Governments become more unpopular the longer they are in power - and Sunak’s absolute -8 is clearly very poor - but is also an upgrade vs both his predecessors - which is at least a step in the right direction.
On the list after two months Liz Truss will be NaN.
If we played as a UK team would Bale be the only non-English team member?
Bale wouldn't be in the team, doubt even the squad. Andy Robertson would get in at left wing back. I actually not sure any other players would even get in the squad on current form (there are players with potential and talent but having poor seasons).
Andy Robertson would definitely be first choice left-back. No one in the England squad as good as he is down that side.
Luke Shaw is often Engalnds best player
He isn't as consistently good as Robertson. Robertson is a world class player who has done it against the best in the Champions League and EPL for many seasons. He better than TAA as he can do both the dynamic attacking wing back and also the hard yards of defending.
Shaw doesn't even always get in a piss poor Man Utd team. England's approach when they go with 5 at the back does seem to bring out the best in him, but Robertson is superior. My understanding is one issue is Shaw is so dense that light bends around him, so he can't adapt quickly to complex formational / tactical changes.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
A PM and government committed to Remain putting serious effort into shaping what Leave would mean before the vote even took place? C'mon. Fantasy Island.
"Fantasy Island"? - no, not quite right, we really do need this word!
If they were committed to Remain they shouldn't have had a referendum. If they were going to have a referendum it should have been a fair and honest one.
That search function does look pretty slick, I wonder how it will work in the prod environment though rather than just in dev.
Don't know, but its fun to see some actual innovation...twitter has had bugger all for donkeys years. I presume too busy having meetings about meetings about meetings about slogans to put on t-shirts.
I am still trying to work out how the ref didn't think that was initially a red card. Manu Tuilagi would be a proud of a hit like that at the weekend on a Saffer player.
Too far from goal to be a straight red card was his logic.
I am still trying to work out how the ref didn't think that was initially a red card. Manu Tuilagi would be a proud of a hit like that at the weekend on a Saffer player.
Too far from goal to be a straight red card was his logic.
I think he forgot who dirty the Welsh are.
The challenge itself was a red card, let alone how far out / in there was cover in behind.
That search function does look pretty slick, I wonder how it will work in the prod environment though rather than just in dev.
Don't know, but its fun to see some actual innovation...twitter has had bugger for donkeys years. I presume too busy having meetings about meetings about meetings about slogans to put on t-shirts.
I think I know what happened.
Musk nuked various teams - they had a separate team for Site Accessibility, a operate team for X, Y & Z.
Sounds great?
I've worked in a couple of companies where this resulted in nothing happening. The Online Security team was happy with no changes - so they hadn't ok'd a release that had any security flaws. The Site Accessibility team wouldn't OK any change to the interface - since that might break any numbers of third party tools for accessing websites on behalf of the directly abled....
The theme went on. Lots of stakeholders, whose only interest was that nothing happened.
The correct answer was to build accessibility, security etc into the requirements, rather than have 20 teams whose jobs was to say no to every single possible change.
That search function does look pretty slick, I wonder how it will work in the prod environment though rather than just in dev.
Don't know, but its fun to see some actual innovation...twitter has had bugger for donkeys years. I presume too busy having meetings about meetings about meetings about slogans to put on t-shirts.
Yes, as I said earlier this week, if Elon Musk can dial down the rhetoric a bit, get a decent team of developers in, keep the audience numbers reasonably consistent the advertisers will be back within weeks just as they were for Facebook after the boycott last summer. I actually think there's a fairly good chance Twitter as a product will thrive with a smaller and more focussed development team. The core codebase probably isn't that big so maintaining it shouldn't require huge resource allocation.
I don't think Twitter will ever be worth what they paid for it at $44bn but there is a future where it's a highly valuable company again and the investors are able to pay themselves regular dividends from it.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
The hard turn towards lignite coal was startling - and the lack of reaction to it in Green circles in Europe was also interesting. The actual Greens in Germany kicked up a fuss - but you got the impression that Germany was being more Green than the UK, abroad, unless you dug into what was actually happening...
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
The hard turn towards lignite coal was startling - and the lack of reaction to it in Green circles in Europe was also interesting. The actual Greens in Germany kicked up a fuss - but you got the impression that Germany was being more Green than the UK, abroad, unless you dug into what was actually happening...
Germany give as much of a shit about the environment and climate change as Qatar and FIFA do about migrant workers and gay rights.
No 10 confirms a third complaint has been received against Raab
How long before Raab stands down ?
Braverman next out layers looking good now I think.
I’ve got Gove as next out.
The “the VIP Lane was not corruption, it was a government doing everything it could to save our people, save our NHS and the brilliant practitioners who work in it, and save economy and save country by acting as swiftly as we could” line just isn’t working is it.
The Government corruption over covid contracts could become next years Partygate if Tories don’t smarten up their defences on this soon. The Conservative Party are clearly under attack by the civil service over this - the ministerial line of “everything was referred to through the proper channels” has already been breached by Civil Servants choosing to add VIP Lane to government records and accidentally on purpose not redacting FOI requests properly.
The media are being nudged by civil service to play with this, a media pile on over this scandal could send Tory polling average into the teens.
Sunak would be at the heart of it, is the bit that would have Starmer salivating through countless PMQs.
The public in general don't care much about corruption allegations - they vaguely assume they're all at it, possibly excepting a few very austere figures like Corbyn and Skinner (and those are then regarded with suspicion for being zealots not like ordinary folk). Partygate was different as there was a direct comparison with personal experience of the impact of the same rules. Most of us don't get the chance to bid for PPE contracts, so whether company A or company B got them is a more remote affair.
