoever.
The e-bike thing has the potential to be quite dangerous. The current 250W assist is A LOT of power in cycling terms. It's difference between a scrub and Remco Evenpoel. Even at 250W you get people riding at speeds for which they lack the commensurate bike handling skills. I have seen absolute carnage on cycle paths caused by shaky old geezers on 250W eebs.
Essentially it removes the 250cc limit on driving a motorbike without passing the motorbike test, by the sleight of hand of pretending that a bicycle with unlimited electrical power is safer than a motorbike powered by a combustion engine.
Who came up with that idea?
They are currently supposed to be limited to 15mph but many clearly are not.
The 250cc motorcycle limit is cross-purposes imo, as this item is about the assist power of e-bikes. AQ 250cc engine is about 100x more powerful than 250w.
The current limit across Europe is 250W, plus a governed speed of 25 kph (ie assistance cuts out). And in some places assistance is required to be only available when the rider is pedalling. This is not the rule in the UK aiui, so an e-bike can function as a low power ride on (rather than assisted pedalling).
Yep - people not up to it can create carnage. But OTOH more powerful e-bikes mix with road traffic more easily, and more powerful motors make it more suitable for hilly areas or fat people. And equal carnage can be created by extendy dog leads if eg a dogwalker stands aside with the dog on the other side of the bridle path.
It is common for there to be a more powerful motor, and a menu option to turn off the restriction - which is technically not allowed.
More powerful e-bikes are an issue in eg Netherlands - should they be allowed on cycle paths, or not?
The whole issue needs to be considered, and choosing the dividing lines with the least problems.
That's why I say it's complex.
If the bicycle has the speed and power to keep up with road traffic then it's a motorbike and should be regulated in the same way. That it's powered by electricity rather than fossil fuels shouldn't make any difference.
You could provide a more powerful motor for hills if you ensured that the speed limiter was active. I don't understand why the current regulations on this are not enforced.
The Cabinet Manual says that "an incumbent government is entitled to wait until a new parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative". In 1924, Stanley Baldwin resigned after being defeated on a King’s Speech
At other times, prime ministers will resign if it is self-evident that they will not be able to command confidence. In February 1974, Edward Heath resigned after a weekend attempting to negotiate an agreement with the Liberal Party. He was replaced by Harold Wilson, who led a minority Labour government. In May 2010, Gordon Brown resigned five days after the election when it became clear that negotiations with the Liberal Democrats would not produce an agreement with Labour and that the Conservatives were more likely to be able to form a coalition.
The key bit for me is the bit in bold. The idea that there could have been a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems on the basis that Brown would be replaced, but not immediately, is utterly absurd. Of course, Brown had to play the stand-down as leader but stay on as PM card because otherwise, he had to resign as PM.
All of this should have been obvious at 5am on Friday 7 May 2010. Cameron should have been PM later that morning.
Surely it is telling the the material you quote treats Heath and Brown in the same way. The LibDems were still talking to Labour on Monday, the day before Brown resigned. David Cameron was surprised that Brown resigned on Tuesday once negotiations with the LibDems broke down.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
Where is this "end to electrical safety thing" from? Hyperbole, I suggest.
How do you know that the current EU defined regs are correct?
I only have to have an inspection of my rented houses by a trained electrician once every 5 years, rather than every year? Does that make them dangerous?
As @Flatlander pointed out electrical safety is already domestic. There is no EU standard for electrical connectors is there, hence the need for adaptors when on holiday.
So when they propose only a reduction in PAT testing at the moment, with the other suggested wins we know the idea is to reduce our standards. Which are domestic not EU.
Did anyone vote for lower electrical safety standards and thus more fires?
Domestic regulations are defined in line with EU Directives in many areas, so that's quite possibly a bit of a red herring. 73/23/EEC which is Electrical equipment designed for use with certain voltages, or maybe 2001/45/EC, are examples.
