The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
The actual issue on which the Scottish people may (or may not) have been so badly treated matters however. The SNP thought it would gain support by fighting evil London on gender self-identification, but it turned out Scottish voters agreed more with London.
Here, it's a rather abstract issue -- an amendment being called that calls for a ceasefire in slightly different wording. If you have to get into the details of Parliamentary procedure to explain how the Scottish people have been sorely treated, I can't see it being something that will have a lot of impact.
For example, you say, "If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely?" That shows you've misunderstood the issue. The Government always get to suggest an amendment. Also, these opposition motion votes don't do anything. If you actually want an independence referendum, you'd have to do it through a different sort of Parliamentary vote.
If the SNP are just playing politics - that is also their prerogative! Labour and Tories use House procedure to play politics all the time - the SNP aren’t allowed to? If voting on the motion as written by the SNP was politically difficult for SKS and his party - that’s on him. It’s not down to the Speaker to help make life easier for the LOTO.
I don't have many issues with politicians playing politics, but the optics of doing so over the situation in Gaza is pretty shocking.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
"most stringent rules in history"
Positively Churchillian. Winston would be surprised.
But isn't it supposedly *illegal* immigration that potential Reform voters are worked up about, fide umptythousand and thirteen tabloid front pages? Rather than legal immigration? And the Tories admitting that they'd allowed x million [edit] legals in without doing verty much about it till yesterday isn't a great look either from their pov. Not sure it would be brainless, therefore.
This was a brilliant piece of exposition from Liz Truss's CPAC speech.
At least I thought so, until I realised she wasn't talking about Tory MPs, and their core vote.
“There’s a whole bunch of people – and I describe them as the economic establishment – who fundamentally don’t want the status quo to change because they’re doing quite fine out of it. They don’t really care about the prospects of the average person in Britain and they didn’t want things to change and they didn’t want that power taken away.”
With Brexit we have seen an effortless pivot from the enemy outside to the enemy within. The Tory deflection operation runs on, straining every sinew to distract the public from the reality of who's been running the country into the ground for the last 14 years.
This is a bit longwinded, but it's an excellent exposition of why Biden is by quite some distance the likeliest candidate in November, and why the only realistic alternative is almost certainly Harris.*
Anyone betting real money on the nomination really ought to listen to it.
(*The sheer improbability of doing anything else probably explains the Michelle Obama fantasy.)
Haven't had time to watch it but is the answer: because he's running and no-one else is?
1) Show me the money.
2) How would you otherwise avoid a contested convention (which would likely be a huge mess) ?
Or vice versa.
Disagree on (2). Dumping Biden would be a much bigger mess (now) than a contested convention.
However, the key point is that a contested convention would only be contested among Biden's own delegates. It's not a gathering of the great and good of the Democratic Party (well, it is that too, but it's a lot more). With no-one else on the ballots, then unless Biden drops out *very* soon - within a month - then he'll have a majority of delegates. They won't be independent actors.
Indeed. 'Dumping' at this point necessarily means Biden voluntarily stepping down.
But then unless Harris were anointed uncontested, it would be a huge mess. 'Biden's delegates' doesn't mean they're going to do his bidding were he to drop out.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev. https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708
One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total. Another is what will it be fired from.
The first question is an issue.
The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.
Taurus has lots of platforms, but the only F15 is the "Slam Eagle" supplied to S Korea.
On Storm Shadow, iirc we devised a system using wing pillars recycled from Tornados, which were fitted to SU-27s (iirc).
Checking again, Tornado is in the list - so that may mean it fits the same franken-mount.
Similar weight (1300 vs 1400kg), too.
Longer range because it's more efficient.
Is there much difference in range? And will the Germans limit the range?
We supplied Ukraine a slugged version of Storm Shadow - treaties on missiles for export, I think.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
My experience of the Alt M6 is that it is better to pay, and enjoy the 10 minutes you save.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
If he's anywhere near Cannock, he can't have gone on the toll road *anyway* as the first exit is Burntwood, near Lichfield.
Safe travels to him. Warn him from me the roads round here at the moment are awful due to heavy flooding.
Edit - also warn him there are major roadworks in Cannock town centre, and if he is at Cannock's Aldi he'd be better off avoiding them by going back to the railway bridge and taking the first on the left for Rugeley.
Thanks. I suspect he is on his way again now. He won't answer the phone even hands free whilst driving. I went to Stoke yesterday, the outbound journey took me four and a half hours. The standing water was horrific from home to Droitwich. The return journey except for a delay at Junction 10 was one of the best I have managed. Tewkesbury looked like it was under water. Ross not so bad.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
Why not just Pretend?
Because historically more objective not to use the term (unless one is quoting from a Hanoverian verbatim). Like using Rising rather than Rebellion. Plus we could have had a KCXIII on the throne today, it was that close.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
My experience of the Alt M6 is that it is better to pay, and enjoy the 10 minutes you save.
