Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
If Truss tried that I would go to No 10 and drag her out myself as would most Tory MPs.
However the SNP would abstain on a confidence vote anyway absent a Labour commitment to indyref2
Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border
A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.
Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.
First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.
Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.
Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.
If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
We do have a la carte. We got what we were asking for.
We have an unprecedented zero tariff, zero quota free trade agreement where we are the third country we wanted to be, not bound by EU rules or the EU court just as we wanted, can have our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards just as we wanted, and we don't have membership fees or movement etc just as the nation wanted.
We picked the cherries we wanted and said no to the rest. The problem for people like @RochdalePioneers is he objects to the fact we didn't want something he does want.
1. That we got what we asked for is the very problem we are raising. What we asked for was stupid. 2. The UK government is the biggest objector to this. They are shocked and appalled that the counterparty would implement the deal. You may be celebrating it, the government is not 3. "zero tariff, zero quota free trade". It is not free trade. You have to complete and have inspected reams of paperwork to demonstrate which products are zero tariff zero quota zero VAT. It isn't free trade, they all get stopped and inspected. 4. "not bound by EU rules" is a nonsense. Jaguar is bound by US rules when selling cars to the US. Just as we are bound by EU rules when selling to the EU. As these are so much of our export markets manufacturers have to allow for these external rules on UK designs because it costs way too much to design bespoke for each. 5. "our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards" A vast expense to replace CE with UKCA when both are the same thing
If things are as amazing as you say, if our government secured a triumphant deal then why is our own government saying it is shit?
You live in such a narrow bubble world that even Lord Frost - whose deal you eulogise - says the opposite of what you claim he thinks. Its laughable.
1. No it wasn't. 2. No it isn't. 3. Yes it is free trade. 4. Nobody is bound, people aren't forced to sell to other nations. Those who choose to sell to other nations choose to do so, and can then choose to meet those standards. Just as if a client insists on something above a legal minimum as part of their negotiations then anyone signing up to deliver that to the client needs to then deliver it, but its a choice that is made in the negotiations. 5. They'll be the same thing much of the time, they won't always be the same thing. There are already some, creeping, differences and these will expand and evolve over time. Already the UK has quite rightly said we have no intention of copying the EU's silly USB-C regulations into UKCA.
What exactly does Lord Frost say the opposite on? The main TCA, or the Protocol?
I agree the Protocol needs changing, but that was always the plan. The Protocol was a bodge fix to get the trivial and least important element of Brexit resolved, pending the most important element getting negotiated. Now that the important bits are dealt with, its time to fix up the crap temporary sticking plaster solutions like the Protocol that were done in the past to stop the less important issues from overriding the more important ones as was happening in the past.
Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border
A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.
Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.
First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.
Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.
Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.
If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
We do have a la carte. We got what we were asking for.
We have an unprecedented zero tariff, zero quota free trade agreement where we are the third country we wanted to be, not bound by EU rules or the EU court just as we wanted, can have our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards just as we wanted, and we don't have membership fees or movement etc just as the nation wanted.
We picked the cherries we wanted and said no to the rest. The problem for people like @RochdalePioneers is he objects to the fact we didn't want something he does want.
1. That we got what we asked for is the very problem we are raising. What we asked for was stupid. 2. The UK government is the biggest objector to this. They are shocked and appalled that the counterparty would implement the deal. You may be celebrating it, the government is not 3. "zero tariff, zero quota free trade". It is not free trade. You have to complete and have inspected reams of paperwork to demonstrate which products are zero tariff zero quota zero VAT. It isn't free trade, they all get stopped and inspected. 4. "not bound by EU rules" is a nonsense. Jaguar is bound by US rules when selling cars to the US. Just as we are bound by EU rules when selling to the EU. As these are so much of our export markets manufacturers have to allow for these external rules on UK designs because it costs way too much to design bespoke for each. 5. "our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards" A vast expense to replace CE with UKCA when both are the same thing
If things are as amazing as you say, if our government secured a triumphant deal then why is our own government saying it is shit?
You live in such a narrow bubble world that even Lord Frost - whose deal you eulogise - says the opposite of what you claim he thinks. Its laughable.
1. No it wasn't. 2. No it isn't. 3. Yes it is free trade. 4. Nobody is bound, people aren't forced to sell to other nations. Those who choose to sell to other nations choose to do so, and can then choose to meet those standards. Just as if a client insists on something above a legal minimum as part of their negotiations then anyone signing up to deliver that to the client needs to then deliver it, but its a choice that is made in the negotiations. 5. They'll be the same thin much of the time, they won't always be the same thing. There are already some, creeping, differences and these will expand over time. Already the UK has said we have no intention of copying the EU's silly USB-C regulations into UKCA.
What exactly does Lord Frost say the opposite on? The main TCA, or the Protocol?
I agree the Protocol needs changing, but that was always the plan. The Protocol was a bodge fix to get the trivial and least important element of Brexit resolved, pending the most important element getting negotiated. Now that the important bits are dealt with, its time to fix up the crap temporary sticking plaster solutions like the Protocol that were done in the past to stop the less important issues from overriding the more important ones as was happening in the past.
Do you sell goods or services to any non UK customers?
Mr. Al, isn't the airport situation commonplace in many countries, though?
Yes, that was sort of my point. I just have a suspicion that blaming the French for the problems at Dover is just lazy shorthand for a more complex explanation to do with staffing difficulties in all aspects of the travel industry throughout Europe (and probably beyond).
Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border
A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.
Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
If the French want to lose visitors from their largest tourism source county (when I last checked) by making travel difficult, then many of those visitors will go elsewhere. Time for the Zeebrugge route to reopen?
Spain has shown it is quite possible to make borders more efficient when necessary.
On this occasion it really is the "bloody French", to borrow the avoid-a-conversation rhetoric above.
Mons. Macron and many in his Government announced that they thought the UK needed to be 'punished', including unlawful measures - to the extent that he had to be slapped down like a yapping puppy by Brussels at least twice.
At present the French are importing 5+% of their electricity from the UK much of the time. Perhaps we should borrow from the French playbook and threaten to cut them off at the point of maximum potential pain, just like the .. er .. bloody French.
There has been a sudden and marked change on our balance of payments from the interconnectors. Until very recently we were always importing quite a bit of power when wind was anywhere away from its peak. We are now fairly consistently exporting power.
My guess would be that the fact that we can import LNG and Germany, for example, can't means that it makes sense to burn that gas in UK power stations and export the product of the LNG to the EU. It must be good business for our power plants here although it may prove fairly short term if Germany gets their act together, at least until we have an excess of wind power. A new interconnector is being built right now connecting us directly with Germany for the first time so that they can import our renewable energy.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
No, because a lost referendum means the end of any UK PM - anyway - and the destruction of the UK and immediate intense recession
No one will risk it unless the polls are incredibly favourable to NO, and even then they won’t risk it. This ineluctable logic applies to Starmer as well
The UK government will use the “generation” argument until it is invalid. ie - a generation has actually passed
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
Round the world, the low cost of the airline/travel industry has been achieved by really, really pushing down wages. And conditions.
During COVID, a lot of people changed jobs and found better ones.
The husband of a family friend, who worked in a meal preparation factory by Heathrow told me that the conditions were increasingly horrible. As he put it, "I didn't leave Morocco to live the same crap here". He was in charge of a shift - the bottom end jobs were minimum wage to the penny.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
The paradox is, by propping up a Truss-led government the SNP would undoubtedly get a second Sindyref (yes, both Truss and Sturgeon are that cynical) but they would be (a) much less likely to win it and (b) go the way of Scottish Labour as a result.
Mr. Urquhart, reminds me of restaurant reviews on Googlemaps, where an establishment has great reviews but filtering by time shows they've fallen off a cliff due to new management.
The new model for the Uber-Eats / Deliveroo world is now for a single restaurant to have multiple "virtual" brands. Now again the legit people are simply trying to offer a range of different foods, others are just creating loads of burnable "brands", doesn't matter if the food has gone to dogshit, they just reboot next month with a slightly different version.
No Uber or Deliveroo in my parts. I want a takeaway, I drive a few minutes to the affable Italian in his mobile pizza van, to one of several local curry houses or country pubs, to the nice Cantonese lady who always throws in extra prawn crackers etc… Reliable quality and a sufficient pain in the arse that it’s reserved as a treat rather than habitual. Sometimes the old ways are the best.
Personally, I never use those services because the delivery charges are insane. But da yuff especially thinking nothing of tap tap order for a single sandwich...