Did anyone demonstrate that a possible change would cause more fires? Without the demonstration, it is assumption and FUD.
That's the crux. If the evidence is that if a change maintains safety, then the change is OK.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
Where is this "end to electrical safety thing" from? Hyperbole, I suggest.
How do you know that the current EU defined regs are correct?
I only have to have an inspection of my rented houses by a trained electrician once every 5 years, rather than every year? Does that make them dangerous?
As @Flatlander pointed out electrical safety is already domestic. There is no EU standard for electrical connectors is there, hence the need for adaptors when on holiday.
So when they propose only a reduction in PAT testing at the moment, with the other suggested wins we know the idea is to reduce our standards. Which are domestic not EU.
Did anyone vote for lower electrical safety standards and thus more fires?
Domestic regulations are defined in line with EU Directives in many areas, so that's quite possibly a bit of a red herring.
Did anyone demonstrate that a possible change would cause more fires? Without the demonstration, it is just assumption and FUD.
That's the crux. If the evidence is that if a change maintains safety, then the change is OK.
Change is not OK if it wastes leccy - a major issue with gmt policy, or it should be.
Hunt 16% - Much too high Tugendhat 11% - About right Truss 11% - About right, maybe a bit high Wallace 9% - Too low (but does he want the gig?) Sunak 9% - No chance, have the punters in this market not been reading the news? Mordaunt 8% - A bit low, but she lacks experience Zahawi 5% - OKish I suppose. Very dull media performer. Gove 4% - About right Javid 4% - Too low. "When you've eliminated the impossible..."
And don't forget Raab and Barclay, also both possible.
A pretty wide-open field, which may well mean the contest doesn't actually happen.
It's all a bit irresistible force (BoJo really has to go) meets immovable object (or two- Johnson seems determined to stay, and there's no standout alternative who will obviously do better). And in that sceanario, anything can happen, usually in a bad way.
Must dig out Alan Clark's account of November 1990.
Who will be BJ’s Clark, urging him to go for a final stand, raging against traitors then sobbing into their claret? Nadine?
This includes a bit of Thatcher’s Untergang, quite proud that I’d remembered it pretty well though maybe a tribute to the vividness of Clark’s writing. The Edwina vignette is hilarious.
But I am inclined to think that the Party in the House has just got sick of her. She hasn't promoted her "own" people much. Her "constituency" in this place depends solely on her proven ability to win General Elections. But now this is in jeopardy she has no real Praetorian Guard to fall back on.
I read that link. Alan Clarke comes over as an unpleasant person.
Rees-Mogg has published a list of the "most interesting" Brexit dividends. Number two is to "abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts".
Heh, great move, that. We left the EU so that your leccy bills can get even higher with inefficient kit.
Coming soon...
Brexit Vax!!
The vacuum that sucks like nothing else on the continent.
1500 watts of pure British power.
Exclusive offer to readers of Daily Express.
Followed by: Express campaigns to scrap EU namby-pamby smart meters which are telling readers just how power hungry their new Brexit Vac (made in China) is Express campaigns for War with the EU who have maliciously put up power bills for its readers
If we are moving to electric heating, why not use a 3kW vacuum to raise the room temperature?
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Remember that alongside the new POWERFUL BREXIT HOOVER (likely made abroad by Dyson) the Tories also propose an end to namby-pamby things like electrical safety. So we get MORE POWER and more fires too. Great for insurance brokers.
Where is this "end to electrical safety thing" from? Hyperbole, I suggest.
How do you know that the current EU defined regs are correct?
I only have to have an inspection of my rented houses by a trained electrician once every 5 years, rather than every year? Does that make them dangerous?
As @Flatlander pointed out electrical safety is already domestic. There is no EU standard for electrical connectors is there, hence the need for adaptors when on holiday.
So when they propose only a reduction in PAT testing at the moment, with the other suggested wins we know the idea is to reduce our standards. Which are domestic not EU.
Did anyone vote for lower electrical safety standards and thus more fires?
