A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
... and in 2019, it was back up to ~3,800 with the same Labour candidate.
It's an interesting one; the candidate failed twice, in 2017 and 2019. Do you try him on the constituency's electorate for a third time, and if so, why?
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
Witness also Musk and his 'Twitter files' shit.
What's fascinating about the "Twitter Files" is how even conservative news outlets - such as Fox - have essentially ignored it.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
... and in 2019, it was back up to ~3,800 with the same Labour candidate.
It's an interesting one; the candidate failed twice, in 2017 and 2019. Do you try him on the constituency's electorate for a third time, and if so, why?
I think the local party (evidently not trusted by the NEC) wants to be given the option..
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
I've been on the inside of Labour selections where a local favourite is stopped from standing so that region could impose a preferred candidate without members having a say.
The problem with members is that they don't necessarily understand the people in question or how they operate. Which is why we have to have shortlisting processes to weed out the unsuitable (for various reasons) ones.
The entire exec can resign and others will replace them. The party has rules and if you don't like them, leave.
No, Sunak is not a Remainer. He’s a pragmatist looking to prevent a big Tory defeat at the next election. This deal will help with that. He has clearly managed to get concessions from the EU that Frost and Johnson could not get, and that is a good thing. I am not sure they are as huge as some believe given that the Single Market has been protected in its entirety, and the EU spin on the detail is very different to the UK government’s (as you’d rxpect), but that is by the by.
Sunak has done an excellent job. And he’s right, Northern Ireland is in a privileged position. It does have much better access to the Single Market than the rest of the UK and that will give it significant advantages that the rest of the UK no longer has. Unfettered trade in goods with a market of 400 million people is a very good thing. I think it’s worth trading some sovereignty for, others disagree.
Further deals will require further pragmatism. However, if those who believe the NIP Bill was crucial in getting the EU to do business this time, what leverage does the UK now have to get more?
Sunak is saying this to goad Starmer. The leader of the opposition has, quite rightly, calculated that the Brexit is not worth revisiting, at least not now. Starmer may wish to criticise the government in the way OGH does, but then the obvious question for Starmer is “will you seek the same deal for the rest of the UK if you are PM?”
So rejoiners will be left disappointed when Starmer says nothing. Which in itself may be damaging to Labour as this episode is going to drill home that Labour is also a Brexit Party.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
I'm no Remainer, and I agree that this makes Rejoin less likely.
But at the same time, it does suggest that there will be greater cooperation between the EU and the UK in future.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though, the EU has moved on from anger that we left and would like to work with us rather than force us into being rule takers. It's taken 5 years to get to this point, let's hope we don't see then slide back into their old position of insisting dynamic alignment for everything they can think of.
You view the EU through the prisn of hostility which is straight out of the ERG playbook. You claim the EU is unreasonable because it doesn't compromise on its basis principles, and not for self-preservation purposes but to antagonise the honest English yeoman.
The reason we found ourselves in the state we were in was due to, having decided to leave, we set a series of red lines which were incompatible with EU frictionless trade rules.
The EU may be a cumbersome leviathan, but they knew what they required because their terms of engagement were set in stone. We just made stuff up as we went along, primarily to appease the ERG, the DUP and to ensure Johnson satisfied his every personal whim.
And yet the EU has just agreed to a whole raft of those "unicorn" solutions widely derided by remainers as wishful thinking.
So maybe those of us who said that all of what was being proposed was not only possible but the likely end state were right?
It's not that big of a leap to push the whole UK into a green/red channel customs arrangement with a trusted traders scheme on both sides, the principle has been established.
I think re your last para it’s something that will happen but it needs a bit of time.
Politically neither side can rush into doing it as it’s difficult for the UK as it can be spun as going back into the EU by the back door and for the EU there will still be enough people who are angry with the UK in the EU corridors who will not want to see the UK “rewarded” after the Brexit pain.
I think/hope that ultimately both sides will be in regular under the radar contact analysing the strengths and weaknesses and gaming how it would work and look if applied to the UK.
Ultimately it’s in the interests of the UK but I think the EU will see benefits if applied to the UK despite it seeming to break their ideals as it might be the basis of a framework for other states that cannot commit to full membership, Switzerland, or for states on the pathway to joining such as Ukraine.
Married to Macron’s concentric membership idea whilst people in the EU against might think it’s not in the spirit of the EU it does draw countries back towards the EU in a partnership which is better than being cut free.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
Back up to over 5,000 under Darren Henry though.
But a better than national result for Labour (-6.8 vs -7.9 nationally). I suspect Johnson and Corbyn played bigger roles in that election than the strength or weakness of individual candidates.
The interesting question is why the NEC want to deny the local party the option.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
“Advanced objects demonstrating advanced technology are routinely flying over our restricted or sensitive airspace posing a risk to both flight safety & national security”
“We Have a Real UFO Problem. And It’s Not Balloons. America’s fixation on the recent objects floating over the country overlooks a much more serious problem with advanced technology aircraft that we can’t explain.”
And if there's one thing the last year has taught us, it's that we can be reasonably sure they're not advanced Russian technology.
American govt, Chinese govt or “other”.
If the first it would be pretty odd albeit not impossible for individuals with top level clearance to keep banging on about it.
If the second then we have a problem that should be arguably the number one issue for Western governments to address.
And then there’s “other”. Which just about allows room for non govt or periphery of govt actors. But more broadly, is a catch all for “non human”.
There’s nothing going on on beyond sensor glitches and misidentification. It should give pause for thought that most of the agitation about this latest flap are also involved in endless Skinwalker Ranch nonsense as well.
It’s like all the Bigfoot TV shows. There’s no point watching because if they had found Bigfoot it would have been on the news, not channel 243 at 2 am…
The latest detections of UAPs (mainly balloons) has coincided with improved detection (of balloons). People want it to aliens. I get that. But it’s not.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Its a strategically timed piece of journalism. Don't look at the PM saying the EEA is the best opportunity in the world, throw rocks instead at Mancock because he's a wrong'un.
To do the Telegraph justice, he is a wrong 'un.
Whether he's as big a wrong 'un as they're implying is another question, but there were some very dodgy things going on between care homes and hospital trusts that certainly spread covid. Releasing Covid-positive patients to care homes from hospitals at midnight, for example, when the manager wouldn't be there to refuse to accept them, as one hospital not far from here did.
Good morning all, and a happy Saint David’s day!
On topic, I find it difficult to believe that there wasn’t a competent and properly briefed deputy manager on site and I also wonder where the hospital found the transport b at that time of day.
if those who believe the NIP Bill was crucial in getting the EU to do business this time, what leverage does the UK now have to get more?
