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.
In practice there won't be a difference between genuine co-operation and dynamic alignment. This food additive that the EU have banned and we haven't yet. Is it worth a load of trade barriers over? They have banned it as they are committed to ever higher food standards. We are committed to ever higher food standards but haven't yet done so.
If we now ban it, does that count as dynamic alignment, genuine co-operation or just operational expediency? There was this belief that the evil EU would impose a high-cost low-value new standard on the whole EU just to spite the UK. Now that we have discarded the ERG can we accept how paranoid and delusional that sounds?
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.
In general, though, it is often a party stooge.
On a big national swing as in 2010 and probably 2024 though the party leadership can get away with imposing a non local candidate against the Association’s will unfortunately
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".
Probably not though there were some embarrassingly gushing comments on her basically just because she speaks excellent English and is neatly dressed, as compared to slovenly Boris.
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?
I always find this an odd argument. If you make goods for export anywhere you have to meet the local regulations. Only nutters think that we can expect to export goods to the EU without meeting their standards, and vice versa.
Complying with local and international standards is simply a fact of life for businesses now. In reality most of the standards we follow are driven internationally and make sense, so this whole freedom to diverge seems mostly hypothetical, and could only be applied by going beyond international standards if you still want to be able to export goods.
At best you get higher standards locally, and they might impede some imports, but if you go down that path don't be surprised if other countries retaliate.
Tearing up regulations to enable shoddier goods to be made that can't be exported is a non-starter in reality.
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?
Why not? Nicola Sturgeon lost 2 parliamentary election contests and 3 council wards before she was first elected in 1999. I’m sure other SNP politicians lost a lot more than that before finally being elected.
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
For Exhibit B, may I suggest Tristram Hunt, who was selected as MP for Stoke on Trent Central over a much better qualified local candidate, neglected his seat in favour of being an utterly undistinguished shadow education secretary and continuing to lecture (badly) at QMUL, before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
He's not the reason SC elected a Tory in 2019, but he summed up the reasons why they did.
Newspaper and broadcast media editors who know that Isabel Oakshott is entirely unethical and untrustworthy will continue to give her time and space on their outlets. That is the big picture problem.
"FBI Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday that the Covid pandemic was probably the result of a laboratory leak in China, providing the first public confirmation of the bureau’s classified judgment of how the virus..first emerged. "
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.
I think there are probably further deals to come, yes. And there is no stable endpoint, because circumstances will continue to change.
What is quite healthy us that we are putting behind us the concept of our relationship with Europe as a binary in or out on which we must all choose one of two positions, and instead we have a spectrum along which we can select our favoured position - but need not be implacably opposed to someone whose favoured position is one or two notches inward or outward.
…”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".
I do data security for a living, and the problems are almost always the very top management, who don’t understand why the practices and processes they signed off for everyone should also need to apply to those with corner offices on the top floor. Despite all of the company’s sensitive data and IP passing through their hands.
I imagine that politics is even worse, with MPs and ministers technically not employees of the ‘company’, but elected by the people - and all with masssive egos.
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.
Thanks for the post - we needed your local knowledge. In Stockton South for 2017 we cooked up a deal with region to "impose" Dr Paul Williams. Who was the most local candidate. Over the demands to have Jessie Jessie Jessie Joe Jacobs who was flavour of the month with Momentum having previously been flavour of the month with Progress.
Ultimately the party has final say over who gets on the list. We can't just have local activists making all those decisions as what is right for them isn't always the same as what is right for the current party leader /management or the constituency.
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?
No.
If we diverge then we can either operate based on equivalence, in which case not having the same rules isn't a problem, or on a company basis whereby firms that wish to export to Europe need to make sure their exports are made to European standards, not just British standards.
Same already happens around the globe. Plenty of firms across the globe produce goods made to European standards, despite their national standards being different, because they're made to be exported to Europe. This can even happen in the same firm, in the same factory even, to goods made to other standards.
Even with divergence this could be combined with a Trusted Trader scheme where Trusted Traders declare that their goods they are exporting are made to the correct standards, even if they make goods to other standards elsewhere.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
…”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".
I do data security for a living, and the problems are almost always the very top management, who don’t understand why the practices and processes they signed off for everyone should also need to apply to those with corner offices on the top floor. Despite all of the company’s sensitive data and IP passing through their hands.
I imagine that politics is even worse, with MPs and ministers technically not employees of the ‘company’, but elected by the people - and all with masssive egos.
Quite so. Also the wider (and populace wide) assumption that laws and policies adopted for bits of paper somehow don't apply to digital content.
Newspaper and broadcast media editors who know that Isabel Oakshott is entirely unethical and untrustworthy will continue to give her time and space on their outlets. That is the big picture problem.
She was on the Daily Politics yesterday. Jacqui Smith told her to shut up
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
I think a lot of “Brexiteers” are pragmatic enough to realise it doesn’t have to be all out v all in.
I know quite a few successful business people who have had businesses that were swallowed up by larger businesses where at the time it made sense for all parties.
As the larger businesses grew they started changing from the ethos, paracticalities and goals that made them an attractive owner for the other businesses.
In each case my friends/acquaintances arranged to buy out or split out their part of the business but arranged terms where on mutually beneficial areas the two companies would work together however they were unshackled and in areas where their approaches or goals were not compatible they can work differently.
Clearly there are restrictions on competition with certain clients, subservience on certain client relationships and rules placed on joint work by the larger party but both sides benefit from the split and frankly in all three cases both parties are clearly happier and my guys who were the “splitters” are making better returns.
This is only a sample of three but as a basis for seeing changes to the UK v EU relationship it demonstrates that it’s clearly possible to succeed outside of a larger organism but still work together if it’s in both party’s interests and there is an open mind on where and how cooperation exists rather than a sulk by either side.
Brexit is the buy out, working together with old partner is the current and future agreements and none of it means that Brexit/buy out cannot work and has to be unwound.
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.
In practice there won't be a difference between genuine co-operation and dynamic alignment. This food additive that the EU have banned and we haven't yet. Is it worth a load of trade barriers over? They have banned it as they are committed to ever higher food standards. We are committed to ever higher food standards but haven't yet done so.
If we now ban it, does that count as dynamic alignment, genuine co-operation or just operational expediency? There was this belief that the evil EU would impose a high-cost low-value new standard on the whole EU just to spite the UK. Now that we have discarded the ERG can we accept how paranoid and delusional that sounds?
In practice there will be a difference between genuine co-operation and dynamic alignment.
If the EU ban a food additive and the UK doesn't then anyone exporting to the EU can't use the additive in their exports. They can and should be able to use it in products for the entire UK, even Northern Ireland, if they are clearly labelled for the UK market only.
That's precisely what the EU has just agreed already. No trade wars necessary.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
Now that the war is over, and as PB’s Official Lab Leak Spokesman, and the Most Vindicated PB-er in History, I am going to start handing out medals. To those who were open minded, from early on, despite the crushing of dissent on this issue, to the Possibility of Lab Leak
I give a Distinguished Sevice Medal to @Gardenwalker
Brexit is the buy out, working together with old partner is the current and future agreements and none of it means that Brexit/buy out cannot work and has to be unwound.