Domestic regulations are defined in line with EU Directives in many areas, so that's quite possibly a bit of a red herring. 73/23/EEC which is Electrical equipment designed for use with certain voltages, or maybe 2001/45/EC, are examples.
Did anyone demonstrate that a possible change would cause more fires? Without the demonstration, it is assumption and FUD.
That's the crux. If the evidence is that if a change maintains safety, then the change is OK.
Also, aren't electrical connectors defined as part of ISO standards?
Comments
Seriously though, it might have been better to clamp down on the misleading advertising where the more inefficient the air system, the MORE POWER you could put on the label.
That or specify a noise limit for domestic use.
Zahawi and Javid seem to me underrated on that list to me. Javid has many of the advantages Hunt has while being more interesting. Zahawi has the advantage of being an early supporter of both Brexit and then Johnson for the leadership. Javid has run at least two very difficult departments (Home Office, Health) without presiding over any big disasters. Either would also be an opportunity for party members to be 'first movers' in party leadership choice again: they had the first Jewish leader, the first and second female leader, why not the first of a Muslim backround? Could possibly discombobulate some Labour critics, which Tories always like to see.
Wallace perfectly respectable, seems to have friends in the media. Not sure of his views on areas outside of his brief of defense and foreign policy, so a bit of an unknown quantity. Suspect he is in agreement with most government policy but might imagine he could make a better job of it.
It is right that Patel is not on there - it would seem to me that neither the parliamentary party, party membership, nor public as a whole would see her as leader material, for all manner of sensible reasons.
I don't personally have the visceral reaction against Truss that many seem to have. But she represents one side of the party - on the 'wet to dry' scale she is positively desiccated. Not appealing to new voters Tories picked up in 2019. Too divisive in public discourse.
Gove very interesting character but I suspect most Tories prefer him to serve as consigliere at most. Can be impulsive, latches on to new causes with all the zealoutry of a convert.
Tugendhat very good on foreign policy but that seems to be one area where this government actually knows what it is doing already. Comes off as statesman-like but that is frankly easy to do when you chair a comittee (and are not Chris Bryant).
Rishi a non-starter if you have set yourself against 'lockdown bandits'.
Hunt... I still don't quite see why he is any kind of solution for the Tories. Only certainty for me is that he would not be able to keep the voting coalition of 2019. A sign that the Tories have accepted they will lose the next election. Hunt himself is not without his own scandals.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/sep/08/thatcher.uk
What Labour / the LibDems should have done *politically* is a very different discussion to what the powers that be should have done *constitutionally*. Your arguments about GOD being wrong are based on political assumptions about what party x would have done in relation to party y in scenario z. I'm not disagreeing with your points there, just saying that the constitutional arrangements don't care. They are stupid, but they are what they are.
Here's the list, with my notes - a mixture of trivial and important.
1. Encourage fracking, shortcut rules on planning consultation via emergency act.
This would make sense, since national groups tried to abuse the Planning System, and were willing to move to lawbreaking when they lost. But IMO the Fracking ship has sailed.
2. Abolish the EU regulations that restrict vacuum cleaner power to 1400 watts.
Obvious thing to do; some applications require more powerful vacuums. Absurd restriction. It's interesting that some of Dunt's commenters are now claiming "nothing to do with Brussels".
3. Remove precautionary principle restrictions (for instance) on early use of experimental treatments for seriously ill patients and GM crops.
Sensible in many circumstances, as the PP is misused to avoid saying "we don't like it but we have no evidence why it cannot be done". Relaxation on the stone age EU attitude to GM is essential, and should have happened 15-20 years ago.
4. Abolish rules around the size of vans that need an operator's licence.
Don't know that well enough to comment.
5. Abolish EU limits on electrical power levels of electrically assisted pedal cycles.
Too simplistic. There are bands of electric bikes, and the issue is when they become like a moped not an assisted bicycle.