Though I use those services regularly. The costs and model are not insane for substantial meals for an entire family, edge cases over a single sandwich are just stupid, I'd never use them for that.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
There are a number of SNP supporters here: what do they think?
Disappointment today. I've had problems with a swollen foot (allergic reaction to an insect bite) all this week. I had hoped the swelling had finally gone down enough that I could put my trainers on again and go to the gym, but alas, not quite yet.
Edit - incidentally, it's bloody lucky my school allowed us to wear sandals for three days or I couldn't have gone in.
Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border
A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.
Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
Depends on what can be done. The TCA which our government demanded - treat us as a third country - requires such onerous border procedures that it isn't a question of extra bodies - it takes tame.
This was always the push back of the haulage industry. Even if a lot of people are hired to do checks, they take time which massively reduce throughput which creates huge queues which Dover cannot handle.
What we could have done is not ask to be tret as a 3rd country...
No, we should be treated as a third country, as we are a third country.
Countries around the entire frigging planet operate successfully as third countries from their neighbours.
When bilateral trade and traffic grows to a fraction of our levels with the EU, they do a deal to make access easier. Uniquely we have done the reverse.
So EU relations with third countries need to evolve to take this into account.
I really don't see what is so difficult apart from the politics.
Eventually it will dawn even on the walled-garden EU.
Why do they need to do a bilateral deal with Guatamala?
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
If Truss tried that I would go to No 10 and drag her out myself as would most Tory MPs.
However the SNP would abstain on a confidence vote anyway absent a Labour commitment to indyref2
Yeah, sure you would. Just as you were going to hold to account the vile traitor Rishi for bringing down Boris. You're now going to hold that treacherous, treasonous traitor to account by *checks notes* voting for him.
In the unlikely event you do choose to go to No 10 to drag her out, good luck getting past the Police.
Game theory ends with the Tories promising an Indyref2 and the SNP abstaining. If the Tories don't offer Indyref2, then Labour can offer it, and Labour get Downing Street. So the only way the Tories can stop Labour entering Downing Street is to offer it themselves.
My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.
But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.
That is what Labour seem to be offering. Personally I think Brexit will never "work" but I am certainly happy for Labour to give it a go and perhaps prove me wrong. What we don't need is more fantasy stuff.
But Labour will never provide the true, pure Brexit that the Conservatives and Farage offer. Despite every Brexiteers appears to have a different view of what 'Brexit' means.
I agree Labour should probably have a go. For one thing, the EU are dealing with the people who (in their view) caused Brexit, such as Boris. It's hard to negotiate with someone when they're pissed off with you.
Starmer would be a clean sheet. And a bonus is that he'd cause the insane wing of Brexiteers to have mass coronaries. "But... but he voted remain!"
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
Round the world, the low cost of the airline/travel industry has been achieved by really, really pushing down wages. And conditions.
During COVID, a lot of people changed jobs and found better ones.
The husband of a family friend, who worked in a meal preparation factory by Heathrow told me that the conditions were increasingly horrible. As he put it, "I didn't leave Morocco to live the same crap here". He was in charge of a shift - the bottom end jobs were minimum wage to the penny.
Morning all, this weeks Techne out and no change in lead, remains 9 points. Tory vote share recovery to the position just before defenestration continues, labour holding firmly in the lead Westminster Voting Intention:
There's really not much sign of a "thank God Boris is gone" surge for the Tories, is there? Piddling shifts in most recent polls.
No, we are if anything round about where we were on the eve of defenestration. YouGov are the only ones left with the sub 30 Tory basement score, they should have a new one out shortly. Comres still a much bigger labour lead, but that aside as you were, high single figures lead. Maybe the tories are fractionally down and labour fractionally up from an arbitary pre chaos date of July 4th
Breaking - Dover port declares critical incident due to overwhelming queues at the border
A Dover port guy was just on the radio blaming the French for not having enough staff.
Bloody French, not willing to spend more on border staff post-Brexit. Don’t they know we’re British? How dare they inconvenience us.
Well, British tourists will spend money in France, thus boosting the French economy, so it would be rational for France to make travel easier. It's a bit like the German cars argument.
How did the German car makers thing turn out? Off the top of my head, I can think of two possible countertrends.
First, that the value of not discouraging British tourism is less than the cost of making travel easier. Is that the case? I haven't a clue. But it's possible. Plenty of firms make a profit by making life a bit harder for their customers.
Second, people and countries don't always act in their simple financial interests. If only I could think of a nearby recent example...
The German car maker thing turned out to be prophetically accurate.
Not only did the EU move in the end on Frost's negotiations, just as we expected, but the German car makers went even further and are stomping their feet demanding a "realist" policy on Russia and trying to circumvent and end sanctions on Russia.
If there's one thing you can rely upon, its German car makers. Was always the case.
But you lot were claiming the car makers would give UK membership à la carte, like single market with no migration. Now you are saying any deal proves it.
We do have a la carte. We got what we were asking for.
We have an unprecedented zero tariff, zero quota free trade agreement where we are the third country we wanted to be, not bound by EU rules or the EU court just as we wanted, can have our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards just as we wanted, and we don't have membership fees or movement etc just as the nation wanted.
We picked the cherries we wanted and said no to the rest. The problem for people like @RochdalePioneers is he objects to the fact we didn't want something he does want.
1. That we got what we asked for is the very problem we are raising. What we asked for was stupid. 2. The UK government is the biggest objector to this. They are shocked and appalled that the counterparty would implement the deal. You may be celebrating it, the government is not 3. "zero tariff, zero quota free trade". It is not free trade. You have to complete and have inspected reams of paperwork to demonstrate which products are zero tariff zero quota zero VAT. It isn't free trade, they all get stopped and inspected. 4. "not bound by EU rules" is a nonsense. Jaguar is bound by US rules when selling cars to the US. Just as we are bound by EU rules when selling to the EU. As these are so much of our export markets manufacturers have to allow for these external rules on UK designs because it costs way too much to design bespoke for each. 5. "our own standards rather than being obliged to follow CE standards" A vast expense to replace CE with UKCA when both are the same thing
If things are as amazing as you say, if our government secured a triumphant deal then why is our own government saying it is shit?
You live in such a narrow bubble world that even Lord Frost - whose deal you eulogise - says the opposite of what you claim he thinks. Its laughable.
1. No it wasn't. 2. No it isn't. 3. Yes it is free trade. 4. Nobody is bound, people aren't forced to sell to other nations. Those who choose to sell to other nations choose to do so, and can then choose to meet those standards. Just as if a client insists on something above a legal minimum as part of their negotiations then anyone signing up to deliver that to the client needs to then deliver it, but its a choice that is made in the negotiations. 5. They'll be the same thin much of the time, they won't always be the same thing. There are already some, creeping, differences and these will expand over time. Already the UK has said we have no intention of copying the EU's silly USB-C regulations into UKCA.
What exactly does Lord Frost say the opposite on? The main TCA, or the Protocol?
I agree the Protocol needs changing, but that was always the plan. The Protocol was a bodge fix to get the trivial and least important element of Brexit resolved, pending the most important element getting negotiated. Now that the important bits are dealt with, its time to fix up the crap temporary sticking plaster solutions like the Protocol that were done in the past to stop the less important issues from overriding the more important ones as was happening in the past.
Do you sell goods or services to any non UK customers?
He can't recognise what free trade is, so would he know if he does?
My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.
But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.
By the way on the other thing after I went to bed last night, you made the point that most people underestimate how big the scale of the universe is and how hard it is to traverse. I would counter that most people underestimate how vast time is and how even astronomical distances can be swallowed easily with patience, without new physics.
If you sent self replicating probes to the 100 nearest star systems that could travel at 0.1 C, they’d reach them inside a century. Assume it takes some period of time X for said probe to self replicate using that planet’s resources. 50 years? Doesn’t really matter. It then sends off 100 of its own to the next nearest stars. In quite a trivial amount of time, perhaps under a million years depending on your assumption for X, the Milky Way would be “conquered”.
You could imagine even humans having the technical ability to kickstart this unstoppable process within a couple of centuries. Given this, where are the probes? Either they are here and we don’t see them, because either they are tiny and we’re not looking, or they’re tic tacs and we can’t get around to acknowledging it. Or, perhaps within a short time of the process being kickstarted, vastly superior “new physics” tech catches them up and stops the autonomous “digital panspermia” process in its tracks for reasons we can only speculate at.
Mr. Urquhart, reminds me of restaurant reviews on Googlemaps, where an establishment has great reviews but filtering by time shows they've fallen off a cliff due to new management.
