Antonio Guterres should sack his handlers or else he is a big gumbie. He reckons any kind of nuclear war would mean "the destruction of the planet" (er no, mate - go and read a book or something), and that any attack on a nuke plant is "suicidal". Seriously, why would Russian forces shell a plant they're already in? Cutting off the output - good for Russian side. "Accident" at the plant itself - good for Ukrainian side. Obvious reasons in both cases. Funny outfit, the IAEA - clear illustration that not everything has been "balanced" inside the UNSC.
You're an idiot, drunk, or a malign actor (or any combination therof) if you think a nuclear disaster on its territory is 'good for Ukraine'.
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
That was about fear of the chaos of No Deal - people (other than me) not realizing back then that it was a bluff. Fact is, no high profile Remainer accepted the result better than KC. The May deal, he voted for, all varieties of EFTA, Norway, Turkey, whatever, he voted for, even the shit sandwich that was the Johnson deal, he voted for. Not enough for the Johnson gang. Not pure enough. Not reckless enough. Not enough of a toady.
Clarke consistently maneuvered against any EU referendum ever, and did dirty tricks thereby. He is one of the chief if distant architects of Brexit, ironically enough. Because, by denying a vote earlier, they ended up with a catastrophically angry vote, later. He must be ranked along with Blair, Cameron, Heseltine, Major, etc etc
Clarke has always seemed a more thoughtful man than Heseltine and Major and others, however. I wonder if he now, ruefully, realises his epochal mistake. I kind of hope so, because I kind of like him
One gauge of how badly Brexit is going is how Leavers now claim that Remainers made them do it.
Brexit is going great.
That Remainers failed to get what they wanted absolutely is Remainers fault though, they had so many decks stacked in their favour and they failed hubristically every step of the way.
Pointing out Remainers abysmalness in the process is no more flawed than pointing out and laughing at Man Utd's failures in recent seasons means that Man Utd's opponents are doing badly.
Lol. You are the person I referred to in my previous post. Brexit is not "going great". It is pointless and it has no "benefits". It was a con. Only the super gullible still believe in it. By the way, Barty, Father Christmas does not exist and there are no fairies at the end of the garden. Sorry to break it to you.
That you're unable to see any points or "benefits" to Brexit is just another example your closed and simple-mindedness. There are both cons and pros to Brexit, and as a thinking individual who was pro-Remain until the campaign I was torn in the debate weighing up both cons and pros.
That you can only see cons and no pros whatever is just your own Mr Thickyness coming to the fore. I can see and accept and acknowledge the cons, even if I think the pros exist.
PS as a father of 6 and 8 year old girls I can 100% insist and demonstrate that Father Christmas and fairies at the garden absolutely do exist. Father Christmas exists through me and my wife ensuring he exists and our girls can see his existence through our actions. It is up to us to make Father Christmas work, just as its up to us to get the benefits from Brexit.
On Father Christmas... Are all presents to your daughters from Father Christmas?
I was in trouble one year because we identified presents from other family members as being from Aunt Elsie, Grandpa Freddy, etc, and gave Father Christmas the credit for our presents, so our daughter wondered why we hadn't given her any presents...
No. We do what both our parents did, the primary present that we've chosen [which wasn't on the list] comes from us, extra presents come from Father Christmas. They always write a letter to Father Christmas a few days before Christmas which we guide them towards putting on a couple of the things that Father Christmas has 'chosen' for them, minus a few surprises.
EG last year my eldest was Harry Potter crazy and so her main present we got was a Lego Hogwarts Castle. She didn't know about it and we tried to ensure she never saw it, so it wasn't on her list to Father Christmas. That came from us, everything else came from Father Christmas. Thankfully their requests to Father Christmas are always quite moderate.
Giving big presents via Father Christmas is *strongly* deprecated by teachers of the Santa credulous age group because it makes children of poorer families, and presumably richer families who don't do this, feel discriminated against.
yeah it never sits comfortably with me this santa claus thing for a number of reasons
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
With respect - is it possible (just theoretically) that they might prefer other topics upon which you might agree?
Maybe, lol
But I sense a dying of the fire. The Remoaners were furiously angry for quite a while, then quietly seething, now they seem wistfully fine about it. If it is mentioned they tut and look a bit sad, but not for long
No one has died. Britain is still here. There are more important things
It's more that, just as Brexit was a huge and damaging distraction from the effective government if the country, any attempt to reopen the debate in the middle of the current crises would be a similar distraction.
I don't expect any real debate to reopen until after a period of relative peace and economic stability. If and when the underperformance of Brexited UK becomes a matter of public consensus.
In the meantime we'll content ourselves with occasionally taking the piss out of its more glaring absurdities.
Exactly this. There is no point in waking up in a rage over Brexit every day. It was a stupid mistake, but life goes on, the sun is shining, it doesn't affect me materially on a day to day basis. Leavers need to make it work a lot better than it is now though if they want it to stick. If they don't, at some point the issue will be revisited.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
I think the niche area now is not about rejoining, it is about how long those of us that knew it was fucking pointless can carry on having a really good laugh at those of you that believed in it, and are still trying (like yourself) to convince yourself it was worthwhile when secretly you realise it was probably one of the dumbest things this country has done since Lord Cardigan buttoned up his wooly jumper, misread his orders, and shouted "charge" at a long line of guns at Sebastopol
I know it's hard for you to understand, but I really do not regret my vote. If we had the eu-ref again tomorrow, I would again vote LEAVE despite ALL the shit that has happened (and, my God, there has been a ton of shit, I do not deny it - Brexit has been a mega-cluster-fuckettyshambles)
I voted for sovereignty and democracy. That has been restored. It pleases me a great deal. It's all I wanted out of Brexit. The other good stuff that springs from self-governance will happen in time, it might be a long time. So be it. It's up to us now
It's also worth thinking about the alternative. Had we voted to stay by a narrow margin would this country be peaceful, harmonious and united? I suggest we would have had a significant number of UKIP MPs in Parliament including that prat Farage, the country would be verging on the ungovernable and the demands for a second referendum every time a new consumer protection order was passed by the EU. And I have conclusive evidence of this in the form of the SNP. The fantasy that this would have just gone away is just that. A fantasy.
If Starmer ascends to power, it will be interesting to see if he succumbs to demands to move "closer" to the SM and CU. I still believe he will, because he is an inveterate Remainer and 2nd Voter
If he doesn't, then I feel that's it. The temporarily open window will shut. We're out of the whole shebang and we will never go anywhere near it again
And talking of out I must go get myself some more lovely sunshine, in the royal parks. Later PB, later
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
That was about fear of the chaos of No Deal - people (other than me) not realizing back then that it was a bluff. Fact is, no high profile Remainer accepted the result better than KC. The May deal, he voted for, all varieties of EFTA, Norway, Turkey, whatever, he voted for, even the shit sandwich that was the Johnson deal, he voted for. Not enough for the Johnson gang. Not pure enough. Not reckless enough. Not enough of a toady.
Clarke consistently maneuvered against any EU referendum ever, and did dirty tricks thereby. He is one of the chief if distant architects of Brexit, ironically enough. Because, by denying a vote earlier, they ended up with a catastrophically angry vote, later. He must be ranked along with Blair, Cameron, Heseltine, Major, etc etc
Clarke has always seemed a more thoughtful man than Heseltine and Major and others, however. I wonder if he now, ruefully, realises his epochal mistake. I kind of hope so, because I kind of like him
One gauge of how badly Brexit is going is how Leavers now claim that Remainers made them do it.
Brexit is going great.
That Remainers failed to get what they wanted absolutely is Remainers fault though, they had so many decks stacked in their favour and they failed hubristically every step of the way.
Pointing out Remainers abysmalness in the process is no more flawed than pointing out and laughing at Man Utd's failures in recent seasons means that Man Utd's opponents are doing badly.
Lol. You are the person I referred to in my previous post. Brexit is not "going great". It is pointless and it has no "benefits". It was a con. Only the super gullible still believe in it. By the way, Barty, Father Christmas does not exist and there are no fairies at the end of the garden. Sorry to break it to you.
That you're unable to see any points or "benefits" to Brexit is just another example your closed and simple-mindedness. There are both cons and pros to Brexit, and as a thinking individual who was pro-Remain until the campaign I was torn in the debate weighing up both cons and pros.
That you can only see cons and no pros whatever is just your own Mr Thickyness coming to the fore. I can see and accept and acknowledge the cons, even if I think the pros exist.
PS as a father of 6 and 8 year old girls I can 100% insist and demonstrate that Father Christmas and fairies at the garden absolutely do exist. Father Christmas exists through me and my wife ensuring he exists and our girls can see his existence through our actions. It is up to us to make Father Christmas work, just as its up to us to get the benefits from Brexit.
On Father Christmas... Are all presents to your daughters from Father Christmas?
I was in trouble one year because we identified presents from other family members as being from Aunt Elsie, Grandpa Freddy, etc, and gave Father Christmas the credit for our presents, so our daughter wondered why we hadn't given her any presents...
No. We do what both our parents did, the primary present that we've chosen [which wasn't on the list] comes from us, extra presents come from Father Christmas. They always write a letter to Father Christmas a few days before Christmas which we guide them towards putting on a couple of the things that Father Christmas has 'chosen' for them, minus a few surprises.
EG last year my eldest was Harry Potter crazy and so her main present we got was a Lego Hogwarts Castle. She didn't know about it and we tried to ensure she never saw it, so it wasn't on her list to Father Christmas. That came from us, everything else came from Father Christmas. Thankfully their requests to Father Christmas are always quite moderate.
Giving big presents via Father Christmas is *strongly* deprecated by teachers of the Santa credulous age group because it makes children of poorer families, and presumably richer families who don't do this, feel discriminated against.
yeah it never sits comfortably with me this santa claus thing for a number of reasons
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
It's the big three, isn't it? Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and god.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
I think the niche area now is not about rejoining, it is about how long those of us that knew it was fucking pointless can carry on having a really good laugh at those of you that believed in it, and are still trying (like yourself) to convince yourself it was worthwhile when secretly you realise it was probably one of the dumbest things this country has done since Lord Cardigan buttoned up his wooly jumper, misread his orders, and shouted "charge" at a long line of guns at Sebastopol
I know it's hard for you to understand, but I really do not regret my vote. If we had the eu-ref again tomorrow, I would again vote LEAVE despite ALL the shit that has happened (and, my God, there has been a ton of shit, I do not deny it - Brexit has been a mega-cluster-fuckettyshambles)
I voted for sovereignty and democracy. That has been restored. It pleases me a great deal. It's all I wanted out of Brexit. The other good stuff that springs from self-governance will happen in time, it might be a long time. So be it. It's up to us now
We were always sovereign.
But other than that, absolutely.
Shall we just not do this argument for the 937th time?
I'm right, you're wrong; you feel completely differently. There it is
Nope you are very wrong @Leon and @Topping right . Two much Daily Mail reading old chap. If you voted for that reason alone you were even more gulled than the rest of the gullible. We always had sovereignty otherwise we would not have been able to have the vote in the first place. Scotland does not have sovereignty so they cannot unilaterally decide to have a vote. We did not, and never did, have the need to ask the EU to go to war. We pooled some areas of sovereignty with the EU, in the same way that we pool sovereignty for NATO (as far as I have noticed there are no EU airbases in East Anglia, whereas there are a few American ones - shock horror says Col. Blimp what of our sovereignty?).
The sovereignty argument is nonsense and a con. Always was, always will be. You carry on believing in it if you want to old chap. Watch out for aliens.
Brexit is already collapsing under the weight of its own ridiculous contradictions and pointlessness. Although I am not in favour of rejoin, I am more and more convinced that give it 25/30 years and it is inevitable, particularly when the Col. Blimp boomer generation has breathed it's last.