Danny Fink's article in The Times today makes the point. It was not the NIP Bill that brought the EU to the table, it was Rishi binning it that brought them back.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
Witness also Musk and his 'Twitter files' shit.
What's fascinating about the "Twitter Files" is how even conservative news outlets - such as Fox - have essentially ignored it.
They were all seriously upset that the story was given to independent journalists, rather than a newspaper or cable station.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Its a strategically timed piece of journalism. Don't look at the PM saying the EEA is the best opportunity in the world, throw rocks instead at Mancock because he's a wrong'un.
To do the Telegraph justice, he is a wrong 'un.
Whether he's as big a wrong 'un as they're implying is another question, but there were some very dodgy things going on between care homes and hospital trusts that certainly spread covid. Releasing Covid-positive patients to care homes from hospitals at midnight, for example, when the manager wouldn't be there to refuse to accept them, as one hospital not far from here did.
Good morning all, and a happy Saint David’s day!
On topic, I find it difficult to believe that there wasn’t a competent and properly briefed deputy manager on site and I also wonder where the hospital found the transport b at that time of day.
It does seem weird. And stupid.
But - as the person who told me the story was the person assigned to investigate it following a complaint, and he seems to think it was true...
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
The problem with members is that they don't necessarily understand the people in question or how they operate. Which is why we have to have shortlisting processes to weed out the unsuitable (for various reasons) ones.
Since the excluded candidate had twice been deemed appropriate to stand for election, one has to wonder what had changed.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
Witness also Musk and his 'Twitter files' shit.
What's fascinating about the "Twitter Files" is how even conservative news outlets - such as Fox - have essentially ignored it.
They were all seriously upset that the story was given to independent journalists, rather than a newspaper or cable station.
The main problem was that there was no story. It was just 'evidence' cherry-picked to fit whatever agenda Musk had picked out of his backside that morning.
A Russian guy is at the Polish border: “Nationality?” “Russian.” “Occupation?” “No, no, just visiting.”
Recycled Angela Merkel visiting Greece joke….
I miss teaching on the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. The jokes about him were brilliant.
Brezhnev gathers all his cosmonauts into a room, and says 'Boys, we're going to steal a March on the Americans by landing on the sun.'
A brave man pipes up, 'But Comrade Brezhnev, we'll be burned up.'
'Do you think I'm a fool?!' snapped Brezhnev. 'You'll be landing at night.'
Brezhnev’s mum visits him in the Kremlin, distinctly unimpressed he has her whisked in a Zil convoy to his Dacha in the forest. Still unmoved his personal jet flies her to his Villa in Crimea. Finally he can bear the indifference no more and asks her
“Mum, what do you think? Aren’t you impressed?”
“It’s all very good, Leonid, but what happens if the Reds come back?”
There is a punchline to that joke.
Brezhnev read it in a KGB report.
He was delighted because he said, 'it shows people care about me and worry for my safety.'
I'm not sure that story becomes funnier when you realise I'm *not* joking, or whether it just becomes disturbing.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
Witness also Musk and his 'Twitter files' shit.
What's fascinating about the "Twitter Files" is how even conservative news outlets - such as Fox - have essentially ignored it.
He seems now to have switched to backing the MAGA line on Ukraine. Which is basically the Putin line.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
The problem with members is that they don't necessarily understand the people in question or how they operate. Which is why we have to have shortlisting processes to weed out the unsuitable (for various reasons) ones.
Since the excluded candidate had twice been deemed appropriate to stand for election, one has to wonder what had changed.
How many times had Corbyn stood for election before being excluded?
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
I'm no Remainer, and I agree that this makes Rejoin less likely.
But at the same time, it does suggest that there will be greater cooperation between the EU and the UK in future.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though, the EU has moved on from anger that we left and would like to work with us rather than force us into being rule takers. It's taken 5 years to get to this point, let's hope we don't see then slide back into their old position of insisting dynamic alignment for everything they can think of.
You view the EU through the prisn of hostility which is straight out of the ERG playbook. You claim the EU is unreasonable because it doesn't compromise on its basis principles, and not for self-preservation purposes but to antagonise the honest English yeoman.
The reason we found ourselves in the state we were in was due to, having decided to leave, we set a series of red lines which were incompatible with EU frictionless trade rules.
The EU may be a cumbersome leviathan, but they knew what they required because their terms of engagement were set in stone. We just made stuff up as we went along, primarily to appease the ERG, the DUP and to ensure Johnson satisfied his every personal whim.
And yet the EU has just agreed to a whole raft of those "unicorn" solutions widely derided by remainers as wishful thinking.
So maybe those of us who said that all of what was being proposed was not only possible but the likely end state were right?
It's not that big of a leap to push the whole UK into a green/red channel customs arrangement with a trusted traders scheme on both sides, the principle has been established.
Sunak in the afterglow of his glorious victory has stated Northern Ireland is a special case due to its recent history and both sides have sensibly compromised to preserve peace. You are suggesting the EU are being unreasonable because they won't allow us associate membership terms with no cost. Their client is the nations and the citizens of the 27, not the Churchillian/Johnsonian empire
It's like you turning up at the golf club with your new set of Pings demanding to play and refusing to pay the green fees, and then complaining about how unfair they are when they escort you off the premises.
Of course you can still be a Brexiteer and want to return to the Single Market. Daniel Hannan for example has always favoured being in EFTA while also still outside the main institutions of the EU and Eurozone.
However at present the strongly Leave redwall seats and marginals Cameron from Labour in the Midlands, Essex and East Kent will determine the next election. Therefore both Starmer and Sunak have ruled out returning to the EEA and free movement for the moment.
Northern Ireland is a special case as under the GFA it needs to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland
if those who believe the NIP Bill was crucial in getting the EU to do business this time, what leverage does the UK now have to get more?
Danny Fink's article in The Times today makes the point. It was not the NIP Bill that brought the EU to the table, it was Rishi binning it that brought them back.
That would be my reading. It seems to be Lord Frost’s too. But it’s a pointless argument to have. The proof of the pudding is what happens next.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Most schoolboys aren't that stupid. But it is a very nice demonstration of his capacity for good judgment.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
That's where we should go long-term, IMHO.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
Witness also Musk and his 'Twitter files' shit.
What's fascinating about the "Twitter Files" is how even conservative news outlets - such as Fox - have essentially ignored it.