It depends where you're going from/to and when.
If you're travelling at 9.30am, or at night, or at noon, and going to London or Leicester or Carlisle, it's not worth it.
If you're travelling from Coventry to Lichfield or Cannock at rush hour it's definitely worth it.
What's irritating is they've withdrawn all the nice little deals they used to have for frequent travellers. Makes it even less attractive to travel on.
Someof you may have fond memories of the play "This House" as performed and transmitted by the National Theatre a few years ago. The trailer and clips are on YouTube and the video can be rented from the NT.
The vignette depicted in the play and discussed by @david_herdson et al downstream occurred when whips Walter Harrison (Labour) and Bernard Weatherill (Cons) discussed pairing: a Labour MP was dying and his absence would have precipitated a Government defeat. Weatherill offered to absent himself, obeying the convention but killing his career. Harrison, impressed, released Weatherill from his obligation, the 1979 confidence vote was held and lost, history proceeded.
Crucially, the Confidence vote was held and lost by one vote. Had Weatherill abstained, or had Alf Broughton - the ill MP - attended, the vote would have been tied and the government would have survived for the moment, on the Speaker's casting vote (the Speaker maintaining the convention that s/he always votes with the status quo, which in this case was that the govt did enjoy the House's confidence).
Worth noting two other points.
1. At the time of the discussion, the outcome of the vote couldn't be known with such precision. The votes of the SNP and SDLP and others weren't known.
2. Callaghan had given specific instructions for Broughton not to attend, worrying that he might die on route, which would be bad PR, as well as the human concern for the man. Harrison knew of the instruction but Weatherill didn't.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
If he's anywhere near Cannock, he can't have gone on the toll road *anyway* as the first exit is Burntwood, near Lichfield.
Safe travels to him. Warn him from me the roads round here at the moment are awful due to heavy flooding.
Edit - also warn him there are major roadworks in Cannock town centre, and if he is at Cannock's Aldi he'd be better off avoiding them by going back to the railway bridge and taking the first on the left for Rugeley.
Thanks. I suspect he is on his way again now. He won't answer the phone even hands free whilst driving. I went to Stoke yesterday, the outbound journey took me four and a half hours. The standing water was horrific from home to Droitwich. The return journey except for a delay at Junction 10 was one of the best I have managed. Tewkesbury looked like it was under water. Ross not so bad.
It would be nice if at some point those bastards would remove the cones at Junction 10. Two years overdue and now I never see any work happening there.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
If he's anywhere near Cannock, he can't have gone on the toll road *anyway* as the first exit is Burntwood, near Lichfield.
Safe travels to him. Warn him from me the roads round here at the moment are awful due to heavy flooding.
Edit - also warn him there are major roadworks in Cannock town centre, and if he is at Cannock's Aldi he'd be better off avoiding them by going back to the railway bridge and taking the first on the left for Rugeley.
Thanks. I suspect he is on his way again now. He won't answer the phone even hands free whilst driving. I went to Stoke yesterday, the outbound journey took me four and a half hours. The standing water was horrific from home to Droitwich. The return journey except for a delay at Junction 10 was one of the best I have managed. Tewkesbury looked like it was under water. Ross not so bad.
It would be nice if at some point those bastards would remove the cones at Junction 10. Two years overdue and now I never see any work happening there.
The extra emergency areas up from J32 (M1) are due to be completed "Winter 2024" (Well that's what the signs say). Which to my mind means a hard deadline of 20th March giving them a solar rather than meteorological benefit of the doubt...
They'll have to work remarkably quickly given what appears to be a whole lot of work still to do there and the pace thus far.
This is a bit longwinded, but it's an excellent exposition of why Biden is by quite some distance the likeliest candidate in November, and why the only realistic alternative is almost certainly Harris.*
Anyone betting real money on the nomination really ought to listen to it.
(*The sheer improbability of doing anything else probably explains the Michelle Obama fantasy.)
Haven't had time to watch it but is the answer: because he's running and no-one else is?
1) Show me the money.
2) How would you otherwise avoid a contested convention (which would likely be a huge mess) ?
Or vice versa.
Disagree on (2). Dumping Biden would be a much bigger mess (now) than a contested convention.
However, the key point is that a contested convention would only be contested among Biden's own delegates. It's not a gathering of the great and good of the Democratic Party (well, it is that too, but it's a lot more). With no-one else on the ballots, then unless Biden drops out *very* soon - within a month - then he'll have a majority of delegates. They won't be independent actors.
Indeed. 'Dumping' at this point necessarily means Biden voluntarily stepping down.
But then unless Harris were anointed uncontested, it would be a huge mess. 'Biden's delegates' doesn't mean they're going to do his bidding were he to drop out.
They won't necessarily do his bidding but they will likely be strongly influenced.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
If he's anywhere near Cannock, he can't have gone on the toll road *anyway* as the first exit is Burntwood, near Lichfield.
