Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
This is a control to stop people overstaying their 90 day visa free limit, which didn't exist before and which all Schengen countries have to apply, not just France.
Point you are putting real constraints on people's freedom to travel. Which is literally what No Freedom of Movement says.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
I think they're related because whether you have FoM or not affects what the passport checks need to do. If a British person wants to enter Schengen and they're part of the same FoM zone as you then you (mostly) just need to check that they have a British passport. If they're not doing FoM then you also need to manage how long they'll be allowed to stay and whether they've already stayed too long, which involves more steps.
No, FoM related to the entitlement to a National Insurance number, and the right to work. Nothing to do with border checks.
It does appear that the French want to stamp passports to check for overstays, but that takes only a couple of seconds per passport.
It's true FoM gives you the right to work which is only partially managed at the border, but it also gives you the right to stay indefinitely, which is otherwise mainly managed at the border.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
No, it's not just the French. Immigration bureaucracies everywhere are much worse than they should be (since the people subject to them don't have the right to vote) but this is also true for foreigners coming into the UK. Heathrow will often have pretty horrendous queues for non-nationals, Narita has apparently had massive queues lately, it's very common. If you have the unquestioned right to stay (British person entering Britain, permanent-resident reentering Japan) it's usually very fast, both because the job is easier and because they try harder to make it quick.
That’s definitely true. There are some places, such as city states and tourist destinations, where they have an incentive to process their visitors as quickly and efficiently as possible, but most places usually have queues of some sort.
The US is notorious for how badly they treat people at the border, which is quite ironic given they have a massive broblem with undocumented immigration.
Thankfully, my recent travels have all been pretty good, maybe I’ve just been lucky with timings and destinations.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
I think they're related because whether you have FoM or not affects what the passport checks need to do. If a British person wants to enter Schengen and they're part of the same FoM zone as you then you (mostly) just need to check that they have a British passport. If they're not doing FoM then you also need to manage how long they'll be allowed to stay and whether they've already stayed too long, which involves more steps.
No, FoM related to the entitlement to a National Insurance number, and the right to work. Nothing to do with border checks.
It does appear that the French want to stamp passports to check for overstays, but that takes only a couple of seconds per passport.
I got into a Twitter Tangle with a couple of Greens on this, and it's all down to Bur-Bur-Bur-Brexit, including the UK now being a Third World Country .
Evidence being largely irrelevant, as in all things Green Party.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
I think they're related because whether you have FoM or not affects what the passport checks need to do. If a British person wants to enter Schengen and they're part of the same FoM zone as you then you (mostly) just need to check that they have a British passport. If they're not doing FoM then you also need to manage how long they'll be allowed to stay and whether they've already stayed too long, which involves more steps.
No, FoM related to the entitlement to a National Insurance number, and the right to work. Nothing to do with border checks.
It does appear that the French want to stamp passports to check for overstays, but that takes only a couple of seconds per passport.
Not quite correct. It means normally you need a visa to travel to the EU, except limited stays in certain circumstances. Before, you could walk in. It's a big difference.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I’m a Green Party member, albeit one who probably sits in the ‘generally left’ bit (I’d argue for the two non-aligned categories to be merged into ‘centrist dad’). Though I’m maybe not a regular enough poster.
We should include everyone with at least 1,000 posts?
Based on recent voting behaviour I’d be in the Green column, not that this is really where I see myself.
7 posts away from inclusion, then! Though in the last GE I actually voted LD, albeit in a vote-swapping arrangement (amusingly drawn with a noted fox-killing liberal/legal commentator).
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
My experience as well for the Netherlands. We were held up there recently there for this reason, but obviously the numbers aren't as big as for the Dover crossing so there was only an hour delay rather than 14.
The political point is that if your child has been stuck in a stationary bus for 14 hours and then have to return home with their ski trip cancelled, you are going to be absolutely livid with this government and protestations from them that it's all the fault of the French won't cut it. Particularly bearing in mind most people think Brexit was a mistake.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I’m a Green Party member, albeit one who probably sits in the ‘generally left’ bit (I’d argue for the two non-aligned categories to be merged into ‘centrist dad’). Though I’m maybe not a regular enough poster.
We should include everyone with at least 1,000 posts?
Based on recent voting behaviour I’d be in the Green column, not that this is really where I see myself.
7 posts away from inclusion, then! Though in the last GE I actually voted LD, albeit in a vote-swapping arrangement (amusingly drawn with a noted fox-killing liberal/legal commentator).
Neneh Cherry would have really struggled with those lyrics.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I’m a Green Party member, albeit one who probably sits in the ‘generally left’ bit (I’d argue for the two non-aligned categories to be merged into ‘centrist dad’). Though I’m maybe not a regular enough poster.
We should include everyone with at least 1,000 posts?
Based on recent voting behaviour I’d be in the Green column, not that this is really where I see myself.
7 posts away from inclusion, then! Though in the last GE I actually voted LD, albeit in a vote-swapping arrangement (amusingly drawn with a noted fox-killing liberal/legal commentator).
I hope you're already working on your 1000th post; England expects, and all...
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I’m a Green Party member, albeit one who probably sits in the ‘generally left’ bit (I’d argue for the two non-aligned categories to be merged into ‘centrist dad’). Though I’m maybe not a regular enough poster.
We should include everyone with at least 1,000 posts?
Based on recent voting behaviour I’d be in the Green column, not that this is really where I see myself.
7 posts away from inclusion, then! Though in the last GE I actually voted LD, albeit in a vote-swapping arrangement (amusingly drawn with a noted fox-killing liberal/legal commentator).
Neneh Cherry would have really struggled with those lyrics.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I’m a Green Party member, albeit one who probably sits in the ‘generally left’ bit (I’d argue for the two non-aligned categories to be merged into ‘centrist dad’). Though I’m maybe not a regular enough poster.