He seems now to have switched to backing the MAGA line on Ukraine. Which is basically the Putin line.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what effect that has. Hopefully it will increase support for Ukraine and damage Musky Baby. But sadly, it'll probably be the opposite.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
I'm no Remainer, and I agree that this makes Rejoin less likely.
But at the same time, it does suggest that there will be greater cooperation between the EU and the UK in future.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though, the EU has moved on from anger that we left and would like to work with us rather than force us into being rule takers. It's taken 5 years to get to this point, let's hope we don't see then slide back into their old position of insisting dynamic alignment for everything they can think of.
You view the EU through the prisn of hostility which is straight out of the ERG playbook. You claim the EU is unreasonable because it doesn't compromise on its basis principles, and not for self-preservation purposes but to antagonise the honest English yeoman.
The reason we found ourselves in the state we were in was due to, having decided to leave, we set a series of red lines which were incompatible with EU frictionless trade rules.
The EU may be a cumbersome leviathan, but they knew what they required because their terms of engagement were set in stone. We just made stuff up as we went along, primarily to appease the ERG, the DUP and to ensure Johnson satisfied his every personal whim.
And yet the EU has just agreed to a whole raft of those "unicorn" solutions widely derided by remainers as wishful thinking.
So maybe those of us who said that all of what was being proposed was not only possible but the likely end state were right?
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
Back up to over 5,000 under Darren Henry though.
But a better than national result for Labour (-6.8 vs -7.9 nationally). I suspect Johnson and Corbyn played bigger roles in that election than the strength or weakness of individual candidates.
The interesting question is why the NEC want to deny the local party the option.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
... and in 2019, it was back up to ~3,800 with the same Labour candidate.
It's an interesting one; the candidate failed twice, in 2017 and 2019. Do you try him on the constituency's electorate for a third time, and if so, why?
Though that swing in 2019 was just 4% so better than most seats, and with more than 4000 votes for Anna Soubry standing as TIG.
He clearly isn't toxic to the voters. More likely a bit too left wing for Starmer. On national polling trends this is going to be a Lab gain with a considerable majority. Starmer doesn't want someone of independent mind on his backbenches.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
Wrong on all counts, unless you're talking about yourself in that last line.
Right on all counts, and I'm talking about people like you in that last line.
Great, we've descended to "You are, you mean." "No, you are..."
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
I'm not missing that big picture at all. Not in the slightest. And you have precisely zero evidence that I have as all my posts will attest to where I've criticised the hardliners and the Johnson/Truss approach, whilst praising Sunak. You're creating a dividing line where none exists.
It's UTOA Remainers who just can't handle that their idol has made a lot of concessions to the UK, as it goes against their worldview, so are trying to reframe it as a sellout story.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
Not to mention GDPR laws and security and governmental regulations [edit] or am I missing something? It would be a huge scandal if a civil servant did that with work emails/calls. And if he was using a private account ...
I think Sunak, unlike most Brexiteers so far, actually wants Brexit to work.
Yes, we will continue to see the salami slicing of Johnson's Brexit, a sliver at at time until there is nothing left.
Sunak has extended it and made it work better, not reduce it.
These "lines" are utterly pathetic and just make you look thick.
No, every step to better relations and reduced barriers to the EU is a good thing in my book. It whittles away at Brexit, and will continue until nothing is left. Not a quick process, but the correct one, and one likely to accelerate under a Starmer government.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
Back up to over 5,000 under Darren Henry though.
But a better than national result for Labour (-6.8 vs -7.9 nationally). I suspect Johnson and Corbyn played bigger roles in that election than the strength or weakness of individual candidates.
The interesting question is why the NEC want to deny the local party the option.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
... and in 2019, it was back up to ~3,800 with the same Labour candidate.
It's an interesting one; the candidate failed twice, in 2017 and 2019. Do you try him on the constituency's electorate for a third time, and if so, why?
Though that swing in 2019 was just 4% so better than most seats, and with more than 4000 votes for Anna Soubry standing as TIG.
He clearly isn't toxic to the voters. More likely a bit too left wing for Starmer. On national polling trends this is going to be a Lab gain with a considerable majority. Starmer doesn't want someone of independent mind on his backbenches.
It reminds me of pre 2010 when there was much resentment amongst hard working local Tory councillors and activists on the candidates list who had done the hard slog in opposition only to find themselves pushed out by high flying careerists and 'Cameron's cuties' who were put by CCHQ on an 'A list' for target seats.
It looks like Starmer is drawing up his own group of preferred candidates for target seats with Labour HQ at the expense of hardworking local Labour councillors who did the hard slog while Labour has been in Opposition
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
I'm no Remainer, and I agree that this makes Rejoin less likely.
But at the same time, it does suggest that there will be greater cooperation between the EU and the UK in future.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though, the EU has moved on from anger that we left and would like to work with us rather than force us into being rule takers. It's taken 5 years to get to this point, let's hope we don't see then slide back into their old position of insisting dynamic alignment for everything they can think of.
You view the EU through the prisn of hostility which is straight out of the ERG playbook. You claim the EU is unreasonable because it doesn't compromise on its basis principles, and not for self-preservation purposes but to antagonise the honest English yeoman.
The reason we found ourselves in the state we were in was due to, having decided to leave, we set a series of red lines which were incompatible with EU frictionless trade rules.
The EU may be a cumbersome leviathan, but they knew what they required because their terms of engagement were set in stone. We just made stuff up as we went along, primarily to appease the ERG, the DUP and to ensure Johnson satisfied his every personal whim.
And yet the EU has just agreed to a whole raft of those "unicorn" solutions widely derided by remainers as wishful thinking.
So maybe those of us who said that all of what was being proposed was not only possible but the likely end state were right?
It's not that big of a leap to push the whole UK into a green/red channel customs arrangement with a trusted traders scheme on both sides, the principle has been established.
Sunak in the afterglow of his glorious victory has stated Northern Ireland is a special case due to its recent history and both sides have sensibly compromised to preserve peace. You are suggesting the EU are being unreasonable because they won't allow us associate membership terms with no cost. Their client is the nations and the citizens of the 27, not the Churchillian/Johnsonian empire
It's like you turning up at the golf club with your new set of Pings demanding to play and refusing to pay the green fees, and then complaining about how unfair they are when they escort you off the premises.
I'm not suggesting it's unreasonable, I'm suggesting that in the end reality will win. The EU would like to normalise relations with the UK, they took a huge step forwards with the WF, I don't think extending the trusted trader scheme to the whole UK is out of reach. In fact on e the NI solution is shown to work they'll probably initiate the idea as the UK is a gigantic consumer market where they will want to win back market share they've lost since Brexit.