The first sentence is meaningless. It’s like saying that the house is falling down but you’re not in favour of moving out.
Keep working on those metaphors. Brexit is, after all, a philosophical position, even though it might well be the philosophy of the braindead. It is therefore quite possible for it to collapse under the weight of it's own contradiction and for most people, with the exception of Barty, to realise it was pointless. You, on the other hand, might experience a big metaphorical gust of wind and find yourself pointing back in a remainery direction.
European economic union is a philosophical position that you don’t even agree with since you oppose the single currency.
Your opposition to Brexit is not philosophical but purely because you think it’s not a good look to be on the same side as the likes of Farage.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
I think the niche area now is not about rejoining, it is about how long those of us that knew it was fucking pointless can carry on having a really good laugh at those of you that believed in it, and are still trying (like yourself) to convince yourself it was worthwhile when secretly you realise it was probably one of the dumbest things this country has done since Lord Cardigan buttoned up his wooly jumper, misread his orders, and shouted "charge" at a long line of guns at Sebastopol
I know it's hard for you to understand, but I really do not regret my vote. If we had the eu-ref again tomorrow, I would again vote LEAVE despite ALL the shit that has happened (and, my God, there has been a ton of shit, I do not deny it - Brexit has been a mega-cluster-fuckettyshambles)
I voted for sovereignty and democracy. That has been restored. It pleases me a great deal. It's all I wanted out of Brexit. The other good stuff that springs from self-governance will happen in time, it might be a long time. So be it. It's up to us now
The thing about Brexit is that, whoever is in power, when things go wrong its your f8cking fault. It can't be anyone else's.
This mess wasn't an EU directive, we weren't outvoted on a majority decision, it isn't out of our hands, it wasn't an ECJ verdict that went the wrong way. It isn't something we have conceded to get advantage elsewhere.
Just f8cking sort it or get out of the way. And that is the situation so many of our politicians are really, really struggling with.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
That was about fear of the chaos of No Deal - people (other than me) not realizing back then that it was a bluff. Fact is, no high profile Remainer accepted the result better than KC. The May deal, he voted for, all varieties of EFTA, Norway, Turkey, whatever, he voted for, even the shit sandwich that was the Johnson deal, he voted for. Not enough for the Johnson gang. Not pure enough. Not reckless enough. Not enough of a toady.
Clarke consistently maneuvered against any EU referendum ever, and did dirty tricks thereby. He is one of the chief if distant architects of Brexit, ironically enough. Because, by denying a vote earlier, they ended up with a catastrophically angry vote, later. He must be ranked along with Blair, Cameron, Heseltine, Major, etc etc
Clarke has always seemed a more thoughtful man than Heseltine and Major and others, however. I wonder if he now, ruefully, realises his epochal mistake. I kind of hope so, because I kind of like him
One gauge of how badly Brexit is going is how Leavers now claim that Remainers made them do it.
Brexit is going great.
That Remainers failed to get what they wanted absolutely is Remainers fault though, they had so many decks stacked in their favour and they failed hubristically every step of the way.
Pointing out Remainers abysmalness in the process is no more flawed than pointing out and laughing at Man Utd's failures in recent seasons means that Man Utd's opponents are doing badly.
Lol. You are the person I referred to in my previous post. Brexit is not "going great". It is pointless and it has no "benefits". It was a con. Only the super gullible still believe in it. By the way, Barty, Father Christmas does not exist and there are no fairies at the end of the garden. Sorry to break it to you.
That you're unable to see any points or "benefits" to Brexit is just another example your closed and simple-mindedness. There are both cons and pros to Brexit, and as a thinking individual who was pro-Remain until the campaign I was torn in the debate weighing up both cons and pros.
That you can only see cons and no pros whatever is just your own Mr Thickyness coming to the fore. I can see and accept and acknowledge the cons, even if I think the pros exist.
PS as a father of 6 and 8 year old girls I can 100% insist and demonstrate that Father Christmas and fairies at the garden absolutely do exist. Father Christmas exists through me and my wife ensuring he exists and our girls can see his existence through our actions. It is up to us to make Father Christmas work, just as its up to us to get the benefits from Brexit.
On Father Christmas... Are all presents to your daughters from Father Christmas?
I was in trouble one year because we identified presents from other family members as being from Aunt Elsie, Grandpa Freddy, etc, and gave Father Christmas the credit for our presents, so our daughter wondered why we hadn't given her any presents...
No. We do what both our parents did, the primary present that we've chosen [which wasn't on the list] comes from us, extra presents come from Father Christmas. They always write a letter to Father Christmas a few days before Christmas which we guide them towards putting on a couple of the things that Father Christmas has 'chosen' for them, minus a few surprises.
EG last year my eldest was Harry Potter crazy and so her main present we got was a Lego Hogwarts Castle. She didn't know about it and we tried to ensure she never saw it, so it wasn't on her list to Father Christmas. That came from us, everything else came from Father Christmas. Thankfully their requests to Father Christmas are always quite moderate.
Giving big presents via Father Christmas is *strongly* deprecated by teachers of the Santa credulous age group because it makes children of poorer families, and presumably richer families who don't do this, feel discriminated against.
yeah it never sits comfortably with me this santa claus thing for a number of reasons
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
It's the big three, isn't it? Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and god.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
If we were still in the EU, would we be obliged to accept the touted 15 per cent cut in gas usage over the winter?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
Who should replace KS and why would they be doing better? I would like polling evidence to support your conclusion
We have to assume that BJO would like to see the return of that crowd pleaser and (non) winner of elections and Putin apologist extraordinaire, the man affectionately known to PBers as Magic Grandpa or Mr. Thicky.
Corbyn thinks we shouldn't be arming the Ukrainians because it is prolonging the conflict. Which of course is probably true, because if we didn't Putin would have quickly won, which perhaps Jezza would be pleased about.
Why is Corbyn a sympathiser for a militaristic imperialist and murderer, Vladimir Putin? Corbyn fan please explain?
Corbyn has called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and also called for stronger sanctions after Crimea than the Tories imposed. He might be a useful idiot but is surely not a Russian partisan.
He's absolutely a Russia partisan.
He's "called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine" to save face while calling for the West to stop sending munitions to Ukraine.
If those policies were followed then Russia would roll over anywhere it wanted to do so while Corbyn would stand there saying "peace, lets talk about peace".
The only way to stop Russia is via force, and Corbyn is utterly opposed to that.
Nah - nobody who knows Corbyn would think he had the slightest interest in saving face. He's essentially a pacifist - opposed to the Russian invasion, which he sees as imperialist aggression, opposed to throwing arms into the conflict, favours tougher sanctions to force the Russians into line. But in any case he's a backbencher with zero influence on government or opposition.
FWIW I think the war is grinding to a stalemate - both sides are claiming gains of single "settlements" (which seem to be clumps of houses, smaller than villages), and missile strikes hitting supply dumps and bridges. If nothing much happens in the autumn, General Winter will freeze the positions further.
Possibly. But the Ukrainians have made big claims about liberating Kherson
The Ukrainians have made all sorts of mad bullshit claims since day one of the SMO - all of which have been faithfully regurgitated by their useless idiots on here.
Antonio Guterres should sack his handlers or else he is a big gumbie. He reckons any kind of nuclear war would mean "the destruction of the planet" (er no, mate - go and read a book or something), and that any attack on a nuke plant is "suicidal". Seriously, why would Russian forces shell a plant they're already in? Cutting off the output - good for Russian side. "Accident" at the plant itself - good for Ukrainian side. Obvious reasons in both cases. Funny outfit, the IAEA - clear illustration that not everything has been "balanced" inside the UNSC.
You're an idiot, drunk, or a malign actor (or any combination therof) if you think a nuclear disaster on its territory is 'good for Ukraine'.
I'm pretty sure that we did that one already. And it wasn't great for the Ukraine or even us.
I’m not sure which is the most bonkers claim on here this afternoon. The suggestion from BJO that SKS would be a war criminal if given the chance or that of Dynamo that Ukraine would want to cause a nuclear disaster on its own territory.
Brexit is already collapsing under the weight of its own ridiculous contradictions and pointlessness. Although I am not in favour of rejoin, I am more and more convinced that give it 25/30 years and it is inevitable, particularly when the Col. Blimp boomer generation has breathed it's last.
The first sentence is meaningless. It’s like saying that the house is falling down but you’re not in favour of moving out.
Keep working on those metaphors. Brexit is, after all, a philosophical position, even though it might well be the philosophy of the braindead. It is therefore quite possible for it to collapse under the weight of it's own contradiction and for most people, with the exception of Barty, to realise it was pointless. You, on the other hand, might experience a big metaphorical gust of wind and find yourself pointing back in a remainery direction.
European economic union is a philosophical position that you don’t even agree with since you oppose the single currency.
Your opposition to Brexit is not philosophical but purely because you think it’s not a good look to be on the same side as the likes of Farage.
Not to mention being on the same side as the working classes.
I can understand people who are entirely committed to the EU getting annoyed about leaving, but it's hard to see why people who are not at all enthusiastic about the organisation should get upset.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
With respect - is it possible (just theoretically) that they might prefer other topics upon which you might agree?
Maybe, lol
But I sense a dying of the fire. The Remoaners were furiously angry for quite a while, then quietly seething, now they seem wistfully fine about it. If it is mentioned they tut and look a bit sad, but not for long
No one has died. Britain is still here. There are more important things
It's more that, just as Brexit was a huge and damaging distraction from the effective government if the country, any attempt to reopen the debate in the middle of the current crises would be a similar distraction.
I don't expect any real debate to reopen until after a period of relative peace and economic stability. If and when the underperformance of Brexited UK becomes a matter of public consensus.
In the meantime we'll content ourselves with occasionally taking the piss out of its more glaring absurdities.
Exactly this. There is no point in waking up in a rage over Brexit every day. It was a stupid mistake, but life goes on, the sun is shining, it doesn't affect me materially on a day to day basis. Leavers need to make it work a lot better than it is now though if they want it to stick. If they don't, at some point the issue will be revisited.
The question is when does a mood in the country become something that politics has to revisit? Let's express it as opinion poll percentages, imperfect as they are.
Excluding "don't knows", we're currently at 60:40 "you-know-what was a mistake". That's not enough, sure. But if it were to get to 70:30? 80:20?
I'm not saying it will, or it should. But there is a line somewhere, and I'm not sure where it is.
(Something similar goes for the Scottish you-know-what. As long as the polls are close to 50:50, inertia wins and there's not point having another referendum. But if the mood were, say, 70:30, "Westminster says no" becomes untenable.)
Who should replace KS and why would they be doing better? I would like polling evidence to support your conclusion
We have to assume that BJO would like to see the return of that crowd pleaser and (non) winner of elections and Putin apologist extraordinaire, the man affectionately known to PBers as Magic Grandpa or Mr. Thicky.
Corbyn thinks we shouldn't be arming the Ukrainians because it is prolonging the conflict. Which of course is probably true, because if we didn't Putin would have quickly won, which perhaps Jezza would be pleased about.
Why is Corbyn a sympathiser for a militaristic imperialist and murderer, Vladimir Putin? Corbyn fan please explain?
Corbyn has called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and also called for stronger sanctions after Crimea than the Tories imposed. He might be a useful idiot but is surely not a Russian partisan.
He's absolutely a Russia partisan.
He's "called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine" to save face while calling for the West to stop sending munitions to Ukraine.
If those policies were followed then Russia would roll over anywhere it wanted to do so while Corbyn would stand there saying "peace, lets talk about peace".
The only way to stop Russia is via force, and Corbyn is utterly opposed to that.