We should include everyone with at least 1,000 posts?
Based on recent voting behaviour I’d be in the Green column, not that this is really where I see myself.
7 posts away from inclusion, then! Though in the last GE I actually voted LD, albeit in a vote-swapping arrangement (amusingly drawn with a noted fox-killing liberal/legal commentator).
I hope you're already working on your 1000th post; England expects, and all...
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Great idea, but you really need to show your working: What are the criteria for being included: how many posts, and when Who is included, and in what category What period does this cover If it's regular, when was it last done, and when will it be done again
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I’m a Green Party member, albeit one who probably sits in the ‘generally left’ bit (I’d argue for the two non-aligned categories to be merged into ‘centrist dad’). Though I’m maybe not a regular enough poster.
We should include everyone with at least 1,000 posts?
Based on recent voting behaviour I’d be in the Green column, not that this is really where I see myself.
7 posts away from inclusion, then! Though in the last GE I actually voted LD, albeit in a vote-swapping arrangement (amusingly drawn with a noted fox-killing liberal/legal commentator).
Neneh Cherry would have really struggled with those lyrics.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Great idea, but you really need to show your working: What are the criteria for being included: how many posts, and when Who is included, and in what category What period does this cover If it's regular, when was it last done, and when will it be done again
Doesn't CR's little list just show how aligned to the national consciousness we are? Apart from nearly universally identifying as male obviously.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
Same when you arrive on the ferry in Spain. Previously, you used to show your passport at the check in Santander or Bilbao - sometimes it got a cursory inspection, sometimes you just got waved through. Now every passport has to be taken by the guard, scanned, checked and stamped. All that means that instead of taking minutes to get through, it now takes well over an hour - much longer if you’re one of the last off a full sailing.
We actively chose to be a third country and this is the consequence. It seems silly to deny it or to blame anyone else.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Great idea, but you really need to show your working: What are the criteria for being included: how many posts, and when Who is included, and in what category What period does this cover If it's regular, when was it last done, and when will it be done again
Yawn. I listed everyone out I could think of and tagged them to their posting style/political positions. If I wasn't sure I had a quick check.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Great idea, but you really need to show your working: What are the criteria for being included: how many posts, and when Who is included, and in what category What period does this cover If it's regular, when was it last done, and when will it be done again
Doesn't CR's little list just show how aligned to the national consciousness we are? Apart from nearly universally identifying as male obviously.
Well, that's very much the case. I'd be surprised if more than 10 were female.
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
They're all we have here, and they keep themselves hidden away; I see one only occasionally, partly of course because I am usually with the dog. But you don't see them in the garden like you do greys on North Island.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
All three are linked but imv plastic pollution & loss of habitat are bigger dangers than AGW for nature.
Also did anyone notice ol' St Greta's recent anti windfarm demo ?
Oh, not *that* sort of Green Energy.
It's a strange case.
The claim is that these windfarms stop reindeer migrating in 'traditional herding', and therefore should be removed from Sami lands.
The Norway Supreme Court retrospectively ruled licences for windfarms which have already been built unlawful, after a variety of decisions all the way up the system, without ruing what should be done.
It's a big issue because Sami reindeer land covers about half of Norway - roughly everything north of Trondheim, and just this case is 151 huge turbines worth hundreds of millions of $.
There are not many Sami, reindeer herding is overwhelmingly part time, and the 'traditional herding' practice is not very old - only back to the 17C.
I don't see half a country, even in Scandinavia, being ruled out of renewable energy generation for the benefit of 0.6% of the population - so I expect the Government will get off the fence and establish a new balance. Eventually.
For Greta, I'd say this is Chris Packham mode - find a controversy and jump in feet first. Greta can't decide which of her two opinions is more important, and needs to involve other people.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
A bit of a non sequitur to my comment, but it's far from impossible. As you realise, the clue is in the word 'net'.
Lawton's flawed judgment was clear long before his slide into climate denial.
As Chancellor, he was brilliant in recognising and addressing the problems of the old economic settlement - tax reform; the abolition of exchange controls; deregulation ... and to an extent, privatisation.
But he established in its place an economic orthodoxy with its own set of flaws. 'Rolling back the frontiers of the state' became a religion, rather than a policy. And its malign effects last to this day in all kind of ways.
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.
I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
There is some evidence that the best way is to encourage pine martens. Where pine martens have returned grey squirrels have been driven out and reds have come back.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
Not really, in our case.
And I would point out that it wasn’t until the 1970s that we stopped discharging raw sewage into rivers as the normal practice every day, rather than just after heavy rains. It took literally hundreds of years for people to twig it wasn’t a smart idea.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
My experience as well for the Netherlands. We were held up there recently there for this reason, but obviously the numbers aren't as big as for the Dover crossing so there was only an hour delay rather than 14.
The political point is that if your child has been stuck in a stationary bus for 14 hours and then have to return home with their ski trip cancelled, you are going to be absolutely livid with this government and protestations from them that it's all the fault of the French won't cut it. Particularly bearing in mind most people think Brexit was a mistake.
I think it likely a future UK government will negotiate an easier visa arrangement with the EU while pretending no FoM is still in place. The current setup is highly damaging. And pointless too, given immigration overall has soared since Brexit.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
My experience as well for the Netherlands. We were held up there recently there for this reason, but obviously the numbers aren't as big as for the Dover crossing so there was only an hour delay rather than 14.
The political point is that if your child has been stuck in a stationary bus for 14 hours and then have to return home with their ski trip cancelled, you are going to be absolutely livid with this government and protestations from them that it's all the fault of the French won't cut it. Particularly bearing in mind most people think Brexit was a mistake.
My Brexit-voting 91 yo father-in-law has no intention of ever travelling to France, Spain or the Netherlands though, and can't understand why anyone would ever want to. So on his terms Brexit is not an issue.