6. Allow certain medical professionals, such as pharmacists and paramedics, to qualify in three years.
OK if the regulatory bodies agree that skillsets are sufficient.
7. Remove requirements for agency workers to have all the attributes of a permanent employee.
Sensible. The point of an agency relationship is that they are different to a permanent employee relationship.
8. Simplify the calculation of holiday pay (eg 12.07 percent of pay) to make it easier for businesses to operate.
I have not been employed or an employer for 15 years. Can someone explain?
9. Reduce requirements for businesses to conduct fixed wire testing and portable application testing.
Again - needs a ruling from the competent authorities as to what is reasonable. There's no good reason why the EU regulation is automatically correct for the UK.
Thoughts?
HS2, Brown's squatting and the minutiae of Tory leadership procedures. Pretty hardcore stuff on here this mornning...
Does anyone have any idea why this should be so?
I'm currently reading Citizen Clem and I'm struck by two things. Firstly, how boring Clement Atlee is as a person. He's living through these incredibly turbulent times, he's facing down bitter fights from within his own party but he is dull. It seems he was a very competent manager, and able to tap into the public mood very well. His skill appears to me to be able to appraise his choices, make what he feels is the best and then (mostly) bring the party and country with him.
The second are the contrasting fates of the United Kingdom and the United States. I'm only at 1947, and the world order seems very fluid. However, the War has made the United States and broken the British Empire. Atlee himself sees this, and sells the Imperial Preference for $5 billion in loans and attempts to make the Commonwealth the next phase of the British Empire. Twenty years prior, Britain had been the hegemon, though in decline, and America an isolated great power. After the war, Britain was a regional power with a legacy Empire and the United States was a Superpower. As we approach the jubilee holiday, I wonder if tying the Commonwealth together with something stronger than the Crown and 'shared values' would have resulted in some kind of CANZUK in the 50s? Probably not.
Was there ever a victory quite like the USA's in WWII? They comprehensively defeated their military rival in the Pacific. British dependents now looked to America for security, the British been demonstrated to be unable to provide it. They ended up with half of Europe dependent on American goods, and gained access to the closed system of British Empire, which severed the economic dependence between the colonies and Britain. Unable to guarantee security, superfluous for economic needs, what would be the point of being in a Commonwealth with teeth? The USA were able to dismantle and occupy and use the strategic and economic resources of the previous hegemon while tying them so close that no future British PM could ever contemplate strategic independence. Not bad for four years of fighting.
To sum up this long, unnecessary post, I find it interesting how some wars make some countries, and the same war fought in the same side, breaks others.
The constitutional arrangements were not what O'Donnell thought. As anybody with a passing knowledge of them would have known. He didn't have it, because he doesn't understand the constitution (or much else as far as I can see).
The point is that in ignoring them Brown did more damage to his party than anything else. And the damage may not have been finished yet, because the uncodified nature of our constitution means a new precedent has now probably been set.
But this is becoming an increasingly sterile debate. So shall we agree to differ and leave it there?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-utilities/gas-electric/government-eyeing-rapidly-rising-value-family-home/
“If you’ve got to ask, it’s not you mate”.
A bit like the old “Being powerful’s like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you ain’t”.
But I am inclined to think that the Party in the House has just got sick of her. She hasn't promoted her "own" people much. Her "constituency" in this place depends solely on her proven ability to win General Elections. But now this is in jeopardy she has no real Praetorian Guard to fall back on.
I find it difficult to see how the qualifications of pharmacists were an EU requirement for example. Though I may be wrong.
Fracking also. The EU has wildly differing energy policies. Nuclear France, non-nuclear Germany, most blindingly.
Also. What does "all the attributes of an employee" mean exactly?
What happened to "Naked News" from whenever it was from, or the 'controversial' Czech 'get undressed for the weather conditions' weather forecast (available for both sexes iirc)?
Or for that matter, Chris Tarrant's Bizarre from the 1980s?