Nah - nobody who knows Corbyn would think he had the slightest interest in saving face. He's essentially a pacifist - opposed to the Russian invasion, which he sees as imperialist aggression, opposed to throwing arms into the conflict, favours tougher sanctions to force the Russians into line. But in any case he's a backbencher with zero influence on government or opposition.
FWIW I think the war is grinding to a stalemate - both sides are claiming gains of single "settlements" (which seem to be clumps of houses, smaller than villages), and missile strikes hitting supply dumps and bridges. If nothing much happens in the autumn, General Winter will freeze the positions further.
Possibly. But the Ukrainians have made big claims about liberating Kherson
The Ukrainians have made all sorts of mad bullshit claims since day one of the SMO - all of which have been faithfully regurgitated by their useless idiots on here.
Yet, your own predictions of a Russian walkover have been completely off the mark.
Antonio Guterres should sack his handlers or else he is a big gumbie. He reckons any kind of nuclear war would mean "the destruction of the planet" (er no, mate - go and read a book or something), and that any attack on a nuke plant is "suicidal". Seriously, why would Russian forces shell a plant they're already in? Cutting off the output - good for Russian side. "Accident" at the plant itself - good for Ukrainian side. Obvious reasons in both cases. Funny outfit, the IAEA - clear illustration that not everything has been "balanced" inside the UNSC.
There's a great deal of 'wrong' in all of that.
Russia did not suffer *that* much when Chernobyl went bang. Ukraine and Belarus did. The plant going bang will be a massive headache for Ukraine for decades and centuries to come - and therefore would hardly be 'good' for Ukraine. It might be just the sort of punishment beating Putin would give Ukraine - especially if he believes he can get his mouthpieces to blame Ukraine for it. And especially if the winds are easterly, so they'll effect and pollute Euriope.
'Cutting the output' is also a rather simplistic view of the way you safely depower a nuclear power station. As Fukashima showed, they need to get power from somewhere, and although powering a station from itself is a really bad idea, you need power from outside the plant, or external diesel generators. And who will run the latter?
Invading a working or newly decommissioned nuclear plant in a time of war should be seen as a new type of war crime.
Brexit is already collapsing under the weight of its own ridiculous contradictions and pointlessness. Although I am not in favour of rejoin, I am more and more convinced that give it 25/30 years and it is inevitable, particularly when the Col. Blimp boomer generation has breathed it's last.
The first sentence is meaningless. It’s like saying that the house is falling down but you’re not in favour of moving out.
Keep working on those metaphors. Brexit is, after all, a philosophical position, even though it might well be the philosophy of the braindead. It is therefore quite possible for it to collapse under the weight of it's own contradiction and for most people, with the exception of Barty, to realise it was pointless. You, on the other hand, might experience a big metaphorical gust of wind and find yourself pointing back in a remainery direction.
European economic union is a philosophical position that you don’t even agree with since you oppose the single currency.
Your opposition to Brexit is not philosophical but purely because you think it’s not a good look to be on the same side as the likes of Farage.
It is nice (I think) of you to analyse my position, and you are right to the extent that most of my positioning on Brexit is pragmatic, and that pragmatism is the thing that will tell me that rejoin is probably likely to be as divisive and damaging, and therefore as pointless as Brexit. I also accept that there are a range of views on these things.
The reality is that we are stuck with Brexit. It is about as intractable as "The Irish Question" (hopefully without the bombs and bullets) and The Corn Laws. It will be scrutinised by historians of the future and those who will continuously look for the "benefits of Brexit", like so many donkeys with carrots hanging on threads in front of them.
Who should replace KS and why would they be doing better? I would like polling evidence to support your conclusion
We have to assume that BJO would like to see the return of that crowd pleaser and (non) winner of elections and Putin apologist extraordinaire, the man affectionately known to PBers as Magic Grandpa or Mr. Thicky.
Corbyn thinks we shouldn't be arming the Ukrainians because it is prolonging the conflict. Which of course is probably true, because if we didn't Putin would have quickly won, which perhaps Jezza would be pleased about.
Why is Corbyn a sympathiser for a militaristic imperialist and murderer, Vladimir Putin? Corbyn fan please explain?
Corbyn has called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and also called for stronger sanctions after Crimea than the Tories imposed. He might be a useful idiot but is surely not a Russian partisan.
He's absolutely a Russia partisan.
He's "called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine" to save face while calling for the West to stop sending munitions to Ukraine.
If those policies were followed then Russia would roll over anywhere it wanted to do so while Corbyn would stand there saying "peace, lets talk about peace".
The only way to stop Russia is via force, and Corbyn is utterly opposed to that.
Nah - nobody who knows Corbyn would think he had the slightest interest in saving face. He's essentially a pacifist - opposed to the Russian invasion, which he sees as imperialist aggression, opposed to throwing arms into the conflict, favours tougher sanctions to force the Russians into line. But in any case he's a backbencher with zero influence on government or opposition.
FWIW I think the war is grinding to a stalemate - both sides are claiming gains of single "settlements" (which seem to be clumps of houses, smaller than villages), and missile strikes hitting supply dumps and bridges. If nothing much happens in the autumn, General Winter will freeze the positions further.
Possibly. But the Ukrainians have made big claims about liberating Kherson
The Ukrainians have made all sorts of mad bullshit claims since day one of the SMO - all of which have been faithfully regurgitated by their useless idiots on here.
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
That was about fear of the chaos of No Deal - people (other than me) not realizing back then that it was a bluff. Fact is, no high profile Remainer accepted the result better than KC. The May deal, he voted for, all varieties of EFTA, Norway, Turkey, whatever, he voted for, even the shit sandwich that was the Johnson deal, he voted for. Not enough for the Johnson gang. Not pure enough. Not reckless enough. Not enough of a toady.
Clarke consistently maneuvered against any EU referendum ever, and did dirty tricks thereby. He is one of the chief if distant architects of Brexit, ironically enough. Because, by denying a vote earlier, they ended up with a catastrophically angry vote, later. He must be ranked along with Blair, Cameron, Heseltine, Major, etc etc
Clarke has always seemed a more thoughtful man than Heseltine and Major and others, however. I wonder if he now, ruefully, realises his epochal mistake. I kind of hope so, because I kind of like him
One gauge of how badly Brexit is going is how Leavers now claim that Remainers made them do it.
Brexit is going great.
That Remainers failed to get what they wanted absolutely is Remainers fault though, they had so many decks stacked in their favour and they failed hubristically every step of the way.
Pointing out Remainers abysmalness in the process is no more flawed than pointing out and laughing at Man Utd's failures in recent seasons means that Man Utd's opponents are doing badly.
Lol. You are the person I referred to in my previous post. Brexit is not "going great". It is pointless and it has no "benefits". It was a con. Only the super gullible still believe in it. By the way, Barty, Father Christmas does not exist and there are no fairies at the end of the garden. Sorry to break it to you.
That you're unable to see any points or "benefits" to Brexit is just another example your closed and simple-mindedness. There are both cons and pros to Brexit, and as a thinking individual who was pro-Remain until the campaign I was torn in the debate weighing up both cons and pros.
That you can only see cons and no pros whatever is just your own Mr Thickyness coming to the fore. I can see and accept and acknowledge the cons, even if I think the pros exist.
PS as a father of 6 and 8 year old girls I can 100% insist and demonstrate that Father Christmas and fairies at the garden absolutely do exist. Father Christmas exists through me and my wife ensuring he exists and our girls can see his existence through our actions. It is up to us to make Father Christmas work, just as its up to us to get the benefits from Brexit.
On Father Christmas... Are all presents to your daughters from Father Christmas?
I was in trouble one year because we identified presents from other family members as being from Aunt Elsie, Grandpa Freddy, etc, and gave Father Christmas the credit for our presents, so our daughter wondered why we hadn't given her any presents...
No. We do what both our parents did, the primary present that we've chosen [which wasn't on the list] comes from us, extra presents come from Father Christmas. They always write a letter to Father Christmas a few days before Christmas which we guide them towards putting on a couple of the things that Father Christmas has 'chosen' for them, minus a few surprises.
EG last year my eldest was Harry Potter crazy and so her main present we got was a Lego Hogwarts Castle. She didn't know about it and we tried to ensure she never saw it, so it wasn't on her list to Father Christmas. That came from us, everything else came from Father Christmas. Thankfully their requests to Father Christmas are always quite moderate.
Giving big presents via Father Christmas is *strongly* deprecated by teachers of the Santa credulous age group because it makes children of poorer families, and presumably richer families who don't do this, feel discriminated against.
yeah it never sits comfortably with me this santa claus thing for a number of reasons
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
In our house Father Christmas only gives some low grade presents, things like books, stationery, fruit and chocolate, enough to fill the stockings. Serious presents come from real people. I have never told my kids that Father Christmas isn't real but I think they have all worked it out, just like I did. Same with the tooth fairy. I don't think there's any harm in it, it helps to create a little bit of magic and mystery that somehow lingers on even after you work out the truth.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
If we were still in the EU, would we be obliged to accept the touted 15 per cent cut in gas usage over the winter?
FWIW, the EU agreement excludes those states - such as Ireland and Spain - that do not rely on Russia for supplies.
Raw sewage from storm overflows and continuous discharge of waste containing viable organisms from sewage treatment works is an increasing problem. This is a serious public health issue for government and regulators and it is clear that the water companies are not doing enough. The public health dangers are in addition to the ecological and environmental impact which forms the basis for much regulation.
the Chair's forward says that the performance in one year was the worst since 2013, not since 1989.
The rivers are far, far cleaner than they were pre-privatisation, nobody disputes that. If you do, find a source citation comparing against pre-1989 figures not since 2013.
It always amuses me that there is this belief on the left that if something is in "public ownership" (i.e. subsidised by the taxpayer) it will be better, when there really is no quantitively or qualitative data to support this. Why will an organisation be better if it is run by bureaucrats from Whitehall and where there are endless areas of opportunity for individuals to be inefficient? Who would seriously want to hark back to the days of British Telecom when you had to wait six months to get an extra line put in and you were forced to have one standard type of phone, or British Rail FFS? I can only conclude that the real reason that the left is so in love with nationalisation is because the brothers can then fully hold our lives to ransom by endless strikes
But your prejudices, in the literal sense, leap from that little homily.
Your “subsidised by the taxpayer” isn’t an “i.e.” at all. I worked for the Royal Mail for many years and for most of them it returned a healthy profit, much of which was syphoned off by the government as its owner through something euphemistically called the External Financing Limit. One of the arguments against Royal Mail privatisation was that it was akin to selling shares that are paying you a healthy dividend.
I would say that there are arguments for and against. Looking at the business I know best, one could be perjorative like you and ask whether we would wish to hark back to the days when postage cost a third of the price? There are extra costs in being a private business - the whole business of managing and communicating with the shareholder base and associated financing, the AGM, the cost of paying dividends, the cost of having to forever justify short term performance and entertain the advisers and analysts and financial media industry, against which you have to assess the purported upside in terms of greater commercial focus and supposed agility. Often in an industry - like the railways - that remains highly regulated, and where there isn’t really any direct competition with competitive pressure coming merely from substitution to other forms of transport. It’s also true that you have to pay people more to work on the private sector since its managers are motivated mostly by money and progression, whereas the public sector attracts people for a more diverse range of reasons.
Both the railways and the postal service have become considerably more expensive to consumers since privatisation, both are more costly to government than before (in the former case because subsidies have actually increased and in the latter because the government lost its income stream), and it is hard to discern where the improvements in efficiencies have been, over and above the rate being achieved through progress heretofore? Industrial relations doesn’t appear to be any better, either.