The Tories went with a non local candidate and won, so no worries, ignore 'em Keir.
Those job roles suggest an awful lot of intersectional debate all the time. Like the Belgian Govt, perhaps the CLP will function better without an executive?
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
Wrong on all counts, unless you're talking about yourself in that last line.
Right on all counts, and I'm talking about people like you in that last line.
Great, we've descended to "You are, you mean." "No, you are..."
Poor Dixiedean, he (presumably) comes on PB to escape the playground squabbles ...
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
Is that absolutely out of the question?
Why would we want it back?
Just to establish the principle of British territory on the continental mainland again. Future launching pad and all that. We're getting medieval up in here.
Sunak is saying this to goad Starmer. The leader of the opposition has, quite rightly, calculated that the Brexit is not worth revisiting, at least not now. Starmer may wish to criticise the government in the way OGH does, but then the obvious question for Starmer is “will you seek the same deal for the rest of the UK if you are PM?”
So rejoiners will be left disappointed when Starmer says nothing. Which in itself may be damaging to Labour as this episode is going to drill home that Labour is also a Brexit Party.
I would love for any Party with a chance at government, claim at the next GE an immediate return to the EU under our previous terms and conditions. But that is wholly unrealistic. We have left, we are all Brexiteers now. We have to make the best of the hand we have been dealt.
Team Sunak did well yesterday, but the hint that he is a "secret Remainer" whilst Labour are stanch Brexiteers causes him (as well as Starmer) a problem too. Suggesting being "in" the EU as well as the UK may be a USP to sell to NI but it opens old wounds on the Island of Britain, particularly in Scotland.
The Remainer problem 'remains' that they never understood why they lost. "Look," they will say, "See how much better off we are when we can trade freely."
The elephant in the room stirs and says. "I agree, but why does it have to be linked to becoming one European country, and losing sovereignity? "
"Because we say so."
Much easier to say you're all racists, than to explain that making one country, one parliament, and one army is such a benefit.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
Not to mention GDPR laws and security and governmental regulations [edit] or am I missing something? It would be a huge scandal if a civil servant did that with work emails/calls. And if he was using a private account ...
Yes, one thing it does tell us, is that data security is terrible in government. There should be no private phones allowed in government departments, and all ‘chat’ applications should be approved.
I’d probably use something like Slack or Teams for structured or group conversations, that are archived and subject to data protection; then something like Signal, with chats that disappear after a few minutes, for informal conversations of the sort that would ordinarily happen in person.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
If Hancock gave Oakshott all those emails without sign-off then surely he is responsible for a huge data breach and liable for prosecution. That he gave them to someone as untrustworthy as her really is just the icing on the cake.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
I'm no Remainer, and I agree that this makes Rejoin less likely.
But at the same time, it does suggest that there will be greater cooperation between the EU and the UK in future.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though, the EU has moved on from anger that we left and would like to work with us rather than force us into being rule takers. It's taken 5 years to get to this point, let's hope we don't see then slide back into their old position of insisting dynamic alignment for everything they can think of.
Better good neighbours than recalcitrant tenants.
The idea that cooperation could happen is a Reman thing is a myth the erstwhile Remainers like to cling to as they're obsessed with their own mythology that Brexiteers hate Europe and want nothing to do with it.
So long as its genuine cooperation, not dynamic alignment, then cooperation is of course a good thing. Just as we can and should cooperate with America and other friends and allies around the world.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
Back up to over 5,000 under Darren Henry though.
But a better than national result for Labour (-6.8 vs -7.9 nationally). I suspect Johnson and Corbyn played bigger roles in that election than the strength or weakness of individual candidates.
The interesting question is why the NEC want to deny the local party the option.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
... and in 2019, it was back up to ~3,800 with the same Labour candidate.
It's an interesting one; the candidate failed twice, in 2017 and 2019. Do you try him on the constituency's electorate for a third time, and if so, why?
Though that swing in 2019 was just 4% so better than most seats, and with more than 4000 votes for Anna Soubry standing as TIG.
He clearly isn't toxic to the voters. More likely a bit too left wing for Starmer. On national polling trends this is going to be a Lab gain with a considerable majority. Starmer doesn't want someone of independent mind on his backbenches.
It reminds me of pre 2010 when there was much resentment amongst hard working local Tory councillors and activists on the candidates list who had done the hard slog in opposition only to find themselves pushed out by high flying careerists and 'Cameron's cuties' who were put by CCHQ on an 'A list' for target seats.
It looks like Starmer is drawing up his own group of preferred candidates for target seats with Labour HQ at the expense of hardworking local Labour councillors who did the hard slog while Labour has been in Opposition
Exhibit A one Louise Mensch who having been elected MP for Corby in 2010 decided that life in New York City with her wealthy pop manager husband was more exciting than being Tory MP for an ex industrial town in the Midlands and abandoned her constituents after just 2 years
Interesting that fully a third of the Broxtowe CLP officers focus on woke p.c. garbage - two women's officers, a BAME officer, two disability officers and an LGBTQ+ officer. Of course, the one such officer the Labour Party might actually need - a dedicated Jewish rights officer - is nowhere to be seen.
I think that's a slightly ridiculous comment, but I am amused by their having *two* 'Political Education Officers'. WTF do they do?
It makes me wonder what happens *without* all the diversity and inclusion officers.
It's UTOA Remainers who just can't handle that their idol has made a lot of concessions to the UK, as it goes against their worldview, so are trying to reframe it as a sellout story.
I'm not sure what UTOA means, but surely even the most Remainy of Remainers wouldn't describe the hapless von der Leyen as their "idol".
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
... and in 2019, it was back up to ~3,800 with the same Labour candidate.
It's an interesting one; the candidate failed twice, in 2017 and 2019. Do you try him on the constituency's electorate for a third time, and if so, why?
Obviously tricky for me to comment as I know a lot of the people involved - some are friends going back 20+ years. I endorsed the non-shortlisted Greg Marshall - he's very local and (important for me) mild-mannered and a genuinely nice guy. He is indisputably left-wing (unlike me not especially motivated by liking for Corbyn as a person - Greg is simply a firm socialist), but I think the party should be broad enough to include left-wingers who've served the party loyally under all leaderships. At a personal level, it must be horrible to knock yourself out in two losing elections and then not be allowed to compete in a potential winning one. I considered putting my name forward but didn't, as I thought it'd increase the risk of his exclusion from the short-list if Region felt there was a "known quantity" alternative with a Broxtowe background. Mind you, I might have been too left-wing for them too, who knows?