Safe travels to him. Warn him from me the roads round here at the moment are awful due to heavy flooding.
Edit - also warn him there are major roadworks in Cannock town centre, and if he is at Cannock's Aldi he'd be better off avoiding them by going back to the railway bridge and taking the first on the left for Rugeley.
Thanks. I suspect he is on his way again now. He won't answer the phone even hands free whilst driving. I went to Stoke yesterday, the outbound journey took me four and a half hours. The standing water was horrific from home to Droitwich. The return journey except for a delay at Junction 10 was one of the best I have managed. Tewkesbury looked like it was under water. Ross not so bad.
It would be nice if at some point those bastards would remove the cones at Junction 10. Two years overdue and now I never see any work happening there.
My heart always sinks as I cross the elevated section of the M5 at Oldbury. What comes next? An hour to my destination, or two, three, four hours of gridlock through the oxymoronic Smart Motorway. On the return journey I am just relieved I am heading home.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
If he's anywhere near Cannock, he can't have gone on the toll road *anyway* as the first exit is Burntwood, near Lichfield.
Safe travels to him. Warn him from me the roads round here at the moment are awful due to heavy flooding.
Edit - also warn him there are major roadworks in Cannock town centre, and if he is at Cannock's Aldi he'd be better off avoiding them by going back to the railway bridge and taking the first on the left for Rugeley.
Thanks. I suspect he is on his way again now. He won't answer the phone even hands free whilst driving. I went to Stoke yesterday, the outbound journey took me four and a half hours. The standing water was horrific from home to Droitwich. The return journey except for a delay at Junction 10 was one of the best I have managed. Tewkesbury looked like it was under water. Ross not so bad.
It would be nice if at some point those bastards would remove the cones at Junction 10. Two years overdue and now I never see any work happening there.
My heart always sinks as I cross the elevated section of the M5 at Oldbury. What comes next? An hour to my destination, or two, three, four hours of gridlock through the oxymoronic Smart Motorway. On the return journey I am just relieved I am heading home.
20 years ago for a while I had a weekly commute to Crewe.
If I hit the M60 by 6:59 I would have an hour to get a coffee before hitting the office
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
If he's anywhere near Cannock, he can't have gone on the toll road *anyway* as the first exit is Burntwood, near Lichfield.
Safe travels to him. Warn him from me the roads round here at the moment are awful due to heavy flooding.
Edit - also warn him there are major roadworks in Cannock town centre, and if he is at Cannock's Aldi he'd be better off avoiding them by going back to the railway bridge and taking the first on the left for Rugeley.
Thanks. I suspect he is on his way again now. He won't answer the phone even hands free whilst driving. I went to Stoke yesterday, the outbound journey took me four and a half hours. The standing water was horrific from home to Droitwich. The return journey except for a delay at Junction 10 was one of the best I have managed. Tewkesbury looked like it was under water. Ross not so bad.
It would be nice if at some point those bastards would remove the cones at Junction 10. Two years overdue and now I never see any work happening there.
My heart always sinks as I cross the elevated section of the M5 at Oldbury. What comes next? An hour to my destination, or two, three, four hours of gridlock through the oxymoronic Smart Motorway. On the return journey I am just relieved I am heading home.
This morning they started warning me of a queue at Hilton Park.
I finally reached it 300 yards short of Junction 10...
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
The actual issue on which the Scottish people may (or may not) have been so badly treated matters however. The SNP thought it would gain support by fighting evil London on gender self-identification, but it turned out Scottish voters agreed more with London.
Here, it's a rather abstract issue -- an amendment being called that calls for a ceasefire in slightly different wording. If you have to get into the details of Parliamentary procedure to explain how the Scottish people have been sorely treated, I can't see it being something that will have a lot of impact.
For example, you say, "If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely?" That shows you've misunderstood the issue. The Government always get to suggest an amendment. Also, these opposition motion votes don't do anything. If you actually want an independence referendum, you'd have to do it through a different sort of Parliamentary vote.
Hang on, that can't be right. Opposition motions do have effects. That one about extracting Brexit impact asessments from HMG in 2017, for instance.
"Unless specifically framed, motions tabled on Opposition Days are not seen as binding on the Government. See motion for a return below."
[...]
"Opposition motions usually highlight aspects of government policy for debate and are non-binding. In 2017 the Labour Party used an allotted opposition day to call for the Government to release papers by tabling a motion for a return, using a humble Address. The motion on the Opposition Day debate on 1 November 2017 was worded as follows:"
[...]
"The motion was agreed without a division. The Government agreed to comply with the resolution of the House and provided documents to the Committee on Exiting the European Union. See Commons Library briefing on exiting the EU: Sectoral assessments for more information.
"Are motions for a return binding?