I don’t understand why you assume that people in a nationalised industry would look for ways in which to be inefficient? People (or their representatives) may defend inefficiencies, where they see advantage in doing so, for sure, but then that is still happening in the privatised railway companies.
Who should replace KS and why would they be doing better? I would like polling evidence to support your conclusion
We have to assume that BJO would like to see the return of that crowd pleaser and (non) winner of elections and Putin apologist extraordinaire, the man affectionately known to PBers as Magic Grandpa or Mr. Thicky.
Corbyn thinks we shouldn't be arming the Ukrainians because it is prolonging the conflict. Which of course is probably true, because if we didn't Putin would have quickly won, which perhaps Jezza would be pleased about.
Why is Corbyn a sympathiser for a militaristic imperialist and murderer, Vladimir Putin? Corbyn fan please explain?
Corbyn has called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and also called for stronger sanctions after Crimea than the Tories imposed. He might be a useful idiot but is surely not a Russian partisan.
He's absolutely a Russia partisan.
He's "called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine" to save face while calling for the West to stop sending munitions to Ukraine.
If those policies were followed then Russia would roll over anywhere it wanted to do so while Corbyn would stand there saying "peace, lets talk about peace".
The only way to stop Russia is via force, and Corbyn is utterly opposed to that.
Nah - nobody who knows Corbyn would think he had the slightest interest in saving face. He's essentially a pacifist - opposed to the Russian invasion, which he sees as imperialist aggression, opposed to throwing arms into the conflict, favours tougher sanctions to force the Russians into line. But in any case he's a backbencher with zero influence on government or opposition.
FWIW I think the war is grinding to a stalemate - both sides are claiming gains of single "settlements" (which seem to be clumps of houses, smaller than villages), and missile strikes hitting supply dumps and bridges. If nothing much happens in the autumn, General Winter will freeze the positions further.
Possibly. But the Ukrainians have made big claims about liberating Kherson
The Ukrainians have made all sorts of mad bullshit claims since day one of the SMO - all of which have been faithfully regurgitated by their useless idiots on here.
Yet they've been much more accurate than your own comments.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
If we were still in the EU, would we be obliged to accept the touted 15 per cent cut in gas usage over the winter?
No - for the same reasons Ireland and Spain are not.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
With respect - is it possible (just theoretically) that they might prefer other topics upon which you might agree?
Maybe, lol
But I sense a dying of the fire. The Remoaners were furiously angry for quite a while, then quietly seething, now they seem wistfully fine about it. If it is mentioned they tut and look a bit sad, but not for long
No one has died. Britain is still here. There are more important things
It's more that, just as Brexit was a huge and damaging distraction from the effective government if the country, any attempt to reopen the debate in the middle of the current crises would be a similar distraction.
I don't expect any real debate to reopen until after a period of relative peace and economic stability. If and when the underperformance of Brexited UK becomes a matter of public consensus.
In the meantime we'll content ourselves with occasionally taking the piss out of its more glaring absurdities.
Exactly this. There is no point in waking up in a rage over Brexit every day. It was a stupid mistake, but life goes on, the sun is shining, it doesn't affect me materially on a day to day basis. Leavers need to make it work a lot better than it is now though if they want it to stick. If they don't, at some point the issue will be revisited.
The question is when does a mood in the country become something that politics has to revisit? Let's express it as opinion poll percentages, imperfect as they are.
Excluding "don't knows", we're currently at 60:40 "you-know-what was a mistake". That's not enough, sure. But if it were to get to 70:30? 80:20?
I'm not saying it will, or it should. But there is a line somewhere, and I'm not sure where it is.
(Something similar goes for the Scottish you-know-what. As long as the polls are close to 50:50, inertia wins and there's not point having another referendum. But if the mood were, say, 70:30, "Westminster says no" becomes untenable.)
I think if rejoin gets a 2:1 lead over stay out (not mistake vs not a mistake, which is a different question) then an active rejoin campaign is inevitable. After all, we are sovereign and a democracy. That is some time away I think but a realistic possibility by the end of this decade.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
I think the niche area now is not about rejoining, it is about how long those of us that knew it was fucking pointless can carry on having a really good laugh at those of you that believed in it, and are still trying (like yourself) to convince yourself it was worthwhile when secretly you realise it was probably one of the dumbest things this country has done since Lord Cardigan buttoned up his wooly jumper, misread his orders, and shouted "charge" at a long line of guns at Sebastopol
I know it's hard for you to understand, but I really do not regret my vote. If we had the eu-ref again tomorrow, I would again vote LEAVE despite ALL the shit that has happened (and, my God, there has been a ton of shit, I do not deny it - Brexit has been a mega-cluster-fuckettyshambles)
I voted for sovereignty and democracy.
You didn’t have a clue what you had voted for, or why, as anyone with a memory who was here on the day or two afterwards will remember all too well.
Who should replace KS and why would they be doing better? I would like polling evidence to support your conclusion
We have to assume that BJO would like to see the return of that crowd pleaser and (non) winner of elections and Putin apologist extraordinaire, the man affectionately known to PBers as Magic Grandpa or Mr. Thicky.
Corbyn thinks we shouldn't be arming the Ukrainians because it is prolonging the conflict. Which of course is probably true, because if we didn't Putin would have quickly won, which perhaps Jezza would be pleased about.
Why is Corbyn a sympathiser for a militaristic imperialist and murderer, Vladimir Putin? Corbyn fan please explain?
Corbyn has called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and also called for stronger sanctions after Crimea than the Tories imposed. He might be a useful idiot but is surely not a Russian partisan.
He's absolutely a Russia partisan.
He's "called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine" to save face while calling for the West to stop sending munitions to Ukraine.
If those policies were followed then Russia would roll over anywhere it wanted to do so while Corbyn would stand there saying "peace, lets talk about peace".
The only way to stop Russia is via force, and Corbyn is utterly opposed to that.
Nah - nobody who knows Corbyn would think he had the slightest interest in saving face. He's essentially a pacifist - opposed to the Russian invasion, which he sees as imperialist aggression, opposed to throwing arms into the conflict, favours tougher sanctions to force the Russians into line. But in any case he's a backbencher with zero influence on government or opposition.
FWIW I think the war is grinding to a stalemate - both sides are claiming gains of single "settlements" (which seem to be clumps of houses, smaller than villages), and missile strikes hitting supply dumps and bridges. If nothing much happens in the autumn, General Winter will freeze the positions further.
Possibly. But the Ukrainians have made big claims about liberating Kherson
The Ukrainians have made all sorts of mad bullshit claims since day one of the SMO - all of which have been faithfully regurgitated by their useless idiots on here.
Interesting, thanks for that. I have had my Tesla (which I love) for just over a year and had the full monty autopilot put on it but have never really used it. Possibly too much of a control freak!
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
Who should replace KS and why would they be doing better? I would like polling evidence to support your conclusion
We have to assume that BJO would like to see the return of that crowd pleaser and (non) winner of elections and Putin apologist extraordinaire, the man affectionately known to PBers as Magic Grandpa or Mr. Thicky.
Corbyn thinks we shouldn't be arming the Ukrainians because it is prolonging the conflict. Which of course is probably true, because if we didn't Putin would have quickly won, which perhaps Jezza would be pleased about.
Why is Corbyn a sympathiser for a militaristic imperialist and murderer, Vladimir Putin? Corbyn fan please explain?
Corbyn has called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and also called for stronger sanctions after Crimea than the Tories imposed. He might be a useful idiot but is surely not a Russian partisan.
He's absolutely a Russia partisan.
He's "called for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine" to save face while calling for the West to stop sending munitions to Ukraine.
If those policies were followed then Russia would roll over anywhere it wanted to do so while Corbyn would stand there saying "peace, lets talk about peace".
The only way to stop Russia is via force, and Corbyn is utterly opposed to that.
Nah - nobody who knows Corbyn would think he had the slightest interest in saving face. He's essentially a pacifist - opposed to the Russian invasion, which he sees as imperialist aggression, opposed to throwing arms into the conflict, favours tougher sanctions to force the Russians into line. But in any case he's a backbencher with zero influence on government or opposition.
FWIW I think the war is grinding to a stalemate - both sides are claiming gains of single "settlements" (which seem to be clumps of houses, smaller than villages), and missile strikes hitting supply dumps and bridges. If nothing much happens in the autumn, General Winter will freeze the positions further.
Possibly. But the Ukrainians have made big claims about liberating Kherson
The Ukrainians have made all sorts of mad bullshit claims since day one of the SMO - all of which have been faithfully regurgitated by their useless idiots on here.
So what odds would you offer on Ukraine having control of Kherson by 30th September? Presumably pretty generous ones?
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
They made excessive claims about Russian aviation losses. (Bit like us during the Battle of Britain.)
Their numbers for ground based losses appear quite a bit closer to the mark.
Though note the Russian have claimed to have shot down more Bayrakters than Ukraine possesses in total, along with the complete destruction of its airforce and multiple HIMARS, so the bullshit also tends strongly in one direction.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
With respect - is it possible (just theoretically) that they might prefer other topics upon which you might agree?
Maybe, lol
But I sense a dying of the fire. The Remoaners were furiously angry for quite a while, then quietly seething, now they seem wistfully fine about it. If it is mentioned they tut and look a bit sad, but not for long
No one has died. Britain is still here. There are more important things
It's more that, just as Brexit was a huge and damaging distraction from the effective government if the country, any attempt to reopen the debate in the middle of the current crises would be a similar distraction.
I don't expect any real debate to reopen until after a period of relative peace and economic stability. If and when the underperformance of Brexited UK becomes a matter of public consensus.
In the meantime we'll content ourselves with occasionally taking the piss out of its more glaring absurdities.
Exactly this. There is no point in waking up in a rage over Brexit every day. It was a stupid mistake, but life goes on, the sun is shining, it doesn't affect me materially on a day to day basis. Leavers need to make it work a lot better than it is now though if they want it to stick. If they don't, at some point the issue will be revisited.
The question is when does a mood in the country become something that politics has to revisit? Let's express it as opinion poll percentages, imperfect as they are.
Excluding "don't knows", we're currently at 60:40 "you-know-what was a mistake". That's not enough, sure. But if it were to get to 70:30? 80:20?
I'm not saying it will, or it should. But there is a line somewhere, and I'm not sure where it is.
(Something similar goes for the Scottish you-know-what. As long as the polls are close to 50:50, inertia wins and there's not point having another referendum. But if the mood were, say, 70:30, "Westminster says no" becomes untenable.)
I think if rejoin gets a 2:1 lead over stay out (not mistake vs not a mistake, which is a different question) then an active rejoin campaign is inevitable. After all, we are sovereign and a democracy. That is some time away I think but a realistic possibility by the end of this decade.
Are you sure they want us back?
Are we sure we want to rejoin, not so much in the driving seat as before, but to be on the back row with Malta?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
Ahem. Not all private enterprise, thanks to the money NASA chucks at SpaceX.
FFS its shocking in the context of the worst COL crisis in yonks
BTW where even is SKS when he gets back on the airwaves Tory lead nailed on!!
Hey old chap.
Who should take over and why would they do better? With polling evidence please.
He would like Putin's number 1 apologist back, so that rather than focussing on the cost of living crisis, we can be having debates on Palestine and why we should be rolling over and allowing Putin to grab any territory he wants.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
With respect - is it possible (just theoretically) that they might prefer other topics upon which you might agree?
Maybe, lol
But I sense a dying of the fire. The Remoaners were furiously angry for quite a while, then quietly seething, now they seem wistfully fine about it. If it is mentioned they tut and look a bit sad, but not for long
No one has died. Britain is still here. There are more important things
It's more that, just as Brexit was a huge and damaging distraction from the effective government if the country, any attempt to reopen the debate in the middle of the current crises would be a similar distraction.
