That is largely rubbish, a majority of the seats Corbyn gained were in Tory Leave seats and he gained those by accepting leaving the single market to end free movement and could then campaign against the dementia tax, austerity and student fees.
Ironically the Tories ended up making most of their gains in Remain seats because of their gains in Scotland.
Article draws completely the wrong conclusion IMO - Labour didn’t have to promise to reverse brexit to pick up lots of remain votes.
The LDs did that and gained just 4 net seats and lost voteshare.
That too many Brexiteers believe that the world revolves around them, is not shared by the rest of the world, and slowly, but surely it is beginning to dawn on them that the tenets of their self belief are crumbling....
Michael Portillo’s comments on This Week last Thursday suggest that we still have some way to go before this process is complete.
He voted Remain.
Are you sure? I know he thought holding a referendum was a mistake because he thought Remain would win, but as far as I’m aware he backed Leave.
I think he’s an interesting bellwether either way because he’s not a fanatic but lazily shares a lot of the misconceptions of the Brexiteer worldview.
He said he voted Remain on the week before last's show. Or at least that is my memory of it.
He then said since then he has changed his mind and would now vote Leave, because the EU, Macron and so on have been talking more about shared political power, EU finance budget etc and he doesn't want any part of all that.
Interesting reading. So if both parties are aware of this they'll be trimming towards as soft a Brexit as they can get away with. Brexit in name only won't satisfy many people. All it will really mean is losing our influence on how the EU develops. We'll be back in in 10 years. In the meantime we'll have spent a ton of cash, ignored problems that could have done with some attention and made ourselves look stupid. We'll also have given up a couple of plums like the EMA and boosted Frankfurt and Dublin in their competition to London.
No as I pointed out Corbyn won a plurality of his gains in June in Tory Leave seats precisely because he promised to leave the single market and end free movement and not have a soft Brexit which then allowed him to campaign against the dementia tax and austerity etc.
The Tories made a plurality of their gains in SNP Remain seats but because they opposed indyref2 which enabled them to win despite their taking a tougher line on Brexit than the SNP.
The LDs did win a net 4 seats on an anti Brexit ticket but that was only 4 up on their terrible 2015 result and they still lost voteshare.
All true enough, but a bit beside the point I was making. There is now a strong Pro EU vote which didn’t exist before. Both parties will need to take into account when drafting their policies.
Is there? Given 2/3 of seats voted Leave and Corbyn made most of his gains from the Tories in Leave seats I don't really see that.
"Mr Portillo said: “I would say, ‘I voted Remain a year and half a go, but since then I’ve heard President Macron and Mr Juncker talking about having a single budget, a single finance minister, a single European army."
"“‘I now realise the European Union has embarked on a centralising and undemocratic course, which I had not appreciated a year ago, so emphatically I believe we are right to leave.’”
I am off to a privatised part of the NHS this morning to be assessed whether I should have an operation or not. My GP thinks I should and need it urgently but I've been trying to work out whether it is in the firm's financial interest for me to have it or not. My guess is the latter. This is demand management.
Unfortunately we can't do anything about the EU's negotiating team. Although they do seem to be learning. There are finally some signs that they understand that a negotiation is not just presenting a set of demands and expecting the other side to roll over.
Do you do much negotiation? I do. One of the best I ever faced was someone who did exactly this - she knew that I needed her to move more than she needed any moves from me. So she opened extreme, and she stayed there until I was forced to make various significant concessions. Because the power balance was strongly in her favour - no deal was far less damaging to her position than to mine. And in other negotiations with the power balance the other way round I have been the party making the demands. Because a negotiation is NOT about fairness.
The same is true for the EU. Its 27 vs 1, the power sits with them not with us. That our negotiation team can't see through their jingoistic arrogance to understand the start points to the negotiation explains a huge amount about our lack of progress. We cross the channel banging on about the mother of all rows and telling Brussels to go whistle, then seem surprised to find in reality that the other party is holding all the aces and us a pair of threes.