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
They're all we have here, and they keep themselves hidden away; I see one only occasionally, partly of course because I am usually with the dog. But you don't see them in the garden like you do greys on North Island.
There usually are a whole bunch at Whitecliff Holiday Park in Bembridge.
Also the dominant species over much of the South peninsula. When I was in Moscow the parks had loads of them, and I saw them in Hamburg botanical gardens last year.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
The UK can spend tens of billions on carbon capture - but that has no net effect for the planet if Vietnam then builds another eleven coal-fired power stations.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
Is there any reason that we shouldn't have clean rivers and end plastic pollution as well as carbon neutrality?
On border controls, it seems to me there are two perfectly reasonable expectations that are in permanent conflict.
One, that we should be able to travel in the free world for lawful purposes without a load of border checks; and, two, that the UK (and other states) should have some sort of accurate idea of who is within their borders.
It is said (no idea how you can know) that there are vast numbers of people in the UK with no right whatsoever to be here.
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
They're all we have here, and they keep themselves hidden away; I see one only occasionally, partly of course because I am usually with the dog. But you don't see them in the garden like you do greys on North Island.
There usually are a whole bunch at Whitecliff Holiday Park in Bembridge.
Also the dominant species over much of the South peninsula. When I was in Moscow the parks had loads of them, and I saw them in Hamburg botanical gardens last year.
I remember seeing some close up in Vienna. A particularly mangy-looking specimen, a world away from the sleek, attractive creature glimpsed in the distance in the remote Scottish wilderness.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
The UK can spend tens of billions on carbon capture - but that has no net effect for the planet if Vietnam then builds another eleven coal-fired power stations.
Carbon capture as apparently envisaged by this government is a lamentable waste of money. They're going to spend £20bn making burning fossil fuels more expensive. Just daft.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
It depends what you mean. Banning the use of warfarin is not so much protecting grey squirrels as the predators that might eat them, surely?
Warfarin poisoning The EU licence for the production and sale of warfarin as a grey squirrel bait ended on 30 September 2014. Manufacturers and stockists are no longer able to sell warfarin to control grey squirrels.
Edit: that damn EU interfering again protecting our owls - how dare they!
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
They're all we have here, and they keep themselves hidden away; I see one only occasionally, partly of course because I am usually with the dog. But you don't see them in the garden like you do greys on North Island.
There usually are a whole bunch at Whitecliff Holiday Park in Bembridge.
Also the dominant species over much of the South peninsula. When I was in Moscow the parks had loads of them, and I saw them in Hamburg botanical gardens last year.
Ukraine is also full of reds, pretty sure the first time I’d ever seen them in the wild.
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.
I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
I'd be interested to know who it is that has passed a law protecting grey squirrels, because that would make the eradication of the grey squirrel on Anglesey by the Anglesey Red Squirrel Trust some sort of offence.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
The UK can spend tens of billions on carbon capture - but that has no net effect for the planet if Vietnam then builds another eleven coal-fired power stations.
Well, that's the one scenario where carbon capture might make some sense. If you can't convince a reclusive dictatorship - like, say, North Korea - to stop burning fossil fuels, then you can at least clean up their emissions at a distance and prevent them from slowly causing the rest of the world problems.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
My experience as well for the Netherlands. We were held up there recently there for this reason, but obviously the numbers aren't as big as for the Dover crossing so there was only an hour delay rather than 14.
The political point is that if your child has been stuck in a stationary bus for 14 hours and then have to return home with their ski trip cancelled, you are going to be absolutely livid with this government and protestations from them that it's all the fault of the French won't cut it. Particularly bearing in mind most people think Brexit was a mistake.
I think it likely a future UK government will negotiate an easier visa arrangement with the EU while pretending no FoM is still in place. The current setup is highly damaging. And pointless too, given immigration overall has soared since Brexit.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
Is there any reason that we shouldn't have clean rivers and end plastic pollution as well as carbon neutrality?
On border controls, it seems to me there are two perfectly reasonable expectations that are in permanent conflict.
One, that we should be able to travel in the free world for lawful purposes without a load of border checks; and, two, that the UK (and other states) should have some sort of accurate idea of who is within their borders.
It is said (no idea how you can know) that there are vast numbers of people in the UK with no right whatsoever to be here.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I came to being a Green through people I met through hunt sabbing. Though I don't fully align with the party's preference for the ballot box over the ammo box.
I've encountered some amazing and interesting people through the party though. And we do have the highest average level of education and lowest average BMI of all political parties.
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
They're all we have here, and they keep themselves hidden away; I see one only occasionally, partly of course because I am usually with the dog. But you don't see them in the garden like you do greys on North Island.
There usually are a whole bunch at Whitecliff Holiday Park in Bembridge.
Also the dominant species over much of the South peninsula. When I was in Moscow the parks had loads of them, and I saw them in Hamburg botanical gardens last year.
On border controls, it seems to me there are two perfectly reasonable expectations that are in permanent conflict.
One, that we should be able to travel in the free world for lawful purposes without a load of border checks; and, two, that the UK (and other states) should have some sort of accurate idea of who is within their borders.
It is said (no idea how you can know) that there are vast numbers of people in the UK with no right whatsoever to be here.
ID cards might help with that last point.
Everyone has an inner DUP on some things. For me, ID cards are one of those things.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
The UK can spend tens of billions on carbon capture - but that has no net effect for the planet if Vietnam then builds another eleven coal-fired power stations.
Well, that's the one scenario where carbon capture might make some sense. If you can't convince a reclusive dictatorship - like, say, North Korea - to stop burning fossil fuels, then you can at least clean up their emissions at a distance and prevent them from slowly causing the rest of the world problems.
Getting the UK voter to pay to clean up others wilful abuse of the planet? Good luck selling that on the doorsteps.
It's what many already see is the consequence of our Net Zero Carbon. And why they don't buy into it.