Backbenchers do care as they're closer to it. The probability of defections rises if a party starts to be seen as riddled with dodgy behaviour.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
The hard turn towards lignite coal was startling - and the lack of reaction to it in Green circles in Europe was also interesting. The actual Greens in Germany kicked up a fuss - but you got the impression that Germany was being more Green than the UK, abroad, unless you dug into what was actually happening...
Germany give as much of a shit about the environment and climate change as Qatar and FIFA do about migrant workers and gay rights.
The Green party in Germany is larger and more serious about actually doing something than many such parties in Europe. As opposed to being a mad pressure group with "pure", unworkable ideas.
In general, Germans are mostly quite environmentally minded. It's the politicians who failed on this.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
The hard turn towards lignite coal was startling - and the lack of reaction to it in Green circles in Europe was also interesting. The actual Greens in Germany kicked up a fuss - but you got the impression that Germany was being more Green than the UK, abroad, unless you dug into what was actually happening...
Germany give as much of a shit about the environment and climate change as Qatar and FIFA do about migrant workers and gay rights.
The Green party in Germany is larger and more serious about actually doing something than many such parties in Europe. As opposed to being a mad pressure group with "pure", unworkable ideas.
In general, Germans are mostly quite environmentally minded. It's the politicians who failed on this.
Politicians reflect the people's will, there is clearly no will in Germany to take economic pain to reduce climate change and help the environment.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
It’s a bit more than that:
Merkel backed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany to the hilt, even after Putin showed his imperialistic intentions by annexing Crimea. Whether through self-delusion or myopia, she decided to make energy-hungry Germany dependent on the whims of a murderous dictator, against the protests of eastern European allies who knew from experience what it means to be controlled by Russia.
Last month the Green Party, part of Germany's government coalition and the only party which has been consistently tough on Russia, voted at their party conference for an investigation into Nord Stream. And though many saw Merkel as incorruptible, corruption flourished under her watch.
List of countries I support in order for football:
England Wales/NI Italy Everyone else Scotland USA
I'm never that invested, because I'm always conflicted - when England fans throw chairs around etc. it just makes me want it all to go away.
But for me in order:
England Scotland a very close second ROUK (NI, Wales) ____________then I quite like it when the below do well: Belgium The Netherlands (I am an 8th of each due to my paternal grandmother) Switzerland ____________then most teams from the Commonwealth
No 10 confirms a third complaint has been received against Raab
How long before Raab stands down ?
Braverman next out layers looking good now I think.
I’ve got Gove as next out.
The “the VIP Lane was not corruption, it was a government doing everything it could to save our people, save our NHS and the brilliant practitioners who work in it, and save economy and save country by acting as swiftly as we could” line just isn’t working is it.
The Government corruption over covid contracts could become next years Partygate if Tories don’t smarten up their defences on this soon. The Conservative Party are clearly under attack by the civil service over this - the ministerial line of “everything was referred to through the proper channels” has already been breached by Civil Servants choosing to add VIP Lane to government records and accidentally on purpose not redacting FOI requests properly.
The media are being nudged by civil service to play with this, a media pile on over this scandal could send Tory polling average into the teens.
Sunak would be at the heart of it, is the bit that would have Starmer salivating through countless PMQs.
The public in general don't care much about corruption allegations - they vaguely assume they're all at it, possibly excepting a few very austere figures like Corbyn and Skinner (and those are then regarded with suspicion for being zealots not like ordinary folk). Partygate was different as there was a direct comparison with personal experience of the impact of the same rules. Most of us don't get the chance to bid for PPE contracts, so whether company A or company B got them is a more remote affair.
Backbenchers do care as they're closer to it. The probability of defections rises if a party starts to be seen as riddled with dodgy behaviour.
It looks very much like the elephant in the Tory room. To me, "they're all at it" covers a couple of hundred grand a year dodgy expenses and consultancy claims, but if we look at the 100s of millions alleged to have been made by VIP PPE fraud, even a 1% introducer's fee gets you into the millions. Sunak is above suspicion for obvious reasons (as far as personal enrichment is concerned, but it may be that he constructed such a palpably defraudable scheme because he thought that nobody gets out of bed for a paltry couple of million). Nobody else is.
Boris Johnson is the obvious rival to Merkel for reputations decline without jail. Just a few months ago the Goodwin class still thought he was the winning strongman of populism.
It makes topping the group possible after the USA match. So players could potentially be rested for Wales.
AS long as we play to beat the Welsh and hopefully knock them out that is all good.
Time was, the English tended to support the Scots, Welsh and Irish, even if it was one way. I'm still in that particular boat, to be honest. I'd love to see Wales qualify. Because a) I like Wales, and have Welsh friends, and so on, and b) a bitter rivalry in which the bitterness only goes one way is quite fun.
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely: 1) England 2) Sco/Wal/NI 3) Ireland 4) Can/Aus/NZ 5) USA 6) Scandinavia 7) Any minnows 8) Other north Europeans 9) Other south Europeans 10) South Americans
My list is rather Quixotic:
Scotland England Wales/Ireland/N Ireland Germany Other European Brazil Plucky minnows The rest Argentina probably last - I just don't like their win at all costs attitude.
International: Ireland Belgique (coz I lived there as a kid and I saw them beat Norway in my first ever live international game) Côte d'Ivoire Reggae Boiz
Clubs: Leeds Olympique de Marseille (soft spot for Celtic, AEK Athens and Livorno - the other teams of 'The Brotherhood')
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
It’s a bit more than that:
Merkel backed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany to the hilt, even after Putin showed his imperialistic intentions by annexing Crimea. Whether through self-delusion or myopia, she decided to make energy-hungry Germany dependent on the whims of a murderous dictator, against the protests of eastern European allies who knew from experience what it means to be controlled by Russia.