Business cannot wait for an 11th hour deal. A50 means we leave at the end of March 2019 deal or no deal. With no signs of a deal and no signs that the UK "negotiators" can even agree on the objectives of such a deal, business will assume the worst and act accordingly. They've been very clear that without significant progress this year they would act accordingly next year, and as Nick Palmer points out there is a significant risk in 2018 to our economy.
You want the perfect political storm? 2018. A government in office but unable to even command power over the cabinet never mind parliament. An economy with a prices recession in full effect and deepening. Massive pressure on local authorities as year of cuts combined with an onslaught of UC costs tips some towards the edge. And business pulling out the umbilicals of investment and jobs to protect itself against the assumed crunch against the bottom of the cliff in April 2019.
It could be a brutal bloody year and I get the distinct impression that millions of people are in angry denial about the peril of the situation. Once they realise their anger will be directed at the politicians.
It could indeed. As far as quite a few businesses are concerned, we are already in Brexit Limbo - and how many are going to put off planning for the worst until this time next year ?
I am off to a privatised part of the NHS this morning to be assessed whether I should have an operation or not. My GP thinks I should and need it urgently but I've been trying to work out whether it is in the firm's financial interest for me to have it or not. My guess is the latter. This is demand management.
Good luck Mike, hope it goes well. Hopefully you can rely on the good judgment of a medical professional, private or not.
"Mr Portillo said: “I would say, ‘I voted Remain a year and half a go, but since then I’ve heard President Macron and Mr Juncker talking about having a single budget, a single finance minister, a single European army."
"“‘I now realise the European Union has embarked on a centralising and undemocratic course, which I had not appreciated a year ago, so emphatically I believe we are right to leave.’”
The British government will still likely implement some EU regulations to ensure the City gets some access to the EEA but the Leave vote means we are leaving the single market to reduce immigration and end free movement with a FTA the best alternative to that.
We aren't going to reduce immigration - even the leave camp were clear that they aren't going to demand foreigners go home or even try and run an economy that doesn't have significant immigration. So with respect to the "I'm not racist but there's too many of them here" argument, they can go bollocks for all I care. We quite simply rely on migrant labour in so many key areas because we've chosen to drive people away from key fields like medicine and teaching thanks to crap pay and conditions. "Make them go home" can't be done, so tough.
But what we can do is regain some control over migration. There is nothing stopping us implementing existing EEA rules about regulations of movement - British citizens have to register with their local authority and we can make EU citizens do the same. Then apply the 3 months to find a job rule. Present "new" tougher rules combined with a beefier Border Force fit for purpose and there you go, control of our borders.
We have too much pressure on housing and services because of uncontrolled EU immigration, exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession in 2004 and the Leave vote was a reaction to that and must be respected which is why free movement will end. Only 5% of nurses for example come from the EU and even fewer teachers so the idea they exist because of EU migration is nonsense, of course EU migrants can still come to work in those fields with the new points system which will replace free movement if they have needed skills though the gradual easing of the public sector pay cap should encourage more domestically trained applicants too.
The '3 months to find a job rule' but full free movement for that three months is not enough of a change, although I accept that is largely down to Blair and his failure to impose transition controls.
Ironically much the view of @williamglenn but taking a sombre rather than optimistic perspective on it!
In that 2014 article he’s arguing that a Remain vote would be a game changer so it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie, but was very relaxed about leaving. So some similarity with my view but he didn’t foresee a Leave vote being the trigger.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
I think the absolute worst aspect of Brexit is how it has stimulated the proliferation of soi-disant negotiation experts on PB.com.
We've always had them.
I remember reading that Blair / Brown / Cameron were brilliant negotiators who were going to outwit the EU / were far too subtle for sceptics to understand their tactics / hadn't actually humiliatingly surrendered to the EU.