On border controls, it seems to me there are two perfectly reasonable expectations that are in permanent conflict.
One, that we should be able to travel in the free world for lawful purposes without a load of border checks; and, two, that the UK (and other states) should have some sort of accurate idea of who is within their borders.
It is said (no idea how you can know) that there are vast numbers of people in the UK with no right whatsoever to be here.
ID cards might help with that last point.
Everyone has an inner DUP on some things. For me, ID cards are one of those things.
Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
Red squirrels are protected
They're all we have here, and they keep themselves hidden away; I see one only occasionally, partly of course because I am usually with the dog. But you don't see them in the garden like you do greys on North Island.
There usually are a whole bunch at Whitecliff Holiday Park in Bembridge.
Also the dominant species over much of the South peninsula. When I was in Moscow the parks had loads of them, and I saw them in Hamburg botanical gardens last year.
In southern Germany black squirrels are also quite common
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
My experience as well for the Netherlands. We were held up there recently there for this reason, but obviously the numbers aren't as big as for the Dover crossing so there was only an hour delay rather than 14.
The political point is that if your child has been stuck in a stationary bus for 14 hours and then have to return home with their ski trip cancelled, you are going to be absolutely livid with this government and protestations from them that it's all the fault of the French won't cut it. Particularly bearing in mind most people think Brexit was a mistake.
I think it likely a future UK government will negotiate an easier visa arrangement with the EU while pretending no FoM is still in place. The current setup is highly damaging. And pointless too, given immigration overall has soared since Brexit.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
It will, but Control The Borders was one of the core Brexit promises. Which means having... border controls.
Now, obviously the plan was controls for Them, not Us because we're splendid and rich, but that was never going to work outside a campaign leaflet. The underlying sin of 2016, the reason it's so blooming hard to make this work, was the promise of cake'n'eat it. Easy to promise, natural to vote for, hard to deliver and impossible to confess to.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
I think they're related because whether you have FoM or not affects what the passport checks need to do. If a British person wants to enter Schengen and they're part of the same FoM zone as you then you (mostly) just need to check that they have a British passport. If they're not doing FoM then you also need to manage how long they'll be allowed to stay and whether they've already stayed too long, which involves more steps.
No, FoM related to the entitlement to a National Insurance number, and the right to work. Nothing to do with border checks.
It does appear that the French want to stamp passports to check for overstays, but that takes only a couple of seconds per passport.
I really don't know why you post this kind of nonsense. It patently takes longer than only a couple of seconds. Open passport. Check last entry, check last exit, check cumulative days stayed in the last 180. And then if all ok find the next page and stamp.
The physical stamping takes only a few seconds. The rest takes a minute. And this is why the queues are here. I assume that had we not left we would have been given a bypass for this new Schengen rule. Or at the very least reduced it. We could have asked for that.
Instead we said "we want to be a third country". And this is the process. Think how much fun we will all be having next year when we need to be fingerprinted and have our visa checked.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I came to being a Green through people I met through hunt sabbing. Though I don't fully align with the party's preference for the ballot box over the ammo box.
I've encountered some amazing and interesting people through the party though. And we do have the highest average level of education and lowest average BMI of all political parties.
Are you the only guy who turns up to Green events driving a straight-piped V8?
On border controls, it seems to me there are two perfectly reasonable expectations that are in permanent conflict.
One, that we should be able to travel in the free world for lawful purposes without a load of border checks; and, two, that the UK (and other states) should have some sort of accurate idea of who is within their borders.
It is said (no idea how you can know) that there are vast numbers of people in the UK with no right whatsoever to be here.
ID cards might help with that last point.
Everyone has an inner DUP on some things. For me, ID cards are one of those things.
Never! Never! Never! Never!
One Never! too many, shirley?
Don't think so. Often shortened in reference, but the full quote seems to be four.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times today makes the case that we have had enough of 'big ideas', and the most successful pitch for the next election would we "We won't break anything else"
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Putin would probably seize Ukraine, although Putin might be MORE wary of a very unstable genius like Trump so who knows. Likewise China and Xi Jinping
I don't think VVP wants the western half of Ukraine in the RF as it would be an economic basket case, demographic disaster and hotbed of Ukrainian nationalism. He'd be happy enough with the four contested oblasts, carve off some western oblasts to Poland/Hungary/Romania and have what was left, Malorussia, be a Belarus style satrapy.
I assume the "it only takes two seconds" lie is aimed at the angry people who don't travel abroad but want to stop the rest of us doing so.
Anyone with eyes and a brain knows it takes more than 2 seconds, as it too more than 2 seconds when you hit their border. Yet the right keep saying this guff.
They won't persuade people who are alive. So it must be reassurance lies for the elderly and angry ro protect their prescious Brexit from reality.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
My experience as well for the Netherlands. We were held up there recently there for this reason, but obviously the numbers aren't as big as for the Dover crossing so there was only an hour delay rather than 14.
The political point is that if your child has been stuck in a stationary bus for 14 hours and then have to return home with their ski trip cancelled, you are going to be absolutely livid with this government and protestations from them that it's all the fault of the French won't cut it. Particularly bearing in mind most people think Brexit was a mistake.
I think it likely a future UK government will negotiate an easier visa arrangement with the EU while pretending no FoM is still in place. The current setup is highly damaging. And pointless too, given immigration overall has soared since Brexit.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Inarguable I would have concurred but being argued on here.....different worlds we live in.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
The UK can spend tens of billions on carbon capture - but that has no net effect for the planet if Vietnam then builds another eleven coal-fired power stations.
Well, that's the one scenario where carbon capture might make some sense. If you can't convince a reclusive dictatorship - like, say, North Korea - to stop burning fossil fuels, then you can at least clean up their emissions at a distance and prevent them from slowly causing the rest of the world problems.