"Responding to a point of order on a similar motion calling for the publication of the Government’s EU exit analysis in January 2018, the Speaker said:
"First, yes, the motion is binding. I think that the Government are clear about that, and the Minister has indicated the intention of the Government to comply with it. Secondly, if memory serves me correctly, the motion refers to “a matter of urgency.” Therefore, the expectation must be that the report that is the subject of the debate will be released, published or made available to those persons mentioned in the motion as a matter of urgency.
"PACAC’s report Status of Resolutions of the House of Commons recommended that this device should not be:
"overused or used irresponsibly, particularly if there is a minority [government]
"PACAC invited the Procedure Committee to consider “if and how contentious or confidential papers might be made available to the House via motions of return.” The Procedure Committee published its report, The House’s power to call for papers: procedure and practice on 15 May 2019."
This is a bit longwinded, but it's an excellent exposition of why Biden is by quite some distance the likeliest candidate in November, and why the only realistic alternative is almost certainly Harris.*
Anyone betting real money on the nomination really ought to listen to it.
(*The sheer improbability of doing anything else probably explains the Michelle Obama fantasy.)
Haven't had time to watch it but is the answer: because he's running and no-one else is?
1) Show me the money.
2) How would you otherwise avoid a contested convention (which would likely be a huge mess) ?
Or vice versa.
Disagree on (2). Dumping Biden would be a much bigger mess (now) than a contested convention.
However, the key point is that a contested convention would only be contested among Biden's own delegates. It's not a gathering of the great and good of the Democratic Party (well, it is that too, but it's a lot more). With no-one else on the ballots, then unless Biden drops out *very* soon - within a month - then he'll have a majority of delegates. They won't be independent actors.
Indeed. 'Dumping' at this point necessarily means Biden voluntarily stepping down.
But then unless Harris were anointed uncontested, it would be a huge mess. 'Biden's delegates' doesn't mean they're going to do his bidding were he to drop out.
They won't necessarily do his bidding but they will likely be strongly influenced.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev. https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708
One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total. Another is what will it be fired from.
The first question is an issue.
The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.
Taurus has lots of platforms, but the only F15 is the "Slam Eagle" supplied to S Korea.
On Storm Shadow, iirc we devised a system using wing pillars recycled from Tornados, which were fitted to SU-27s (iirc).
Checking again, Tornado is in the list - so that may mean it fits the same franken-mount.
Similar weight (1300 vs 1400kg), too.
Longer range because it's more efficient.
Is there much difference in range? And will the Germans limit the range?
We supplied Ukraine a slugged version of Storm Shadow - treaties on missiles for export, I think.
Various estimates of around a third greater range owing to a more efficient turbofan. And apparently it has a larger and more advanced warhead, which might be of significance for some hard targets (*cough* bridges).
This was a brilliant piece of exposition from Liz Truss's CPAC speech.
At least I thought so, until I realised she wasn't talking about Tory MPs, and their core vote.
“There’s a whole bunch of people – and I describe them as the economic establishment – who fundamentally don’t want the status quo to change because they’re doing quite fine out of it. They don’t really care about the prospects of the average person in Britain and they didn’t want things to change and they didn’t want that power taken away.”
With Brexit we have seen an effortless pivot from the enemy outside to the enemy within. The Tory deflection operation runs on, straining every sinew to distract the public from the reality of who's been running the country into the ground for the last 14 years.
Really, so where are the right wing, hangem, flogem, Thatcherite, Brexit Island policies then? The tax burden is at an all time high, regulation is at an all time high, we still have every stupid and burdensome EU regulation - do you really think all that is due to the Tories being given their hand? I agree that fundamentally they should have done something about the civil service, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
How does one in - one out work with emigration of Brits?
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
How does one in - one out work with emigration of Brits?
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
I think the safety catch is that one in one out only happens under a Reform government.
Biden's the one who diverted shells from Ukraine to Israel. Are you proud of that?
Are you going to answer the question you were asked?
It's based on a false premise. If I want anything it's for people to be less hysterical about the prospect.
I'm unsure 'hysterical' is the correct word.
Here's a question for you: why should I, as a Brit, be hopeful that a second Trump presidency would be in any way positive?
Why should you have a strong opinion either way? There were fewer serious international crises while Trump was President than there have been since Biden took over.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
How does one in - one out work with emigration of Brits?
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
Their website has a document that says:
"Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need."
The word "approximately" presumably allows for some wriggle room.
It goes on:
"Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did.
"We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose"
I'm unclear why you need offshore processing centres if you are not going to grant asylum to anyone.
I couldn't see any further details on "one in, one out".
“Television soaps could potentially be created by AI within the next three to five years, according to a leading director. James Hawes, vice-chairman of Directors UK and director of the Apple TV+ Gary Oldman spy drama Slow Horses, told parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport committee inquiry into British film and high-end television that digitally made scripts will soon be upon us – particularly for soaps.”
Biden's the one who diverted shells from Ukraine to Israel. Are you proud of that?
Are you going to answer the question you were asked?
It's based on a false premise. If I want anything it's for people to be less hysterical about the prospect.
I'm unsure 'hysterical' is the correct word.