Anna Soubry's unique personality made Broxtowe complicated, and I think Greg's results were very respectable. That said, it's certainly not the case that anyone is being imposed - I've been approched for advice by two of the candidates so far and they are impressive people with a strong local record. I expect I'll be working with whoever is selected.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
Oh. Alright then. So it's *me* who doesn't understand what the green and red lanes are about.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from Brexiteers as their project is slowly unwound is most gratifying this morning
What? Of all the leavers on this board, I don't think there's been one who has been hostile to this deal. And if you mean Brexiteers in the active-politics tier, there's been the odd note of caution but very little opposition. I've only seen Nigel Farage say anything specific opposing it, and that id basically his job nowadays.
I think Sunak, unlike most Brexiteers so far, actually wants Brexit to work.
Yes, we will continue to see the salami slicing of Johnson's Brexit, a sliver at at time until there is nothing left.
Sunak has extended it and made it work better, not reduce it.
These "lines" are utterly pathetic and just make you look thick.
No, every step to better relations and reduced barriers to the EU is a good thing in my book. It whittles away at Brexit, and will continue until nothing is left. Not a quick process, but the correct one, and one likely to accelerate under a Starmer government.
Au contraire.
Steps towards trade and friendly relations are great. The closer we are with our European cousins, the less likely the public ever stomaches a 'lets give away £xbn per year and 75% of all our customs duties to Brussels' argument.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
That's where we should go long-term, IMHO.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
Isn't the conundrum that if we exercise divergence we make it less likely the EU would accept our exports without customs checks? So to gain and keep customs-free access we have to ditch divergence and instead follow rules we have no say in?
The Remainer problem 'remains' that they never understood why they lost.
The Brexiteer problems remains they can't admit why they won.
Yes, free trade with our largest markets is better. But the closet racists and swivel eyed loons won the vote so suck it up...
The Leaver position on here this morning is laughable. Brexit is failing because the EU won't acquiesce to our every desire. We need, Single Market without FoM, trusted trader schemes, why won't the EU play ball? We left, we've come to terms with it, why haven't the Leavers?
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from Brexiteers as their project is slowly unwound is most gratifying this morning
What? Of all the leavers on this board, I don't think there's been one who has been hostile to this deal. And if you mean Brexiteers in the active-politics tier, there's been the odd note of caution but very little opposition. I've only seen Nigel Farage say anything specific opposing it, and that id basically his job nowadays.
Some have spent years flailing against Brexit. I suspect they're not going to let facts get in the way of continuing to do so...
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
Wrong on all counts, unless you're talking about yourself in that last line.
Right on all counts, and I'm talking about people like you in that last line.
Great, we've descended to "You are, you mean." "No, you are..."
Poor Dixiedean, he (presumably) comes on PB to escape the playground squabbles ...
Istr him saying on one occasion that one of his charges had stripped naked and gone full tonto in a classroom. I wonder with which PBer that would correspond?
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
That's where we should go long-term, IMHO.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
Isn't the conundrum that if we exercise divergence we make it less likely the EU would accept our exports without customs checks? So to gain and keep customs-free access we have to ditch divergence and instead follow rules we have no say in?
On topic, I think Sunak is simply a short-term pragmatist. I doubt if he really has strong views about Brexit either way - he simply goes with the flow and tries to make it work. On many issues that's very sensible, though on Brexit I think that a more strategic view of the need to be close to our neighbours should trump it.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
That's where we should go long-term, IMHO.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
Isn't the conundrum that if we exercise divergence we make it less likely the EU would accept our exports without customs checks? So to gain and keep customs-free access we have to ditch divergence and instead follow rules we have no say in?
Given a) our standards, especially with regard to food products, are in general more stringent than the EU's, and b) the same divergence conundrum would apply the other way, it would't surprise me if not being in a Union will prevent the constant ratcheting effect of Brussels....
Not to mention c) we're a net importer from the EU.
The Remainer problem 'remains' that they never understood why they lost.
The Brexiteer problems remains they can't admit why they won.
Yes, free trade with our largest markets is better. But the closet racists and swivel eyed loons won the vote so suck it up...
It doesn't really. As your earlier comment showed, another Remainer problem is that they think they are arguing with 17 million Nigel Farages for whom any cooperation with Europe is too much. In reality, almost all of those 17 million are keen for a normal, pragmatic relationship with Europe - just not one in which we are governed by Europe.
As I said earlier, almost all leavers I've seen express an opinion are entirely comfortable with this deal.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from Brexiteers as their project is slowly unwound is most gratifying this morning
What? Of all the leavers on this board, I don't think there's been one who has been hostile to this deal.
No
The position of Brexiteers on here this morning appears to be that unwinding Brexit and gaining access to the single market shows that Brexit was a great idea, and that increasing access to the single market for the rest of the UK is less likely as a result of it being so successful in NI
That view is at odds with reality, but it's fun to hear them say it
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
That's where we should go long-term, IMHO.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
Isn't the conundrum that if we exercise divergence we make it less likely the EU would accept our exports without customs checks? So to gain and keep customs-free access we have to ditch divergence and instead follow rules we have no say in?
Not necessarily and certainly not if it's done on a company basis.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
Not to mention GDPR laws and security and governmental regulations [edit] or am I missing something? It would be a huge scandal if a civil servant did that with work emails/calls. And if he was using a private account ...
Yes, one thing it does tell us, is that data security is terrible in government. There should be no private phones allowed in government departments, and all ‘chat’ applications should be approved.
I’d probably use something like Slack or Teams for structured or group conversations, that are archived and subject to data protection; then something like Signal, with chats that disappear after a few minutes, for informal conversations of the sort that would ordinarily happen in person.
One might conceivably think that there was a mentality at the highest levels of the administration that "the laws don't apply to us".
The Tories went with a non local candidate and won, so no worries, ignore 'em Keir.
In general, I think the local connection between candidate and seat is very important.
Probably, in any constituency, there are hundreds of people who think like this (but not thousands).
My guess is the imposition of a non-local candidate means a loss of about 500 votes. Now this can be outweighed if the non-local candidate is very seriously impressive.
The Remainer problem 'remains' that they never understood why they lost. "Look," they will say, "See how much better off we are when we can trade freely."
The elephant in the room stirs and says. "I agree, but why does it have to be linked to becoming one European country, and losing sovereignity? "
"Because we say so."
Much easier to say you're all racists, than to explain that making one country, one parliament, and one army is such a benefit.
We lost because the EU is an unwieldy and corrupt organisation. However the EU allowed frictionless trade and freedom of movement, which is why it could be argued membership was preferable to where we find ourselves today.