I don't expect any real debate to reopen until after a period of relative peace and economic stability. If and when the underperformance of Brexited UK becomes a matter of public consensus.
In the meantime we'll content ourselves with occasionally taking the piss out of its more glaring absurdities.
Exactly this. There is no point in waking up in a rage over Brexit every day. It was a stupid mistake, but life goes on, the sun is shining, it doesn't affect me materially on a day to day basis. Leavers need to make it work a lot better than it is now though if they want it to stick. If they don't, at some point the issue will be revisited.
The question is when does a mood in the country become something that politics has to revisit? Let's express it as opinion poll percentages, imperfect as they are.
Excluding "don't knows", we're currently at 60:40 "you-know-what was a mistake". That's not enough, sure. But if it were to get to 70:30? 80:20?
I'm not saying it will, or it should. But there is a line somewhere, and I'm not sure where it is.
(Something similar goes for the Scottish you-know-what. As long as the polls are close to 50:50, inertia wins and there's not point having another referendum. But if the mood were, say, 70:30, "Westminster says no" becomes untenable.)
I think if rejoin gets a 2:1 lead over stay out (not mistake vs not a mistake, which is a different question) then an active rejoin campaign is inevitable. After all, we are sovereign and a democracy. That is some time away I think but a realistic possibility by the end of this decade.
Are you sure they want us back?
Are we sure we want to rejoin, not so much in the driving seat as before, but to be on the back row with Malta?
Of course they want us back. What better vote of confidence in the EU (which continues to expand) than to have the only country to leave rejoin. I think they would be nervous if there wasn't a clear majority in favour, but I don't think it would happen in terms of domestic politics until that was true in any case. Where we sit on the bus will be up to us.
Raw sewage from storm overflows and continuous discharge of waste containing viable organisms from sewage treatment works is an increasing problem. This is a serious public health issue for government and regulators and it is clear that the water companies are not doing enough. The public health dangers are in addition to the ecological and environmental impact which forms the basis for much regulation.
the Chair's forward says that the performance in one year was the worst since 2013, not since 1989.
The rivers are far, far cleaner than they were pre-privatisation, nobody disputes that. If you do, find a source citation comparing against pre-1989 figures not since 2013.
It always amuses me that there is this belief on the left that if something is in "public ownership" (i.e. subsidised by the taxpayer) it will be better, when there really is no quantitively or qualitative data to support this. Why will an organisation be better if it is run by bureaucrats from Whitehall and where there are endless areas of opportunity for individuals to be inefficient? Who would seriously want to hark back to the days of British Telecom when you had to wait six months to get an extra line put in and you were forced to have one standard type of phone, or British Rail FFS? I can only conclude that the real reason that the left is so in love with nationalisation is because the brothers can then fully hold our lives to ransom by endless strikes
But your prejudices, in the literal sense, leap from that little homily.
Your “subsidised by the taxpayer” isn’t an “i.e.” at all. I worked for the Royal Mail for many years and for most of them it returned a healthy profit, much of which was syphoned off by the government as its owner through something euphemistically called the External Financing Limit. One of the arguments against Royal Mail privatisation was that it was akin to selling shares that are paying you a healthy dividend.
I would say that there are arguments for and against. Looking at the business I know best, one could be perjorative like you and ask whether we would wish to hark back to the days when postage cost a third of the price? There are extra costs in being a private business - the whole business of managing and communicating with the shareholder base and associated financing, the AGM, the cost of paying dividends, the cost of having to forever justify short term performance and entertain the advisers and analysts and financial media industry, against which you have to assess the purported upside in terms of greater commercial focus and supposed agility. Often in an industry - like the railways - that remains highly regulated, and where there isn’t really any direct competition with competitive pressure coming merely from substitution to other forms of transport. It’s also true that you have to pay people more to work on the private sector since its managers are motivated mostly by money and progression, whereas the public sector attracts people for a more diverse range of reasons.
Both the railways and the postal service have become considerably more expensive to consumers since privatisation, both are more costly to government than before (in the former case because subsidies have actually increased and in the latter because the government lost its income stream), and it is hard to discern where the improvements in efficiencies have been, over and above the rate being achieved through progress heretofore? Industrial relations doesn’t appear to be any better, either.
I don’t understand why you assume that people in a nationalised industry would look for ways in which to be inefficient? People (or their representatives) may defend inefficiencies, where they see advantage in doing so, for sure, but then that is still happening in the privatised railway companies.
Thank you for your reply. I must confess my point was something of a polemic. I actually believe in a mixed economy, and many years ago I was a believer that some areas (such as water) should be in "public ownership", but now I must confess , after many years of having my own business while maintaining a political outlook that is pretty centrist, I can't really see any particular benefits to "public ownership" of pretty much anything. Even the NHS is certainly not "the envy of the world" that many Brits think. There are many better systems that still deliver healthcare free at the point of need. The only argument against a complete overhaul is the unnecessary upheaval.
Anyway, I apologise if my post upset you, as I think our politics are not too far apart in practice, and I did not intend to demean anyone who works in the public sector, as a number of my family members do.
FFS its shocking in the context of the worst COL crisis in yonks
BTW where even is SKS when he gets back on the airwaves Tory lead nailed on!!
Hey old chap.
Who should take over and why would they do better? With polling evidence please.
He would like Putin's number 1 apologist back, so that rather than focussing on the cost of living crisis, we can be having debates on Palestine and why we should be rolling over and allowing Putin to grab any territory he wants.
Interesting, thanks for that. I have had my Tesla (which I love) for just over a year and had the full monty autopilot put on it but have never really used it. Possibly too much of a control freak!
Another one to look out for (with all autonomous cars, not just Tesla) is cyclists. They are a) very hard to detect, b) move in (relatively) unpredictable patterns at speed, and c) it can be hard for the computers to work out which way they are facing.
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
If only Stanley Kubrick were still around he could have realised the dream.
Mad Nad will presumably only accept a peerage if she is accepting that her cabinet career is over. Whilst this is something for all sane Conservatives to devoutly pray for I would not be so confident. She has been pretty chummy with Truss of late.
Mogg wants to be a "Knight Commander" apparently. You can combine that with continuing to serve the public as an MP.
Mogg will likely be in Truss' cabinet alongside Braverman, Kwarteng, Cleverly, Lewis, Coffey, Baker, Redwood etc. Maybe even Francois
Ah, a Cabinet of none of the talents.
Truss' Cabinet will likely be the most rightwing Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet since IDS was leader. Most Tory moderates will refuse to serve in it and Truss will offer barely any senior posts to Sunak supporters
How many Tory MPs have a genuine allegiance to Sunak or anybody else, either personally or politically?
The Tory party adopted the Chinese Communist Party response to Covid, followed by the Jeremy Corbyn response to funding it. Since then they have adopted the Liz Cheney neo-con response to Ukraine, coupled with the Ed Miliband policy on energy.
The notion that Tory MPs have any allegiance to any philosophy or principles whatever is utterly fanciful.
Indeed, the only reason that Truss got a third of MPs backing her in the final round is that there was a three-way split between Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt. A few weeks ago Penny Mordaunt was vehemently opposing Truss while campaigning for herself to be PM instead.
Take a glance at Mordaunt's Twitter now and tell me that she hates Truss and will refuse to be a part of her team because she was in the third of MPs that backed Mordaunt and wasn't in the third of MPs to back Truss.
@PennyMordaunt tells #TimesRadio she is not supporting Liz Truss because she's the frontrunner but because she wants "to make sure that we don't become an ordinary nation."
Sky News Liz Truss 'understands our nation is at an inflection point' says Liz Truss supporter Penny Mordaunt - adding "her tax cuts are funded" and she has "a plan to get growth back into our economy".
LBC 'The things that don't work for us' in terms of EU regulations will 'go' under Liz Truss, says Trade Policy Minister Penny Mordaunt.
Once the leadership campaign is over, or even before it once other candidates like Mordaunt are eliminated, people who backed other candidates fall in behind other candidates ending with the eventual winner.
Its quite fun to contemplate the consternation of those MPs who are backing the wrong horse in this leadership race.
I doubt there's much consternation whatsoever. They're politicians, they'll do what they do.
The second the election is over and the other horse has won they'll congratulate them and offer to serve to "unite the party".
That's not how it played out last time.
As I said last time was the exception because they were vitriolically and existentially divided on the issue of Europe which had caused May's paralysis. So the only way for the paralysis to end was for one side to vanquish the other, which happened - most actually did accept the victory for Leave but the die hards like Grieve who couldn't had to be showed the door in order to allow governing to function and end the paralysis.
That's not the case this time. There is no vitriolic division on a matter of politics causing division, its far more squabbling between personalities than politics this time. The biggest political issue has already been resolved and nobody is proposing changing course that significantly. The arguments over tax right now are more the narcissism of small differences that can be put behind once the argument is over in a way that couldn't happen last time.
There's no existential issues like Remain or Leave, Deal or No Deal anymore.
Ken Clarke, who accepted the result without quibble and voted consistently for every different flavour of Brexit put in front of him, was also "shown the door".
He voted against the Government on a confidence motion to not extend Article 50, so no he didn't accept the result without quibble.
He served in a Cabinet that pulled the same trick of making it a confidence motion to pass Maastricht, so he can hardly complain when turnabout is fair play.
Clarke’s position was that the UK should leave with a deal . He was against no deal which any sane person would agree with.
That's ridiculous nonsense, simply saying "any sane person would ..." doesn't make it so.
I'm sane and I 100% believe its better to be prepared to walk away without a deal than to sign a blank cheque to agreeing to a deal under all circumstances. The only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to have no deal, which is why Boris who was prepared to walk away got a far superior deal to May who was not.
Clarke et all who voted against on a Confidence motion fully deserved to be expelled from the party, just as Clarke when in Cabinet compelled "the bastards" to vote in 1993 to endorse Maastricht against their will, and just as Clarke et al saw it fit to expel Rupert Allason from the party for refusing to vote with the whip.
When push came to shove, Clarke was less willing to be "moderate" and follow the whip than Major's "bastards" other than Allason.
He got his deal by accepting "what no UK PM could ever accept" - a border in the Irish Sea.
There is no border in the Irish Sea, if there was then Truss wouldn't be able to change the actions unilaterally via Parliament as she is proposing. The Protocol explicitly states that NI is de jure a part of the UK customs territory which is why Westminster Parliament has the jurisdiction to act on this, not the EU Parliament.
There's special arrangements in a devolved nation, but that is nothing new and something all PMs have accepted since Blair introduced devolution in 1997. Actually special arrangements have existed in parts of the UK since 1707 if you want to look that far back.
You're sounding like a legal chatbot here. The way I'd express the reality of the situation is that we signed a deal with an Irish Sea border in it - hence why there is one - and we're now threatening to renege on the deal hoping the EU will lighten it a bit in the Irish Sea border department.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
Starlink is outstanding for people in rural areas. We have several employees who live on farms and historically, they've relied on 3G/4G or low speed DSL for Internet. Suddenly, they have excellent internet connections that allow them be in video meetings (& to work for Just!), or to play Call of Duty.
That is absolutely life changing for them.
And there are lots of people - worldwide - who don't live in conurbations, or who live on small islands, etc.
Interesting, thanks for that. I have had my Tesla (which I love) for just over a year and had the full monty autopilot put on it but have never really used it. Possibly too much of a control freak!
Another one to look out for (with all autonomous cars, not just Tesla) is cyclists. They are a) very hard to detect, b) move in (relatively) unpredictable patterns at speed, and c) it can be hard for the computers to work out which way they are facing.