Last month the Green Party, part of Germany's government coalition and the only party which has been consistently tough on Russia, voted at their party conference for an investigation into Nord Stream. And though many saw Merkel as incorruptible, corruption flourished under her watch.
All things being equal, Nord Stream 2 is a fairly good idea. It's far lower carbon and lower cost than LNG imports from the USA. Yes, Russia's actions had been questionable up to that point, but if you didn't import hydrocarbons from any questionable regimes, you'd be up shit creek. At least Russia lets women drive. In terms of statecraft, Nord Stream 2 would make Russia's energy industry connected into Western Europe, which would make the two more co-dependent (it's not just a one way street), which has positives as well as negatives. Frankly, the only way that the EU ever becomes a strategical competitor to the USA is to embrace Russian resources and encourage Russia to embrace more European ideals in the future. I completely see that that's not how it's worked out, but I don't think Mutti's policy was particularly off the wall in the context of the times.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
The hard turn towards lignite coal was startling - and the lack of reaction to it in Green circles in Europe was also interesting. The actual Greens in Germany kicked up a fuss - but you got the impression that Germany was being more Green than the UK, abroad, unless you dug into what was actually happening...
Germany give as much of a shit about the environment and climate change as Qatar and FIFA do about migrant workers and gay rights.
The Green party in Germany is larger and more serious about actually doing something than many such parties in Europe. As opposed to being a mad pressure group with "pure", unworkable ideas.
In general, Germans are mostly quite environmentally minded. It's the politicians who failed on this.
Politicians reflect the people's will, there is clearly no will in Germany to take economic pain to reduce climate change and help the environment.
UK’s clean energy investment ranking drops as Germany pulls ahead
The UK has fallen one place to fourth in EY’s bi-annual ranking of the attractiveness of renewable energy investment markets. Despite strong investment in offshore wind over the past six months, Germany pipped the UK to third due to its pledge for an 80% renewable electricity mix by 2030.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
It’s a bit more than that:
Merkel backed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany to the hilt, even after Putin showed his imperialistic intentions by annexing Crimea. Whether through self-delusion or myopia, she decided to make energy-hungry Germany dependent on the whims of a murderous dictator, against the protests of eastern European allies who knew from experience what it means to be controlled by Russia.
Last month the Green Party, part of Germany's government coalition and the only party which has been consistently tough on Russia, voted at their party conference for an investigation into Nord Stream. And though many saw Merkel as incorruptible, corruption flourished under her watch.
All things being equal, Nord Stream 2 is a fairly good idea. It's far lower carbon and lower cost than LNG imports from the USA. Yes, Russia's actions had been questionable up to that point, but if you didn't import hydrocarbons from any questionable regimes, you'd be up shit creek. At least Russia lets women drive. In terms of statecraft, Nord Stream 2 would make Russia's energy industry connected into Western Europe, which would make the two more co-dependent (it's not just a one way street), which has positives as well as negatives. Frankly, the only way that the EU ever becomes a strategical competitor to the USA is to embrace Russian resources and encourage Russia to embrace more European ideals in the future. I completely see that that's not how it's worked out, but I don't think Mutti's policy was particularly off the wall in the context of the times.
Personally I think her biggest mistake was not boosting defence spending after 2014. She should have been prepared to tell the German people that Putin was dangerous and they were serious about the Nato target. Not even Trump led to her changing policy.
Merkel has compared herself to Nevill Chamberlain in the sense of “buying time” - it’s not going uncontested:
The most charitable thing to say about Chamberlain was that he understood the need to develop Britain's deterrence capabilities and so invested in the RAF. Merkel's appeasement strategy involved further neglecting the Bundeswehr while expanding DE reliance on Russian natural gas.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
It’s a bit more than that:
Merkel backed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany to the hilt, even after Putin showed his imperialistic intentions by annexing Crimea. Whether through self-delusion or myopia, she decided to make energy-hungry Germany dependent on the whims of a murderous dictator, against the protests of eastern European allies who knew from experience what it means to be controlled by Russia.
Last month the Green Party, part of Germany's government coalition and the only party which has been consistently tough on Russia, voted at their party conference for an investigation into Nord Stream. And though many saw Merkel as incorruptible, corruption flourished under her watch.
All things being equal, Nord Stream 2 is a fairly good idea. It's far lower carbon and lower cost than LNG imports from the USA. Yes, Russia's actions had been questionable up to that point, but if you didn't import hydrocarbons from any questionable regimes, you'd be up shit creek. At least Russia lets women drive. In terms of statecraft, Nord Stream 2 would make Russia's energy industry connected into Western Europe, which would make the two more co-dependent (it's not just a one way street), which has positives as well as negatives. Frankly, the only way that the EU ever becomes a strategical competitor to the USA is to embrace Russian resources and encourage Russia to embrace more European ideals in the future. I completely see that that's not how it's worked out, but I don't think Mutti's policy was particularly off the wall in the context of the times.
Russia had, by the time Nord Stream 2 was proposed, conducted a decades long campaign of playing with the supply of gas into Europe to try and get their Near Abroad to sit up and beg. Nord Stream 2 was known as the Fuck Ukraine Pipeline - the idea was that the Russians could turn off the gas to the near abroad, while selling to Germany etc.
Even more bizarre was an aggressive campaign against LNG terminals. Even ones in Poland and other countries!
Maybe buying gas from Russia wasn't completely insane - providing that sacrificing the security of Eastern Europe is fine with you. But trying to make it the sole source of gas was.
I'm not saying it's not true but where, when and by whom was this chiseled into the stele?
Does it have any legal or constitutional heft? Or is it like a JLR warranty?
It was said repeatedly by Salmond and Sturgeon at the time and written into the forward of the Scottish government's White Paper. Of course at that time the SNP were using this as a basis for urging people to vote yes, the argument being that the chance won't come again soon.