Had a look into dryers recently and the efficiency improvements for new heat pump dryers compared to existing condensing dryers are impressive. There is still a lot that could be done to encourage energy efficiency improvements.
Lab 258 + Lib Dem 57 = 315
Conservative + DUP = 314
Alliance being a sister party to the Lib Dem would have backed the Lab/Lib Dem deal, as likely would the SDLP (For Labour). So we're up to 319 Ayes.
So it'd be up to Plaid and the SNP (Sinn Fein is a given to abstain) - I'd have thought there would be a good chance they'd let a Lab/LD Queen's speech pass given the alternative could be seen to be backing the Tories/DUP.
I think Brown was right to stay on till it became clear the Lib Dems & Tories had a deal.
BTW - on the by-elections. Not sure why anyone should wait for them. They are both slam-dunk opposition gains. Tiverton and Honiton will go LibDem by a country-mile and Wakefield will go Labour by a fair margin. If Boris is hoping they will keep him in the game, then it's a forlorn hope.
1. People don't want fracking and definitely don't want to be told there is no democratic oversight.
2. Having clutched their new super sucker Dyson made somewhere forrin and used it the voter has to admit its the same as their previous one
3. The food industry and farmers will cheer the GM crops move. But it won't offset the rising costs generally and consumers are already resistant to "frankenstein foods"
4. Basically they want more people driving vehicles they aren't competent to drive. Want to cut H&S laws on things like drivers hours as well, and combined with point 7 means more accidents and more deaths
5. Most people don't own one and don't want one
6. Great news for medical malpractice lawyers
7. Great news for big corporates wanting to exploit people, less good for the workers expecting better jobs with more pay and security from all the eastern europeans leaving
8. Will allow employers to pay shift / casual workers less money. See point 7
9. Lower electrical standards means more fires. Great for insurers who will find loads of clauses to avoid payouts. Less good for people who die in fires or lose everything.
Again, is that it? "We delivered Brexit and that means you get to work longer hours for less rights"
There are people taking the absolute piss with these things.
I'm also in favour of keeping 2*, 4, 5 from the likely part of EU list and 7 for some agency workers (i.e. protections at the bottom end, with flexibility for high end consultants etc). I've absolutely no idea what 8 is about.
*As noted, if you really need a more powerful vac they're not hard to get. But it stops Jo Public going down to Currys and just buying the one with the biggest 'power' number (or, at least, reduces that biggest power number).
And whilst it might be fine to lump the Lib Dems with Labour now, that was most certainly not the case in 2010.
Penny Mordaunt being backed by some as a 'compromise candidate' who can unite the party - particularly by Scottish Tories
She's said she's loyal
Report with @hzeffman & @KieranPAndrews
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1531938803883069441
On vacuum cleaners, our EU compliant Miele cleaner works very well with excellent suction. I'm not sure why a machine would need any more power, unless it was very inefficient.
Moving from CE to some other standard won't make much difference, as all that Chinese tat never complied in the first place. Have you ever taken apart some of their cheap battery chargers? Jeez.
Edit: Sorry, I see they've already been posted.
PS But AIUI I can't see why you would need more than a kW, let alone 1.4, if you had a decent machine anyway and didn't have it full of clag. A Henry is pretty good and it's only about half the max power rating.
How do you know that the current EU defined regs are correct?
I only have to have an inspection of my rented houses by a trained electrician once every 5 years, rather than every year? Does that make them dangerous?
Mr turbotubbs may well know better.
I might start manufacturing vacuum cleaners with 100W suction and a 1900W heating element and pitch it as a 2000W device. It's not ethical, but someone's got to... clean up?
Who came up with that idea?
You've always been able to buy a powerful vacuum cleaner if you really need one. Yet, we've now got that etoliated streak of precum JRM telling us that being able to buy a powerful vacuum cleaner is a potential Brexit benefit. Fuck me.
Just because our normal supply happens to be at 240V and theirs 220V doesn't mean that they weren't harmonised...