Yea, it is always amusing to see the computer image on the Tesla when it detects pedestrians and cyclists. the pedestrians remind me of the more modern terminator in Terminator 2 and they often pirouette around until the computer figures out which way they are going
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
Freedom to commute to the office in a 7.5t Isuzu truck.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Starlink’s rubbish if you live in the city. If you live in the sticks, however, it’s way better than anything else currently available.
Though as Ukraine has demonstrated, it's a pretty reliable backup in cities, too. Fairly niche, but if you need 100% 24/7/365 uninterrupted service, it's got some utility.
Good point. Ukranians have been using it in areas where the enemy has disabled or hacked mobile service, including for military communications between friendly units on the battlefield. An invaluable resource in the conflict.
In a good few places, Starlink, OneWeb and similar will be providing mobile services in future - by providing the backhaul.
Your phone only goes x hundred metered to the tower - how does the tower connect to the rest of the world? In many places, the cheap option will be a satellite dish at the top of the mobile tower.
Some ex-colleagues in the telecoms world are designing and building such systems now - a package deal of satellite connection, batteries, solar/other and mobile tower as a unit.
FFS, what on earth is the point? We can rightly focus on areas where laws are thought to be harmful but to review a law just because it originated in the EU? I thought he was presenting as the sane one in this contest?
Its utterly meaningless gesture politics. You can't possibly have a sincere and meaningful review of all laws within 100 days, so it simply won't happen and will be a waste of time and money. You can barely properly review a solitary law in that time, let alone all laws.
Also makes you wonder what the department of Brexit opportunities has been doing with its time.
But, to take a couple of examples, zero rating gas as Truss is proposing and (with appropriate safeguards) removing restrictions on the driving of vehicles of up to 7.5 tonnes are a couple of good examples where we can change laws that are no longer helpful but we were otherwise stuck with. Focus on the bloody practical and stop this gesture crap. We had enough of that from Boris for a life time.
Dunno about lorries. I drive one on a car licence, or rather I don't at the moment after selling the last one 2 years ago, and I'm not over the moon about there being other people like me on the roads.
But there are, they are just getting increasingly doddery to boot having had their licence since before 1997. I would be looking for a clean driving licences for at least 5 years and, possibly, some sort of parking test.
It's my own dodderiness which concerns me. I passed a test in 1980.
There's no need to worry, the change only affects people who passed after 1997, people who passed before can drive 7.5T anyway.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
Ahem. Not all private enterprise, thanks to the money NASA chucks at SpaceX.
And the money ($18bn) the FCC has available for Starlink to fill in gaps in broadband services in remote areas...
See @Malmesbury post for other areas they are doing well in...
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
I think the niche area now is not about rejoining, it is about how long those of us that knew it was fucking pointless can carry on having a really good laugh at those of you that believed in it, and are still trying (like yourself) to convince yourself it was worthwhile when secretly you realise it was probably one of the dumbest things this country has done since Lord Cardigan buttoned up his wooly jumper, misread his orders, and shouted "charge" at a long line of guns at Sebastopol
I know it's hard for you to understand, but I really do not regret my vote. If we had the eu-ref again tomorrow, I would again vote LEAVE despite ALL the shit that has happened (and, my God, there has been a ton of shit, I do not deny it - Brexit has been a mega-cluster-fuckettyshambles)
I voted for sovereignty and democracy. That has been restored. It pleases me a great deal. It's all I wanted out of Brexit. The other good stuff that springs from self-governance will happen in time, it might be a long time. So be it. It's up to us now
It's also worth thinking about the alternative. Had we voted to stay by a narrow margin would this country be peaceful, harmonious and united? I suggest we would have had a significant number of UKIP MPs in Parliament including that prat Farage, the country would be verging on the ungovernable and demands for a second referendum every time a new consumer protection order was passed by the EU. And I have conclusive evidence of this in the form of the SNP. The fantasy that this would have just gone away is just that. A fantasy.
But Brexit itself wouldn't be adding to our problems. As it is we have the division AND that.
Raw sewage from storm overflows and continuous discharge of waste containing viable organisms from sewage treatment works is an increasing problem. This is a serious public health issue for government and regulators and it is clear that the water companies are not doing enough. The public health dangers are in addition to the ecological and environmental impact which forms the basis for much regulation.
the Chair's forward says that the performance in one year was the worst since 2013, not since 1989.
The rivers are far, far cleaner than they were pre-privatisation, nobody disputes that. If you do, find a source citation comparing against pre-1989 figures not since 2013.
It always amuses me that there is this belief on the left that if something is in "public ownership" (i.e. subsidised by the taxpayer) it will be better, when there really is no quantitively or qualitative data to support this. Why will an organisation be better if it is run by bureaucrats from Whitehall and where there are endless areas of opportunity for individuals to be inefficient? Who would seriously want to hark back to the days of British Telecom when you had to wait six months to get an extra line put in and you were forced to have one standard type of phone, or British Rail FFS? I can only conclude that the real reason that the left is so in love with nationalisation is because the brothers can then fully hold our lives to ransom by endless strikes
But your prejudices, in the literal sense, leap from that little homily.
Your “subsidised by the taxpayer” isn’t an “i.e.” at all. I worked for the Royal Mail for many years and for most of them it returned a healthy profit, much of which was syphoned off by the government as its owner through something euphemistically called the External Financing Limit. One of the arguments against Royal Mail privatisation was that it was akin to selling shares that are paying you a healthy dividend.
I would say that there are arguments for and against. Looking at the business I know best, one could be perjorative like you and ask whether we would wish to hark back to the days when postage cost a third of the price? There are extra costs in being a private business - the whole business of managing and communicating with the shareholder base and associated financing, the AGM, the cost of paying dividends, the cost of having to forever justify short term performance and entertain the advisers and analysts and financial media industry, against which you have to assess the purported upside in terms of greater commercial focus and supposed agility. Often in an industry - like the railways - that remains highly regulated, and where there isn’t really any direct competition with competitive pressure coming merely from substitution to other forms of transport. It’s also true that you have to pay people more to work on the private sector since its managers are motivated mostly by money and progression, whereas the public sector attracts people for a more diverse range of reasons.
Both the railways and the postal service have become considerably more expensive to consumers since privatisation, both are more costly to government than before (in the former case because subsidies have actually increased and in the latter because the government lost its income stream), and it is hard to discern where the improvements in efficiencies have been, over and above the rate being achieved through progress heretofore? Industrial relations doesn’t appear to be any better, either.
I don’t understand why you assume that people in a nationalised industry would look for ways in which to be inefficient? People (or their representatives) may defend inefficiencies, where they see advantage in doing so, for sure, but then that is still happening in the privatised railway companies.
Thank you for your reply. I must confess my point was something of a polemic. I actually believe in a mixed economy, and many years ago I was a believer that some areas (such as water) should be in "public ownership", but now I must confess , after many years of having my own business while maintaining a political outlook that is pretty centrist, I can't really see any particular benefits to "public ownership" of pretty much anything. Even the NHS is certainly not "the envy of the world" that many Brits think. There are many better systems that still deliver healthcare free at the point of need. The only argument against a complete overhaul is the unnecessary upheaval.
Anyway, I apologise if my post upset you, as I think our politics are not too far apart in practice, and I did not intend to demean anyone who works in the public sector, as a number of my family members do.
Personally, I think each area should be assessed on a case by case basis. I long believed water might be better off run by private companies, but Thames Water et al have disabused me of that notion.
It's all down to incentives, and it seems impossible to set them up appropriately. The water companies have performed so badly with regards to sewage dumping that the Environment Agency is calling for prison sentences for Chief Executives if it continues (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2021/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2021 ). Leaks - Thames Water leaks a quarter of all its water. And as for the future water provision programme, the decision-making is so skewed as to be execrable. I've mentioned the STT being punted forwards - for a sub £1bn programme using tech that's well understood by TW, taking 2-3 years, providing 300-500 Ml/day when called upon, with minimal enviornmental impact to be pushed out by more than an average human lifespan in favour of one that would cost twice as much and more, with building techniques unfamiliar to TW, taking a minimum of fifteen years to provide under 290Ml/day at the best of times, solely dependent on the River Thames, with huge environmental impact at best (and significant dangers at worst) and displacing a flood plain (and that would caused fogs to roll down over the arterial A34 regularly) ... but would be better for them as a commercial asset...
Nope. It's broken. Need to try something different.
FFS, what on earth is the point? We can rightly focus on areas where laws are thought to be harmful but to review a law just because it originated in the EU? I thought he was presenting as the sane one in this contest?
Its utterly meaningless gesture politics. You can't possibly have a sincere and meaningful review of all laws within 100 days, so it simply won't happen and will be a waste of time and money. You can barely properly review a solitary law in that time, let alone all laws.
Also makes you wonder what the department of Brexit opportunities has been doing with its time.
But, to take a couple of examples, zero rating gas as Truss is proposing and (with appropriate safeguards) removing restrictions on the driving of vehicles of up to 7.5 tonnes are a couple of good examples where we can change laws that are no longer helpful but we were otherwise stuck with. Focus on the bloody practical and stop this gesture crap. We had enough of that from Boris for a life time.
Dunno about lorries. I drive one on a car licence, or rather I don't at the moment after selling the last one 2 years ago, and I'm not over the moon about there being other people like me on the roads.
But there are, they are just getting increasingly doddery to boot having had their licence since before 1997. I would be looking for a clean driving licences for at least 5 years and, possibly, some sort of parking test.
It's my own dodderiness which concerns me. I passed a test in 1980.
There's no need to worry, the change only affects people who passed after 1997, people who passed before can drive 7.5T anyway.
Yes, I know that. My point is a lorry is such a different deal from a car I think I, and everyone else driving them, should have had training and passed a specific test.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
There's no sign of that happening. Another Musk promise that got the faithful all fired up, and was promptly forgotten...
Shoot for the Moon Mars, even if you miss you'll land among the stars.
That Musk has missed some ambitious goals is far less significant than what he has achieved.
It isn't, if he is funding his missed goals with broken promises. There is a significant chance autopilot will *never* work as promised.
I had a very scary autopilot experience a few months ago: the car was going pretty quickly (75-78 mph) on the highway, and we hit a transition from asphalt to bridge material. The car lifted up on its suspension, and autopilot over corrected. The car swung right, then it started trying to over correct the other way.
Fortunately, there were no other vehicles around us, and I grabbed control and let the car settle. But it severely reduced my faith in autopilot to be able to deal with anything other than very easy driving.
Edit to add: I don't think I described this very well. The car was on a slight curve, and as it lifted up, the wheels lost a bit of traction and it moved towards the outside of the lane. Autopilot thought the reason was a lack of left control input, rather than the fact the wheels weren't gripping well, and applied more. As the car dropped down, this caused the car to slew left, partially exiting the lane. Autopilot then attempted a hard right control input and we headed towards the right hand side of the lane. I took control back from the car and all was well
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
We'll see.
The Kansas result suggests that some Republican stances are really unpopular when their consequences become obvious. The entire GOP effort this cycle has been to try to stymie any legislation by the Democrats irrespective of its contents. The video I posted earlier of a Republican Senator speaking movingly of her two diabetic siblings, and the inequity of insulin pricing, back in 2020 - juxtaposed with her vote yesterday against a cap on that pricing is a small but neat illustration. They might shrug off any consequences, but if there's any uptick in the economy, they might take a significant hit.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
With respect - is it possible (just theoretically) that they might prefer other topics upon which you might agree?
Maybe, lol
But I sense a dying of the fire. The Remoaners were furiously angry for quite a while, then quietly seething, now they seem wistfully fine about it. If it is mentioned they tut and look a bit sad, but not for long
No one has died. Britain is still here. There are more important things
It's more that, just as Brexit was a huge and damaging distraction from the effective government if the country, any attempt to reopen the debate in the middle of the current crises would be a similar distraction.