One thing we can all agree on is that Brexit has massively increased production of metaphors that don't actually apply to Brexit
LONDON — On its face, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s newly announced agreement with the European Union on Northern Ireland is merely a trade deal that governs the transport of pets, sausages, seed potatoes, and the like from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
But at a stroke, Mr. Sunak has defused the primary source of tension between Britain and the European Union, a recurring irritant in the relationship between London and Washington, and one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
Whether they would or would not, its not up to them. And its probably not that much extra work when its all automated and designed, and besides the car manufacturers seem to love having lots of different variations of the same car in order to be able to sell added extras and generate extra revenue, so uniformity for their sake is the last thing that should be of interest to anybody.
The idea of everything being the same, you can have any colour so long as its black, is a very quaint and dated notion.
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
I think a lot of “Brexiteers” are pragmatic enough to realise it doesn’t have to be all out v all in.
I know quite a few successful business people who have had businesses that were swallowed up by larger businesses where at the time it made sense for all parties.
As the larger businesses grew they started changing from the ethos, paracticalities and goals that made them an attractive owner for the other businesses.
In each case my friends/acquaintances arranged to buy out or split out their part of the business but arranged terms where on mutually beneficial areas the two companies would work together however they were unshackled and in areas where their approaches or goals were not compatible they can work differently.
Clearly there are restrictions on competition with certain clients, subservience on certain client relationships and rules placed on joint work by the larger party but both sides benefit from the split and frankly in all three cases both parties are clearly happier and my guys who were the “splitters” are making better returns.
This is only a sample of three but as a basis for seeing changes to the UK v EU relationship it demonstrates that it’s clearly possible to succeed outside of a larger organism but still work together if it’s in both party’s interests and there is an open mind on where and how cooperation exists rather than a sulk by either side.
Brexit is the buy out, working together with old partner is the current and future agreements and none of it means that Brexit/buy out cannot work and has to be unwound.
Scott really has completely lost the plot (not that we didn't already realise that) if he thinks that anything that happened this week is "unwinding" Brexit. He can safely be ignored on the subject.
…”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".
I do data security for a living, and the problems are almost always the very top management, who don’t understand why the practices and processes they signed off for everyone should also need to apply to those with corner offices on the top floor. Despite all of the company’s sensitive data and IP passing through their hands.
I imagine that politics is even worse, with MPs and ministers technically not employees of the ‘company’, but elected by the people - and all with masssive egos.
The only time I have ever had to deal with a case of a teacher downloading pornography, it was the Assistant Head in charge of both safeguarding and the school's IT systems who had been downloading it.
In a field of intense competition, I'm not sure that his stupidity in not realising he hadn't actually turned off the firewall and trackers as he thought wasn't the most disturbing thing about that case.
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.
Yes, which is fine. But that's not the same as being a secret Remainer or Rejoiner. Cooperation does not equal federalism.
To suggest so is just a bit thick.
Arguably, it’s Sunak who hasn’t been so clever, in selling the advantages of being both within the UK and within the single market so enthusiastically to the people of NI. No surprise that this is going down badly in Scotland, and for many in the rest of GB it merely draws more attention to the stupidity of leaving the single market in the first place.
The single market includes free movement. If Cameron could have got single market without free movement, a la NI, then I very much doubt we'd have left in the first place.
Wasn't the decision not to place restrictions on the eastern Europeans - at least for a long-ish temporary period, after those countries joined, one we could have taken even within the EU, but decided not to?
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
For Exhibit B, may I suggest Tristram Hunt, who was selected as MP for Stoke on Trent Central over a much better qualified local candidate, neglected his seat in favour of being an utterly undistinguished shadow education secretary and continuing to lecture (badly) at QMUL, before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
He's not the reason SC elected a Tory in 2019, but he summed up the reasons why they did.
... before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
And curiously he got the plum and well-remunerated job of running a major UK museum without ... err ... any experience of museums whatsoever. Or of art and design. He is however extremely well-connected.
A friend of mine applied for that job. She had spent her entire career working in museums ... She was not impressed.
Nor was the rest of the art world ... "Labour MP Tristram Hunt Is the Surprising New Director of London’s V&A Museum"
…”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".
I do data security for a living, and the problems are almost always the very top management, who don’t understand why the practices and processes they signed off for everyone should also need to apply to those with corner offices on the top floor. Despite all of the company’s sensitive data and IP passing through their hands.
I imagine that politics is even worse, with MPs and ministers technically not employees of the ‘company’, but elected by the people - and all with masssive egos.
Part of the problem is that government doesn’t do the first, important bit of security.
Make the correct, secure option the easiest one. See Bruce Schernier.
WhatsApp (should be Signal, anyway) is the simple option, too often.
In the banks, the various regulations on recording communications have been very useful.
Being able to tell His Imperial And Most Excellent And August Majesty (Assistant, Temporary Vice President) of Paperclips, that forwarding his Bank IMs to his personal email breaks several laws that would put *him* in prison, works wonders.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
Whether they would or would not, its not up to them.
Indeed, it's up to us, as voters and a country. So we have to balance "imposing extra costs on businesses" against "benefits of diverging regulations". My feeling is that there's unlikely to often be a benefit worth the extra economic drag, so we should default to don't-diverge.
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.
There's been compromise on both sides, as is apparent. For example the continuing application of some EU rules to NI and the role of the ECJ. If there weren't, there wouldn't already be moaning from some of the DUP and some at least of the Tory ultras, such as Edward Leigh's contribution to last night's debate.
A willingness to move forward through co-operation and compromise is what we've been missing since 2016, and it is a welcome development. As is Sunak choosing to stress the benefits (to NI) of being (almost) inside the single market, and (somewhat strangely, one might think?) not mentioning the benefits of Brexit.
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
For Exhibit B, may I suggest Tristram Hunt, who was selected as MP for Stoke on Trent Central over a much better qualified local candidate, neglected his seat in favour of being an utterly undistinguished shadow education secretary and continuing to lecture (badly) at QMUL, before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
He's not the reason SC elected a Tory in 2019, but he summed up the reasons why they did.
... before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
And curiously he got the plum and well-remunerated job of running a major UK museum without ... err ... any experience of museums whatsoever. Or of art and design. He is however extremely well-connected.
A friend of mine applied for that job. She had spent her entire career working in museums ... She was not impressed.
Nor was the rest of the art world ... "Labour MP Tristram Hunt Is the Surprising New Director of London’s V&A Museum"
He's never been any good at anything. He spent his whole career in academia lecturing on the practical socialism of Joseph Chamberlain without ever apparently realising that Chamberlain's most senior post in politics was as Leader of the Conservative Party.*
His efforts on education make Gibb look capable.
And as for his TV documentaries, oh mu goodness. I've had A-level students at grade C who would have done a better job.
He really does sum up, and not in a good way, too many of the bad things about this country. Especially how you can be thick and still get on if well-connected.