David Reynolds has an interesting piece in this week's New Statesman.
A GOP controlled congress passed the proposals even though some of them had been strong isolationists. An era of bipartisanship that seems incredible these days.
(The issue I can see is that 250W is at the high end for city cycling and shared-use paths, but quite low for rural cycling in hilly areas. I don't know how you can fix that.)
Precedent's a funny business. It used to be precedent for the incumbent government to wait to be voted out by the House (see 1923). That was an election which had the larger Tory party attempt to run as a minority government but get voted out immediately by the Liberals. All Baldwin needed was for the Liberals to abstain on his King's Speech; they didn't. And then Labour, by far the smaller of the top two, succeeded in getting their King's Speech passed.
Bizarre was on Central Television iirc, and checking was an import from the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarre_(TV_series)
It's quite funny that they censored the nudity for the version shown in Canada, and the bad language for the one shown on ITV.
So when they propose only a reduction in PAT testing at the moment, with the other suggested wins we know the idea is to reduce our standards. Which are domestic not EU.
Did anyone vote for lower electrical safety standards and thus more fires?
......Maybe Marina Wheeler
https://unherd.com/2022/05/dominic-cummings-i-dont-like-parties/
The Cabinet Manual says that "an incumbent government is entitled to wait until a new parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative". In 1924, Stanley Baldwin resigned after being defeated on a King’s Speech
At other times, prime ministers will resign if it is self-evident that they will not be able to command confidence. In February 1974, Edward Heath resigned after a weekend attempting to negotiate an agreement with the Liberal Party. He was replaced by Harold Wilson, who led a minority Labour government. In May 2010, Gordon Brown resigned five days after the election when it became clear that negotiations with the Liberal Democrats would not produce an agreement with Labour and that the Conservatives were more likely to be able to form a coalition.
The key bit for me is the bit in bold. The idea that there could have been a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems on the basis that Brown would be replaced, but not immediately, is utterly absurd. Of course, Brown had to play the stand-down as leader but stay on as PM card because otherwise, he had to resign as PM.
All of this should have been obvious at 5am on Friday 7 May 2010. Cameron should have been PM later that morning.
The current limit across Europe is 250W, plus a governed speed of 25 kph (ie assistance cuts out). And in some places assistance is required to be only available when the rider is pedalling. This is not the rule in the UK aiui, so an e-bike can function as a low power ride on (rather than assisted pedalling).
Yep - people not up to it can create carnage. But OTOH more powerful e-bikes mix with road traffic more easily, and more powerful motors make it more suitable for hilly areas or fat people. And equal carnage can be created by extendy dog leads if eg a dogwalker stands aside with the dog on the other side of the bridle path.
It is common for there to be a more powerful motor, and a menu option to turn off the restriction - which is technically not allowed.
More powerful e-bikes are an issue in eg Netherlands - should they be allowed on cycle paths, or not?
The whole issue needs to be considered, and choosing the dividing lines with the least problems.
That's why I say it's complex.
You have to be out of your mind if you don't use (inexpensive) payroll software to do all of this, including the HMRC returns. So all this does is require payroll software vendors to make yet another change to the business rules.
On the other hand, HMRC is very good at providing test cases etc. for payroll so that's no big deal either.
Total impact on British business: nil.
It might catch reversed live/neutral cockups and that kind of thing but now RCDs are ubiquitous (or should be) the risk factor is not that high.
https://order-order.com/2022/06/01/shadow-minister-fined-starmer-wouldnt-quit-and-then-stand-again/
Sometimes you need to take a bit of time to let the obvious sink in to people.
You could provide a more powerful motor for hills if you ensured that the speed limiter was active. I don't understand why the current regulations on this are not enforced.
Did anyone demonstrate that a possible change would cause more fires? Without the demonstration, it is assumption and FUD.
That's the crux. If the evidence is that if a change maintains safety, then the change is OK.