The new model for the Uber-Eats / Deliveroo world is now for a single restaurant to have multiple "virtual" brands. Now again the legit people are simply trying to offer a range of different foods, others are just creating loads of burnable "brands", doesn't matter if the food has gone to dogshit, they just reboot next month with a slightly different version.
No Uber or Deliveroo in my parts. I want a takeaway, I drive a few minutes to the affable Italian in his mobile pizza van, to one of several local curry houses or country pubs, to the nice Cantonese lady who always throws in extra prawn crackers etc… Reliable quality and a sufficient pain in the arse that it’s reserved as a treat rather than habitual. Sometimes the old ways are the best.
Personally, I never use those services because the delivery charges are insane. But da yuff especially thinking nothing of tap tap order for a single sandwich...
Though I use those services regularly. The costs and model are not insane for substantial meals for an entire family, edge cases over a single sandwich are just stupid, I'd never use them for that.
The guy's best work is a series he does called "pitch meeting" where he rinses hollywood movie plots in the form of a writer pitching to a studio executive.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
No, because a lost referendum means the end of any UK PM - anyway - and the destruction of the UK and immediate intense recession
No one will risk it unless the polls are incredibly favourable to NO, and even then they won’t risk it. This ineluctable logic applies to Starmer as well
The UK government will use the “generation” argument until it is invalid. ie - a generation has actually passed
It will be invalid the second that the Hung Parliament means the opposition get Downing Street if you don't agree to it yourself.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
No, because a lost referendum means the end of any UK PM - anyway - and the destruction of the UK and immediate intense recession
No one will risk it unless the polls are incredibly favourable to NO, and even then they won’t risk it. This ineluctable logic applies to Starmer as well
The UK government will use the “generation” argument until it is invalid. ie - a generation has actually passed
It will be invalid the second that the Hung Parliament means the opposition get Downing Street if you don't agree to it yourself.
If the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and Starmer offers the SNP indyref2 to get No 10 fine, we Tories go into Opposition and it is Labour's problem to win it.
Does anyone know most of these? Who are they? I think this one matters.
I know a few = eg Nick Coleridge is Landmark Trust. Caroline Flint is now an NHS Manager.
----------------- Former Culture Secretary, The Rt Hon Baroness (Nicky) Morgan of Cotes, will head up the Commission, which will seek the views of communities and organisations across the United Kingdom.
Joining Nicky Morgan on the Commission are:
Sir Nicholas Coleridge CBE Dr Nadine Cossette Rt Hon Caroline Flint Denise Hayward Felicia Kwaku OBE General Sir Gordon Messenger KCB, DSO & Bar, OBE, DL Gillian Norton OBE DL Ndidi Okezie OBE Professor Keshav Singhal MBE FLSW Sir Mark Walport FRCP FRCPath FRS FMedSci HonFRSE -----------------
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
If Truss tried that I would go to No 10 and drag her out myself as would most Tory MPs.
However the SNP would abstain on a confidence vote anyway absent a Labour commitment to indyref2
Yeah, sure you would. Just as you were going to hold to account the vile traitor Rishi for bringing down Boris. You're now going to hold that treacherous, treasonous traitor to account by *checks notes* voting for him.
In the unlikely event you do choose to go to No 10 to drag her out, good luck getting past the Police.
Game theory ends with the Tories promising an Indyref2 and the SNP abstaining. If the Tories don't offer Indyref2, then Labour can offer it, and Labour get Downing Street. So the only way the Tories can stop Labour entering Downing Street is to offer it themselves.
The Tories DO NOT need to offer the SNP indyref2.
If the Tories win most seats and the SNP abstain then the Tories stay in power anyway.
If Labour offer it then they can have Downing Street and deal with indyref2. We Tories go into Opposition
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
Round the world, the low cost of the airline/travel industry has been achieved by really, really pushing down wages. And conditions.
During COVID, a lot of people changed jobs and found better ones.
The husband of a family friend, who worked in a meal preparation factory by Heathrow told me that the conditions were increasingly horrible. As he put it, "I didn't leave Morocco to live the same crap here". He was in charge of a shift - the bottom end jobs were minimum wage to the penny.
Not sure how many of you have had any involvement in food production, or even been into a factory. There is very little that can be done to make conditions less horrible. Ready Meals is something I know about, and some of the processes to assemble these meals is a messy hot crowded faff.
The simple reality is that most people have decided they do not want to do this work - or any work that is boring, repetitive, dirty and unfulfilling. So we have removed whole sections of industries that used to exist, and the ones we need ultimately rely on finding people from less modernised parts of the world who don't mind.
Eventually some of these kinds of products will disappear because they are no longer economically viable. For an airline that means the end of in-flight meals for everything but the high end premium travellers.
Wife's cousin's daughter hosts a couple of refugees from Luhansk on her small farm here in Finland. We met them yesterday. The refuge was set up and organised by local private enterprise charity Facebook groups. This is the first time I have a positive view of fb.
Can you speak Finnish? If so, we have an “exciting” wee task for you! Kiitos!
Kyllä, mutta luen parempi kuin puhun. Vaikka ymmärän helposti.
Kuinka mukavaa! Katso, voitko paljastaa mehukkaan skandaalin, johon liittyy Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallituksen ministeri. Saatavilla tietojen mukaan vain suomenkielisissä medioissa.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
At which point the next question the BBC should be asking is
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.
But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.
By the way on the other thing after I went to bed last night, you made the point that most people underestimate how big the scale of the universe is and how hard it is to traverse. I would counter that most people underestimate how vast time is and how even astronomical distances can be swallowed easily with patience, without new physics.
If you sent self replicating probes to the 100 nearest star systems that could travel at 0.1 C, they’d reach them inside a century. Assume it takes some period of time X for said probe to self replicate using that planet’s resources. 50 years? Doesn’t really matter. It then sends off 100 of its own to the next nearest stars. In quite a trivial amount of time, perhaps under a million years depending on your assumption for X, the Milky Way would be “conquered”.
You could imagine even humans having the technical ability to kickstart this unstoppable process within a couple of centuries. Given this, where are the probes? Either they are here and we don’t see them, because either they are tiny and we’re not looking, or they’re tic tacs and we can’t get around to acknowledging it. Or, perhaps within a short time of the process being kickstarted, vastly superior “new physics” tech catches them up and stops the autonomous “digital panspermia” process in its tracks for reasons we can only speculate at.
Indeed - it's surprising how few years (relatively) colony ships travelling at sublight speeds could colonise the galaxy.
But... why would you bother? Perhaps the galaxy has essentially infinite resources and space. Would alien races actually want to travel to our mostly harmless speck of the galaxy?
Then there's the final term in the Drake Equation: the length of time that civilizations can communicate before they destroy themselves.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
At which point the next question the BBC should be asking is
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
It's not a typical Friday, though, is it? Surely having 12 booths means that you expect to use 12 booths at the busiest times, like today.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
I agree, except that they will kick up a big fuss on Labour denying Indyref2 anyway - why not?
There is a risk to the SNP of looking exactly the same as Scottish Labour, left-wing but no prospect of Indy. So they'll need to make clear the difference.
The interesting thing is that BOTH say the same thing about her as a person: she’s warm, funny, persuasive in reality (just bad at public speaking)
Hmm. She might not be quite the disaster Labour expect. If she can bring some of her genuine personality to the podium
All politicians are warm, funny and persuasive in person. Even Gordon Brown; even Theresa May. What Liz Truss urgently needs is training to overcome those parts of the job she is bad at, like speaking. Likewise Starmer.
I don't think Truss is inherently uncoalitionable. She's agile and opportunistic and used to be a LibDem. She might close off that door by the way she governs, but that hasn't happened yet.
Agreed on Truss, but if the LDs prop this lot up again, but this time after Brexit, the lies and all the other rubbish, they will annihilate themselves for good this time.
It's not going to happen. No way will a LD support a Truss government.
Even if you put aside entirely the history - which of course the LibDems can't - what people miss is that when a long-serving government is thrown out - even if they're only thrown as far as a balanced parliament - the politics of putting them back into office don't work. This was just as true in 2010 - Labour had been in power for so long that doing a deal to prolong their term was never a runner; the LibDems played the negotiations and media very well to keep this possibility in people's minds to get the Tories to do the deal.
No, the reason the deal was never a runner was because a Lib-Lab deal in 2010 wouldn't have had a majority in Parliament, and certainly not a working one.
Yes it would, but John Reid et al vetoed talking with the SNP.
No, a Lib-Lab deal would have got them to 315 and you need 326 for a majority. Even then SNP only got them to 321. That isn't enough for a majority, let alone a working one, which realistically needs 340-350.