For me, this is meaningless. The decision is one for the Scottish people not the SNP or their leadership. The Scottish people voted in favour of parties who said they wanted a referendum. They did so in absolute numbers, not just in terms of the majority that they got in Holyrood. The UK government rejects that request at their peril and I say that as a fervent Unionist. I think that Sunak should say yes but offer a date a few years hence, say 2026. He should also be explicit that the UK government would not say yes again for 20 years thereafter and accepting this is a condition of the consent.
I acknowledge that this would be a blight on the Scottish economy, just as the neverendum was in 2014, but that is what people voted for and a democracy should respect that.
I am an incomer (though one who intends to be a Scottish resident for good), so I wasn't here to vote No in 2014. I also ran as a LibDem candidate against the SNP in last year's council elections. So I am not a supporter of Scottish independence.
But I agree - the vote in the Holyrood election last year was clear. Their mandate for another referendum is clear. And the reality that such a vote would likely again be for no.
What needs to happen now is simple - we have to settle the argument. An absolute majority voted for parties wanting a referendum. But there isn't a clear majority in favour of actual independence. So we need to adopt the measure from NI and the language previously used by the likes of Thatcher and Major.
If there is a majority in Holrood for independence, and there is 60% in the polls for Yes, then there MUST be a referendum. But if No wins they can't have one again for at least 7 years.
Better still - lets address the democratic deficit driving the push to leave. What Westminster parties are doing in response to the SC is the opposite.
Sleeping on it, I'm struck by the way the SC judgement is all about current legislation, rather than (as it might be in other countries) a formal constitution. It has highlighted the fact that it is merely an act of the Westminster Parliament, and a recent one at that - from the same (mostly Labour and Tory, with LD involvement) establishment that, for instance, perpetrated such things as the gerrymandered Holyrood voting system and the revised Scotland Acts depsite the 2014 promises, and is trying to perpetrate the bonfire of EU law au Rees-Mogg. The refusal of a referendum is based on nothing more than that existing, and fairly new, legislation and the present refusal of the present administration, rather than any high constitution - for under Unionist doctrine it is Westminster that is sovereigm and cannot hand over the responsibility for the mess to anyone else e.g. the divine right of the assorted royal lineages.
And this is an interesting piece by the Guardian - by Professor Scothorne, who is not, at least in my memory, by a long shot one to produce automatic pro-indy pieces .
'It is worth spelling out exactly what is being said here. On the one hand, the court is acknowledging that an independence referendum conducted by the Scottish government would have democratic legitimacy, even if it was not legally binding. This is a strikingly nationalist answer to the question of who decides. It recognises that, were the Scottish people given a choice on independence, their expressed views would meaningfully determine whether Scotland gets independence. This, you might think, is a good and correct thing, in a “constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”. And yet it is the linchpin of an argument against the Scottish government holding such a referendum.
This is because, as far as the UK constitution is concerned, the answer to “who decides?” is unambiguous: the UK parliament has the final say. It can pass or repeal any law it wants by a simple majority. If other laws get in the way of doing so, parliament can change or repeal those too. If the supreme court had ruled in favour of the Scottish government, the UK parliament could have amended the Scotland Act to explicitly reserve “advisory” referendums. In constitutional terms, what the supreme court ruling says is that the Scottish people and their democratic rights are irrelevant.
But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment.'
Thanks for posting that - hadn't read it. I entirely agree - the SC ruling was on a very narrow point of the current law which can as you say simply be changed had Westminster not liked what they said.
What doesn't change is that the people of Scotland voted in a majority for another referendum and are being refused it. Think about it - you can vote for whatever you like and the answer is no. That is not democracy. I do not want another referendum. I do not support independence. But I am a democrat and the arguments against the giant leap into the unknown which would be independence need to be argued out, not blocked and refused.
And it is very interesting that DavidL, who is also on the No side and also lives in Scotland, holds a similar view.
Two problems with this set of views:
The stuff about Westminster is merely a restatement of an international fact; that sovereignty resides where sovereignty resides, namely in the supreme democratic process of an internationally recognised state called the UK. Gosh.
Secondly, if you look at election results only we may have referendums for ever. You have to look at the weight of opinion about the answer, not the question. There is no evidence that the settled will of the Scottish people is to change. When there is there should be, and will be, a referendum.
the slim prospect of 'referendums for ever' does not seem to me a very convincing argument for retreating from democracy.
Remember Angela Merkel? Once called leader of the free world, the fanfare when she retired was deafening. Now, it's hard to think of a political figure whose star has faded so much without being sent to prison. Merkel's legacy in Germany has received blow after blow and, though she only left the stage a year ago, she already seems like a relic of a bygone era.
The rest of the article doesn't really live up to the opening paragraph - just a gripe about renewables essentially.
The hard turn towards lignite coal was startling - and the lack of reaction to it in Green circles in Europe was also interesting. The actual Greens in Germany kicked up a fuss - but you got the impression that Germany was being more Green than the UK, abroad, unless you dug into what was actually happening...
Germany give as much of a shit about the environment and climate change as Qatar and FIFA do about migrant workers and gay rights.
The Green party in Germany is larger and more serious about actually doing something than many such parties in Europe. As opposed to being a mad pressure group with "pure", unworkable ideas.
In general, Germans are mostly quite environmentally minded. It's the politicians who failed on this.
Politicians reflect the people's will, there is clearly no will in Germany to take economic pain to reduce climate change and help the environment.