At least the issue of Northern Ireland has been resolved. Which is good.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from Brexiteers as their project is slowly unwound is most gratifying this morning
What? Of all the leavers on this board, I don't think there's been one who has been hostile to this deal.
No
The position of Brexiteers on here this morning appears to be that unwinding Brexit and gaining access to the single market shows that Brexit was a great idea, and that increasing access to the single market for the rest of the UK is less likely as a result of it being so successful in NI
That view is at odds with reality, but it's fun to hear them say it
THose are the same Brexiteers who praised Mr Johnson's oven ready solution for NI as necessary and enduring?
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
That's where we should go long-term, IMHO.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
Isn't the conundrum that if we exercise divergence we make it less likely the EU would accept our exports without customs checks? So to gain and keep customs-free access we have to ditch divergence and instead follow rules we have no say in?
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
Wrong on all counts, unless you're talking about yourself in that last line.
Right on all counts, and I'm talking about people like you in that last line.
Great, we've descended to "You are, you mean." "No, you are..."
Poor Dixiedean, he (presumably) comes on PB to escape the playground squabbles ...
Istr him saying on one occasion that one of his charges had stripped naked and gone full tonto in a classroom. I wonder with which PBer that would correspond?
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
I am not sure how this 'leak' will be viewed by the chair of the enquiry but Hancock says she has broken a NDA
Oakeshott has a 'no more lockdown' agenda and it does not explain why the same issue happened in Scotland and Wales
The Remainer problem 'remains' that they never understood why they lost.
The Brexiteer problems remains they can't admit why they won.
Yes, free trade with our largest markets is better. But the closet racists and swivel eyed loons won the vote so suck it up...
It doesn't really. As your earlier comment showed, another Remainer problem is that they think they are arguing with 17 million Nigel Farages for whom any cooperation with Europe is too much. In reality, almost all of those 17 million are keen for a normal, pragmatic relationship with Europe - just not one in which we are governed by Europe.
As I said earlier, almost all leavers I've seen express an opinion are entirely comfortable with this deal.
The whole 17 million thing is very silly given that a large number of them have now died. I do agree, though, that what most people want is a better relationship with the EU than the one we have had until very recently.
I think Sunak, unlike most Brexiteers so far, actually wants Brexit to work.
Yes, we will continue to see the salami slicing of Johnson's Brexit, a sliver at at time until there is nothing left.
Sunak has extended it and made it work better, not reduce it.
These "lines" are utterly pathetic and just make you look thick.
No, every step to better relations and reduced barriers to the EU is a good thing in my book. It whittles away at Brexit, and will continue until nothing is left. Not a quick process, but the correct one, and one likely to accelerate under a Starmer government.
Au contraire.
Steps towards trade and friendly relations are great. The closer we are with our European cousins, the less likely the public ever stomaches a 'lets give away £xbn per year and 75% of all our customs duties to Brussels' argument.
Well we Remainers and Brexiteers are united at last as one happy family. We all think this agreement is a good thing, just disagree over where things move next.
I think it will be to further deals with the EU that are ever more closely aligned.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
That's where we should go long-term, IMHO.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
Isn't the conundrum that if we exercise divergence we make it less likely the EU would accept our exports without customs checks? So to gain and keep customs-free access we have to ditch divergence and instead follow rules we have no say in?
Given a) our standards, especially with regard to food products, are in general more stringent than the EU's, and b) the same divergence conundrum would apply the other way, it would't surprise me if not being in a Union will prevent the constant ratcheting effect of Brussels....
Not to mention c) we're a net importer from the EU.
The EU imports as a singe market. It exports as 27 separate ones.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
I am not sure how this 'leak' will be viewed by the chair of the enquiry but Hancock says she has broken a NDA
Oakseshott has a 'no more lockdown' agenda and it does not explain why the same issue happened in Scotland and Wales
And happy St David's day
Morning, BigG, and Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus!
The NDA is a private agreement between Mr Hancock and Ms Oakeshott, I would think. That is almost irrelevant. The wider issue is that it is substantially illegal to hand over private communications/emails/phone calls, and especially the contained personal data such as addresses and names, to third parties without permission. Aod to do that with work and government emails breaches security regulations.
- ”This of course begs the question that if this is okay for that part of the UK why shouldn’t other parts benefit?”
Especially the part which voted overwhelmingly in favour of the benefits:
If Scotland goes independent, would you support the parts that are dragged out of the UK against their will having special deals with it, or even remaining?
"If you don't all stop right now, you will all be in detention in afternoon playtime, your parents will be told, and the school outing to Peppa Pig World will be cancelled!"
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
Back up to over 5,000 under Darren Henry though.
But a better than national result for Labour (-6.8 vs -7.9 nationally). I suspect Johnson and Corbyn played bigger roles in that election than the strength or weakness of individual candidates.
The interesting question is why the NEC want to deny the local party the option.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Thanks to Keir Starmer's leadership, Labour is now a serious, credible government in waiting and our candidates reflect that. Robust due diligence processes have been put in place to make sure everyone selected is of the highest calibre and for that we’ll make no apologies.
“Labour has changed. Keir believes that politics can be a force for good, and that his government can restore the faith in it that 13 years of Tory government has carelessly eroded. The public rightly expect anyone asking to hold office is of the highest standard, and with Labour they can. We're really pleased that outstanding Labour candidates have already been selected in constituencies across Britain, and that work continues."
Rejected candidate had previously stood for Labour in 2017 and 2019. In 2017 Anna Soubry’s majority cut to 863 from over 4,000.
... and in 2019, it was back up to ~3,800 with the same Labour candidate.
It's an interesting one; the candidate failed twice, in 2017 and 2019. Do you try him on the constituency's electorate for a third time, and if so, why?
Though that swing in 2019 was just 4% so better than most seats, and with more than 4000 votes for Anna Soubry standing as TIG.
He clearly isn't toxic to the voters. More likely a bit too left wing for Starmer. On national polling trends this is going to be a Lab gain with a considerable majority. Starmer doesn't want someone of independent mind on his backbenches.
It reminds me of pre 2010 when there was much resentment amongst hard working local Tory councillors and activists on the candidates list who had done the hard slog in opposition only to find themselves pushed out by high flying careerists and 'Cameron's cuties' who were put by CCHQ on an 'A list' for target seats.