I don't expect any real debate to reopen until after a period of relative peace and economic stability. If and when the underperformance of Brexited UK becomes a matter of public consensus.
In the meantime we'll content ourselves with occasionally taking the piss out of its more glaring absurdities.
Exactly this. There is no point in waking up in a rage over Brexit every day. It was a stupid mistake, but life goes on, the sun is shining, it doesn't affect me materially on a day to day basis. Leavers need to make it work a lot better than it is now though if they want it to stick. If they don't, at some point the issue will be revisited.
The question is when does a mood in the country become something that politics has to revisit? Let's express it as opinion poll percentages, imperfect as they are.
Excluding "don't knows", we're currently at 60:40 "you-know-what was a mistake". That's not enough, sure. But if it were to get to 70:30? 80:20?
I'm not saying it will, or it should. But there is a line somewhere, and I'm not sure where it is.
(Something similar goes for the Scottish you-know-what. As long as the polls are close to 50:50, inertia wins and there's not point having another referendum. But if the mood were, say, 70:30, "Westminster says no" becomes untenable.)
I think if rejoin gets a 2:1 lead over stay out (not mistake vs not a mistake, which is a different question) then an active rejoin campaign is inevitable. After all, we are sovereign and a democracy. That is some time away I think but a realistic possibility by the end of this decade.
Are you sure they want us back?
Are we sure we want to rejoin, not so much in the driving seat as before, but to be on the back row with Malta?
Of course they want us back. What better vote of confidence in the EU (which continues to expand) than to have the only country to leave rejoin. I think they would be nervous if there wasn't a clear majority in favour, but I don't think it would happen in terms of domestic politics until that was true in any case. Where we sit on the bus will be up to us.
I'm not sure I want to rejoin now, and I was a big Remainer. I was on for a second referendum all the way to GE2019, but Brexit meant Brexit and we're gone, we're dust!
I'd be content just to take FOM and the SM now which means we are in the luggage trailer behind the bus.
Some interesting points relating to the Republican prospects in November. The markets perhaps still underestimate Democratic prospects for the midterms.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194 You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ... ...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ... ...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ... ...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Looks like another "the average US voter is not as stupid as we think or hope" piece. Or whistling in the wind, as it is sometimes called.
The US Senate polling is not looking great for Republicans. They are currently behind in Pennsylvania (by 11 points), Ohio (4 points) and Wisconsin (2 points) - all of which they currently hold.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
If the LD's control part of Nadine's consitiency surely that will make people less likely to vote for them. When people see what LD administrations are like they are surely less likely to support them.
Interesting, thanks for that. I have had my Tesla (which I love) for just over a year and had the full monty autopilot put on it but have never really used it. Possibly too much of a control freak!
Another one to look out for (with all autonomous cars, not just Tesla) is cyclists. They are a) very hard to detect, b) move in (relatively) unpredictable patterns at speed, and c) it can be hard for the computers to work out which way they are facing.
Yea, it is always amusing to see the computer image on the Tesla when it detects pedestrians and cyclists. the pedestrians remind me of the more modern terminator in Terminator 2 and they often pirouette around until the computer figures out which way they are going
Except that Arnie and Linda Hamilton managed to defeat the modern T1000.
FFS its shocking in the context of the worst COL crisis in yonks
BTW where even is SKS when he gets back on the airwaves Tory lead nailed on!!
In 1995, so about where we are relative to next GE, Blair had a 41 point LEAD. Against this lot that would be 51.
SKS vote share less than TB lead.
CHB and Sunil aint gonna believe it even after SKS defeat in GE2024
SKS is no TB
SKS is not a war criminal. Well that's a good thing surely?
He would be given a chance but as he is never going to be PM he may not get called on as frequently
I doubt he is war criminal material, Starmer is very dreary, of that there is little doubt.
Truss is also very dreary. There is a f******' enormous economic catastrophe heading towards us at warp drive 9.99. The previous Prime Minister has destroyed his Party's credibility.
Early days, but if the stars all align at the right time don't bet against SKSIPM.
I think he's heading for it, maybe even with a majority. Unfortunately I'm stuck with a betting position the other way - back from when I thought a Labour majority close to impossible - but I really have changed my mind now. If the Cons get a polling boost under Truss and the market moves accordingly I'll be seeking to use that to get out of my (now) unwanted position.
Still can't see how Labour wins a majority. Will probably get most seats, by virtue of LDs taking southerly seats.
I agree about a majority still being unlikely. It's just I'm short of it at a price almost double what it is now. Still, ditto with Trump and I'm happy enough with that.
Sometimes, with Shorts, you just have to run them and keep faith with your judgement. That's what I did when I was a trader in the City, hence my nickname back then of Big Balls.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
New NATO STANAGs appear from the Natocrats in the Bruxelles NSO quite frequently. There are about 1,000 of them now.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
The last group of people arguing about Brexit is basically Remoaners and Leavers on Twitter (and here). Everyone else is moving on. It will soon enough become a non-story and a non-issue, and we will all accept the new status quo. We ain't going back
Somebody should tell the candidates for next PM that Brexit is no longer salient or relevant...
It's an issue with Tory MPs, and some Tory activists, not the British people
I can't remember the last time friends or family mentioned Brexit. Even the hardcore Remoaners have surrendered to reality
It really is niche stuff, now
With respect - is it possible (just theoretically) that they might prefer other topics upon which you might agree?
Maybe, lol
But I sense a dying of the fire. The Remoaners were furiously angry for quite a while, then quietly seething, now they seem wistfully fine about it. If it is mentioned they tut and look a bit sad, but not for long
No one has died. Britain is still here. There are more important things
It's more that, just as Brexit was a huge and damaging distraction from the effective government if the country, any attempt to reopen the debate in the middle of the current crises would be a similar distraction.
I don't expect any real debate to reopen until after a period of relative peace and economic stability. If and when the underperformance of Brexited UK becomes a matter of public consensus.
In the meantime we'll content ourselves with occasionally taking the piss out of its more glaring absurdities.
Exactly this. There is no point in waking up in a rage over Brexit every day. It was a stupid mistake, but life goes on, the sun is shining, it doesn't affect me materially on a day to day basis. Leavers need to make it work a lot better than it is now though if they want it to stick. If they don't, at some point the issue will be revisited.
The question is when does a mood in the country become something that politics has to revisit? Let's express it as opinion poll percentages, imperfect as they are.
Excluding "don't knows", we're currently at 60:40 "you-know-what was a mistake". That's not enough, sure. But if it were to get to 70:30? 80:20?
I'm not saying it will, or it should. But there is a line somewhere, and I'm not sure where it is.
(Something similar goes for the Scottish you-know-what. As long as the polls are close to 50:50, inertia wins and there's not point having another referendum. But if the mood were, say, 70:30, "Westminster says no" becomes untenable.)
I think if rejoin gets a 2:1 lead over stay out (not mistake vs not a mistake, which is a different question) then an active rejoin campaign is inevitable. After all, we are sovereign and a democracy. That is some time away I think but a realistic possibility by the end of this decade.
Are you sure they want us back?
Are we sure we want to rejoin, not so much in the driving seat as before, but to be on the back row with Malta?
Of course they want us back. What better vote of confidence in the EU (which continues to expand) than to have the only country to leave rejoin. I think they would be nervous if there wasn't a clear majority in favour, but I don't think it would happen in terms of domestic politics until that was true in any case. Where we sit on the bus will be up to us.
I'm not sure I want to rejoin now, and I was a big Remainer. I was on for a second referendum all the way to GE2019, but Brexit meant Brexit and we're gone, we're dust!
I'd be content just to take FOM and the SM now which means we are in the luggage trailer behind the bus.
I'd be happy with that but I think that being a rule taker would be an uncomfortable place for the UK to sit. Rather like the luggage trailer in fact!
If the LD's control part of Nadine's consitiency surely that will make people less likely to vote for them. When people see what LD administrations are like they are surely less likely to support them.
That does not explain how the elected Mayor has successfully defended his position four times.
There's no sign of that happening. Another Musk promise that got the faithful all fired up, and was promptly forgotten...
Shoot for the Moon Mars, even if you miss you'll land among the stars.
That Musk has missed some ambitious goals is far less significant than what he has achieved.
It isn't, if he is funding his missed goals with broken promises. There is a significant chance autopilot will *never* work as promised.
I had a very scary autopilot experience a few months ago: the car was going pretty quickly (75-78 mph) on the highway, and we hit a transition from asphalt to bridge material. The car lifted up on its suspension, and autopilot over corrected. The car swung right, then it started trying to over correct the other way.
Fortunately, there were no other vehicles around us, and I grabbed control and let the car settle. But it severely reduced my faith in autopilot to be able to deal with anything other than very easy driving.
Edit to add: I don't think I described this very well. The car was on a slight curve, and as it lifted up, the wheels lost a bit of traction and it moved towards the outside of the lane. Autopilot thought the reason was a lack of left control input, rather than the fact the wheels weren't gripping well, and applied more. As the car dropped down, this caused the car to slew left, partially exiting the lane. Autopilot then attempted a hard right control input and we headed towards the right hand side of the lane. I took control back from the car and all was well
Those who thought that self-driving cars were an 80/20 problem, have spent the last decade learning that they’re a 99.999/0.001 problem.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
Raw sewage from storm overflows and continuous discharge of waste containing viable organisms from sewage treatment works is an increasing problem. This is a serious public health issue for government and regulators and it is clear that the water companies are not doing enough. The public health dangers are in addition to the ecological and environmental impact which forms the basis for much regulation.
the Chair's forward says that the performance in one year was the worst since 2013, not since 1989.
The rivers are far, far cleaner than they were pre-privatisation, nobody disputes that. If you do, find a source citation comparing against pre-1989 figures not since 2013.
It always amuses me that there is this belief on the left that if something is in "public ownership" (i.e. subsidised by the taxpayer) it will be better, when there really is no quantitively or qualitative data to support this. Why will an organisation be better if it is run by bureaucrats from Whitehall and where there are endless areas of opportunity for individuals to be inefficient? Who would seriously want to hark back to the days of British Telecom when you had to wait six months to get an extra line put in and you were forced to have one standard type of phone, or British Rail FFS? I can only conclude that the real reason that the left is so in love with nationalisation is because the brothers can then fully hold our lives to ransom by endless strikes
But your prejudices, in the literal sense, leap from that little homily.
Your “subsidised by the taxpayer” isn’t an “i.e.” at all. I worked for the Royal Mail for many years and for most of them it returned a healthy profit, much of which was syphoned off by the government as its owner through something euphemistically called the External Financing Limit. One of the arguments against Royal Mail privatisation was that it was akin to selling shares that are paying you a healthy dividend.
I would say that there are arguments for and against. Looking at the business I know best, one could be perjorative like you and ask whether we would wish to hark back to the days when postage cost a third of the price? There are extra costs in being a private business - the whole business of managing and communicating with the shareholder base and associated financing, the AGM, the cost of paying dividends, the cost of having to forever justify short term performance and entertain the advisers and analysts and financial media industry, against which you have to assess the purported upside in terms of greater commercial focus and supposed agility. Often in an industry - like the railways - that remains highly regulated, and where there isn’t really any direct competition with competitive pressure coming merely from substitution to other forms of transport. It’s also true that you have to pay people more to work on the private sector since its managers are motivated mostly by money and progression, whereas the public sector attracts people for a more diverse range of reasons.
Both the railways and the postal service have become considerably more expensive to consumers since privatisation, both are more costly to government than before (in the former case because subsidies have actually increased and in the latter because the government lost its income stream), and it is hard to discern where the improvements in efficiencies have been, over and above the rate being achieved through progress heretofore? Industrial relations doesn’t appear to be any better, either.