UK’s clean energy investment ranking drops as Germany pulls ahead
The UK has fallen one place to fourth in EY’s bi-annual ranking of the attractiveness of renewable energy investment markets. Despite strong investment in offshore wind over the past six months, Germany pipped the UK to third due to its pledge for an 80% renewable electricity mix by 2030.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
Not defining it before the referendum was an error (by Cameron, because he was motivated not by resolving the European question fairly but instead by winning the referendum) - that's been a fairly consistent view amongst many Leave voters since before the referendum.
In which case that's another epic logic fail by Leave voters - because no single defined form of Leave could have won against Remain. The victory depended on Leave being a shapeshifting proposition onto which wildly different hopes and dreams could be projected.
I think we had this exact same discussion a couple of days ago. Safe to say, I still disagree - "you don't know what Brexit will mean" was a key part of Cameron's Project Fear.
I'm afraid you can't 'disagree' with me saying that no single defined form of Leave would have won the referendum vs Remain. You can deny it - and even badge the denial as disagreement - but you can't actually disagree.
I don't think a multiple choice referendum would ever have been widely accepted. Would you not find it unfair if Indy was split up into 'indy with no hard border, indy but keeping Eastenders, indy with a currency union, full balls out indy with a new currency etc etc., and only the vote total of one of them was expected to be higher than remain?
It would always have been a binary referendum, so any fleshing out of the journey post-Brexit 'Exit into EEA for 5 years whilst a Royal commission on further changes is set up' would have just made it less scary and more likely to win.
Yep, binary is the way. As for defining the Leave option on the ballot to be "EEA for 5 years and after this it all depends on what a Royal Commission says" - we need a word for something that sounds superficially sensible but in practice has almost no possibility of happening. Being serious here - we do need a word for that. It's a precise thing, crops up a lot, and I don't think there is a bespoke word for it. My "not happening event" is too clunky.
Is 'impossible shite' short enough?
It's good - very good - but we really do need a nifty single word.
Fatberg? Designed to block things with a large greasy mass of all sorts of rubbish.
But who would vote for a fatberg ?
Oh, I see.
The idea is to stop the vote even happening. That's what RCs are for.
It makes topping the group possible after the USA match. So players could potentially be rested for Wales.
AS long as we play to beat the Welsh and hopefully knock them out that is all good.
Time was, the English tended to support the Scots, Welsh and Irish, even if it was one way. I'm still in that particular boat, to be honest. I'd love to see Wales qualify. Because a) I like Wales, and have Welsh friends, and so on, and b) a bitter rivalry in which the bitterness only goes one way is quite fun.
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely: 1) England 2) Sco/Wal/NI 3) Ireland 4) Can/Aus/NZ 5) USA 6) Scandinavia 7) Any minnows 8) Other north Europeans 9) Other south Europeans 10) South Americans
My list is rather Quixotic:
Scotland England Wales/Ireland/N Ireland Germany Other European Brazil Plucky minnows The rest Argentina probably last - I just don't like their win at all costs attitude.
International: Ireland Belgique (coz I lived there as a kid and I saw them beat Norway in my first ever live international game) Côte d'Ivoire Reggae Boiz
Clubs: Leeds Olympique de Marseille (soft spot for Celtic, AEK Athens and Livorno - the other teams of 'The Brotherhood')
Hockey: CSKA Moscow
That's all I've got time for.
Absence of Sheffield Wednesday is very disappointing.
No 10 confirms a third complaint has been received against Raab
How long before Raab stands down ?
Braverman next out layers looking good now I think.
I’ve got Gove as next out.
The “the VIP Lane was not corruption, it was a government doing everything it could to save our people, save our NHS and the brilliant practitioners who work in it, and save economy and save country by acting as swiftly as we could” line just isn’t working is it.
The Government corruption over covid contracts could become next years Partygate if Tories don’t smarten up their defences on this soon. The Conservative Party are clearly under attack by the civil service over this - the ministerial line of “everything was referred to through the proper channels” has already been breached by Civil Servants choosing to add VIP Lane to government records and accidentally on purpose not redacting FOI requests properly.
The media are being nudged by civil service to play with this, a media pile on over this scandal could send Tory polling average into the teens.
Sunak would be at the heart of it, is the bit that would have Starmer salivating through countless PMQs.
The public in general don't care much about corruption allegations - they vaguely assume they're all at it, possibly excepting a few very austere figures like Corbyn and Skinner (and those are then regarded with suspicion for being zealots not like ordinary folk). Partygate was different as there was a direct comparison with personal experience of the impact of the same rules. Most of us don't get the chance to bid for PPE contracts, so whether company A or company B got them is a more remote affair.
Backbenchers do care as they're closer to it. The probability of defections rises if a party starts to be seen as riddled with dodgy behaviour.
It looks very much like the elephant in the Tory room. To me, "they're all at it" covers a couple of hundred grand a year dodgy expenses and consultancy claims, but if we look at the 100s of millions alleged to have been made by VIP PPE fraud, even a 1% introducer's fee gets you into the millions. Sunak is above suspicion for obvious reasons (as far as personal enrichment is concerned, but it may be that he constructed such a palpably defraudable scheme because he thought that nobody gets out of bed for a paltry couple of million). Nobody else is.
I don't suspect Sunak; I don't think it's his style, but I wouldn't say being personally wealthy makes him above suspicion. It is after all mainly his wife's money.
If there was widespread corruption, ow do we get this money back? Is there even a way? I think in principle, it has to be private bounty hunters that are at the basis of getting it back. There was a whole industry that developed around claims for PPI mis-selling, and arguably that's the only thing that will work here. People need to be hunting this money and getting a cut. Anything that goes back into the Government coffers is a bonus.
that’s what Elon told me my job was, and I will try my hardest to do it. I have 12 weeks. also trying to get rid of that nondismissable login pop up after you scroll a little bit ugh these things ruin the Internet
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
A PM and government committed to Remain putting serious effort into shaping what Leave would mean before the vote even took place? C'mon. Fantasy Island.