IIRC they could have scraped a bare majority with SNP+SDLP+Plaid+Green (and assuming Sinn Fein weren't going to suddenly show up and vote with the Tories). Countries do get governed with bare majorities like that, it's not impossible. It wouldn't have been comfortable though.
There was a group of Labour MPs who scuppered it by saying they wouldn't support it. Only took a couple in the circumstances.
I expect they had a mistaken idea that they could watch the Tories struggle for a few years and then waltz back into power, just as some Tories are beginning to think now.
The rampant BritNat John Reid was one of them. I can remember his thunderous look when a BBC journalist had the temerity to bring up the possibility of talking with the SNP and Plaid. Comedy gold.
Imagine if they had talked!? No Brexit for a start.
The interesting thing is that BOTH say the same thing about her as a person: she’s warm, funny, persuasive in reality (just bad at public speaking)
Hmm. She might not be quite the disaster Labour expect. If she can bring some of her genuine personality to the podium
All politicians are warm, funny and persuasive in person. Even Gordon Brown; even Theresa May. What Liz Truss urgently needs is training to overcome those parts of the job she is bad at, like speaking. Likewise Starmer.
Disagree. You can see the humour in Truss’ eyes. There is life in there. Seldom saw it in Brown. Never saw it in May
People are writing her off way too quickly. I did it myself after her terrible first debate
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
At which point the next question the BBC should be asking is
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
According to our Europe Minister, Graham Stewart (nope, me neither) this is "the biggest peak moment of the entire year."
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
Mr. Urquhart, reminds me of restaurant reviews on Googlemaps, where an establishment has great reviews but filtering by time shows they've fallen off a cliff due to new management.
The new model for the Uber-Eats / Deliveroo world is now for a single restaurant to have multiple "virtual" brands. Now again the legit people are simply trying to offer a range of different foods, others are just creating loads of burnable "brands", doesn't matter if the food has gone to dogshit, they just reboot next month with a slightly different version.
No Uber or Deliveroo in my parts. I want a takeaway, I drive a few minutes to the affable Italian in his mobile pizza van, to one of several local curry houses or country pubs, to the nice Cantonese lady who always throws in extra prawn crackers etc… Reliable quality and a sufficient pain in the arse that it’s reserved as a treat rather than habitual. Sometimes the old ways are the best.
Personally, I never use those services because the delivery charges are insane. But da yuff especially thinking nothing of tap tap order for a single sandwich...
Though I use those services regularly. The costs and model are not insane for substantial meals for an entire family, edge cases over a single sandwich are just stupid, I'd never use them for that.
The guy's best work is a series he does called "pitch meeting" where he rinses hollywood movie plots in the form of a writer pitching to a studio executive.
Yeah I've seen a few of those, he's very good at them.
His take on Dark Knight Rises is particularly spot on.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
It sounds no different to the way HM Border Force operates the UK Border at Heathrow.
Then there's the final term in the Drake Equation: the length of time that civilizations can communicate before they destroy themselves.
So our first Interstellar transmission was Hitler at the Berlin games, and our last might be Putin launching the nukes...
I read a paper recently saying that our radio signals will have got a lot less further into space than we previously thought. It's not just the inverse-square law; it's space's noise floor and potential absorption by the interstellar medium.
Basically: we're lunatics hollering into a very large padded room.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
If Truss tried that I would go to No 10 and drag her out myself as would most Tory MPs.
However the SNP would abstain on a confidence vote anyway absent a Labour commitment to indyref2
Yeah, sure you would. Just as you were going to hold to account the vile traitor Rishi for bringing down Boris. You're now going to hold that treacherous, treasonous traitor to account by *checks notes* voting for him.
In the unlikely event you do choose to go to No 10 to drag her out, good luck getting past the Police.
Game theory ends with the Tories promising an Indyref2 and the SNP abstaining. If the Tories don't offer Indyref2, then Labour can offer it, and Labour get Downing Street. So the only way the Tories can stop Labour entering Downing Street is to offer it themselves.
The Tories DO NOT need to offer the SNP indyref2.
If the Tories win most seats and the SNP abstain then the Tories stay in power anyway.
If Labour offer it then they can have Downing Street and deal with indyref2. We Tories go into Opposition
The Tories do need to off the SNP IndyRef2 in that scenario to stay in Downing Street. Maybe Truss would rather be Prime Minister than not be Prime Minister?
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
At which point the next question the BBC should be asking is
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
It's not a typical Friday, though, is it? Surely having 12 booths means that you expect to use 12 booths at the busiest times, like today.
Why? Before the Single Market our Friench customs friends were notorious at ensuring they were as slow as they could be. We know how they operate, so this should not be a surprise.
Nor is it that unusual - a stack of empty booths is the experience that most people coming into Britain get when landing at Heathrow - or into America landing at JFK for that matter.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
Alba are hardly a threat to the SNP. Thats like saying Labour have to worry about Socialist Labour running because Starmer isn't socialist enough. Who cares?
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
It sounds no different to the way HM Border Force operates the UK Border at Heathrow.
The inefficency and incompetence of governments are universal constants.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
If only we had a previous event where Salmond stood Alba candidates across Scotland on the Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2 manifesto, just to judge how it might go like.
My relationship with Brexit is like a long tennis rally. Before the 2016 referendum I was pi**ed off with the EU, and critical of it. But I didn't believe leave had any coherent plan, so reluctantly voted remain. Since then, events have had me going over the net from one side to the other: the EUs stupidity over vaccines or intransigence over NI, or Germany's attitude towards Ukraine, see me going towards leave. Then all the other sh*t going on with Brexit on our side sees me going back to remain.
But it's all academic, as I would not support another referendum. We have made our bed; we need adults to remove the soiled sheets and tidy the room.
That is what Labour seem to be offering. Personally I think Brexit will never "work" but I am certainly happy for Labour to give it a go and perhaps prove me wrong. What we don't need is more fantasy stuff.
But Labour will never provide the true, pure Brexit that the Conservatives and Farage offer. Despite every Brexiteers appears to have a different view of what 'Brexit' means.
I agree Labour should probably have a go. For one thing, the EU are dealing with the people who (in their view) caused Brexit, such as Boris. It's hard to negotiate with someone when they're pissed off with you.
Starmer would be a clean sheet. And a bonus is that he'd cause the insane wing of Brexiteers to have mass coronaries. "But... but he voted remain!"
It is an intersting question: how will Starmer change the relationship?
He has already pledged not to rejoin the Customs Union or Single Market, which to an extent boxes him in, though I can absolutely understand why he has felt the need to do this.
If he wants a closer relationship to 'fix' the Northern Ireland issue, this leaves the option of an arrangement very similar to the one Theresa May proposed in the 2017-19 parliament, and which Starmer had back then repeatedly opposed, but seems to satisfy most Labour criteria. Not optimal from my point of view but it represents a compromise of sorts.
This is an opportunity for Starmer to demonstrate his magnanimous ability to change his mind. Labour MPs (most of whom voted against the May deal) would now vote for it, and Conservative MPs (most of whom had eventually supported it) could now vote against it, with the exception of May herself and few around her.
The new messenger could change everything for the old message. A host of James O'Brien/Otto English/Ian Dunt types in the papers and on the radio would declare in papers and on the radio, how emminently sensible this proposal is; why did nobody suggest it before?
Such a series of events may serve to pacify for a time both the Hanoverians and Jacobites in this debate (take your pick which is which), though of course, if this is where we end up, it could all have been reached in a much simpler way.
Morning all, this weeks Techne out and no change in lead, remains 9 points. Tory vote share recovery to the position just before defenestration continues, labour holding firmly in the lead Westminster Voting Intention:
The interesting thing is that BOTH say the same thing about her as a person: she’s warm, funny, persuasive in reality (just bad at public speaking)
Hmm. She might not be quite the disaster Labour expect. If she can bring some of her genuine personality to the podium
All politicians are warm, funny and persuasive in person. Even Gordon Brown; even Theresa May. What Liz Truss urgently needs is training to overcome those parts of the job she is bad at, like speaking. Likewise Starmer.
Hmm, I've met plenty of politicians through work and other things. I would agree that as a group they tend to be more sociable and articulate than the average person, but I would disagree that they are all warm funny and persuasive in person. I've never met May or Brown. Mandelson is a person I have met and wouldn't describe as warm at all although he was funny and persuasive. Redwood was neither warm, funny nor persuasive. Starmer wasn't warm or funny but he was persuasive. Major is warm and persuasive but not very funny. Cameron I would say was charming but not very warm, Blair the same. Johnson was warm and funny but utterly unpersuasive. Truss comes over as a bit weird. I think she risks being perceived as another Ed Miliband - another comprehensive school and Oxford educated politician with leftwing academic parentage. Of course she will get an easier ride from the press than Ed did, once installed as PM. But she risks being known for cheese as Ed was for bacon.