I don’t understand why you assume that people in a nationalised industry would look for ways in which to be inefficient? People (or their representatives) may defend inefficiencies, where they see advantage in doing so, for sure, but then that is still happening in the privatised railway companies.
Thank you for your reply. I must confess my point was something of a polemic. I actually believe in a mixed economy, and many years ago I was a believer that some areas (such as water) should be in "public ownership", but now I must confess , after many years of having my own business while maintaining a political outlook that is pretty centrist, I can't really see any particular benefits to "public ownership" of pretty much anything. Even the NHS is certainly not "the envy of the world" that many Brits think. There are many better systems that still deliver healthcare free at the point of need. The only argument against a complete overhaul is the unnecessary upheaval.
Anyway, I apologise if my post upset you, as I think our politics are not too far apart in practice, and I did not intend to demean anyone who works in the public sector, as a number of my family members do.
Personally, I think each area should be assessed on a case by case basis. I long believed water might be better off run by private companies, but Thames Water et al have disabused me of that notion.
It's all down to incentives, and it seems impossible to set them up appropriately. The water companies have performed so badly with regards to sewage dumping that the Environment Agency is calling for prison sentences for Chief Executives if it continues (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2021/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2021 ). Leaks - Thames Water leaks a quarter of all its water. And as for the future water provision programme, the decision-making is so skewed as to be execrable. I've mentioned the STT being punted forwards - for a sub £1bn programme using tech that's well understood by TW, taking 2-3 years, providing 300-500 Ml/day when called upon, with minimal enviornmental impact to be pushed out by more than an average human lifespan in favour of one that would cost twice as much and more, with building techniques unfamiliar to TW, taking a minimum of fifteen years to provide under 290Ml/day at the best of times, solely dependent on the River Thames, with huge environmental impact at best (and significant dangers at worst) and displacing a flood plain (and that would caused fogs to roll down over the arterial A34 regularly) ... but would be better for them as a commercial asset...
Nope. It's broken. Need to try something different.
Water Companies CEOs don't get their stock prices up by improving water supplies and sewage treatment facilities, they get them up by cutting costs.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
Comments
a) its fundamentally silly and insulting to kids intelligence (once above 5) - Kids do seem incredulous when getting told Santa really does cover billions of houses in one night
b) It makes Christmas a very commercial thing .Fine if you are an adult and want to treat yourself to M&S finest but kids should not have commericalism in their face
c) and that silly talk about santa only rewards good kids does mean kids of poorer or non-giving parents think they have been bad (if still young enough to believe all the BS)
I told my daughter at 5 there was no Santa Claus and never regretted it
Leavers need to make it work a lot better than it is now though if they want it to stick. If they don't, at some point the issue will be revisited.
If he doesn't, then I feel that's it. The temporarily open window will shut. We're out of the whole shebang and we will never go anywhere near it again
And talking of out I must go get myself some more lovely sunshine, in the royal parks. Later PB, later
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
The sovereignty argument is nonsense and a con. Always was, always will be. You carry on believing in it if you want to old chap. Watch out for aliens.
Your opposition to Brexit is not philosophical but purely because you think it’s not a good look to be on the same side as the likes of Farage.
This mess wasn't an EU directive, we weren't outvoted on a majority decision, it isn't out of our hands, it wasn't an ECJ verdict that went the wrong way. It isn't something we have conceded to get advantage elsewhere.
Just f8cking sort it or get out of the way. And that is the situation so many of our politicians are really, really struggling with.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
Fuck over 50% of businesses including all those which actually bring money into the country - fine.
I can understand people who are entirely committed to the EU getting annoyed about leaving, but it's hard to see why people who are not at all enthusiastic about the organisation should get upset.
Excluding "don't knows", we're currently at 60:40 "you-know-what was a mistake". That's not enough, sure. But if it were to get to 70:30? 80:20?
I'm not saying it will, or it should. But there is a line somewhere, and I'm not sure where it is.
(Something similar goes for the Scottish you-know-what. As long as the polls are close to 50:50, inertia wins and there's not point having another referendum. But if the mood were, say, 70:30, "Westminster says no" becomes untenable.)
Russia did not suffer *that* much when Chernobyl went bang. Ukraine and Belarus did. The plant going bang will be a massive headache for Ukraine for decades and centuries to come - and therefore would hardly be 'good' for Ukraine. It might be just the sort of punishment beating Putin would give Ukraine - especially if he believes he can get his mouthpieces to blame Ukraine for it. And especially if the winds are easterly, so they'll effect and pollute Euriope.
'Cutting the output' is also a rather simplistic view of the way you safely depower a nuclear power station. As Fukashima showed, they need to get power from somewhere, and although powering a station from itself is a really bad idea, you need power from outside the plant, or external diesel generators. And who will run the latter?
Invading a working or newly decommissioned nuclear plant in a time of war should be seen as a new type of war crime.
The reality is that we are stuck with Brexit. It is about as intractable as "The Irish Question" (hopefully without the bombs and bullets) and The Corn Laws. It will be scrutinised by historians of the future and those who will continuously look for the "benefits of Brexit", like so many donkeys with carrots hanging on threads in front of them.
Yes, you are probably right.
Your “subsidised by the taxpayer” isn’t an “i.e.” at all. I worked for the Royal Mail for many years and for most of them it returned a healthy profit, much of which was syphoned off by the government as its owner through something euphemistically called the External Financing Limit. One of the arguments against Royal Mail privatisation was that it was akin to selling shares that are paying you a healthy dividend.
I would say that there are arguments for and against. Looking at the business I know best, one could be perjorative like you and ask whether we would wish to hark back to the days when postage cost a third of the price? There are extra costs in being a private business - the whole business of managing and communicating with the shareholder base and associated financing, the AGM, the cost of paying dividends, the cost of having to forever justify short term performance and entertain the advisers and analysts and financial media industry, against which you have to assess the purported upside in terms of greater commercial focus and supposed agility. Often in an industry - like the railways - that remains highly regulated, and where there isn’t really any direct competition with competitive pressure coming merely from substitution to other forms of transport. It’s also true that you have to pay people more to work on the private sector since its managers are motivated mostly by money and progression, whereas the public sector attracts people for a more diverse range of reasons.
Both the railways and the postal service have become considerably more expensive to consumers since privatisation, both are more costly to government than before (in the former case because subsidies have actually increased and in the latter because the government lost its income stream), and it is hard to discern where the improvements in efficiencies have been, over and above the rate being achieved through progress heretofore? Industrial relations doesn’t appear to be any better, either.
I don’t understand why you assume that people in a nationalised industry would look for ways in which to be inefficient? People (or their representatives) may defend inefficiencies, where they see advantage in doing so, for sure, but then that is still happening in the privatised railway companies.
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
(Bit like us during the Battle of Britain.)
Their numbers for ground based losses appear quite a bit closer to the mark.
Though note the Russian have claimed to have shot down more Bayrakters than Ukraine possesses in total, along with the complete destruction of its airforce and multiple HIMARS, so the bullshit also tends strongly in one direction.
Are we sure we want to rejoin, not so much in the driving seat as before, but to be on the back row with Malta?
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
It's been and gone, and France won't let you come back, so there. It's so last century now.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/19/13341100/tesla-self-driving-autonomous-road-trip-la-nyc
There's no sign of that happening. Another Musk promise that got the faithful all fired up, and was promptly forgotten...
Anyway, I apologise if my post upset you, as I think our politics are not too far apart in practice, and I did not intend to demean anyone who works in the public sector, as a number of my family members do.
That Musk has missed some ambitious goals is far less significant than what he has achieved.
Starlink is outstanding for people in rural areas. We have several employees who live on farms and historically, they've relied on 3G/4G or low speed DSL for Internet. Suddenly, they have excellent internet connections that allow them be in video meetings (& to work for Just!), or to play Call of Duty.
That is absolutely life changing for them.
And there are lots of people - worldwide - who don't live in conurbations, or who live on small islands, etc.
Starlink is genuinely life changing for them.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1556301444613128194
You can see in the last 72 hrs how deep GOPs are in the mode of 'this election is going to fall into our lap because of global economic crises that don't have much to do with the White House' and perhaps the more general 'nothing matters' of recent years. As the Dems ...
...climate and inflation package moves forward I've seen multiple GOP senators actually up for reelection go on Twitter and focus their message on how miffed they are that the vote forced them to miss a weekend of parties in the district. Now others are ...
...cheerily voting against a cap out on out of control insulin prices. Needless to say, insulin is not an elective drug. As we know, there are lots of factor buoying Republicans and hurting Dems this cycle. But you can see by these and other actions how confident GOPs ...
...have become that they can do literally anything they want - down to complaining publicly about having to show up to do the job - and they won't pay any price.
Your phone only goes x hundred metered to the tower - how does the tower connect to the rest of the world? In many places, the cheap option will be a satellite dish at the top of the mobile tower.
Some ex-colleagues in the telecoms world are designing and building such systems now - a package deal of satellite connection, batteries, solar/other and mobile tower as a unit.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
See @Malmesbury post for other areas they are doing well in...
It's all down to incentives, and it seems impossible to set them up appropriately. The water companies have performed so badly with regards to sewage dumping that the Environment Agency is calling for prison sentences for Chief Executives if it continues (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2021/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2021 ).
Leaks - Thames Water leaks a quarter of all its water.
And as for the future water provision programme, the decision-making is so skewed as to be execrable. I've mentioned the STT being punted forwards - for a sub £1bn programme using tech that's well understood by TW, taking 2-3 years, providing 300-500 Ml/day when called upon, with minimal enviornmental impact to be pushed out by more than an average human lifespan in favour of one that would cost twice as much and more, with building techniques unfamiliar to TW, taking a minimum of fifteen years to provide under 290Ml/day at the best of times, solely dependent on the River Thames, with huge environmental impact at best (and significant dangers at worst) and displacing a flood plain (and that would caused fogs to roll down over the arterial A34 regularly) ... but would be better for them as a commercial asset...
Nope. It's broken. Need to try something different.
Autopilot has never been promised AFAIK.
Fortunately, there were no other vehicles around us, and I grabbed control and let the car settle. But it severely reduced my faith in autopilot to be able to deal with anything other than very easy driving.
Edit to add: I don't think I described this very well. The car was on a slight curve, and as it lifted up, the wheels lost a bit of traction and it moved towards the outside of the lane. Autopilot thought the reason was a lack of left control input, rather than the fact the wheels weren't gripping well, and applied more. As the car dropped down, this caused the car to slew left, partially exiting the lane. Autopilot then attempted a hard right control input and we headed towards the right hand side of the lane. I took control back from the car and all was well
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The Kansas result suggests that some Republican stances are really unpopular when their consequences become obvious.
The entire GOP effort this cycle has been to try to stymie any legislation by the Democrats irrespective of its contents. The video I posted earlier of a Republican Senator speaking movingly of her two diabetic siblings, and the inequity of insulin pricing, back in 2020 - juxtaposed with her vote yesterday against a cap on that pricing is a small but neat illustration.
They might shrug off any consequences, but if there's any uptick in the economy, they might take a significant hit.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
I'd be content just to take FOM and the SM now which means we are in the luggage trailer behind the bus.
Now, I suspect that they will only take Pennsylvania of those three, but the fact that we're even talking about the Democrats possibly gaining Senate seats is extraordinary.
The House, on the other hand, is another matter. I expect that will be comfortably taken by the Republicans.
Sometimes, with Shorts, you just have to run them and keep faith with your judgement. That's what I did when I was a trader in the City, hence my nickname back then of Big Balls.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y94UwQ5au9Y
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.