ISTR that @rcs1000 was at uni with him and wasn't impressed either.
*OK, technically he was Chairman of the Parliamentary Unionist Coalition, but he was the de facto leader.
"FBI Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday that the Covid pandemic was probably the result of a laboratory leak in China, providing the first public confirmation of the bureau’s classified judgment of how the virus..first emerged. "
Does anyone apart from certified morons still believe this “came from a pangolin crossed with.a zebra in a market”
It’s over. Now we need trials
First I've heard of the zebra theory.
I'm sure a very prolific poster on here, who is usually wrong about everything, keeps on insisting it is a result of genetic engineering and probably a deliberate bio-weapon. What do the FBI and Department of Energy say about those theories?
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.
Yes, which is fine. But that's not the same as being a secret Remainer or Rejoiner. Cooperation does not equal federalism.
To suggest so is just a bit thick.
He is an intelligent man, he may simply be changing his opinion in the light of the evidence before him. The polling would indicate he would certainly not be alone. Given the nature of the current UKIP-lite Tory membership he is never likely to say anything explicitly, but it's a move in the right direction that's for sure.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
Whether they would or would not, its not up to them.
Indeed, it's up to us, as voters and a country. So we have to balance "imposing extra costs on businesses" against "benefits of diverging regulations". My feeling is that there's unlikely to often be a benefit worth the extra economic drag, so we should default to don't-diverge.
Simple inertia means the default will be don't diverge.
But over time divergence can and will happen. Its already happened, as our much safer and longer historically relevant driving on the left rather than their driving on the right demonstrates. Other divergences will happen gradually over time, but it will be gradual and not a dramatic rewriting of the rules. Sometimes we'll introduce new rules they won't, and vice-versa, but there's never going to be a complete clean break.
"FBI Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday that the Covid pandemic was probably the result of a laboratory leak in China, providing the first public confirmation of the bureau’s classified judgment of how the virus..first emerged. "
Does anyone apart from certified morons still believe this “came from a pangolin crossed with.a zebra in a market”
It’s over. Now we need trials
First I've heard of the zebra theory.
I'm sure a very prolific poster on here, who is usually wrong about everything, keeps on insisting it is a result of genetic engineering and probably a deliberate bio-weapon. What do the FBI and Department of Energy say about those theories?
This whole charade has been a test of basic intelligence and intellectual bravery. You failed on both counts
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes safer, keeping our right hands for our trusty swords when passing adversaries coming in the other direction.
Historically yes, and nowadays keeping our right hand for the steering wheel and right eye for oncoming traffic.
A shame for the lefties perhaps, but the majority of the country and the majority of the world is both right hand and right eye dominant.
That most of the world uses the more dangerous version of driving on the right, and has statistically more traffic accidents and fatalities as a result, is not a reason for us to change.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes, my understanding is that much of the world drives on the right basically out of spite. The French changed due to the revolution, when everything must be different, then swiftly conquered most of Europe and imposed it on them; the Americans similarly chose the right because the British were on the left, and they were influential elsewhere.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
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
For Exhibit B, may I suggest Tristram Hunt, who was selected as MP for Stoke on Trent Central over a much better qualified local candidate, neglected his seat in favour of being an utterly undistinguished shadow education secretary and continuing to lecture (badly) at QMUL, before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
He's not the reason SC elected a Tory in 2019, but he summed up the reasons why they did.
... before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
And curiously he got the plum and well-remunerated job of running a major UK museum without ... err ... any experience of museums whatsoever. Or of art and design. He is however extremely well-connected.
A friend of mine applied for that job. She had spent her entire career working in museums ... She was not impressed.
Nor was the rest of the art world ... "Labour MP Tristram Hunt Is the Surprising New Director of London’s V&A Museum"
He's never been any good at anything. He spent his whole career in academia lecturing on the practical socialism of Joseph Chamberlain without ever apparently realising that Chamberlain's most senior post in politics was as Leader of the Conservative Party.*
His efforts on education make Gibb look capable.
And as for his TV documentaries, oh mu goodness. I've had A-level students at grade C who would have done a better job.
He really does sum up, and not in a good way, too many of the bad things about this country. Especially how you can be thick and still get on if well-connected.
ISTR that @rcs1000 was at uni with him and wasn't impressed either.
*OK, technically he was Chairman of the Parliamentary Unionist Coalition, but he was the de facto leader.
ISTR that @rcs1000 was at uni with him and wasn't impressed either.
... that is really damning.
Because people @rcs1000 was at uni with and was impressed by include Kwasi Kwarteng and Sanjeev Gupta.
Impressing @rcs1000 in Trinity Great Court is a really low threshold -- probably anyone who can cross the Court without vomiting into Neville's Fountain qualifies.
As to the article, Rishi is in the same position as a large part of the population. Happy with the trading aspects of a harmonised free market, unhappy with 'ever closer union'.
FoM, like the single currency and the European (Potemkin) parliament is a political not a trading matter.
The single currency was opted out of, the parliament just a joke, leaving FoM as the issue on which the thing turned.
NI has SM but not FoM.
What the EU should do is allow FoM to be by bilateral agreement between members. at that point the whole picture changes.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
No surprise , everybody with any brains knows the Murrells are fixing it, foregone conclusion and if the early nobbling/cheating does not work they will just adjust the votes. Shocking.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Isn't the most populous, China?
India just overtook China as biggest by population
…”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".
I do data security for a living, and the problems are almost always the very top management, who don’t understand why the practices and processes they signed off for everyone should also need to apply to those with corner offices on the top floor. Despite all of the company’s sensitive data and IP passing through their hands.
I imagine that politics is even worse, with MPs and ministers technically not employees of the ‘company’, but elected by the people - and all with masssive egos.
The only time I have ever had to deal with a case of a teacher downloading pornography, it was the Assistant Head in charge of both safeguarding and the school's IT systems who had been downloading it.
In a field of intense competition, I'm not sure that his stupidity in not realising he hadn't actually turned off the firewall and trackers as he thought wasn't the most disturbing thing about that case.
LOL, that’s a good one.
While the standards should apply to everyone, including the top management, there’s always an exception for the IT department!
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes, my understanding is that much of the world drives on the right basically out of spite. The French changed due to the revolution, when everything must be different, then swiftly conquered most of Europe and imposed it on them; the Americans similarly chose the right because the British were on the left, and they were influential elsewhere.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
No, the Americans chose due to Teamsters.
When America was a young country wagons pulled by teams of horses were really popular and the wagon driver would sit on the leftmost horse because he could use his right hand as a whip hand to control all his horses.
That went against historical precedent before then, dating back to Roman times where driving on the left was the norm.
The UK stuck with history and stayed on the left. The USA embraced the novelty of what was happening at the time they founded and went with the right. As it happens, the left is safer, but America is stuck with what they chose back then.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes safer, keeping our right hands for our trusty swords when passing adversaries coming in the other direction.
Historically yes, and nowadays keeping our right hand for the steering wheel and right eye for oncoming traffic.