No, the only way carbon capture works economically is for the CO2 to be used as an industrial feedstock. The viable technology for that is quite some way off - but might be well worth investing billions in developing. It would also need the cheapest energy, which is and is likely to remain solar, in places like Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Nevada and Arizona.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
The UK can spend tens of billions on carbon capture - but that has no net effect for the planet if Vietnam then builds another eleven coal-fired power stations.
Carbon capture as apparently envisaged by this government is a lamentable waste of money. They're going to spend £20bn making burning fossil fuels more expensive. Just daft.
I suspect there is a big donor with his finger in those pies though.
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I came to being a Green through people I met through hunt sabbing. Though I don't fully align with the party's preference for the ballot box over the ammo box.
I've encountered some amazing and interesting people through the party though. And we do have the highest average level of education and lowest average BMI of all political parties.
Are you the only guy who turns up to Green events driving a straight-piped V8?
I go just about everywhere by bike. Our local party members' transport includes an RS6, two Teslas, a homemade and very illegal Honda C90 trike, a horse, an MG Midget (I did the 1380cc big bore A Series in it), a Morris Traveller (fucking horrible) and loads of rusty Clios/Saxos/Fiestas.
Downing Street has acknowledged that new post-Brexit “processes” contributed to issues at the Port of Dover over the weekend.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said he was aware that French border officials were “inspecting and stamping every single passport”, as is the case at all European borders for arrivals from outside the bloc.
I must confess I find Simon Calder’s analysis on this rather more compelling than Suella Braverman. Did we really insist on every passport being checked and stamped ?
Every passport being checked and stamped is a natural consequence of the end of FoM. "We insisted" is partisan gloss.
Simon Calder is merely using the FBPEr's "we shot ourselves in the foot" insinuation as he always does.
If he were more honest, he would point out that passports take longer to check now, but that busy weekends at Dover have often involved delays. For example, this from 2012:
FoM has nothing to do with the physical border, yet people keep trying to conflate the two. There have always been passport checks between the CTA and Shengen, and always been delays when the French decide to be French.
Movement of goods is different now that the UK is no longer in the EU Customs Union, but tourist traffic is pretty much the same.
No.
The restriction on lengths of stays in the EU is a consequence of ending FOM. It is this that means passports now have to be stamped, while previously they just had a cursory glance.
So spending two seconds stamping someone’s passport, is leading to massive queues at Dover - as oppposed to the French just being French?
Before the UK left the EU, there were huge queues at Dover at least a couple of weeks a year - Operation Stack has been around since 1988!
Yes but having to reach the Channel Tunnel along miles of narrow country lanes, with dozens of police manning almost every junction on the back roads, because the motorway built directly to it is full of stationary lorries, is hardly a national success, is it?
It’s not 2 seconds either. I’ve crossed the channel enough times since Brexit to get a sense of the timing. The immigration official gets each passport, does the thing on the screen like they always did (well, like the British officials did - the French would often just wave us through), then they lead through the passport until they find a plan page, checks the other stamps on the full pages - not as thoroughly as they probably should mind - and stamps. Then does the same for each other family member.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
My experience as well for the Netherlands. We were held up there recently there for this reason, but obviously the numbers aren't as big as for the Dover crossing so there was only an hour delay rather than 14.
The political point is that if your child has been stuck in a stationary bus for 14 hours and then have to return home with their ski trip cancelled, you are going to be absolutely livid with this government and protestations from them that it's all the fault of the French won't cut it. Particularly bearing in mind most people think Brexit was a mistake.
I think it likely a future UK government will negotiate an easier visa arrangement with the EU while pretending no FoM is still in place. The current setup is highly damaging. And pointless too, given immigration overall has soared since Brexit.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Inarguable I would have concurred but being argued on here.....different worlds we live in.
Three different worlds. Those who only ever travel through the premium lane, those who travel in the cheap lane and those who hardly travel at all.
The Brexit coalition is mostly the first and the third. Orwell said something similar in The Book in 1984.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times today makes the case that we have had enough of 'big ideas', and the most successful pitch for the next election would we "We won't break anything else"
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Absolutely. This government can’t do it. A Labour-led one will have huge leeway because it has no Brexit loon wing to appease. I agree with Casino Royale on this - Starmer is basically telling porkies about what a government he leads will do to mitigate Brexit. If he’s PM, we’ll see much closer alignment than is being acknowledged.
Putin would probably seize Ukraine, although Putin might be MORE wary of a very unstable genius like Trump so who knows. Likewise China and Xi Jinping
I don't think VVP wants the western half of Ukraine in the RF as it would be an economic basket case, demographic disaster and hotbed of Ukrainian nationalism. He'd be happy enough with the four contested oblasts, carve off some western oblasts to Poland/Hungary/Romania and have what was left, Malorussia, be a Belarus style satrapy.
Romania? Wouldn't that cause a few issues with Transnistria?
On border controls, it seems to me there are two perfectly reasonable expectations that are in permanent conflict.
One, that we should be able to travel in the free world for lawful purposes without a load of border checks; and, two, that the UK (and other states) should have some sort of accurate idea of who is within their borders.
It is said (no idea how you can know) that there are vast numbers of people in the UK with no right whatsoever to be here.
ID cards might help with that last point.
Everyone has an inner DUP on some things. For me, ID cards are one of those things.
If the plan is to have more people holidaying in the UK the government needs to stop the water companies pouring raw sewage into our seas. No-one wants their kids paddling among turds!
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I came to being a Green through people I met through hunt sabbing. Though I don't fully align with the party's preference for the ballot box over the ammo box.
I've encountered some amazing and interesting people through the party though. And we do have the highest average level of education and lowest average BMI of all political parties.
Are you the only guy who turns up to Green events driving a straight-piped V8?