It looks like Starmer is drawing up his own group of preferred candidates for target seats with Labour HQ at the expense of hardworking local Labour councillors who did the hard slog while Labour has been in Opposition
Exhibit A one Louise Mensch who having been elected MP for Corby in 2010 decided that life in New York City with her wealthy pop manager husband was more exciting than being Tory MP for an ex industrial town in the Midlands and abandoned her constituents after just 2 years
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
The deal for NI simply can't be copied over to GB, because it only exists because NI sort of exists in a liminal space between the UK and the EU. How can France exist in a liminal space between the UK and the EU?
No but we could have a green channel on both sides for trusted traders. It's completely pointless, for example, to put Rolls Royce exports from the UK to France through customs checks, yet that's what currently happens. In a trusted trader scheme RR becomes a green channel company and all of its goods are exempt from customs checks. Over time a scheme like that could encompass 90-95% of goods traded in both directions.
That's where we should go long-term, IMHO.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
Isn't the conundrum that if we exercise divergence we make it less likely the EU would accept our exports without customs checks? So to gain and keep customs-free access we have to ditch divergence and instead follow rules we have no say in?
Exactly!
Rather like Norway?
Probably more like Switzerland, but convergence will be the direction of travel. Divergence is not in the UK's interests given our unalterable geographical location.
Remainers are desperate to sell this as a bit Remainey/Rejoiney and have landed on this 'single market' line as their best angle to take, despite the fact the deal reduces its application in NI, and extends British sovereignty into it, and introduces a new digital border between Northern and Southern Ireland.
They know this is a big concession by the EU and a victory for Sunak but just can't accept it.Rattled doesn't come close.
You’re missing the bigger picture; the abandonment of silly rhetoric and silly threats in our dealings with the EU, the move toward more constructive and co-operative relations, acceptance of the need for compromise and a willingness to face down the extreme wing of the Tory party - all things we didn’t get from Johnson or Truss.
Beyond NI there is a stack of unresolved issues and problems arising from the Tories’ self-destructive approach to Brexit, and it isn’t unreasonable to see this week’s news as a first step in the right direction.
Frankly we need to be applying chunks of the special arrangements for NI in GB as well. Now that the UK aren't calling the EU evil and insisting we hold all the cards, both sides are talking and making concessions.
Red lanes and Green lanes sound great. We set up a massive green lane at Dover because we weren't able to set up customs posts. But the French did. Can we have a Green lane at Calais please?
You don't even realise what the green and read lanes into NI are for. There can't possibly be on at Calais, unless Calais were to become an English city again.
Is that absolutely out of the question?
Calais as an English region worked fine for about two centuries until Bloody Mary lost it.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
I am not sure how this 'leak' will be viewed by the chair of the enquiry but Hancock says she has broken a NDA
Oakseshott has a 'no more lockdown' agenda and it does not explain why the same issue happened in Scotland and Wales
And happy St David's day
Morning, BigG, and Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus!
The NDA is a private agreement between Mr Hancock and Ms Oakeshott, I would think. That is almost irrelevant. The wider issue is that it is substantially illegal to hand over private communications/emails/phone calls, and especially the contained personal data such as addresses and names, to third parties without permission. Aod to do that with work and government emails breaches security regulations.
…”The Telegraph have been informed that their headline is wrong, and Matt is considering all options available to him.“……
The important point Hancock makes in response is that after Whitty’s advice a meeting on testing took place which revealed there wasn’t enough capacity to test everyone going into care homes. Which is why later that day Hancock decides only to test hospital patients at this stage
Am I the only one who’s struggling to see the public interest, as opposed to the interest of the public, in this story?
There will be an inquiry into how things were handled during the pandemic, but I’m not sure that posting thousands of selectively-chosen text messages between senior figures helps the situation, nor how ministers and advisors might communicate in a future crisis, knowing that every last detail will end up in Fleet St.
Are we are not now trying to forget about the pandemic, rather than re-live it in detail?
It does seem that Hancock handed over his own WhatsApp conversations to Oakshott to help ghostwrite his memoirs.
Schoolboy error.
Oh wow, really? Is that not a serious breach of journalistic ethics, given that he was presumably paying her to help write the book? Will anyone ever trust her again?
If Hancock gave Oakshott all those emails without sign-off then surely he is responsible for a huge data breach and liable for prosecution. That he gave them to someone as untrustworthy as her really is just the icing on the cake.
There must be a process in government, of how things like ministers writing books is handled? I’m not sure it extends to a backup of the minister’s phone handed to a journalist, without a prior agreement not to put the whole thing on the front page of a newspaper!
The SNP is to allow journalists to attend its hustings events in the party's leadership contest after facing a backlash over its initial decision not to do so.
The party's ruling committee said it wanted to make the sessions into "a safe space" in a statement yesterday and therefore no press would be allowed in.
But after considerable outcry, including from two of the candidates, a broadcast journalist, print journalist and pool camera will be able to attend the first hustings in Cumernauld on Wednesday evening.
Access to the other events are being explored, with the possibility they might be livestreamed.
Comments
It's an interesting one; the candidate failed twice, in 2017 and 2019. Do you try him on the constituency's electorate for a third time, and if so, why?
The problem with members is that they don't necessarily understand the people in question or how they operate. Which is why we have to have shortlisting processes to weed out the unsuitable (for various reasons) ones.
The entire exec can resign and others will replace them. The party has rules and if you don't like them, leave.
He will have to explain continuously why making it harder to trade with our largest market is still a great idea for everybody except NI
Sunak has done an excellent job. And he’s right, Northern Ireland is in a privileged position. It does have much better access to the Single Market than the rest of the UK and that will give it significant advantages that the rest of the UK no longer has. Unfettered trade in goods with a market of 400 million people is a very good thing. I think it’s worth trading some sovereignty for, others disagree.
Further deals will require further pragmatism. However, if those who believe the NIP Bill was crucial in getting the EU to do business this time, what leverage does the UK now have to get more?
So rejoiners will be left disappointed when Starmer says nothing. Which in itself may be damaging to Labour as this episode is going to drill home that Labour is also a Brexit Party.
Politically neither side can rush into doing it as it’s difficult for the UK as it can be spun as going back into the EU by the back door and for the EU there will still be enough people who are angry with the UK in the EU corridors who will not want to see the UK “rewarded” after the Brexit pain.
I think/hope that ultimately both sides will be in regular under the radar contact analysing the strengths and weaknesses and gaming how it would work and look if applied to the UK.
Ultimately it’s in the interests of the UK but I think the EU will see benefits if applied to the UK despite it seeming to break their ideals as it might be the basis of a framework for other states that cannot commit to full membership, Switzerland, or for states on the pathway to joining such as Ukraine.