A shame for the lefties perhaps, but the majority of the country and the majority of the world is both right hand and right eye dominant.
That most of the world uses the more dangerous version of driving on the right, and has statistically more traffic accidents and fatalities as a result, is not a reason for us to change.
Right eye dominant, hmm. Not for me, had the right lens relaced a week ago because of cataract blurring. Maybe my driving will now improve as right dominance reasserts itself.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes safer, keeping our right hands for our trusty swords when passing adversaries coming in the other direction.
Historically yes, and nowadays keeping our right hand for the steering wheel and right eye for oncoming traffic.
A shame for the lefties perhaps, but the majority of the country and the majority of the world is both right hand and right eye dominant.
That most of the world uses the more dangerous version of driving on the right, and has statistically more traffic accidents and fatalities as a result, is not a reason for us to change.
No, and it won’t happen, but it would be objectively better for the consumer to have access to an entire world worth of second hand cars.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes safer, keeping our right hands for our trusty swords when passing adversaries coming in the other direction.
Historically yes, and nowadays keeping our right hand for the steering wheel and right eye for oncoming traffic.
A shame for the lefties perhaps, but the majority of the country and the majority of the world is both right hand and right eye dominant.
That most of the world uses the more dangerous version of driving on the right, and has statistically more traffic accidents and fatalities as a result, is not a reason for us to change.
Right eye dominant, hmm. Not for me, had the right lens relaced a week ago because of cataract blurring. Maybe my driving will now improve as right dominance reasserts itself.
Yeah obviously everyone is different, but 67% of people are right-eye dominant. So having oncoming traffic be on the right is twice as safe for eyesight as it being on the left.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Isn't the most populous, China?
India just overtook China as biggest by population
Interesting. And a rare example of Wikipedia being behind the curve.
Relatedly, if left-hand driving countries have fewer collisions despite India, it really must be safer!
…”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".
I do data security for a living, and the problems are almost always the very top management, who don’t understand why the practices and processes they signed off for everyone should also need to apply to those with corner offices on the top floor. Despite all of the company’s sensitive data and IP passing through their hands.
I imagine that politics is even worse, with MPs and ministers technically not employees of the ‘company’, but elected by the people - and all with masssive egos.
Part of the problem is that government doesn’t do the first, important bit of security.
Make the correct, secure option the easiest one. See Bruce Schernier.
WhatsApp (should be Signal, anyway) is the simple option, too often.
In the banks, the various regulations on recording communications have been very useful.
Being able to tell His Imperial And Most Excellent And August Majesty (Assistant, Temporary Vice President) of Paperclips, that forwarding his Bank IMs to his personal email breaks several laws that would put *him* in prison, works wonders.
Agree completely. but we are talking about MPs here. They’d pass a law to say that all communications in government must be recorded and classified, but then exempt themselves from the law.
Yes, in financial services it works, because people ended up in prison for violations.
Hah, I appear to be changing wards from a marginal Labour to a safe Labour. Will be interesting to see whether that pans out as expected. Presumably this means my polling station will change. A pity, since the polling station I currently use has a bar with surprisingly good beer from the Dunham Massey brewery.
Thanks for the post - we needed your local knowledge. In Stockton South for 2017 we cooked up a deal with region to "impose" Dr Paul Williams. Who was the most local candidate. Over the demands to have Jessie Jessie Jessie Joe Jacobs who was flavour of the month with Momentum having previously been flavour of the month with Progress.
Ultimately the party has final say over who gets on the list. We can't just have local activists making all those decisions as what is right for them isn't always the same as what is right for the current party leader /management or the constituency.
At a personal level there was a quirk that's probably changed the course of my life. After losing narrowly in 2010 and by a wider margin in 2015, I was still under a lot of pressure to stand again in 2017; I still had a significant personal vote, and Region made it clear that I'd have their encouragement. I discussed it with Greg and in the end felt it was only fair to stand aside and make way for him as a younger candidate.
If I'd stood, I might well have won in 2017 when Labour was doing much better than in 2015, but not in 2019. At which point I'd have been 69 and probably would have struggled to start a fresh career. Silver linings etc.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes safer, keeping our right hands for our trusty swords when passing adversaries coming in the other direction.
In horse-riding lessons people are told to pass left-to-left. I've always wondered when, and why, this changed, and whether the supposed rule about keeping the sword arm on the side of an oncoming rider was simply a just-so explanation made up afterwards for a convention that arose for other reasons, or entirely by chance.
LONDON — On its face, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s newly announced agreement with the European Union on Northern Ireland is merely a trade deal that governs the transport of pets, sausages, seed potatoes, and the like from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
But at a stroke, Mr. Sunak has defused the primary source of tension between Britain and the European Union, a recurring irritant in the relationship between London and Washington, and one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.
I agree wholeheartedly on the first two points - this is a big win on the diplomatic front and demonstrates why countries normally approach relations with friends and allies in a less confrontational and dishonest style than that of Mr Johnson. Normal behaviour works, who knew? Kudos to Sunak for figuring that out. On the last point I'm not so sure. The only part of the UK that benefits from this agreement is Northern Ireland, and it benefits specifically because it *hasn't* left Europe's single market (at least not entirely). In fact it is easy to imagine the rest of the UK being damaged by it, eg when inward investment is channeled towards Northern Ireland rather than Great Britain. The UK has yet to reap the economic benefits of leaving the single market, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious to most people.
Mr. Leon, surely the most vindicated person on a political betting site would be the man with the longest odds winning tip?
What about an extremely long odds tip that didn't quite win but could be cashed out at better than evens at one point so was still extremely profitable?
Thanks for the post - we needed your local knowledge. In Stockton South for 2017 we cooked up a deal with region to "impose" Dr Paul Williams. Who was the most local candidate. Over the demands to have Jessie Jessie Jessie Joe Jacobs who was flavour of the month with Momentum having previously been flavour of the month with Progress.
Ultimately the party has final say over who gets on the list. We can't just have local activists making all those decisions as what is right for them isn't always the same as what is right for the current party leader /management or the constituency.
At a personal level there was a quirk that's probably changed the course of my life. After losing narrowly in 2010 and by a wider margin in 2015, I was still under a lot of pressure to stand again in 2017; I still had a significant personal vote, and Region made it clear that I'd have their encouragement. I discussed it with Greg and in the end felt it was only fair to stand aside and make way for him as a younger candidate.
If I'd stood, I might well have won in 2017 when Labour was doing much better than in 2015, but not in 2019. At which point I'd have been 69 and probably would have struggled to start a fresh career. Silver linings etc.
Hats off to you and your attitude Nick - very few people at 69 are looking to start a new career!
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes, my understanding is that much of the world drives on the right basically out of spite. The French changed due to the revolution, when everything must be different, then swiftly conquered most of Europe and imposed it on them; the Americans similarly chose the right because the British were on the left, and they were influential elsewhere.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
No, the Americans chose due to Teamsters.
When America was a young country wagons pulled by teams of horses were really popular and the wagon driver would sit on the leftmost horse because he could use his right hand as a whip hand to control all his horses.