The interesting thing is that BOTH say the same thing about her as a person: she’s warm, funny, persuasive in reality (just bad at public speaking)
Hmm. She might not be quite the disaster Labour expect. If she can bring some of her genuine personality to the podium
All politicians are warm, funny and persuasive in person. Even Gordon Brown; even Theresa May. What Liz Truss urgently needs is training to overcome those parts of the job she is bad at, like speaking. Likewise Starmer.
Disagree. You can see the humour in Truss’ eyes. There is life in there. Seldom saw it in Brown. Never saw it in May
People are writing her off way too quickly. I did it myself after her terrible first debate
Sunak v Truss on Monday (?) will be fascinating
Off to see the political party podcast in August, the Gordon Brown one. Matt Forde is really good at getting the best from his guests, so I can let you know if there's warmth there. I suspect there is, in a kind of presby way.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
Alba are hardly a threat to the SNP. Thats like saying Labour have to worry about Socialist Labour running because Starmer isn't socialist enough. Who cares?
He's always obsessed with the idea that freaks and oddballs actually matter.
Hence why he's the only person that acts like Reform or whatever its called is a serious party and not a bad joke.
The interesting thing is that BOTH say the same thing about her as a person: she’s warm, funny, persuasive in reality (just bad at public speaking)
Hmm. She might not be quite the disaster Labour expect. If she can bring some of her genuine personality to the podium
All politicians are warm, funny and persuasive in person. Even Gordon Brown; even Theresa May. What Liz Truss urgently needs is training to overcome those parts of the job she is bad at, like speaking. Likewise Starmer.
Disagree. You can see the humour in Truss’ eyes. There is life in there. Seldom saw it in Brown. Never saw it in May
People are writing her off way too quickly. I did it myself after her terrible first debate
Sunak v Truss on Monday (?) will be fascinating
I am reassured by yourself, Barty, William Glenn and others that Ms. Truss is going to make a great and long- serving Prime Minister.
I can't see it myself yet, but I am trusting your combined judgements. Things can only get better!
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
No, because a lost referendum means the end of any UK PM - anyway - and the destruction of the UK and immediate intense recession
No one will risk it unless the polls are incredibly favourable to NO, and even then they won’t risk it. This ineluctable logic applies to Starmer as well
The UK government will use the “generation” argument until it is invalid. ie - a generation has actually passed
It has passed - or will have by 2025. Kids grow up quick these days.
IMHO no-one is going to do a deal with the SNP for IndyRef 2 as a quid pro quo for C&S.
Far more likely is suggesting the SNP vote down a queens speech and having another election on the basis that you need a majority to avoid having to rely on those SNP-ers.
Quite prepared to take SKS on his word on this. Lots of potential downside if it works the other way.
Morning all, this weeks Techne out and no change in lead, remains 9 points. Tory vote share recovery to the position just before defenestration continues, labour holding firmly in the lead Westminster Voting Intention:
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul [Truss] tax cuts are like £350m on the side of the bus: the more economists say they make no sense, the stronger the message to Tory members
At Society of Professional Economists reception at @KingsCollegeLon last night I couldn’t find a single one who thought her plan OK
The situation in Dover is made worse by the need now for passports to be checked and stamped which wasn’t the case before Brexit.
Passports were always checked pre-Brexit. We aren't in Schengen.
I suppose the extra two seconds of picking up a stamp and putting it down might be a challenge.
They weren't!
Any EU member government ID like a UK Driving Licence, a Spanish ID card, OR an EU passport could be flashed at border control. They did not universally use bio-metric checks until Brexit.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
Alba are hardly a threat to the SNP. Thats like saying Labour have to worry about Socialist Labour running because Starmer isn't socialist enough. Who cares?
He's always obsessed with the idea that freaks and oddballs actually matter.
Hence why he's the only person that acts like Reform or whatever its called is a serious party and not a bad joke.
Piquant, given that you and @HYUFD are two of the freakiest oddballs on the site, posting 24/7/365
The situation in Dover is made worse by the need now for passports to be checked and stamped which wasn’t the case before Brexit.
Yes, what's the opposite of a bonfire of red tape?
Still, jammed up borders are a Brexit feature not a bug. Making our island very very hard to get in or out of makes it safer and even more special to us.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
Alba are hardly a threat to the SNP. Thats like saying Labour have to worry about Socialist Labour running because Starmer isn't socialist enough. Who cares?
If Sturgeon props up a Labour government in a hung parliament without even getting an indyref2 commitment from Starmer they certainly would be.
Scottish Nationalists would go berserk. Salmond's Alba would then be as big a threat to Sturgeon's SNP as Farage's Brexit Party was to May's Tories in early 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
Alba are hardly a threat to the SNP. Thats like saying Labour have to worry about Socialist Labour running because Starmer isn't socialist enough. Who cares?
He's always obsessed with the idea that freaks and oddballs actually matter.
Hence why he's the only person that acts like Reform or whatever its called is a serious party and not a bad joke.
Reform running does impact Tory votes though - as it's obvious that Reform cost the Tory party a fair few seats they would otherwise have won.
Alba and the Socialist Labour party steal at most a few hundred votes from the SNP / Labour. Reform takes 1000s of Tory votes...
The situation in Dover is made worse by the need now for passports to be checked and stamped which wasn’t the case before Brexit.
Passports were always checked pre-Brexit. We aren't in Schengen.
I suppose the extra two seconds of picking up a stamp and putting it down might be a challenge.
They are checked much more thoroughly now. Previously they were only checked to make sure they were valid and matched the person presenting them. Often that was a barely cursory glance. Now they need to check that the person has not already spent 3 months of the last 6 in the Schengen area, as well as stamping it. In my experience that has multiplied the time by a factor of about 4.
Hmm, what do we reckon? Is this just a bit of grumbling that will blow over (but ensure that Liz wins the vote for the new leader) or is this a sign of trouble ahead for Tory MPs with their grassroots?
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
Having fun* with Google Support. Order a phone in their sale a week ago. Dispatches same day. But Royal Mail say they haven't received it. So raise a ticket on Monday. "We're sorry, we'll investigate".
And 4 days later that is still the status. Royal Mail have lost it, just send another one. "We have to follow the process" - which is to do what? I understand how to manage couriers losing business orders. Call them. They either say x will happen to fix it or y has happened.
So just send another one out. Computer says no is the most annoying business practice.
And will these 4 new procedures be more, less or equally as successful as the past 74 infringement procedures the EU has launched that you've told us about?
Let's be honest, the worst criticism of Starmer is that he is boring.
I don't think anyone is under any impression he will implement anything that is going to do real damage to the economy or the country. He might even do quite a good job.
Labour is ready to give Government a go again. The Tories are not.
Really? What are their ideas for the many problems the country faces?
OK, governments can win and govern for a long time without any serious ideas - Blair is an obvious example. But that was in much more benign times and he had a fawning press.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
Alba are hardly a threat to the SNP. Thats like saying Labour have to worry about Socialist Labour running because Starmer isn't socialist enough. Who cares?
If Sturgeon props up a Labour government in a hung parliament without even getting an indyref2 commitment from Starmer they certainly would be.
Scottish Nationalists would go berserk. Salmond's Alba would then be as big a threat to Sturgeon's SNP as Farage's Brexit Party was to May's Tories in early 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
But she won't prop up a Labour government. So the entire line of argument is stupid.
"A coalition of chaos" worked last time. Won't work this time. 4 PMs and 2 elections in 6 years is chaos. You are chaos. You can't spook the horses by saying someone else would be chaos in a scenario that is political gibberish.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
If the Tories give the SNP Indyref2 you won't have a say.
Once an agreement to hold the referendum is reached, that will be that. MPs will vote with the whip on this issue, as there's no point rebelling on it once its a done deal. And once the deal's reached, the SNP can just abstain on everything else.
Except, @HYUFD is right and you’re wrong. No Tory PM will grant indyref2 for the foreseeable. Why should they? What’s in it for them?
You may think this offends your democratic principles, but the Tory party doesn’t exist to cherish and honour your principles
What's in it for them? Downing Street is in it for them.
The scenario is a post-election negotiations in a Hung Parliament with the Tories having won significantly the most votes and seats, more seats than the LDs and Lab combined, but not enough to form an outright majority or even enough to have a majority with the DUP.