Here's a question for you: why should I, as a Brit, be hopeful that a second Trump presidency would be in any way positive?
Why should you have a strong opinion either way? There were fewer serious international crises while Trump was President than there have been since Biden took over.
Because I don't want the world's leading country to be run by someone who might withdraw from NATO? And that's leaving aside the other personal flaws in character that mean he's utterly unsuitable for the job.
As for the crises: the biggest is Ukraine; and you're correct, that wouldn't be an issue under Trump. Because he might well back Russia.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
How does one in - one out work with emigration of Brits?
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
Their website has a document that says:
"Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need."
The word "approximately" presumably allows for some wriggle room.
It goes on:
"Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did.
"We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose"
I'm unclear why you need offshore processing centres if you are not going to grant asylum to anyone.
I couldn't see any further details on "one in, one out".
“That is why our policy is absolutely clear: one in, one out. That equals net zero.
“About 400,000 to 450,000 people leave the country every year so you can have smart immigration – highly qualified, highly skilled people to that number, but no more.
“You can almost have a Ryanair booking system as you get near the end of the year and the numbers get towards zero – there are all sorts of ways you can cut it.
“But the bottom line is – one in, one out. We’ve got the biggest population ever, we’ve got record numbers of our own people on out of work benefits, it’s very simple. We’ve got to train our own people."
“Television soaps could potentially be created by AI within the next three to five years, according to a leading director. James Hawes, vice-chairman of Directors UK and director of the Apple TV+ Gary Oldman spy drama Slow Horses, told parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport committee inquiry into British film and high-end television that digitally made scripts will soon be upon us – particularly for soaps.”
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
Paul Maynard: Pensions minister investigated over funding claims A full investigation has been launched into claims Pensions Minister Paul Maynard used taxpayers' money to fund his campaigning, the parliamentary watchdog said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-68367696
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
How does one in - one out work with emigration of Brits?
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
Their website has a document that says:
"Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need."
The word "approximately" presumably allows for some wriggle room.
It goes on:
"Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did.
"We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose"
I'm unclear why you need offshore processing centres if you are not going to grant asylum to anyone.
I couldn't see any further details on "one in, one out".
“That is why our policy is absolutely clear: one in, one out. That equals net zero.
“About 400,000 to 450,000 people leave the country every year so you can have smart immigration – highly qualified, highly skilled people to that number, but no more.
“You can almost have a Ryanair booking system as you get near the end of the year and the numbers get towards zero – there are all sorts of ways you can cut it.
“But the bottom line is – one in, one out. We’ve got the biggest population ever, we’ve got record numbers of our own people on out of work benefits, it’s very simple. We’ve got to train our own people."
We need people to be ‘carers’; not so much a matter of training as being suitable to do the work.
NB Declares interest; the care firm we use to support me is having recruitment problems.
Paul Maynard: Pensions minister investigated over funding claims A full investigation has been launched into claims Pensions Minister Paul Maynard used taxpayers' money to fund his campaigning, the parliamentary watchdog said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-68367696
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
How does one in - one out work with emigration of Brits?
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
Their website has a document that says:
"Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need."
The word "approximately" presumably allows for some wriggle room.
It goes on:
"Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did.
"We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose"
I'm unclear why you need offshore processing centres if you are not going to grant asylum to anyone.
I couldn't see any further details on "one in, one out".
“That is why our policy is absolutely clear: one in, one out. That equals net zero.
“About 400,000 to 450,000 people leave the country every year so you can have smart immigration – highly qualified, highly skilled people to that number, but no more.
“You can almost have a Ryanair booking system as you get near the end of the year and the numbers get towards zero – there are all sorts of ways you can cut it.
“But the bottom line is – one in, one out. We’ve got the biggest population ever, we’ve got record numbers of our own people on out of work benefits, it’s very simple. We’ve got to train our own people."
We need people to be ‘carers’; not so much a matter of training as being suitable to do the work.
NB Declares interest; the care firm we use to support me is having recruitment problems.
The idea that a country only needs highly skilled immigrants is bizarre. Surely - like Singapore - we should be aiming to have all the highly skilled people being British, and we should import people to clean our homes?
This is literally Russia's propaganda. (Although Russia claims those figures as Ukraine's killed and wounded.)
“I haven’t voted for any money to go to Ukraine because I know they can’t win. You know, you hate that they’ve had 3-or-400,000 people killed, so — Russians also. … It’s an atrocity, but they can’t win.”
It's an irregular verb. I slashed red tape. You cut the civil service bureaucracy. He outsourced to the private sector at twice the cost and half the efficiency.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
Moldova can request assistance if it wants, including from Ukraine.
The Russian military are there but they haven't been able to do much due to supply issues, plus they've not wanted to be too overt. That would change if it actually became part of Russia and if they could get the supply question sorted out (which they can't if there's a hot war with Ukraine going on but might be able to if there's a ceasefire).