That went against historical precedent before then, dating back to Roman times where driving on the left was the norm.
The UK stuck with history and stayed on the left. The USA embraced the novelty of what was happening at the time they founded and went with the right. As it happens, the left is safer, but America is stuck with what they chose back then.
A lot of the laws in America don't seem to have safety as a major consideration.
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
For Exhibit B, may I suggest Tristram Hunt, who was selected as MP for Stoke on Trent Central over a much better qualified local candidate, neglected his seat in favour of being an utterly undistinguished shadow education secretary and continuing to lecture (badly) at QMUL, before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
He's not the reason SC elected a Tory in 2019, but he summed up the reasons why they did.
... before running out on them altogether in 2017 to become director of the Victoria and Albert Museum?
And curiously he got the plum and well-remunerated job of running a major UK museum without ... err ... any experience of museums whatsoever. Or of art and design. He is however extremely well-connected.
A friend of mine applied for that job. She had spent her entire career working in museums ... She was not impressed.
Nor was the rest of the art world ... "Labour MP Tristram Hunt Is the Surprising New Director of London’s V&A Museum"
He's never been any good at anything. He spent his whole career in academia lecturing on the practical socialism of Joseph Chamberlain without ever apparently realising that Chamberlain's most senior post in politics was as Leader of the Conservative Party.*
His efforts on education make Gibb look capable.
And as for his TV documentaries, oh mu goodness. I've had A-level students at grade C who would have done a better job.
He really does sum up, and not in a good way, too many of the bad things about this country. Especially how you can be thick and still get on if well-connected.
ISTR that @rcs1000 was at uni with him and wasn't impressed either.
*OK, technically he was Chairman of the Parliamentary Unionist Coalition, but he was the de facto leader.
It's a universal failing, around the world, to believe that Top Jobs should go to generalists.
It is also how the networking that politics consists of, largely works.
Mr. Roberts, well, that would be a wonderful bet and tip indeed. But if it were at the same odds as a tip that won outright I fear the latter tip would be considered better.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes safer, keeping our right hands for our trusty swords when passing adversaries coming in the other direction.
Historically yes, and nowadays keeping our right hand for the steering wheel and right eye for oncoming traffic.
A shame for the lefties perhaps, but the majority of the country and the majority of the world is both right hand and right eye dominant.
That most of the world uses the more dangerous version of driving on the right, and has statistically more traffic accidents and fatalities as a result, is not a reason for us to change.
Right eye dominant, hmm. Not for me, had the right lens relaced a week ago because of cataract blurring. Maybe my driving will now improve as right dominance reasserts itself.
Yeah obviously everyone is different, but 67% of people are right-eye dominant. So having oncoming traffic be on the right is twice as safe for eyesight as it being on the left.
The maths is a bit more complicated than that. When two cars pass each other on a single carriageway road, there are two car drivers involved, because your safety is dependent not just on which of your eyes is dominant, but which of the eyes of the oncoming driver is dominant.
P(both drivers right-eye dominant) = 4/9 (driving on the left better) P(both drivers left-eye dominant) = 1/9 (driving on the right better) P(drivers a mix of eye dominance = 4/9 (makes no difference which side they drive on, provided it is agreed in advance)
So I make that four times safer to drive on the left.
LONDON — On its face, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s newly announced agreement with the European Union on Northern Ireland is merely a trade deal that governs the transport of pets, sausages, seed potatoes, and the like from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
But at a stroke, Mr. Sunak has defused the primary source of tension between Britain and the European Union, a recurring irritant in the relationship between London and Washington, and one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.
I agree wholeheartedly on the first two points - this is a big win on the diplomatic front and demonstrates why countries normally approach relations with friends and allies in a less confrontational and dishonest style than that of Mr Johnson. Normal behaviour works, who knew? Kudos to Sunak for figuring that out. On the last point I'm not so sure. The only part of the UK that benefits from this agreement is Northern Ireland, and it benefits specifically because it *hasn't* left Europe's single market (at least not entirely). In fact it is easy to imagine the rest of the UK being damaged by it, eg when inward investment is channeled towards Northern Ireland rather than Great Britain. The UK has yet to reap the economic benefits of leaving the single market, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious to most people.
On your second paragraph I think the key is whether goods from NI that are “finished” can move seamlessly to the EU (I am too lazy by far to read up on this btw).
So for example there potentially could exist a situation where a car manufacturer or battery manufacturer sets up a factory in NI, great for NI economy and jobs, and sets up components factories in the rUK if it makes more economic sense (land availability/ workforce requirements etc).
The factory assembles and finishes the cars/batteries in NI and can send to EU or UK without hassle so all parts of UK benefit.
I’m now going to be informed that this isn’t possible but it should be a good side effect if so.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes, my understanding is that much of the world drives on the right basically out of spite. The French changed due to the revolution, when everything must be different, then swiftly conquered most of Europe and imposed it on them; the Americans similarly chose the right because the British were on the left, and they were influential elsewhere.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
Another reason driving on the left makes more sense is that you go clockwise round roundabouts.
Someone told me to walk anticlockwise round the lake at Epcot because human nature is to go clockwise.
Where there are roundabouts on the continent with "priorité à droite", and where you go round anti-clockwise, isn't there a bit of an issue with the idea that the car on the roundabout already has priority?
…”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".
I do data security for a living, and the problems are almost always the very top management, who don’t understand why the practices and processes they signed off for everyone should also need to apply to those with corner offices on the top floor. Despite all of the company’s sensitive data and IP passing through their hands.
I imagine that politics is even worse, with MPs and ministers technically not employees of the ‘company’, but elected by the people - and all with masssive egos.
Part of the problem is that government doesn’t do the first, important bit of security.
Make the correct, secure option the easiest one. See Bruce Schernier.
WhatsApp (should be Signal, anyway) is the simple option, too often.
In the banks, the various regulations on recording communications have been very useful.
Being able to tell His Imperial And Most Excellent And August Majesty (Assistant, Temporary Vice President) of Paperclips, that forwarding his Bank IMs to his personal email breaks several laws that would put *him* in prison, works wonders.
Agree completely. but we are talking about MPs here. They’d pass a law to say that all communications in government must be recorded and classified, but then exempt themselves from the law.
Yes, in financial services it works, because people ended up in prison for violations.
I think it was PJ O'Rourke who observed that some people wanted to use term limits on politicians. He wanted to try jail, as a term limiting method.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes, my understanding is that much of the world drives on the right basically out of spite. The French changed due to the revolution, when everything must be different, then swiftly conquered most of Europe and imposed it on them; the Americans similarly chose the right because the British were on the left, and they were influential elsewhere.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
No, the Americans chose due to Teamsters.
When America was a young country wagons pulled by teams of horses were really popular and the wagon driver would sit on the leftmost horse because he could use his right hand as a whip hand to control all his horses.
That went against historical precedent before then, dating back to Roman times where driving on the left was the norm.
The UK stuck with history and stayed on the left. The USA embraced the novelty of what was happening at the time they founded and went with the right. As it happens, the left is safer, but America is stuck with what they chose back then.