In that scenario all that is needed is for Truss's negotiator to whisper sweet nothings to Sturgeon saying "abstain on confidence matters, and we'll grant you Indyref2" and then the Tories get potentially five more years in Downing Street.
The Tory Party doesn't exist to deny IndyRef2. The second its in their interests to grant it, they'll do so.
If Truss tried that I would go to No 10 and drag her out myself as would most Tory MPs.
However the SNP would abstain on a confidence vote anyway absent a Labour commitment to indyref2
Yeah, sure you would. Just as you were going to hold to account the vile traitor Rishi for bringing down Boris. You're now going to hold that treacherous, treasonous traitor to account by *checks notes* voting for him.
In the unlikely event you do choose to go to No 10 to drag her out, good luck getting past the Police.
Game theory ends with the Tories promising an Indyref2 and the SNP abstaining. If the Tories don't offer Indyref2, then Labour can offer it, and Labour get Downing Street. So the only way the Tories can stop Labour entering Downing Street is to offer it themselves.
The Tories DO NOT need to offer the SNP indyref2.
If the Tories win most seats and the SNP abstain then the Tories stay in power anyway.
If Labour offer it then they can have Downing Street and deal with indyref2. We Tories go into Opposition
The Tories do need to off the SNP IndyRef2 in that scenario to stay in Downing Street. Maybe Truss would rather be Prime Minister than not be Prime Minister?
Your hurt feelings aren't a factor in that.
Truss would lose a VONC the second she offered an indyref2.
Better for the Tories to go into Opposition then if Starmer changed his mind and gave the SNP indyref2.
Then either No win it again and the SNP collapse in the next election or Yes win it and the Tories instantly have a majority in rUK and can go full English Nationalist to take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks.
The interesting thing is that BOTH say the same thing about her as a person: she’s warm, funny, persuasive in reality (just bad at public speaking)
Hmm. She might not be quite the disaster Labour expect. If she can bring some of her genuine personality to the podium
All politicians are warm, funny and persuasive in person. Even Gordon Brown; even Theresa May. What Liz Truss urgently needs is training to overcome those parts of the job she is bad at, like speaking. Likewise Starmer.
The weird bit about Truss is that 25 years ago she could speak quite well to an audience.
IMHO no-one is going to do a deal with the SNP for IndyRef 2 as a quid pro quo for C&S.
Far more likely is suggesting the SNP vote down a queens speech and having another election on the basis that you need a majority to avoid having to rely on those SNP-ers.
Quite prepared to take SKS on his word on this. Lots of potential downside if it works the other way.
Yeah I agree here. Too much of a political own goal to agree a referendum with the SNP for C+S. The other side can just paint the party that agreed as in Nicola's pocket and willing to put the union at risk for a chance of power.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
At which point the next question the BBC should be asking is
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
It's not a typical Friday, though, is it? Surely having 12 booths means that you expect to use 12 booths at the busiest times, like today.
Why? Before the Single Market our Friench customs friends were notorious at ensuring they were as slow as they could be. We know how they operate, so this should not be a surprise.
Nor is it that unusual - a stack of empty booths is the experience that most people coming into Britain get when landing at Heathrow - or into America landing at JFK for that matter.
Stop complaining. This is the Nirvana that the UK voted for!!! There may be queues but they are our queues (even if the French caused them) and that makes it all worthwhile.
Maybe it would help if we painted all cars heading for Dover in Passport Blue?
This was one of the pillars of how Starmer gets elected, he needs to go as hard against the SNP as the Tories. And him and Scotts Labour have done that well.
Coalition of chaos won't work, this is not weak Miliband all over again. Starmer is boring - but people do not think him weak.
Who cares? Infringement procedures being launched happens daily at the EU even with it's own member states. It's the political equivalent of a County Court Judgment, not a Supreme Court case. Come back when they've found against the UK and are willing to dump the TCA or impose sanctions.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
At which point the next question the BBC should be asking is
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
It's not a typical Friday, though, is it? Surely having 12 booths means that you expect to use 12 booths at the busiest times, like today.
Why? Before the Single Market our Friench customs friends were notorious at ensuring they were as slow as they could be. We know how they operate, so this should not be a surprise.
Nor is it that unusual - a stack of empty booths is the experience that most people coming into Britain get when landing at Heathrow - or into America landing at JFK for that matter.
If the French are being arseholes, the blame for that is only on the French.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
Round the world, the low cost of the airline/travel industry has been achieved by really, really pushing down wages. And conditions.
During COVID, a lot of people changed jobs and found better ones.
The husband of a family friend, who worked in a meal preparation factory by Heathrow told me that the conditions were increasingly horrible. As he put it, "I didn't leave Morocco to live the same crap here". He was in charge of a shift - the bottom end jobs were minimum wage to the penny.
Not sure how many of you have had any involvement in food production, or even been into a factory. There is very little that can be done to make conditions less horrible. Ready Meals is something I know about, and some of the processes to assemble these meals is a messy hot crowded faff.
The simple reality is that most people have decided they do not want to do this work - or any work that is boring, repetitive, dirty and unfulfilling. So we have removed whole sections of industries that used to exist, and the ones we need ultimately rely on finding people from less modernised parts of the world who don't mind.
Eventually some of these kinds of products will disappear because they are no longer economically viable. For an airline that means the end of in-flight meals for everything but the high end premium travellers.
The chap in question was quite smart - and was rather surprised that more wasn't automated. It was a completely manual operation.
The situation in Dover is made worse by the need now for passports to be checked and stamped which wasn’t the case before Brexit.
Passports were always checked pre-Brexit. We aren't in Schengen.
I suppose the extra two seconds of picking up a stamp and putting it down might be a challenge.
Two seconds you say.
Heathrow T5 June: Queue to get through one of the many automated turnstiles, a quiet time so 5 to 10 minutes. Put passport on scanner, fail scan and be directed to see a UK Border Force official. Two gates open for T5, 30 minutes later after the operative has manually keyed in I go through after being questioned on the purpose of my entry to the Uk.
Pretty sure the SNP would be happy for C&S until towards the end of a minority Labour government. There's plenty in common in terms of big policies. Scottish government elections are another matter.
Although C&S would be favourites for the LDs (meaning they hold onto the alternative vote to Tories without being 'minor Labour '), if PR is offered, all bets are off. I wouldn't rule it out.
The SNP would only support Labour in return for indyref2
I wouldn't rule out the SNP supporting (but not supporting) the Tories in return for Indyref2 either.
If the Tories agree to an Indyref2 and have more seats than Labour + LD combined then its exceptionally easy for the SNP and other parties to say that coalition talks have failed, that there is no new, alternative, viable government available, and the Tories continuing as a minority government seeking support from the opposition on a case-by-case basis to get bills through.
All the SNP care about is that they get their Indyref2. Having a Tory in Downing Street + Indyref2 is going to be the dream scenario for them, so sabotaging talks with Labour is the cynical thing to do.
If the Tories give the SNP indyref2 there would be open civil war in the party, me included. All Scottish Tory MPs would vote with the opposition rather than a Tory government allowing indyref2.
Indeed I would prefer a Conservative and Labour grand coalition than any deal with the SNP.
However if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament and also have more seats than Labour and the LDs combined they don't need to offer indyref2. The SNP would abstain without a Labour commitment to indyref2 and the Tories can form a minority government in a bill by Bill basis as you suggest
The SNP would never countenance the continuation of a Tory Government. They would back a Labour minority Government's Queens Speech even without a referendum commitment. Sure, the Nats would vote for or against (or abstain) on specific legislation, which would mean that Starmer wouldn't be able to achieve much. But he wouldn't care greatly, being focused on the best moment (6 months?) to call a second election during his honeymoon.
No the SNP would abstain on a Queen's Speech vote now absent an indyref2 commitment from Labour
The SNP would not vote/abstain in a vote for a Queen's Speech that would ensure a Tory government.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
Yes they would abstain, otherwise Salmond would stand Alba candidates across Scotland at general elections against the SNP as Sturgeon not taking a hard enough line to push indyref2
Hmm not sure. I'm recently back from a Scotland trip and while my wife tended to get sidetracked by the scenery etc I concentrated on the social and political aspects, taking the temperature, sniffing out the trends. I therefore feel more qualified to comment on Scottish matters than before. Watch this space.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
At which point the next question the BBC should be asking is
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
It's not a typical Friday, though, is it? Surely having 12 booths means that you expect to use 12 booths at the busiest times, like today.
Why? Before the Single Market our Friench customs friends were notorious at ensuring they were as slow as they could be. We know how they operate, so this should not be a surprise.