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
How does one in - one out work with emigration of Brits?
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
Their website has a document that says:
"Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need."
The word "approximately" presumably allows for some wriggle room.
It goes on:
"Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did.
"We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose"
I'm unclear why you need offshore processing centres if you are not going to grant asylum to anyone.
I couldn't see any further details on "one in, one out".
“That is why our policy is absolutely clear: one in, one out. That equals net zero.
“About 400,000 to 450,000 people leave the country every year so you can have smart immigration – highly qualified, highly skilled people to that number, but no more.
“You can almost have a Ryanair booking system as you get near the end of the year and the numbers get towards zero – there are all sorts of ways you can cut it.
“But the bottom line is – one in, one out. We’ve got the biggest population ever, we’ve got record numbers of our own people on out of work benefits, it’s very simple. We’ve got to train our own people."
We need people to be ‘carers’; not so much a matter of training as being suitable to do the work.
NB Declares interest; the care firm we use to support me is having recruitment problems.
And has probably had those recruitment problems for most of the last 15 years
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
You mean Annabelle Goldie's support for Salmond's minority government In the 2007-11 of the Scottish Parliament? Probably a mistake in hindsight, right enough.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
How does one in - one out work with emigration of Brits?
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
Their website has a document that says:
"Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need."
The word "approximately" presumably allows for some wriggle room.
It goes on:
"Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did.
"We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose"
I'm unclear why you need offshore processing centres if you are not going to grant asylum to anyone.
I couldn't see any further details on "one in, one out".
“That is why our policy is absolutely clear: one in, one out. That equals net zero.
“About 400,000 to 450,000 people leave the country every year so you can have smart immigration – highly qualified, highly skilled people to that number, but no more.
“You can almost have a Ryanair booking system as you get near the end of the year and the numbers get towards zero – there are all sorts of ways you can cut it.
“But the bottom line is – one in, one out. We’ve got the biggest population ever, we’ve got record numbers of our own people on out of work benefits, it’s very simple. We’ve got to train our own people."
We need people to be ‘carers’; not so much a matter of training as being suitable to do the work.
NB Declares interest; the care firm we use to support me is having recruitment problems.
And has probably had those recruitment problems for most of the last 15 years
No, hasn’t been going long enough. We were much better off for good East European carers before Brexit, though.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
(It's actually - for Eurovision - rather a catchy tune)
It was about merger between Romania and Moldova, but the band denied this and said it was just about a happy train journey so as not to fall foul of Eurovision’s no politics rule.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
My experience of the Alt M6 is that it is better to pay, and enjoy the 10 minutes you save.
It depends where you're going from/to and when.
If you're travelling at 9.30am, or at night, or at noon, and going to London or Leicester or Carlisle, it's not worth it.
If you're travelling from Coventry to Lichfield or Cannock at rush hour it's definitely worth it.
What's irritating is they've withdrawn all the nice little deals they used to have for frequent travellers. Makes it even less attractive to travel on.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
You mean Annabelle Goldie's support for Salmond's minority government In the 2007-11 of the Scottish Parliament? Probably a mistake in hindsight, right enough.
You're conflating issue by issue pick'n'mix with semiformal alliances.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
(It's actually - for Eurovision - rather a catchy tune)
It was about merger between Romania and Moldova, but the band denied this and said it was just about a happy train journey so as not to fall foul of Eurovision’s no politics rule.
The acts and their songs always age well, and maintain the quality - especially the winners. I wonder if they took themselves seriously.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
(It's actually - for Eurovision - rather a catchy tune)
It was about merger between Romania and Moldova, but the band denied this and said it was just about a happy train journey so as not to fall foul of Eurovision’s no politics rule.
The lyrics are pretty explicit, with all the two countries or one lark. But they had to say it.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Biden's the one who diverted shells from Ukraine to Israel. Are you proud of that?
Are you going to answer the question you were asked?
It's based on a false premise. If I want anything it's for people to be less hysterical about the prospect.
I'm unsure 'hysterical' is the correct word.
Here's a question for you: why should I, as a Brit, be hopeful that a second Trump presidency would be in any way positive?
Why should you have a strong opinion either way? There were fewer serious international crises while Trump was President than there have been since Biden took over.
So what's your view, your personal view? Are you hoping for a Trump election victory in 2024?
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Paul Maynard: Pensions minister investigated over funding claims A full investigation has been launched into claims Pensions Minister Paul Maynard used taxpayers' money to fund his campaigning, the parliamentary watchdog said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-68367696
Delivering to the North what the South already has. True levelling up in action in Blackpool.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Ummm:
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
This is literally Russia's propaganda. (Although Russia claims those figures as Ukraine's killed and wounded.)
“I haven’t voted for any money to go to Ukraine because I know they can’t win. You know, you hate that they’ve had 3-or-400,000 people killed, so — Russians also. … It’s an atrocity, but they can’t win.”