"Fantasy Island"? - no, not quite right, we really do need this word!
If they were committed to Remain they shouldn't have had a referendum. If they were going to have a referendum it should have been a fair and honest one.
No 10 confirms a third complaint has been received against Raab
How long before Raab stands down ?
Braverman next out layers looking good now I think.
I’ve got Gove as next out.
The “the VIP Lane was not corruption, it was a government doing everything it could to save our people, save our NHS and the brilliant practitioners who work in it, and save economy and save country by acting as swiftly as we could” line just isn’t working is it.
The Government corruption over covid contracts could become next years Partygate if Tories don’t smarten up their defences on this soon. The Conservative Party are clearly under attack by the civil service over this - the ministerial line of “everything was referred to through the proper channels” has already been breached by Civil Servants choosing to add VIP Lane to government records and accidentally on purpose not redacting FOI requests properly.
The media are being nudged by civil service to play with this, a media pile on over this scandal could send Tory polling average into the teens.
Sunak would be at the heart of it, is the bit that would have Starmer salivating through countless PMQs.
The public in general don't care much about corruption allegations - they vaguely assume they're all at it, possibly excepting a few very austere figures like Corbyn and Skinner (and those are then regarded with suspicion for being zealots not like ordinary folk). Partygate was different as there was a direct comparison with personal experience of the impact of the same rules. Most of us don't get the chance to bid for PPE contracts, so whether company A or company B got them is a more remote affair.
Backbenchers do care as they're closer to it. The probability of defections rises if a party starts to be seen as riddled with dodgy behaviour.
It looks very much like the elephant in the Tory room. To me, "they're all at it" covers a couple of hundred grand a year dodgy expenses and consultancy claims, but if we look at the 100s of millions alleged to have been made by VIP PPE fraud, even a 1% introducer's fee gets you into the millions. Sunak is above suspicion for obvious reasons (as far as personal enrichment is concerned, but it may be that he constructed such a palpably defraudable scheme because he thought that nobody gets out of bed for a paltry couple of million). Nobody else is.
I don't suspect Sunak; I don't think it's his style, but I wouldn't say being personally wealthy makes him above suspicion. It is after all mainly his wife's money.
If there was widespread corruption, ow do we get this money back? Is there even a way? I think in principle, it has to be private bounty hunters that are at the basis of getting it back. There was a whole industry that developed around claims for PPI mis-selling, and arguably that's the only thing that will work here. People need to be hunting this money and getting a cut. Anything that goes back into the Government coffers is a bonus.
I thought we had state bounty hunters called 'police' and 'SFO' and 'HMRC'.
It makes topping the group possible after the USA match. So players could potentially be rested for Wales.
AS long as we play to beat the Welsh and hopefully knock them out that is all good.
Time was, the English tended to support the Scots, Welsh and Irish, even if it was one way. I'm still in that particular boat, to be honest. I'd love to see Wales qualify. Because a) I like Wales, and have Welsh friends, and so on, and b) a bitter rivalry in which the bitterness only goes one way is quite fun.
My order of supporting football teams, is, largely: 1) England 2) Sco/Wal/NI 3) Ireland 4) Can/Aus/NZ 5) USA 6) Scandinavia 7) Any minnows 8) Other north Europeans 9) Other south Europeans 10) South Americans
My list is rather Quixotic:
Scotland England Wales/Ireland/N Ireland Germany Other European Brazil Plucky minnows The rest Argentina probably last - I just don't like their win at all costs attitude.
International: Ireland Belgique (coz I lived there as a kid and I saw them beat Norway in my first ever live international game) Côte d'Ivoire Reggae Boiz
Clubs: Leeds Olympique de Marseille (soft spot for Celtic, AEK Athens and Livorno - the other teams of 'The Brotherhood')
Hockey: CSKA Moscow
That's all I've got time for.
Dirty Leeds.
And poncing about under Revie with those tassels on their socks.
One solution is that the Westminster could define exactly what a 'generation is' and legislate for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to hold a referendum after this time period has elapsed. *Would sketch out the democratic process Scotland leave the UK in the future and would make clear that the Scottish people have this right *Would prevent neverendums, as it would prevent the SNP calling referendums whenever they liked. However, I suspect neither the Tories nor Labour will do this as it would make a commitment they'd have to let a referendum happen - if asked for it by the Scottish Parliament - by a certain date even if they weren't confident of winning it.
Ahead of any such referendum, there should be a Royal Commission to consider all aspects of what independence would mean for both Scotland and rUK. If splitting up the UK doesn't deserve a Royal Commission, I don't know what does.
Brexit ?
As good a reason as any to have that Royal Commission is to prevent Scotland repeating the errors of Brexit.
Rishi Sunak could wrong-foot the SNP by convening it - and offering the SNP the majority of Scottish representation on it.
Be fun to watch the SNP squirm as to why it was not the right thing to do to take part in "Westminster's" report. That they consistently refuse to face up to the vast raft of issues that independence would create needs to be met head on.
Brexit was an error? - a milestone admission here. Hats off.
The "what if Brexit?" thinking and planning ahead of the vote was non-existent - because conceding that planning was thought to give creadence to the impossible. I don't think acknowledging that is especially controversial.
A PM and government committed to Remain putting serious effort into shaping what Leave would mean before the vote even took place? C'mon. Fantasy Island.
"Fantasy Island"? - no, not quite right, we really do need this word!
If they were committed to Remain they shouldn't have had a referendum. If they were going to have a referendum it should have been a fair and honest one.
No 10 confirms a third complaint has been received against Raab
How long before Raab stands down ?
Braverman next out layers looking good now I think.
I’ve got Gove as next out.