Nor is it that unusual - a stack of empty booths is the experience that most people coming into Britain get when landing at Heathrow - or into America landing at JFK for that matter.
If the French are being arseholes, the blame for that is only on the French.
Of course! But dealing with these arseholes is what we have chosen by leaving the EEA and CU.
@BartholomewRoberts just curious, if you voted Labour in 2019 were you endorsing anti-Semitism or not
Not. I've said not to you many times.
I think it would be an offensive slur to suggest 10 million Britons were endorsing anti-Semitism.
Fair enough but yours is definitely a minority POV.
I have never been against taking a minority or unique POV. My POV is my own, not anybody else's.
But I don't think the notion that 10 million people weren't all endorsing anti-semitism is unique or that minority either. Corbyn and his ilk were, but not all Labour voters. I'll quote a part of a reply I wrote to you yesterday.
There were a vast number of Labour MPs who objected to Corbyn, objected to anti Semitism and made that vocally clear and resigned to the back benches. People like Stella Creasy were prepared to not just vote Labour but hold the Labour whip and were still willing to call out anti Semitism even while voting Labour. I may not agree with her politics much, but I really respect her and MPs like her let alone voters like her.
Parties are big tents, just because Corbyn was an anti-Semite doesn't mean every Labour voter was. Many Labour voters were anti-Corbyn, many Labour MPs were.
So, the port authorities are blaming the French for the 'critical incident' at Dover.
I assume that the French are also to blame for all the queues at UK airports and the large number of cancelled flights in recent times. Or is it just possible that our tendency to scapegoat the French is a bit of a red herring, when it's apparent that there are widespread staffing problems, including in the UK, in the travel industry?
In this particular case 6 of the 12 booths checking passports etc are manned by the French at the present time according to the BBC. That seems to be the cause of the backlog. When going into one of the busiest weekends of the entire year that seems sub-optimal.
At which point the next question the BBC should be asking is
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
It's not a typical Friday, though, is it? Surely having 12 booths means that you expect to use 12 booths at the busiest times, like today.
Why? Before the Single Market our Friench customs friends were notorious at ensuring they were as slow as they could be. We know how they operate, so this should not be a surprise.
Nor is it that unusual - a stack of empty booths is the experience that most people coming into Britain get when landing at Heathrow - or into America landing at JFK for that matter.
Stop complaining. This is the Nirvana that the UK voted for!!! There may be queues but they are our queues (even if the French caused them) and that makes it all worthwhile.
Maybe it would help if we painted all cars heading for Dover in Passport Blue?
We've all torn off our now illegal GB markers from our cars and replaced them with "UK" badges, so that should get us through passport control more quickly.
@BartholomewRoberts just curious, if you voted Labour in 2019 were you endorsing anti-Semitism or not
Not. I've said not to you many times.
I think it would be an offensive slur to suggest 10 million Britons were endorsing anti-Semitism.
Fair enough but yours is definitely a minority POV.
I have never been against taking a minority or unique POV. My POV is my own, not anybody else's.
But I don't think the notion that 10 million people weren't all endorsing anti-semitism is unique or that minority either. Corbyn and his ilk were, but not all Labour voters. I'll quote a part of a reply I wrote to you yesterday.
There were a vast number of Labour MPs who objected to Corbyn, objected to anti Semitism and made that vocally clear and resigned to the back benches. People like Stella Creasy were prepared to not just vote Labour but hold the Labour whip and were still willing to call out anti Semitism even while voting Labour. I may not agree with her politics much, but I really respect her and MPs like her let alone voters like her.
Parties are big tents, just because Corbyn was an anti-Semite doesn't mean every Labour voter was. Many Labour voters were anti-Corbyn, many Labour MPs were.
I do recall you saying that Starmer supported/didn't oppose anti-Semitism, why is he different? He called it out from WITHIN cabinet.
Space is quite big. It would be a miracle if we could colonise Proxima Centauri, about the nearest one. Four light years away. 0.1c was suggested, so, with a following wind, a round trip in 40 years, half a life time.
Earth suits us very well, because we evolved here. Nowhere else will have that advantage. With a massive number of stars, the Drake number mght look encouraging. But some of them are 13 billion light years away, and we won't be travelling anywhere near light speed. We'll have evolved on a travelling space ship, and we might revert to bacteria, Who knows? Although if we travel at light speed (impossible), it wouldn't take long in our F.O,R.
If space is expanding too some of the planets will be disappearing over the horizon, If we had an horizon to disappear over.
Comments
However the SNP would abstain on a confidence vote anyway absent a Labour commitment to indyref2
2. No it isn't.
3. Yes it is free trade.
4. Nobody is bound, people aren't forced to sell to other nations. Those who choose to sell to other nations choose to do so, and can then choose to meet those standards. Just as if a client insists on something above a legal minimum as part of their negotiations then anyone signing up to deliver that to the client needs to then deliver it, but its a choice that is made in the negotiations.
5. They'll be the same thing much of the time, they won't always be the same thing. There are already some, creeping, differences and these will expand and evolve over time. Already the UK has quite rightly said we have no intention of copying the EU's silly USB-C regulations into UKCA.
What exactly does Lord Frost say the opposite on? The main TCA, or the Protocol?
I agree the Protocol needs changing, but that was always the plan. The Protocol was a bodge fix to get the trivial and least important element of Brexit resolved, pending the most important element getting negotiated. Now that the important bits are dealt with, its time to fix up the crap temporary sticking plaster solutions like the Protocol that were done in the past to stop the less important issues from overriding the more important ones as was happening in the past.
My guess would be that the fact that we can import LNG and Germany, for example, can't means that it makes sense to burn that gas in UK power stations and export the product of the LNG to the EU. It must be good business for our power plants here although it may prove fairly short term if Germany gets their act together, at least until we have an excess of wind power. A new interconnector is being built right now connecting us directly with Germany for the first time so that they can import our renewable energy.
No one will risk it unless the polls are incredibly favourable to NO, and even then they won’t risk it. This ineluctable logic applies to Starmer as well
The UK government will use the “generation” argument until it is invalid. ie - a generation has actually passed
During COVID, a lot of people changed jobs and found better ones.
The husband of a family friend, who worked in a meal preparation factory by Heathrow told me that the conditions were increasingly horrible. As he put it, "I didn't leave Morocco to live the same crap here". He was in charge of a shift - the bottom end jobs were minimum wage to the penny.
Though I use those services regularly. The costs and model are not insane for substantial meals for an entire family, edge cases over a single sandwich are just stupid, I'd never use them for that.
Edit - incidentally, it's bloody lucky my school allowed us to wear sandals for three days or I couldn't have gone in.
In the unlikely event you do choose to go to No 10 to drag her out, good luck getting past the Police.
Game theory ends with the Tories promising an Indyref2 and the SNP abstaining. If the Tories don't offer Indyref2, then Labour can offer it, and Labour get Downing Street. So the only way the Tories can stop Labour entering Downing Street is to offer it themselves.
I agree Labour should probably have a go. For one thing, the EU are dealing with the people who (in their view) caused Brexit, such as Boris. It's hard to negotiate with someone when they're pissed off with you.
Starmer would be a clean sheet. And a bonus is that he'd cause the insane wing of Brexiteers to have mass coronaries. "But... but he voted remain!"
If you sent self replicating probes to the 100 nearest star systems that could travel at 0.1 C, they’d reach them inside a century. Assume it takes some period of time X for said probe to self replicate using that planet’s resources. 50 years? Doesn’t really matter. It then sends off 100 of its own to the next nearest stars. In quite a trivial amount of time, perhaps under a million years depending on your assumption for X, the Milky Way would be “conquered”.
You could imagine even humans having the technical ability to kickstart this unstoppable process within a couple of centuries. Given this, where are the probes? Either they are here and we don’t see them, because either they are tiny and we’re not looking, or they’re tic tacs and we can’t get around to acknowledging it. Or, perhaps within a short time of the process being kickstarted, vastly superior “new physics” tech catches them up and stops the autonomous “digital panspermia” process in its tracks for reasons we can only speculate at.
Though for now Starmer has ruled it out
I know a few = eg Nick Coleridge is Landmark Trust. Caroline Flint is now an NHS Manager.
-----------------
Former Culture Secretary, The Rt Hon Baroness (Nicky) Morgan of Cotes, will head up the Commission, which will seek the views of communities and organisations across the United Kingdom.