The subversion of the party of Reagan by Russia has been astonishingly rapid and successful. It must go down as one of the greatest victories of a foreign intelligence service of all time.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
Instead of importing care workers, export pensioners. We could perhaps turn some land in Guyana into a huge retirement complex and offer them a defence treaty in exchange.
This is a bit longwinded, but it's an excellent exposition of why Biden is by quite some distance the likeliest candidate in November, and why the only realistic alternative is almost certainly Harris.*
Anyone betting real money on the nomination really ought to listen to it.
(*The sheer improbability of doing anything else probably explains the Michelle Obama fantasy.)
Haven't had time to watch it but is the answer: because he's running and no-one else is?
1) Show me the money.
2) How would you otherwise avoid a contested convention (which would likely be a huge mess) ?
Or vice versa.
Disagree on (2). Dumping Biden would be a much bigger mess (now) than a contested convention.
However, the key point is that a contested convention would only be contested among Biden's own delegates. It's not a gathering of the great and good of the Democratic Party (well, it is that too, but it's a lot more). With no-one else on the ballots, then unless Biden drops out *very* soon - within a month - then he'll have a majority of delegates. They won't be independent actors.
This is a very important point that should have got much more recognition than it has.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
Instead of importing care workers, export pensioners. We could perhaps turn some land in Guyana into a huge retirement complex and offer them a defence treaty in exchange.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
My Samsung (android) does exactly the same and just as simply
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Ummm:
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
Maybe in theory. Bet it doesn't work properly on Microsoft systems.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Ummm:
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
And, for us nerds, dpkg --get-selections | dpkg --set-selections has worked since the prehistoric era...
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
I wonder if we could negotiate a deal with other countries where if they wanted British pensioners could move freely around a warmer climate with cheaper housing and food costs?
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
According to my consultant if I hadn't had my pacemaker two weeks ago, by Summer nobody would have had to deport me anywhere !!!!
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Ummm:
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
Maybe in theory. Bet it doesn't work properly on Microsoft systems.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Ummm:
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
And, for us nerds, dpkg --get-selections | dpkg --set-selections has worked since the prehistoric era...
Oh, you're a Debian user?
I guess compiling packages from scratch is too complicated for you.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
A rapid merger of nuclear deterrent with France would do the job.
Comments
Positively Churchillian. Winston would be surprised.
But isn't it supposedly *illegal* immigration that potential Reform voters are worked up about, fide umptythousand and thirteen tabloid front pages? Rather than legal immigration? And the Tories admitting that they'd allowed x million [edit] legals in without doing verty much about it till yesterday isn't a great look either from their pov. Not sure it would be brainless, therefore.
'Dumping' at this point necessarily means Biden voluntarily stepping down.
But then unless Harris were anointed uncontested, it would be a huge mess.
'Biden's delegates' doesn't mean they're going to do his bidding were he to drop out.
Trump strategist slams DeSantis as ‘sad little man’
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/22/trump-desantis-2024-00142611
Russia vilifies ‘Hollywood cowboy’ Biden for cursing Putin
https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-hits-back-biden-calling-putin-a-sob/
We supplied Ukraine a slugged version of Storm Shadow - treaties on missiles for export, I think.
Nice pun though!
If you're travelling at 9.30am, or at night, or at noon, and going to London or Leicester or Carlisle, it's not worth it.
If you're travelling from Coventry to Lichfield or Cannock at rush hour it's definitely worth it.
What's irritating is they've withdrawn all the nice little deals they used to have for frequent travellers. Makes it even less attractive to travel on.
Worth noting two other points.
1. At the time of the discussion, the outcome of the vote couldn't be known with such precision. The votes of the SNP and SDLP and others weren't known.
2. Callaghan had given specific instructions for Broughton not to attend, worrying that he might die on route, which would be bad PR, as well as the human concern for the man. Harrison knew of the instruction but Weatherill didn't.
They'll have to work remarkably quickly given what appears to be a whole lot of work still to do there and the pace thus far.
If I hit the M60 by 6:59 I would have an hour to get a coffee before hitting the office
7:02 and best to ring to say you would be late
I finally reached it 300 yards short of Junction 10...
"Unless specifically framed, motions tabled on Opposition Days are not seen as binding on the Government. See motion for a return below."
[...]
"Opposition motions usually highlight aspects of government policy for debate and are non-binding. In 2017 the Labour Party used an allotted opposition day to call for the Government to release papers by tabling a motion for a return, using a humble Address. The motion on the Opposition Day debate on 1 November 2017 was worded as follows:"
[...]
"The motion was agreed without a division. The Government agreed to comply with the resolution of the House and provided documents to the Committee on Exiting the European Union. See Commons Library briefing on exiting the EU: Sectoral assessments for more information.
"Are motions for a return binding?