The “the VIP Lane was not corruption, it was a government doing everything it could to save our people, save our NHS and the brilliant practitioners who work in it, and save economy and save country by acting as swiftly as we could” line just isn’t working is it.
The Government corruption over covid contracts could become next years Partygate if Tories don’t smarten up their defences on this soon. The Conservative Party are clearly under attack by the civil service over this - the ministerial line of “everything was referred to through the proper channels” has already been breached by Civil Servants choosing to add VIP Lane to government records and accidentally on purpose not redacting FOI requests properly.
The media are being nudged by civil service to play with this, a media pile on over this scandal could send Tory polling average into the teens.
Sunak would be at the heart of it, is the bit that would have Starmer salivating through countless PMQs.
The public in general don't care much about corruption allegations - they vaguely assume they're all at it, possibly excepting a few very austere figures like Corbyn and Skinner (and those are then regarded with suspicion for being zealots not like ordinary folk). Partygate was different as there was a direct comparison with personal experience of the impact of the same rules. Most of us don't get the chance to bid for PPE contracts, so whether company A or company B got them is a more remote affair.
Backbenchers do care as they're closer to it. The probability of defections rises if a party starts to be seen as riddled with dodgy behaviour.
It looks very much like the elephant in the Tory room. To me, "they're all at it" covers a couple of hundred grand a year dodgy expenses and consultancy claims, but if we look at the 100s of millions alleged to have been made by VIP PPE fraud, even a 1% introducer's fee gets you into the millions. Sunak is above suspicion for obvious reasons (as far as personal enrichment is concerned, but it may be that he constructed such a palpably defraudable scheme because he thought that nobody gets out of bed for a paltry couple of million). Nobody else is.
I don't suspect Sunak; I don't think it's his style, but I wouldn't say being personally wealthy makes him above suspicion. It is after all mainly his wife's money.
If there was widespread corruption, ow do we get this money back? Is there even a way? I think in principle, it has to be private bounty hunters that are at the basis of getting it back. There was a whole industry that developed around claims for PPI mis-selling, and arguably that's the only thing that will work here. People need to be hunting this money and getting a cut. Anything that goes back into the Government coffers is a bonus.
I thought we had state bounty hunters called 'police' and 'SFO' and 'HMRC'.
I don't think they're up to it. Best to work off the assumption that none of our state apparatus is, don't you think?
No 10 confirms a third complaint has been received against Raab
How long before Raab stands down ?
Braverman next out layers looking good now I think.
I’ve got Gove as next out.
The “the VIP Lane was not corruption, it was a government doing everything it could to save our people, save our NHS and the brilliant practitioners who work in it, and save economy and save country by acting as swiftly as we could” line just isn’t working is it.
The Government corruption over covid contracts could become next years Partygate if Tories don’t smarten up their defences on this soon. The Conservative Party are clearly under attack by the civil service over this - the ministerial line of “everything was referred to through the proper channels” has already been breached by Civil Servants choosing to add VIP Lane to government records and accidentally on purpose not redacting FOI requests properly.
The media are being nudged by civil service to play with this, a media pile on over this scandal could send Tory polling average into the teens.
Sunak would be at the heart of it, is the bit that would have Starmer salivating through countless PMQs.
The public in general don't care much about corruption allegations - they vaguely assume they're all at it, possibly excepting a few very austere figures like Corbyn and Skinner (and those are then regarded with suspicion for being zealots not like ordinary folk). Partygate was different as there was a direct comparison with personal experience of the impact of the same rules. Most of us don't get the chance to bid for PPE contracts, so whether company A or company B got them is a more remote affair.
Backbenchers do care as they're closer to it. The probability of defections rises if a party starts to be seen as riddled with dodgy behaviour.
It looks very much like the elephant in the Tory room. To me, "they're all at it" covers a couple of hundred grand a year dodgy expenses and consultancy claims, but if we look at the 100s of millions alleged to have been made by VIP PPE fraud, even a 1% introducer's fee gets you into the millions. Sunak is above suspicion for obvious reasons (as far as personal enrichment is concerned, but it may be that he constructed such a palpably defraudable scheme because he thought that nobody gets out of bed for a paltry couple of million). Nobody else is.
I don't suspect Sunak; I don't think it's his style, but I wouldn't say being personally wealthy makes him above suspicion. It is after all mainly his wife's money.
If there was widespread corruption, ow do we get this money back? Is there even a way? I think in principle, it has to be private bounty hunters that are at the basis of getting it back. There was a whole industry that developed around claims for PPI mis-selling, and arguably that's the only thing that will work here. People need to be hunting this money and getting a cut. Anything that goes back into the Government coffers is a bonus.
I thought we had state bounty hunters called 'police' and 'SFO' and 'HMRC'.
I don't think they're up to it. Best to work off the assumption that none of our state apparatus is, don't you think?
No no no.
The Serious Farce Office and HMRC are doing brilliantly.
1) Prosecuting people is difficult and can fail 2) Prosecuting people upsets them 3) Prosecuting politicians would be very upsetting for Important People. Like, er, Politicians.
So not finding corruption is brilliant, career wise for people at the SFO etc.
It's not like they will lose their jobs for not finding corruption, is it?
I think the real issue, which is rather getting lost in all the noise, is that Scotland does have a legal route to a periodic referendum but it has already used it.
Everyone agreed last time that a majority in the Scottish Parliament was enough to request one, and grounds to grant one. But everyone also agreed that would be it for several years (‘a generation’).
Now there are two issues here. First, it was obvious even at the time that the SNP, a bit like UKIP, made that pledge in bad faith. If they lost the referendum by anything other than a landslide they would immediately start agitating for a new referendum on the grounds ‘opinion may have changed.’ Helpfully, from their point of view, 2016 did mean a material change they could further agitate for.