Married to Macron’s concentric membership idea whilst people in the EU against might think it’s not in the spirit of the EU it does draw countries back towards the EU in a partnership which is better than being cut free.
The interesting question is why the NEC want to deny the local party the option.
Schoolboy error.
It’s like all the Bigfoot TV shows. There’s no point watching because if they had found Bigfoot it would have been on the news, not channel 243 at 2 am…
The latest detections of UAPs (mainly balloons) has coincided with improved detection (of balloons). People want it to aliens. I get that. But it’s not.
On topic, I find it difficult to believe that there wasn’t a competent and properly briefed deputy manager on site and I also wonder where the hospital found the transport b at that time of day.
But - as the person who told me the story was the person assigned to investigate it following a complaint, and he seems to think it was true...
Brezhnev read it in a KGB report.
He was delighted because he said, 'it shows people care about me and worry for my safety.'
I'm not sure that story becomes funnier when you realise I'm *not* joking, or whether it just becomes disturbing.
Which is basically the Putin line.
It's like you turning up at the golf club with your new set of Pings demanding to play and refusing to pay the green fees, and then complaining about how unfair they are when they escort you off the premises.
These "lines" are utterly pathetic and just make you look thick.
However at present the strongly Leave redwall seats and marginals Cameron from Labour in the Midlands, Essex and East Kent will determine the next election. Therefore both Starmer and Sunak have ruled out returning to the EEA and free movement for the moment.
Northern Ireland is a special case as under the GFA it needs to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland
Veteran Tory MP Damian Green has announced he will stand for re-election in Ashford after losing out on a new Kent constituency.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/ashford/news/amp/mp-to-stand-for-re-election-after-losing-out-on-new-seat-282939/
But it is a very nice demonstration of his capacity for good judgment.
Much easier access/equivalence between the UK and EU single markets for goods and food with some agreed baselines, some ability for divergence but without formal membership of the latter.
I think less of them for it.
He clearly isn't toxic to the voters. More likely a bit too left wing for Starmer. On national polling trends this is going to be a Lab gain with a considerable majority. Starmer doesn't want someone of independent mind on his backbenches.
It's UTOA Remainers who just can't handle that their idol has made a lot of concessions to the UK, as it goes against their worldview, so are trying to reframe it as a sellout story.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from Brexiteers as their project is slowly unwound is most gratifying this morning
Oh...
had done the hard slog in opposition only to find themselves pushed out by high flying careerists and 'Cameron's cuties' who were put by CCHQ on an 'A list' for target seats.
It looks like Starmer is drawing up his own group of preferred candidates for target seats with Labour HQ at the expense of hardworking local Labour councillors who did the hard slog while Labour has been in Opposition
I'd leave you to angrily splatter into your coffee all day whilst I get on with my work.
Team Sunak did well yesterday, but the hint that he is a "secret Remainer" whilst Labour are stanch Brexiteers causes him (as well as Starmer) a problem too. Suggesting being "in" the EU as well as the UK may be a USP to sell to NI but it opens old wounds on the Island of Britain, particularly in Scotland.
The elephant in the room stirs and says. "I agree, but why does it have to be linked to becoming one European country, and losing sovereignity? "
"Because we say so."
Much easier to say you're all racists, than to explain that making one country, one parliament, and one army is such a benefit.
Of course it's a victory
Part of the UK having better access to the single market.
Now we need to extend that to the rest of the UK...
I’d probably use something like Slack or Teams for structured or group conversations, that are archived and subject to data protection; then something like Signal, with chats that disappear after a few minutes, for informal conversations of the sort that would ordinarily happen in person.
The idea that cooperation could happen is a Reman thing is a myth the erstwhile Remainers like to cling to as they're obsessed with their own mythology that Brexiteers hate Europe and want nothing to do with it.
So long as its genuine cooperation, not dynamic alignment, then cooperation is of course a good thing. Just as we can and should cooperate with America and other friends and allies around the world.
Yes, free trade with our largest markets is better. But the closet racists and swivel eyed loons won the vote so suck it up...
I, for one, am shocked and appalled to discover that the lockdown fetishist adulterer has been shown to be a man of poor judgement.
Anna Soubry's unique personality made Broxtowe complicated, and I think Greg's results were very respectable. That said, it's certainly not the case that anyone is being imposed - I've been approched for advice by two of the candidates so far and they are impressive people with a strong local record. I expect I'll be working with whoever is selected.
And if you mean Brexiteers in the active-politics tier, there's been the odd note of caution but very little opposition. I've only seen Nigel Farage say anything specific opposing it, and that id basically his job nowadays.
Steps towards trade and friendly relations are great. The closer we are with our European cousins, the less likely the public ever stomaches a 'lets give away £xbn per year and 75% of all our customs duties to Brussels' argument.
Not to mention c) we're a net importer from the EU.
As your earlier comment showed, another Remainer problem is that they think they are arguing with 17 million Nigel Farages for whom any cooperation with Europe is too much. In reality, almost all of those 17 million are keen for a normal, pragmatic relationship with Europe - just not one in which we are governed by Europe.
As I said earlier, almost all leavers I've seen express an opinion are entirely comfortable with this deal.
The position of Brexiteers on here this morning appears to be that unwinding Brexit and gaining access to the single market shows that Brexit was a great idea, and that increasing access to the single market for the rest of the UK is less likely as a result of it being so successful in NI
That view is at odds with reality, but it's fun to hear them say it
Probably, in any constituency, there are hundreds of people who think like this (but not thousands).
My guess is the imposition of a non-local candidate means a loss of about 500 votes. Now this can be outweighed if the non-local candidate is very seriously impressive.
In general, though, it is often a party stooge.
At least the issue of Northern Ireland has been resolved. Which is good.
Oakeshott has a 'no more lockdown' agenda and it does not explain why the same issue happened in Scotland and Wales
And happy St David's day
I think it will be to further deals with the EU that are ever more closely aligned.
The NDA is a private agreement between Mr Hancock and Ms Oakeshott, I would think. That is almost irrelevant.
The wider issue is that it is substantially illegal to hand over private communications/emails/phone calls, and especially the contained personal data such as addresses and names, to third parties without permission. Aod to do that with work and government emails breaches security regulations.
The party's ruling committee said it wanted to make the sessions into "a safe space" in a statement yesterday and therefore no press would be allowed in.
But after considerable outcry, including from two of the candidates, a broadcast journalist, print journalist and pool camera will be able to attend the first hustings in Cumernauld on Wednesday evening.
Access to the other events are being explored, with the possibility they might be livestreamed.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,media-excluded-from-snp-leadership-hustings
No prizes for guessing which two…