I go just about everywhere by bike. Our local party members' transport includes an RS6, two Teslas, a homemade and very illegal Honda C90 trike, a horse, an MG Midget (I did the 1380cc big bore A Series in it), a Morris Traveller (fucking horrible) and loads of rusty Clios/Saxos/Fiestas.
My first car was a Saxo. Massive engine in a very light body with almost no electrical gadgets (including no power steering, although you wouldn't have known). The power/weight ratio was ludicrous and it was the fastest car I've ever driven, not being able to afford your kind of stuff. On the roads of Mid Wales, it was a dream to drive (and easy to park in Aber, which most cars aren't).
I loved that car. But I was glad when I got a car with a bigger boot.
If the plan is to have more people holidaying in the UK the government needs to stop the water companies pouring raw sewage into our seas. No-one wants their kids paddling among turds!
If the plan is to have more people holidaying in the UK the government needs to stop the water companies pouring raw sewage into our seas. No-one wants their kids paddling among turds!
And double/triple our holiday accommodation capacity without driving up rents and house prices further.....
If the plan is to have more people holidaying in the UK the government needs to stop the water companies pouring raw sewage into our seas. No-one wants their kids paddling among turds!
And double/triple our holiday accommodation capacity without driving up rents and house prices further.....
If the plan is to have more people holidaying in the UK the government needs to stop the water companies pouring raw sewage into our seas. No-one wants their kids paddling among turds!
And double/triple our holiday accommodation capacity without driving up rents and house prices further.....
And lots of people to staf....
Oh bugger.
Doesn't really matter as their plan, as always, is not to do anything, but to virtue signal. Amazingly the same people who get most upset by virtue signalling otherwise lap it up!
Histogram analysis shows the first two categories post more than the last two in the ratio of about 60:40 or 65:35, depending (roughly) on how well/badly the Tories are doing at the time.
Assuming this is serious, well done on attempting it. I bet we'd all love to see where we've been categorised though!
What constitutes a regular poster, I wonder.
Someone who's posted in the last 12 months, who I've clocked.
I'm disappointed that you didn't scrape vanilla forums with a Python script as I had - naturally - assumed.
I don't know how to do that.
So go on @Casino_Royale - where do I fit in? I promise I won't take offense. I'm guessing one of the last three categories? Your analysis of course - you can categorise how you like, and your results are interesting.
I would have categorised as follows: Lab Con LD SNP Alba PC Non-aligned generally left Non-aligned generally right (where I'd place myself) Neutral Guest posters from overseas
I'd expect to place most in categories 7,8 and 9.
But that's as much as I've done. I can't criticse yours until I've done at least as much work as you have. Which isn't going to happen tonight as I have the online shop to finish.
Good proposal. You might add Green.
Put me down in Non-aligned generally left.
I did consider Green, but then wasn't sure we had any. Dura Ace?
I came to being a Green through people I met through hunt sabbing. Though I don't fully align with the party's preference for the ballot box over the ammo box.
I've encountered some amazing and interesting people through the party though. And we do have the highest average level of education and lowest average BMI of all political parties.
Are you the only guy who turns up to Green events driving a straight-piped V8?
I go just about everywhere by bike. Our local party members' transport includes an RS6, two Teslas, a homemade and very illegal Honda C90 trike, a horse, an MG Midget (I did the 1380cc big bore A Series in it), a Morris Traveller (fucking horrible) and loads of rusty Clios/Saxos/Fiestas.
My first car was a Saxo. Massive engine in a very light body with almost no electrical gadgets (including no power steering, although you wouldn't have known). The power/weight ratio was ludicrous and it was the fastest car I've ever driven, not being able to afford your kind of stuff. On the roads of Mid Wales, it was a dream to drive (and easy to park in Aber, which most cars aren't).
I loved that car. But I was glad when I got a car with a bigger boot.
And a car where your face wasn't the crumple zone...
One thing I'd do is introduce summary execution for people who chuck wet wipes down the loo. I've never done it myself and I don't know anyone who does (Or perhaps I do !) but there must be a cohort of thick as mince or completely ignorant wallies that do. Who are these people ??? They should probably all be shot for the best.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times today makes the case that we have had enough of 'big ideas', and the most successful pitch for the next election would we "We won't break anything else"
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Absolutely. This government can’t do it. A Labour-led one will have huge leeway because it has no Brexit loon wing to appease. I agree with Casino Royale on this - Starmer is basically telling porkies about what a government he leads will do to mitigate Brexit. If he’s PM, we’ll see much closer alignment than is being acknowledged.
To be fair to SKS he has an election to avoid losing; to do that almost everyone will admit that he has to avoid splitting his voters on post-Brexit issues. If he does he hands seats to Tories, SNP and even LDs. Only unicorn policies or no explicit policies at all can reliably prevent a split.
This is because a huge swathe of middling opinion only wants unicorn policies on Brexit. While a huge group of Labour supporters, mostly middle class, want SM, CU, FoM, EEA, EFTA or EU, another huge group either want none of them or only unicorn edited highlights.
I think nearer the time he will pledge a post-election 'full review of options'. But even that has dangers.
As to what SKS would actually do in government about all this, he and we have no idea.
Absolutely. This government can’t do it. A Labour-led one will have huge leeway because it has no Brexit loon wing to appease.
The next Labour government will have the massive advantage over this one of not having Suella Braverman in cabinet
Even if they have Richard Burgon instead
If real progress is going to need cross-party tolerance (if not consent) we may have to wait until a Conservative politician can say "I know what was promised, 2016-9. Unfortunately, that promise was a lie." and survive.
Until that happens, even 2016 Remainers like Hunt are prisoners of the cakeist fantasy.
If the plan is to have more people holidaying in the UK the government needs to stop the water companies pouring raw sewage into our seas. No-one wants their kids paddling among turds!
Why do something positive to encourage people to do something when you can do something negative and get the French to pay for doing it?