"No Brexit" requires all our politicians to say this: "We asked the voters what to do on the EU. The voters gave us an instruction. That instruction could not be carried out - because we had lied to them for so long, locking the UK into the UK in a way which meant it could not be extracted, without ever explaining that to them. Sorry guys - you're stuck with the EU."
Or they could tell the truth.
"We lied to you about how bad being a member of the EU was, and how much economic damage leaving will do. We can leave. We are, and always were Sovereign, but the costs are huge, and leaving will not solve any of the problems that were falsely attributed to the EU by charlatans like BoZo. It is in the National interest to remain a member of the EU."
Then there should be a General Election
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Do you do much negotiation? I do. One of the best I ever faced was someone who did exactly this - she knew that I needed her to move more than she needed any moves from me. So she opened extreme, and she stayed there until I was forced to make various significant concessions. Because the power balance was strongly in her favour - no deal was far less damaging to her position than to mine. And in other negotiations with the power balance the other way round I have been the party making the demands. Because a negotiation is NOT about fairness.
The same is true for the EU. Its 27 vs 1, the power sits with them not with us. That our negotiation team can't see through their jingoistic arrogance to understand the start points to the negotiation explains a huge amount about our lack of progress. We cross the channel banging on about the mother of all rows and telling Brussels to go whistle, then seem surprised to find in reality that the other party is holding all the aces and us a pair of threes.
Business cannot wait for an 11th hour deal. A50 means we leave at the end of March 2019 deal or no deal. With no signs of a deal and no signs that the UK "negotiators" can even agree on the objectives of such a deal, business will assume the worst and act accordingly. They've been very clear that without significant progress this year they would act accordingly next year, and as Nick Palmer points out there is a significant risk in 2018 to our economy.
You want the perfect political storm? 2018. A government in office but unable to even command power over the cabinet never mind parliament. An economy with a prices recession in full effect and deepening. Massive pressure on local authorities as year of cuts combined with an onslaught of UC costs tips some towards the edge. And business pulling out the umbilicals of investment and jobs to protect itself against the assumed crunch against the bottom of the cliff in April 2019.
It could be a brutal bloody year and I get the distinct impression that millions of people are in angry denial about the peril of the situation. Once they realise their anger will be directed at the politicians.
It could indeed. As far as quite a few businesses are concerned, we are already in Brexit Limbo - and how many are going to put off planning for the worst until this time next year ?
Absolutely. Which is why we need to have heads of agreement in the next few months. If there’s no prospect of a deal by next summer businesses will plan accordingly.
Which is why the EU have every intention of stringing things out until the last possible moment.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Quite - the orgy of faux outrage grows by the hour as all the hacks eagerly await the claims against MPs.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Indeed so. The rest of the world have all been telling each other Weinstein jokes for the last couple of weeks, are more likely to think good of a politician joining in than get outraged about it.
But the fact remains Remainers were only able to cost Theresa her majority because Labour lied and pretended they were in favour of Brexit, thus splitting the Leave vote between Lab and Con.
The clarifications are likely to have been given by authorities within Europe rather than just our own as to the extent to which it is possible for a bank with a presence in the EU can use an entity outside it to carry out many of the functions for and on behalf of the the EU based entity. The more it can, the less need to move jobs to the EU.
If I’m right on this, then it is both interesting in terme of the attitude of the EU authorities and helpful for the UK.
I see your old friend Mr K has stepped down in disgrace. It's funny how people get done for minor things in the scheme of his overall wrongdoing!
Mr. Song, if the EU army is funded by the EU then we would have ended up paying for it. Not only that, it'll undercut NATO to no advantage.
Why is an EU Army bad and NATO good? (Apart from the fact that we can freeload off the US in NATO obviously.)
Who would you back in a fight ? The EU army or NATO ?
The two are substantially the same, barring the Yanks.
I don't believe so.