"Responding to a point of order on a similar motion calling for the publication of the Government’s EU exit analysis in January 2018, the Speaker said:
"First, yes, the motion is binding. I think that the Government are clear about that, and the Minister has indicated the intention of the Government to comply with it. Secondly, if memory serves me correctly, the motion refers to “a matter of urgency.” Therefore, the expectation must be that the report that is the subject of the debate will be released, published or made available to those persons mentioned in the motion as a matter of urgency.
"PACAC’s report Status of Resolutions of the House of Commons recommended that this device should not be:
"overused or used irresponsibly, particularly if there is a minority [government]
"PACAC invited the Procedure Committee to consider “if and how contentious or confidential papers might be made available to the House via motions of return.” The Procedure Committee published its report, The House’s power to call for papers: procedure and practice on 15 May 2019."
Anyone else, it would be a scrap.
And apparently it has a larger and more advanced warhead, which might be of significance for some hard targets (*cough* bridges).
https://www.romaniajournal.ro/politics/transnistria-would-request-annexation-to-russia/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68370684
So, if I move to the US (as I have done), does that mean that there can now be one new person coming to the UK? And if so, do they have to leave when I return home?
Also: how are they planning on dealing with secondments and other short term immigration? Are they really saying that Google can't bring over a US person to work at Deep Mind for six months? (Candidly, when I was a CFO of a multinational company, the thing that worried me most about Brexit was added hassle around secondment of employees to and from Estonia and Italy. We'd move people around all the time to share technical knowledge and make sure they were working on projects where their knowledge was most useful. Fortunately, the Johnson and May governments were pretty sensible on this.)
Here's a question for you: why should I, as a Brit, be hopeful that a second Trump presidency would be in any way positive?
MOGG AS SPEAKER. He never answers a direct question. Are you new here?
It's a spoof account.
"Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need."
The word "approximately" presumably allows for some wriggle room.
It goes on:
"Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did.
"We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose"
I'm unclear why you need offshore processing centres if you are not going to grant asylum to anyone.
I couldn't see any further details on "one in, one out".
“Television soaps could potentially be created by AI within the next three to five years, according to a leading director. James Hawes, vice-chairman of Directors UK and director of the Apple TV+ Gary Oldman spy drama Slow Horses, told parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport committee inquiry into British film and high-end television that digitally made scripts will soon be upon us – particularly for soaps.”
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/feb/22/james-hawes-select-committee-tv-soaps-made-using-ai
This site would be much better off if it basically accepted that I AM RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING
As for the crises: the biggest is Ukraine; and you're correct, that wouldn't be an issue under Trump. Because he might well back Russia.
“That is why our policy is absolutely clear: one in, one out. That equals net zero.
“About 400,000 to 450,000 people leave the country every year so you can have smart immigration – highly qualified, highly skilled people to that number, but no more.
“You can almost have a Ryanair booking system as you get near the end of the year and the numbers get towards zero – there are all sorts of ways you can cut it.
“But the bottom line is – one in, one out. We’ve got the biggest population ever, we’ve got record numbers of our own people on out of work benefits, it’s very simple. We’ve got to train our own people."
https://what3words.com/fight.about.everything
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
A full investigation has been launched into claims Pensions Minister Paul Maynard used taxpayers' money to fund his campaigning, the parliamentary watchdog said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-68367696
Have you read the MH17 report yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_presence_in_Transnistria
NB Declares interest; the care firm we use to support me is having recruitment problems.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/22/trump-sununu-republican-party-00142635
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-68308809
https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1758577344539717711
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/22/home-office-contractor-suspends-staff-after-israel-defaced-on-birth-certificate
(Although Russia claims those figures as Ukraine's killed and wounded.)
“I haven’t voted for any money to go to Ukraine because I know they can’t win. You know, you hate that they’ve had 3-or-400,000 people killed, so — Russians also. … It’s an atrocity, but they can’t win.”
— Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) at CPAC on Ukraine aid
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1760702934562533385
I slashed red tape.
You cut the civil service bureaucracy.
He outsourced to the private sector at twice the cost and half the efficiency.
Or in this case, the government did all three.
The Russian military are there but they haven't been able to do much due to supply issues, plus they've not wanted to be too overt. That would change if it actually became part of Russia and if they could get the supply question sorted out (which they can't if there's a hot war with Ukraine going on but might be able to if there's a ceasefire).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9RJQPZsj8E
(It's actually - for Eurovision - rather a catchy tune)
When travelling from Derby to Oswestry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnopHCL1Jk8
Brotherhood of Man - Angelo !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0fC_HL2NL8
The lyrics are pretty explicit, with all the two countries or one lark. But they had to say it.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
I guess compiling packages from scratch is too complicated for you.
Yesterday we were splitting the lunch bill between 6.
Three people paid using their phones as if they were credit cards. How is this even a thing?
Two people paid using actual cards.
I slapped a couple of tenners down on the table.
Former deputy PM lists gift of services from advisory firm as he takes on job with mining company
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/22/dominic-raab-taking-career-transition-advice-mps-register-shows
Cross Raab off the list of possible Speakers imo.