A lot of the laws in America don't seem to have safety as a major consideration.
They make up for it with notices everywhere and on everything.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes safer, keeping our right hands for our trusty swords when passing adversaries coming in the other direction.
Historically yes, and nowadays keeping our right hand for the steering wheel and right eye for oncoming traffic.
A shame for the lefties perhaps, but the majority of the country and the majority of the world is both right hand and right eye dominant.
That most of the world uses the more dangerous version of driving on the right, and has statistically more traffic accidents and fatalities as a result, is not a reason for us to change.
Right eye dominant, hmm. Not for me, had the right lens relaced a week ago because of cataract blurring. Maybe my driving will now improve as right dominance reasserts itself.
Yeah obviously everyone is different, but 67% of people are right-eye dominant. So having oncoming traffic be on the right is twice as safe for eyesight as it being on the left.
It's interesting how much prevalent that is than right-handedness. That leaves about a quarter of the population right-handed but left-eye dominant.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Isn't the most populous, China?
India just overtook China as biggest by population
Interesting. And a rare example of Wikipedia being behind the curve.
Relatedly, if left-hand driving countries have fewer collisions despite India, it really must be safer!
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes, my understanding is that much of the world drives on the right basically out of spite. The French changed due to the revolution, when everything must be different, then swiftly conquered most of Europe and imposed it on them; the Americans similarly chose the right because the British were on the left, and they were influential elsewhere.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
No, the Americans chose due to Teamsters.
When America was a young country wagons pulled by teams of horses were really popular and the wagon driver would sit on the leftmost horse because he could use his right hand as a whip hand to control all his horses.
That went against historical precedent before then, dating back to Roman times where driving on the left was the norm.
The UK stuck with history and stayed on the left. The USA embraced the novelty of what was happening at the time they founded and went with the right. As it happens, the left is safer, but America is stuck with what they chose back then.
A lot of the laws in America don't seem to have safety as a major consideration.
Road safety is one area where the UK is very good by international standards.
European car manufacturing specs are higher than anywhere else, driver standards are good, and road design removes a lot of the most serious accident types. I’ll admit to not thinking about whether driving on the left or the right would be inherently safer.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes safer, keeping our right hands for our trusty swords when passing adversaries coming in the other direction.
In horse-riding lessons people are told to pass left-to-left. I've always wondered when, and why, this changed, and whether the supposed rule about keeping the sword arm on the side of an oncoming rider was simply a just-so explanation made up afterwards for a convention that arose for other reasons, or entirely by chance.
LONDON — On its face, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s newly announced agreement with the European Union on Northern Ireland is merely a trade deal that governs the transport of pets, sausages, seed potatoes, and the like from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
But at a stroke, Mr. Sunak has defused the primary source of tension between Britain and the European Union, a recurring irritant in the relationship between London and Washington, and one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.
I agree wholeheartedly on the first two points - this is a big win on the diplomatic front and demonstrates why countries normally approach relations with friends and allies in a less confrontational and dishonest style than that of Mr Johnson. Normal behaviour works, who knew? Kudos to Sunak for figuring that out. On the last point I'm not so sure. The only part of the UK that benefits from this agreement is Northern Ireland, and it benefits specifically because it *hasn't* left Europe's single market (at least not entirely). In fact it is easy to imagine the rest of the UK being damaged by it, eg when inward investment is channeled towards Northern Ireland rather than Great Britain. The UK has yet to reap the economic benefits of leaving the single market, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious to most people.
I don’t think they’re arguing that, just that the NI Protocol was “one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.” Plenty more grievances left…
Interestingly, I recall an urban myth that it is illegal to drive three times around a roundabout - maybe there is a connection? A law that a more youthful Cookie once carefully broke to see what would happen. Neither the police nor the devil were summoned and I continued my journey to Reading without further incident.
LONDON — On its face, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s newly announced agreement with the European Union on Northern Ireland is merely a trade deal that governs the transport of pets, sausages, seed potatoes, and the like from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
But at a stroke, Mr. Sunak has defused the primary source of tension between Britain and the European Union, a recurring irritant in the relationship between London and Washington, and one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.
I agree wholeheartedly on the first two points - this is a big win on the diplomatic front and demonstrates why countries normally approach relations with friends and allies in a less confrontational and dishonest style than that of Mr Johnson. Normal behaviour works, who knew? Kudos to Sunak for figuring that out. On the last point I'm not so sure. The only part of the UK that benefits from this agreement is Northern Ireland, and it benefits specifically because it *hasn't* left Europe's single market (at least not entirely). In fact it is easy to imagine the rest of the UK being damaged by it, eg when inward investment is channeled towards Northern Ireland rather than Great Britain. The UK has yet to reap the economic benefits of leaving the single market, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious to most people.
On your second paragraph I think the key is whether goods from NI that are “finished” can move seamlessly to the EU (I am too lazy by far to read up on this btw).
So for example there potentially could exist a situation where a car manufacturer or battery manufacturer sets up a factory in NI, great for NI economy and jobs, and sets up components factories in the rUK if it makes more economic sense (land availability/ workforce requirements etc).
The factory assembles and finishes the cars/batteries in NI and can send to EU or UK without hassle so all parts of UK benefit.
I’m now going to be informed that this isn’t possible but it should be a good side effect if so.
I would imagine that the parts from rUK would be deemed destined for the EU not NI so would go through the red channel not the green one, thus wouldn't benefit from the light regulation. And you'd still need to meet minimum EU content rules eg in autos. So the NI manufacturer would be better off importing parts from Ireland or elsewhere in the EU, not rUK, on both fronts.
Another reason driving on the left makes more sense is that you go clockwise round roundabouts.
Someone told me to walk anticlockwise round the lake at Epcot because human nature is to go clockwise.
Where there are roundabouts on the continent with "priorité à droite", and where you go round anti-clockwise, isn't there a bit of an issue with the idea that the car on the roundabout already has priority?
Go try driving in Marrakech for a pratical example! It's people coming onto the roundabout from the right who have priority, insofar as anyone driving in Morocco worries about such matters
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes, my understanding is that much of the world drives on the right basically out of spite. The French changed due to the revolution, when everything must be different, then swiftly conquered most of Europe and imposed it on them; the Americans similarly chose the right because the British were on the left, and they were influential elsewhere.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
LONDON — On its face, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s newly announced agreement with the European Union on Northern Ireland is merely a trade deal that governs the transport of pets, sausages, seed potatoes, and the like from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
But at a stroke, Mr. Sunak has defused the primary source of tension between Britain and the European Union, a recurring irritant in the relationship between London and Washington, and one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.
I agree wholeheartedly on the first two points - this is a big win on the diplomatic front and demonstrates why countries normally approach relations with friends and allies in a less confrontational and dishonest style than that of Mr Johnson. Normal behaviour works, who knew? Kudos to Sunak for figuring that out. On the last point I'm not so sure. The only part of the UK that benefits from this agreement is Northern Ireland, and it benefits specifically because it *hasn't* left Europe's single market (at least not entirely). In fact it is easy to imagine the rest of the UK being damaged by it, eg when inward investment is channeled towards Northern Ireland rather than Great Britain. The UK has yet to reap the economic benefits of leaving the single market, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious to most people.