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times today makes the case that we have had enough of 'big ideas', and the most successful pitch for the next election would we "We won't break anything else"
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Absolutely. This government can’t do it. A Labour-led one will have huge leeway because it has no Brexit loon wing to appease. I agree with Casino Royale on this - Starmer is basically telling porkies about what a government he leads will do to mitigate Brexit. If he’s PM, we’ll see much closer alignment than is being acknowledged.
Labour needs Brexit to be a non-issue. As long as that holds they have no interest in defending it. Almost all its supporters think Brexit a mistake. "Making Brexit work" actually means limit the damage but they can't admit it.
Incidentally Labour in Scotland also need independence to be a non-issue.
His book, the View from Number 11, is one of the very best political books I have ever read. He didn't go by chronology but by topic and as a result gave really fascinating insights as to how policy was formed and the limitations on government. It is a good innings but that is sad news. An intellectual giant compared to almost anyone in any political party today.
His views on climate change haven't aged well.
Bringing the Western economies to their knees on the strength of totally unremarkable changes in climate is going to age a lot worse.
You either don't have a clue, or you have some sort of dishonest agenda.
I thought Lawson’s view was:
- Climate change is happening - He wasn’t convinced it was entire anthropomorphic - Given 2 he felt mitigation was a better use of limited resources than carbon reduction
It may be wrong but it’s not some kind of heinous position
For a very intelligent guy, he had some terrible judgment.
To be honest, given absolute Net Zero in carbon *emissions* is almost certainly impossible given political, social and economic constraints I suspect the way we'll actually achieve it is by decarbonising 70-80% of emissions and then littering the planet with direct air capture plants in the middle-latter half of this century to suck out the rest.
So, we'll get to Net Zero (or maybe even slightly negative) but by a different and more practical route based on engineering.
That doesn't sound like a practical route to me. Just like with carbon capture and storage I don't see why people would ever spend billions, indefinitely, as an add-on.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
You could say the same about sewage treatment plants.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
The difference with sewage treatment plants is the long term vs short term thing, which is quite important when it comes to human incentives.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
The UK can spend tens of billions on carbon capture - but that has no net effect for the planet if Vietnam then builds another eleven coal-fired power stations.
Carbon capture as apparently envisaged by this government is a lamentable waste of money. They're going to spend £20bn making burning fossil fuels more expensive. Just daft.
I suspect there is a big donor with his finger in those pies though.
No doubt, but it's a shocking waste of money in our current economic situation.
I'm not sure Rishi and Suella's Muslim bashing is a very wise idea.....
I'd thought he was quite a refreshing choice when he was chosen in that he seemed quite a serious person and possibly knew what he was doing.
I was wrong. He's become a Tory parody. He's discarding his USP's like a string of broken pearls
You do know Sunak refused to endorse Braverman's comments today when interviewed by the media
Then why doesn't he sack her? You can't as a leader have your cake and eat it. Unusually for a single cabinet minister my guess is she's a significant vote loser particularly now Sunak has chosen to team up with her as a double act. She actually makes him look seedy.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times today makes the case that we have had enough of 'big ideas', and the most successful pitch for the next election would we "We won't break anything else"
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Hugo Rifkind has the uncanny habit of always writing a column I disagree with, and this is no exception. His support of safety-ism is the reason on this occasion.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times today makes the case that we have had enough of 'big ideas', and the most successful pitch for the next election would we "We won't break anything else"
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Absolutely. This government can’t do it. A Labour-led one will have huge leeway because it has no Brexit loon wing to appease. I agree with Casino Royale on this - Starmer is basically telling porkies about what a government he leads will do to mitigate Brexit. If he’s PM, we’ll see much closer alignment than is being acknowledged.
If he can deliver on the economy and the NHS, no one will care. That's two pretty big ifs, though.
The entry exit thing was always going to become a huge issue because it is a very palpable and fully demonstrable consequence of the Brexit the government chose. You experience the queuing and know it was not as bad previously. It’s inarguable. So, there will be some kind of deal done and it will involve the UK giving up some level of control. Outside of the depleted, impotent confines of the ERG, no-one will care - they’ll welcome the return of sanity and convenience.
Hugo Rifkind's column in The Times today makes the case that we have had enough of 'big ideas', and the most successful pitch for the next election would we "We won't break anything else"
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Absolutely. This government can’t do it. A Labour-led one will have huge leeway because it has no Brexit loon wing to appease. I agree with Casino Royale on this - Starmer is basically telling porkies about what a government he leads will do to mitigate Brexit. If he’s PM, we’ll see much closer alignment than is being acknowledged.
Which is fine for him, provided he has a big enough Commons majority to force it through. If he tries something like that with a bare majority or a minority without it having been acknowledged well in advance of the election, he's sunk.
Comments
Point you are putting real constraints on people's freedom to travel. Which is literally what No Freedom of Movement says.
I see that Virgin Orbit has gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/bransons-virgin-orbit-files-bankruptcy-2023-04-04/
The US is notorious for how badly they treat people at the border, which is quite ironic given they have a massive broblem with undocumented immigration.
Thankfully, my recent travels have all been pretty good, maybe I’ve just been lucky with timings and destinations.
For our family I’d say the leafing and stamping big itself probably takes about 20-30 seconds more, so 80 secs to 2 minutes extra for our car.
Evidence being largely irrelevant, as in all things Green Party.
“And maybe we’ll do/
In a squirrel or two/
As we’re poisoning, pigeons in the park.”
Or, she could always hire Jolyon Maugham to club them to death.
The political point is that if your child has been stuck in a stationary bus for 14 hours and then have to return home with their ski trip cancelled, you are going to be absolutely livid with this government and protestations from them that it's all the fault of the French won't cut it. Particularly bearing in mind most people think Brexit was a mistake.
If you catch one it's illegal to release it. You are required to kill it - not by drowning.