The second, much bigger mistake was not saying exactly how long ‘a generation’ was. In the Northern Ireland scenario, which is actually a little less clear cut than the article implies on when and how a poll shall be called, border polls may not be held less than seven years after a previous one.* If a provision had been written in in 2014 that no further poll could be called for ten years, things would now be easier. As it is a generation is usually defined as around 25 years. However, the wording is ambiguous. That is something that would need to be addressed in any new referendum pledge, but given it suits all involved not to do so it probably wouldn’t be.
*Northern Ireland is also a different scenario as at the time the GFA was written, in law it was technically part of Ireland administered by Britain at the request of its inhabitants. That was not only the Irish Constitution but also the founding document of the Irish Free State, which suspended the powers of the Free State in the six counties after one month. Also, it would not be seeking to become independent but to reunite with Ireland. Finally, it is worth noting a border poll would have to be held in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and pass in both to be successful. That’s an uncomfortable parallel for Sturgeon, even though I can’t help wondering if given how stridently xenophobic Scotland’s government has become the English might vote to boot them out of the Union given a chance.
Bollox , the deal was never about generations and that was never included anywhere , the only time that was used was as a political slogan.
Comments
Shaw doesn't even always get in a piss poor Man Utd team. England's approach when they go with 5 at the back does seem to bring out the best in him, but Robertson is superior. My understanding is one issue is Shaw is so dense that light bends around him, so he can't adapt quickly to complex formational / tactical changes.
I think he forgot who dirty the Welsh are.
England
Wales/NI
Italy
Everyone else
Scotland
USA
https://twitter.com/SofiaHCBBG/status/1596016339998543873
Musk nuked various teams - they had a separate team for Site Accessibility, a operate team for X, Y & Z.
Sounds great?
I've worked in a couple of companies where this resulted in nothing happening. The Online Security team was happy with no changes - so they hadn't ok'd a release that had any security flaws. The Site Accessibility team wouldn't OK any change to the interface - since that might break any numbers of third party tools for accessing websites on behalf of the directly abled....
The theme went on. Lots of stakeholders, whose only interest was that nothing happened.
The correct answer was to build accessibility, security etc into the requirements, rather than have 20 teams whose jobs was to say no to every single possible change.
I don't think Twitter will ever be worth what they paid for it at $44bn but there is a future where it's a highly valuable company again and the investors are able to pay themselves regular dividends from it.
no need to break sweat.
Why they chased the win is beyond me. Iran can score, they proved that against England. Defending is something they have problems with.
Isn't hindsight wonderful?
I feel like the childminder returning to the nursery, to find that the toddlers have got undressed, and smeared strawberry jam all over the windows
Backbenchers do care as they're closer to it. The probability of defections rises if a party starts to be seen as riddled with dodgy behaviour.
In general, Germans are mostly quite environmentally minded. It's the politicians who failed on this.
Merkel backed the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany to the hilt, even after Putin showed his imperialistic intentions by annexing Crimea. Whether through self-delusion or myopia, she decided to make energy-hungry Germany dependent on the whims of a murderous dictator, against the protests of eastern European allies who knew from experience what it means to be controlled by Russia.
Last month the Green Party, part of Germany's government coalition and the only party which has been consistently tough on Russia, voted at their party conference for an investigation into Nord Stream. And though many saw Merkel as incorruptible, corruption flourished under her watch.
But for me in order:
England
Scotland a very close second
ROUK (NI, Wales)
____________then I quite like it when the below do well:
Belgium
The Netherlands
(I am an 8th of each due to my paternal grandmother)
Switzerland
____________then most teams from the Commonwealth
Twitter search is amazingly powerful.
The UK has fallen one place to fourth in EY’s bi-annual ranking of the attractiveness of renewable energy investment markets. Despite strong investment in offshore wind over the past six months, Germany pipped the UK to third due to its pledge for an 80% renewable electricity mix by 2030.
https://www.edie.net/uks-clean-energy-investment-ranking-drops-as-germany-pulls-ahead/
The most charitable thing to say about Chamberlain was that he understood the need to develop Britain's deterrence capabilities and so invested in the RAF. Merkel's appeasement strategy involved further neglecting the Bundeswehr while expanding DE reliance on Russian natural gas.
https://twitter.com/ALanoszka/status/1596130504700485633
Even more bizarre was an aggressive campaign against LNG terminals. Even ones in Poland and other countries!
Maybe buying gas from Russia wasn't completely insane - providing that sacrificing the security of Eastern Europe is fine with you. But trying to make it the sole source of gas was.
If there was widespread corruption, ow do we get this money back? Is there even a way? I think in principle, it has to be private bounty hunters that are at the basis of getting it back. There was a whole industry that developed around claims for PPI mis-selling, and arguably that's the only thing that will work here. People need to be hunting this money and getting a cut. Anything that goes back into the Government coffers is a bonus.
no way this dude come in and fixes twitters unusable broken search in a month while the thousands of people couldn't in years
https://twitter.com/PlayboysJourney/status/1594886286447345665
that’s what Elon told me my job was, and I will try my hardest to do it. I have 12 weeks. also trying to get rid of that nondismissable login pop up after you scroll a little bit ugh these things ruin the Internet
https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/1594906882027552773
https://nordpass.com/most-common-passwords-list/
The Serious Farce Office and HMRC are doing brilliantly.
1) Prosecuting people is difficult and can fail
2) Prosecuting people upsets them
3) Prosecuting politicians would be very upsetting for Important People. Like, er, Politicians.
So not finding corruption is brilliant, career wise for people at the SFO etc.
It's not like they will lose their jobs for not finding corruption, is it?
Everyone is happy, yes?