Joining Nicky Morgan on the Commission are:
Sir Nicholas Coleridge CBE
Dr Nadine Cossette
Rt Hon Caroline Flint
Denise Hayward
Felicia Kwaku OBE
General Sir Gordon Messenger KCB, DSO & Bar, OBE, DL
Gillian Norton OBE DL
Ndidi Okezie OBE
Professor Keshav Singhal MBE FLSW
Sir Mark Walport FRCP FRCPath FRS FMedSci HonFRSE
-----------------
If the Tories win most seats and the SNP abstain then the Tories stay in power anyway.
If Labour offer it then they can have Downing Street and deal with indyref2. We Tories go into Opposition
The simple reality is that most people have decided they do not want to do this work - or any work that is boring, repetitive, dirty and unfulfilling. So we have removed whole sections of industries that used to exist, and the ones we need ultimately rely on finding people from less modernised parts of the world who don't mind.
Eventually some of these kinds of products will disappear because they are no longer economically viable. For an airline that means the end of in-flight meals for everything but the high end premium travellers.
Labour do not have to offer them IndyRef2 and the SNP would not ask.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/its-all-gone-right-for-liz-truss-and-very-wrong-for-the-country-1755005
The interesting thing is that BOTH say the same thing about her as a person: she’s warm, funny, persuasive in reality (just bad at public speaking)
Hmm. She might not be quite the disaster Labour expect. If she can bring some of her genuine personality to the podium
on a typical Friday how many booths are normally in use? as that will highlight where the issue is...
But the BBC don't seem to think to ask that sort of obvious question so you get a story without context or useful content...
But... why would you bother? Perhaps the galaxy has essentially infinite resources and space. Would alien races actually want to travel to our mostly harmless speck of the galaxy?
Then there's the final term in the Drake Equation: the length of time that civilizations can communicate before they destroy themselves.
There is a risk to the SNP of looking exactly the same as Scottish Labour, left-wing but no prospect of Indy. So they'll need to make clear the difference.
Imagine if they had talked!? No Brexit for a start.
Disagree. You can see the humour in Truss’ eyes. There is life in there. Seldom saw it in Brown. Never saw it in May
People are writing her off way too quickly. I did it myself after her terrible first debate
Sunak v Truss on Monday (?) will be fascinating
His take on Dark Knight Rises is particularly spot on.
Basically: we're lunatics hollering into a very large padded room.
Your hurt feelings aren't a factor in that.
Nor is it that unusual - a stack of empty booths is the experience that most people coming into Britain get when landing at Heathrow - or into America landing at JFK for that matter.
https://twitter.com/Gilesyb/status/1550385144426635264?s=20&t=NfvtPnTrqbm0Sqz7l_tVLw
Or do we think again a bit like the claim 600k left London there is a problem with counting?
He has already pledged not to rejoin the Customs Union or Single Market, which to an extent boxes him in, though I can absolutely understand why he has felt the need to do this.
If he wants a closer relationship to 'fix' the Northern Ireland issue, this leaves the option of an arrangement very similar to the one Theresa May proposed in the 2017-19 parliament, and which Starmer had back then repeatedly opposed, but seems to satisfy most Labour criteria. Not optimal from my point of view but it represents a compromise of sorts.
This is an opportunity for Starmer to demonstrate his magnanimous ability to change his mind. Labour MPs (most of whom voted against the May deal) would now vote for it, and Conservative MPs (most of whom had eventually supported it) could now vote against it, with the exception of May herself and few around her.
The new messenger could change everything for the old message. A host of James O'Brien/Otto English/Ian Dunt types in the papers and on the radio would declare in papers and on the radio, how emminently sensible this proposal is; why did nobody suggest it before?
Such a series of events may serve to pacify for a time both the Hanoverians and Jacobites in this debate (take your pick which is which), though of course, if this is where we end up, it could all have been reached in a much simpler way.
Truss comes over as a bit weird. I think she risks being perceived as another Ed Miliband - another comprehensive school and Oxford educated politician with leftwing academic parentage. Of course she will get an easier ride from the press than Ed did, once installed as PM. But she risks being known for cheese as Ed was for bacon.
Hence why he's the only person that acts like Reform or whatever its called is a serious party and not a bad joke.
Listen to organiser Peter Cruddas on Chopper's Politics today: http://playpodca.st/Chopper
Latest: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/22/boris-bus-picket-tory-leadership-hustings-calling-members-vote/
I can't see it myself yet, but I am trusting your combined judgements. Things can only get better!
I suppose the extra two seconds of picking up a stamp and putting it down might be a challenge.
Far more likely is suggesting the SNP vote down a queens speech and having another election on the basis that you need a majority to avoid having to rely on those SNP-ers.
Quite prepared to take SKS on his word on this. Lots of potential downside if it works the other way.
That gives you these figures
LAB: 37% (+1)
CON: 33% (-1)
LDEM: 13% (-)
GRN: 7% (+2)
via @KantarPublic, 14 - 18 Jul
Which to me seems to show that some of those voters who voted for Boris are returning to not bothered to vote...
Didn't it?
Any EU member government ID like a UK Driving Licence, a Spanish ID card, OR an EU passport could be flashed at border control. They did not universally use bio-metric checks until Brexit.
Still, jammed up borders are a Brexit feature not a bug. Making our island very very hard to get in or out of makes it safer and even more special to us.
Scottish Nationalists would go berserk. Salmond's Alba would then be as big a threat to Sturgeon's SNP as Farage's Brexit Party was to May's Tories in early 2019 after she failed to deliver Brexit
Alba and the Socialist Labour party steal at most a few hundred votes from the SNP / Labour. Reform takes 1000s of Tory votes...
One imagines that if Johnson goes to the Conservative Party conference that he might cause a bit of a splash. Does he want to?
And 4 days later that is still the status. Royal Mail have lost it, just send another one. "We have to follow the process" - which is to do what? I understand how to manage couriers losing business orders. Call them. They either say x will happen to fix it or y has happened.
So just send another one out. Computer says no is the most annoying business practice.
And will these 4 new procedures be more, less or equally as successful as the past 74 infringement procedures the EU has launched that you've told us about?
I don't think anyone is under any impression he will implement anything that is going to do real damage to the economy or the country. He might even do quite a good job.
That with time to change, I like his odds.
OK, governments can win and govern for a long time without any serious ideas - Blair is an obvious example. But that was in much more benign times and he had a fawning press.
"A coalition of chaos" worked last time. Won't work this time. 4 PMs and 2 elections in 6 years is chaos. You are chaos. You can't spook the horses by saying someone else would be chaos in a scenario that is political gibberish.
Better for the Tories to go into Opposition then if Starmer changed his mind and gave the SNP indyref2.
Then either No win it again and the SNP collapse in the next election or Yes win it and the Tories instantly have a majority in rUK and can go full English Nationalist to take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks.
I think it would be an offensive slur to suggest 10 million Britons were endorsing anti-Semitism.
https://youtu.be/T-610c0x1ks
I reckon the ring of power is turning her into gollum.
Maybe it would help if we painted all cars heading for Dover in Passport Blue?
This was one of the pillars of how Starmer gets elected, he needs to go as hard against the SNP as the Tories. And him and Scotts Labour have done that well.
Coalition of chaos won't work, this is not weak Miliband all over again. Starmer is boring - but people do not think him weak.
Heathrow T5 June: Queue to get through one of the many automated turnstiles, a quiet time so 5 to 10 minutes. Put passport on scanner, fail scan and be directed to see a UK Border Force official. Two gates open for T5, 30 minutes later after the operative has manually keyed in I go through after being questioned on the purpose of my entry to the Uk.
Two seconds, my a***!
But I don't think the notion that 10 million people weren't all endorsing anti-semitism is unique or that minority either. Corbyn and his ilk were, but not all Labour voters. I'll quote a part of a reply I wrote to you yesterday.
There were a vast number of Labour MPs who objected to Corbyn, objected to anti Semitism and made that vocally clear and resigned to the back benches. People like Stella Creasy were prepared to not just vote Labour but hold the Labour whip and were still willing to call out anti Semitism even while voting Labour. I may not agree with her politics much, but I really respect her and MPs like her let alone voters like her.
Parties are big tents, just because Corbyn was an anti-Semite doesn't mean every Labour voter was. Many Labour voters were anti-Corbyn, many Labour MPs were.
Earth suits us very well, because we evolved here. Nowhere else will have that advantage. With a massive number of stars, the Drake number mght look encouraging. But some of them are 13 billion light years away, and we won't be travelling anywhere near light speed. We'll have evolved on a travelling space ship, and we might revert to bacteria, Who knows? Although if we travel at light speed (impossible), it wouldn't take long in our F.O,R.
If space is expanding too some of the planets will be disappearing over the horizon, If we had an horizon to disappear over.