I don’t think they’re arguing that, just that the NI Protocol was “one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.” Plenty more grievances left…
It's a bizarre argument because it would be well down my personal list of grievances, as it affects less than 3% of the UK population! It's important because it removes an unnecessary source of diplomatic friction with the EU and the US, who are our most important friends, allies and trading partners. But it does almost nothing to improve our economic position outside the single market - and could even worsen things for rUK as trade and investment flows divert to NI.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
I bet if you asked the car manufactureres they'd massively prefer the hypothetical world where they could make LHD vehicles only for everywhere, though! It would be a lot less work.
But then you’d have to get the worlds first and fourth most populous countries to change, along with all of Southern Africa and a couple of other islands:
Yes, my understanding is that much of the world drives on the right basically out of spite. The French changed due to the revolution, when everything must be different, then swiftly conquered most of Europe and imposed it on them; the Americans similarly chose the right because the British were on the left, and they were influential elsewhere.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
No, the Americans chose due to Teamsters.
When America was a young country wagons pulled by teams of horses were really popular and the wagon driver would sit on the leftmost horse because he could use his right hand as a whip hand to control all his horses.
That went against historical precedent before then, dating back to Roman times where driving on the left was the norm.
The UK stuck with history and stayed on the left. The USA embraced the novelty of what was happening at the time they founded and went with the right. As it happens, the left is safer, but America is stuck with what they chose back then.
A lot of the laws in America don't seem to have safety as a major consideration.
They make up for it with notices everywhere and on everything.
Yes, they hand you a cup of coffee with a warning on it that it could be hot, while the person making it could have a revolver in their back pocket.
Comments
If we now ban it, does that count as dynamic alignment, genuine co-operation or just operational expediency? There was this belief that the evil EU would impose a high-cost low-value new standard on the whole EU just to spite the UK. Now that we have discarded the ERG can we accept how paranoid and delusional that sounds?
Complying with local and international standards is simply a fact of life for businesses now. In reality most of the standards we follow are driven internationally and make sense, so this whole freedom to diverge seems mostly hypothetical, and could only be applied by going beyond international standards if you still want to be able to export goods.
At best you get higher standards locally, and they might impede some imports, but if you go down that path don't be surprised if other countries retaliate.
Tearing up regulations to enable shoddier goods to be made that can't be exported is a non-starter in reality.
Stamina pays off.
He's not the reason SC elected a Tory in 2019, but he summed up the reasons why they did.
“FBI director says China lab leak likely caused COVID pandemic reut.rs/3ZvnpM4”
https://twitter.com/reutersworld/status/1630787614339997699?s=61&t=WRCjTU6ziZxrD6WC07DgVQ
"FBI Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday that the Covid pandemic was probably the result of a laboratory leak in China, providing the first public confirmation of the bureau’s classified judgment of how the virus..first emerged. "
https://twitter.com/r_h_ebright/status/1630721900878897152?s=61&t=WRCjTU6ziZxrD6WC07DgVQ
Does anyone apart from certified morons still believe this “came from a pangolin crossed with.a zebra in a market”
It’s over. Now we need trials
And there is no stable endpoint, because circumstances will continue to change.
What is quite healthy us that we are putting behind us the concept of our relationship with Europe as a binary in or out on which we must all choose one of two positions, and instead we have a spectrum along which we can select our favoured position - but need not be implacably opposed to someone whose favoured position is one or two notches inward or outward.
As soon as it is "done"...
I imagine that politics is even worse, with MPs and ministers technically not employees of the ‘company’, but elected by the people - and all with masssive egos.
Ultimately the party has final say over who gets on the list. We can't just have local activists making all those decisions as what is right for them isn't always the same as what is right for the current party leader /management or the constituency.
If we diverge then we can either operate based on equivalence, in which case not having the same rules isn't a problem, or on a company basis whereby firms that wish to export to Europe need to make sure their exports are made to European standards, not just British standards.
Same already happens around the globe. Plenty of firms across the globe produce goods made to European standards, despite their national standards being different, because they're made to be exported to Europe. This can even happen in the same firm, in the same factory even, to goods made to other standards.
Even with divergence this could be combined with a Trusted Trader scheme where Trusted Traders declare that their goods they are exporting are made to the correct standards, even if they make goods to other standards elsewhere.
For Pete's sake this already happened even in the EU with cars. Car manufacturers are quite capable of making Right Hand Drive vehicles for the UK and Eire market, and Left Hand Drive vehicles for the Continental Europe market. Just because standards diverge, doesn't mean you can't ensure your exports are to the correct standards for the market you're exporting to.
The Spanish are "perplexed" he says, that weather is being cited "as it lowered our production only for a couple of days"
https://twitter.com/alextaylornews/status/1630836095133925377?s=46
I know quite a few successful business people who have had businesses that were swallowed up by larger businesses where at the time it made sense for all parties.
As the larger businesses grew they started changing from the ethos, paracticalities and goals that made them an attractive owner for the other businesses.
In each case my friends/acquaintances arranged to buy out or split out their part of the business but arranged terms where on mutually beneficial areas the two companies would work together however they were unshackled and in areas where their approaches or goals were not compatible they can work differently.
Clearly there are restrictions on competition with certain clients, subservience on certain client relationships and rules placed on joint work by the larger party but both sides benefit from the split and frankly in all three cases both parties are clearly happier and my guys who were the “splitters” are making better returns.
This is only a sample of three but as a basis for seeing changes to the UK v EU relationship it demonstrates that it’s clearly possible to succeed outside of a larger organism but still work together if it’s in both party’s interests and there is an open mind on where and how cooperation exists rather than a sulk by either side.
Brexit is the buy out, working together with old partner is the current and future agreements and none of it means that Brexit/buy out cannot work and has to be unwound.
If the EU ban a food additive and the UK doesn't then anyone exporting to the EU can't use the additive in their exports. They can and should be able to use it in products for the entire UK, even Northern Ireland, if they are clearly labelled for the UK market only.
That's precisely what the EU has just agreed already. No trade wars necessary.
I give a Distinguished Sevice Medal to @Gardenwalker
A Purple Heart to @Richard_Tyndall
And a George Medal to @MaxPB
Well done, boys, well done. Fine and noble service - to the truth
Has anyone condemned the deal?
Apart from a rather weak sauce comment from Ian Paisley (very) Junior, and the obvious, expected stuff from Farage…
LONDON — On its face, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s newly announced agreement with the European Union on Northern Ireland is merely a trade deal that governs the transport of pets, sausages, seed potatoes, and the like from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
But at a stroke, Mr. Sunak has defused the primary source of tension between Britain and the European Union, a recurring irritant in the relationship between London and Washington, and one of the principal grievances of those who complain that Britain has failed to reap the benefits of its departure from Europe’s single market.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/world/europe/uk-eu-sunak-brexit.html
The idea of everything being the same, you can have any colour so long as its black, is a very quaint and dated notion.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/newseatlookup.html
https://twitter.com/electcalculus/status/1630857733523009536?s=46
@rcs1000
@geoffw
@MarqueeMark
In a field of intense competition, I'm not sure that his stupidity in not realising he hadn't actually turned off the firewall and trackers as he thought wasn't the most disturbing thing about that case.