If you invest in new zero carbon technology then it's only a temporary extra cost until the technology develops and you have a new way of doing something that's cheaper than the old way, and then zero carbon becomes an economic inevitability.
If the cost is low/reasonable enough and the requirements legislated for then it will happen. And it incentivises other solutions in the long-term, as you say.
What are the criteria for being included: how many posts, and when
Who is included, and in what category
What period does this cover
If it's regular, when was it last done, and when will it be done again
I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
We actively chose to be a third country and this is the consequence. It seems silly to deny it or to blame anyone else.
I'm happy with the list.
Social care reform funding halved for England, government confirms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65171795
If they don’t have proper social care reform, very soon we’re going to have far worse and more expensive problems. Arguably they’re already here.
Which will be more damaging to the national economy and the PSBR by far than spending enough to start with.
The claim is that these windfarms stop reindeer migrating in 'traditional herding', and therefore should be removed from Sami lands.
The Norway Supreme Court retrospectively ruled licences for windfarms which have already been built unlawful, after a variety of decisions all the way up the system, without ruing what should be done.
It's a big issue because Sami reindeer land covers about half of Norway - roughly everything north of Trondheim, and just this case is 151 huge turbines worth hundreds of millions of $.
There are not many Sami, reindeer herding is overwhelmingly part time, and the 'traditional herding' practice is not very old - only back to the 17C.
I don't see half a country, even in Scandinavia, being ruled out of renewable energy generation for the benefit of 0.6% of the population - so I expect the Government will get off the fence and establish a new balance. Eventually.
For Greta, I'd say this is Chris Packham mode - find a controversy and jump in feet first. Greta can't decide which of her two opinions is more important, and needs to involve other people.
Sewage treatment plants get you an immediate benefit in not having stinking shit in your rivers and on your beaches. Carbon capture doesn't have such immediate and obvious benefits.
https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
Lawton's flawed judgment was clear long before his slide into climate denial.
As Chancellor, he was brilliant in recognising and addressing the problems of the old economic settlement - tax reform; the abolition of exchange controls; deregulation ... and to an extent, privatisation.
But he established in its place an economic orthodoxy with its own set of flaws.
'Rolling back the frontiers of the state' became a religion, rather than a policy. And its malign effects last to this day in all kind of ways.
And I would point out that it wasn’t until the 1970s that we stopped discharging raw sewage into rivers as the normal practice every day, rather than just after heavy rains. It took literally hundreds of years for people to twig it wasn’t a smart idea.
Also the dominant species over much of the South peninsula. When I was in Moscow the parks had loads of them, and I saw them in Hamburg botanical gardens last year.
One, that we should be able to travel in the free world for lawful purposes without a load of border checks; and, two, that the UK (and other states) should have some sort of accurate idea of who is within their borders.
It is said (no idea how you can know) that there are vast numbers of people in the UK with no right whatsoever to be here.
Just daft.
Warfarin poisoning
The EU licence for the production and sale of warfarin as a grey squirrel bait ended on 30 September 2014. Manufacturers and stockists are no longer able to sell warfarin to control grey squirrels.
Edit: that damn EU interfering again protecting our owls - how dare they!
http://www.redsquirrels.info/
I've encountered some amazing and interesting people through the party though. And we do have the highest average level of education and lowest average BMI of all political parties.
Who knew such a thing existed.
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Never! Never! Never! Never!
It's what many already see is the consequence of our Net Zero Carbon. And why they don't buy into it.
Now, obviously the plan was controls for Them, not Us because we're splendid and rich, but that was never going to work outside a campaign leaflet. The underlying sin of 2016, the reason it's so blooming hard to make this work, was the promise of cake'n'eat it. Easy to promise, natural to vote for, hard to deliver and impossible to confess to.
The physical stamping takes only a few seconds. The rest takes a minute. And this is why the queues are here. I assume that had we not left we would have been given a bypass for this new Schengen rule. Or at the very least reduced it. We could have asked for that.
Instead we said "we want to be a third country". And this is the process. Think how much fun we will all be having next year when we need to be fingerprinted and have our visa checked.
Hmmm... I can't see UC being abolished now. By all means fix the issues but pointless to try to roll it back now.
https://alphahistory.com/northernireland/ian-paisley-never-never-never-1985/
It's an interesting idea, but neglects the fact that we do need a government that will in fact "fix some of the shit we just broke"
Anyone with eyes and a brain knows it takes more than 2 seconds, as it too more than 2 seconds when you hit their border. Yet the right keep saying this guff.
They won't persuade people who are alive. So it must be reassurance lies for the elderly and angry ro protect their prescious Brexit from reality.
The viable technology for that is quite some way off - but might be well worth investing billions in developing. It would also need the cheapest energy, which is and is likely to remain solar, in places like Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Nevada and Arizona.
The Brexit coalition is mostly the first and the third. Orwell said something similar in The Book in 1984.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ4SC-zDJfQ
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cop-dismissed-eid-revellers-smelly-26623320
I loved that car. But I was glad when I got a car with a bigger boot.
1) Sort out the sewage system;
2) Get Jacob Rees-Mogg to holiday in France.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65158796
Oh bugger.
Who are these people ???
They should probably all be shot for the best.
Even if they have Richard Burgon instead
This is because a huge swathe of middling opinion only wants unicorn policies on Brexit. While a huge group of Labour supporters, mostly middle class, want SM, CU, FoM, EEA, EFTA or EU, another huge group either want none of them or only unicorn edited highlights.
I think nearer the time he will pledge a post-election 'full review of options'. But even that has dangers.
As to what SKS would actually do in government about all this, he and we have no idea.
Until that happens, even 2016 Remainers like Hunt are prisoners of the cakeist fantasy.
That time may be a while off yet.
Incidentally Labour in Scotland also need independence to be a non-issue.
That's two pretty big ifs, though.