And curiously he got the plum and well-remunerated job of running a major UK museum without ... err ... any experience of museums whatsoever. Or of art and design. He is however extremely well-connected.
A friend of mine applied for that job. She had spent her entire career working in museums ... She was not impressed.
Nor was the rest of the art world ... "Labour MP Tristram Hunt Is the Surprising New Director of London’s V&A Museum"
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/labour-mp-tristram-hunt-director-va-museum-816329
Make the correct, secure option the easiest one. See Bruce Schernier.
WhatsApp (should be Signal, anyway) is the simple option, too often.
In the banks, the various regulations on recording communications have been very useful.
Being able to tell His Imperial And Most Excellent And August Majesty (Assistant, Temporary Vice President) of Paperclips, that forwarding his Bank IMs to his personal email breaks several laws that would put *him* in prison, works wonders.
https://www.statista.com/chart/9261/which-side-of-the-road-do-you-drive-on/
Step forward the British Empire and its occupation of The Netherlands East Indies during the Napoleonic war…..
Probably safer too:
https://www.theaa.com/cars/news/hot-topics/why-does-the-uk-drive-on-the-left-3567.html
A willingness to move forward through co-operation and compromise is what we've been missing since 2016, and it is a welcome development. As is Sunak choosing to stress the benefits (to NI) of being (almost) inside the single market, and (somewhat strangely, one might think?) not mentioning the benefits of Brexit.
His efforts on education make Gibb look capable.
And as for his TV documentaries, oh mu goodness. I've had A-level students at grade C who would have done a better job.
He really does sum up, and not in a good way, too many of the bad things about this country. Especially how you can be thick and still get on if well-connected.
ISTR that @rcs1000 was at uni with him and wasn't impressed either.
*OK, technically he was Chairman of the Parliamentary Unionist Coalition, but he was the de facto leader.
I'm sure a very prolific poster on here, who is usually wrong about everything, keeps on insisting it is a result of genetic engineering and probably a deliberate bio-weapon. What do the FBI and Department of Energy say about those theories?
https://twitter.com/vigilantfox/status/1630675980636286977?s=61&t=WRCjTU6ziZxrD6WC07DgVQ
But over time divergence can and will happen. Its already happened, as our much safer and longer historically relevant driving on the left rather than their driving on the right demonstrates. Other divergences will happen gradually over time, but it will be gradual and not a dramatic rewriting of the rules. Sometimes we'll introduce new rules they won't, and vice-versa, but there's never going to be a complete clean break.
Evolution not revolution.
That looks 50 light of par to me, so England are probably set to lose by 100 runs.
A shame for the lefties perhaps, but the majority of the country and the majority of the world is both right hand and right eye dominant.
That most of the world uses the more dangerous version of driving on the right, and has statistically more traffic accidents and fatalities as a result, is not a reason for us to change.
That map, by the way, would look a lot more yellow with a different projection. That projection makes Canada and Russia look much bigger than they are, and India, Southern Africa and Indonesia smaller.
... that is really damning.
Because people @rcs1000 was at uni with and was impressed by include Kwasi Kwarteng and Sanjeev Gupta.
Impressing @rcs1000 in Trinity Great Court is a really low threshold -- probably anyone who can cross the Court without vomiting into Neville's Fountain qualifies.
FoM, like the single currency and the European (Potemkin) parliament is a political not a trading matter.
The single currency was opted out of, the parliament just a joke, leaving FoM as the issue on which the thing turned.
NI has SM but not FoM.
What the EU should do is allow FoM to be by bilateral agreement between members. at that point the whole picture changes.
Is NI the stalking horse? Sadly No.
While the standards should apply to everyone, including the top management, there’s always an exception for the IT department!
When America was a young country wagons pulled by teams of horses were really popular and the wagon driver would sit on the leftmost horse because he could use his right hand as a whip hand to control all his horses.
That went against historical precedent before then, dating back to Roman times where driving on the left was the norm.
The UK stuck with history and stayed on the left. The USA embraced the novelty of what was happening at the time they founded and went with the right. As it happens, the left is safer, but America is stuck with what they chose back then.
Relatedly, if left-hand driving countries have fewer collisions despite India, it really must be safer!
Yes, in financial services it works, because people ended up in prison for violations.
Presumably this means my polling station will change. A pity, since the polling station I currently use has a bar with surprisingly good beer from the Dunham Massey brewery.
If I'd stood, I might well have won in 2017 when Labour was doing much better than in 2015, but not in 2019. At which point I'd have been 69 and probably would have struggled to start a fresh career. Silver linings etc.
https://www.ponymag.com/pony-know-how/riding-open-order/
On the last point I'm not so sure. The only part of the UK that benefits from this agreement is Northern Ireland, and it benefits specifically because it *hasn't* left Europe's single market (at least not entirely). In fact it is easy to imagine the rest of the UK being damaged by it, eg when inward investment is channeled towards Northern Ireland rather than Great Britain. The UK has yet to reap the economic benefits of leaving the single market, for reasons that should be abundantly obvious to most people.
Asking 'for a friend'. 😇
It is also how the networking that politics consists of, largely works.
Someone told me to walk anticlockwise round the lake at Epcot because human nature is to go clockwise.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/test-passengers-are-needed-for-luton-airport-s-new-dart-shuttle-train/ar-AA18342r?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=8307f945acdb466985bc1e9b227f43e7&ei=15
There will be several nervous people in the UK as well. Jeremy Farrar, Patrick Vallance, Richard Horton, and others
P(both drivers right-eye dominant) = 4/9 (driving on the left better)
P(both drivers left-eye dominant) = 1/9 (driving on the right better)
P(drivers a mix of eye dominance = 4/9 (makes no difference which side they drive on, provided it is agreed in advance)
So I make that four times safer to drive on the left.
So for example there potentially could exist a situation where a car manufacturer or battery manufacturer sets up a factory in NI, great for NI economy and jobs, and sets up components factories in the rUK if it makes more economic sense (land availability/ workforce requirements etc).
The factory assembles and finishes the cars/batteries in NI and can send to EU or UK without hassle so all parts of UK benefit.
I’m now going to be informed that this isn’t possible but it should be a good side effect if so.
https://www.virtualoceania.net/australia/maps/how-big-is-australia.shtml
Don’t say I didn’t warn you
https://occult-world.com/widdershins/
European car manufacturing specs are higher than anywhere else, driver standards are good, and road design removes a lot of the most serious accident types. I’ll admit to not thinking about whether driving on the left or the right would be inherently safer.
Storing all your passwords on someone else’s computer, has always been a bad idea.