NATO is a military alliance with common command structures but (Article 5 excepted) it is up to a member whether they contribute to a particular exercise or engagement
The EU Army is a common army under common control. It could, in theory, be committed to action against the wishes of a member and/or a member would be much more restricted in their ability to act unilaterally
It's a great piece by David as indeed it always is. It puts it's finger on one of the three central dynamics of the negotiation. Three dynamics which can't all be accommodated which means at least one will have to give. #1 There is no majority in the Commons for No Deal and push back on this point is well advanced.#2 A FTA isn't going to be ready by March 2019 and even the Brexit fantasists in government have started admitting as much. #3 May has said transition will only happen if a deal is in place by March 2019.
All current British politics is about how these three incompatible dynamics are accommodated either by industrial scale fudge or by one collapsing publically. David helpfully describes one very plausible sort of fudge.
F1: third practice is 4-5pm so the pre-qualifying ramble will be up this evening. It's a longer one than usual because I've included wibbling about the early bets, so if you're an F1 person do let me know if that's better/worse than the usual shorter pre-qualifying prognostications.
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
When/if parliament votes on any leaving deal with the EU it can only choose between
a) the deal negotiated with the EU or b) no deal and WTO trade terms
Parliament does not have a realistic option of voting for the governmnet to go back and negotiate a better deal (the EU has already rejected that) or to stay within the EU (Article 50 has been triggered).
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
Surely the pro Remain parties are Lib Dems in England, SNP in Scotland and Welsh Nationalists in Wales.
It's a great piece by David as indeed it always is. It puts it's finger on one of the three central dynamics of the negotiation. Three dynamics which can't all be accommodated which means at least one will have to give. #1 There is no majority in the Commons for No Deal and push back on this point is well advanced.#2 A FTA isn't going to be ready by March 2019 and even the Brexit fantasists in government have started admitting as much. #3 May has said transition will only happen if a deal is in place by March 2019.
All current British politics is about how these three incompatible dynamics are accommodated either by industrial scale fudge or by one collapsing publically. David helpfully describes one very plausible sort of fudge.
Its madness. The government are still out propagating a line that everyone knows is bullshit - and 'no transition deal before we have a deal' / 'no deal will be done in time' is at the heart of it. The ONLY deal that is realistic to implement in March 2019 is EFTA/EEA - the one option that none of the politicians from any party want to talk about.
Something has to give because the proposed route ends in contradictory failure. Business knows this, and as we sail past Christmas with this bullshit still being proposed they will have no choice - as they have made very clear - than to take defensive measures to protect the viability of their businesses and industries.
2018 is going to be a brutal reality check for a lot of people. For Europhobe fantasists they will be left as exposed as flat-earthers trying to explain how GPS works. They will have to denounce their own as cowards and traitors, but for how long can high Tories and their allies in the press attack big business before they get slapped? For "we just get out it'll be great, what problems" people, the detailed descriptions of why we can't just get out will be a nasty shock, and many still won't believe it. Until they and theirs lose their jobs. And then for the government.
Their idiotic incompetent fantasist bullshit excuse for negotiations will stop. They can't maintain the lie that it'll be ok, they need us more, they'll give in, our deal will be better and quicker than any other in history, that the economy will be better not worse, that there aren't problems with the ports or HMRC or tariffs or Ireland. Never mind "BMW will force the German government to concede", when BMW announce the transfer of business out of the UK I wonder what their response will be? More importantly what public opinion will do?
Its political Extinction for Hard Brexiteers. Unless May grows a spine it will probably be ELE for the Tories as well.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective
Agree; bad taste perhaps, but many jokes are. And, unless someone gets their knickers in a tremendous twist, forgotten withing 24 hours.
I am off to a privatised part of the NHS this morning to be assessed whether I should have an operation or not. My GP thinks I should and need it urgently but I've been trying to work out whether it is in the firm's financial interest for me to have it or not. My guess is the latter. This is demand management.
If it is a referral management centre, then the incentive is to divert to other management (eg phisio) if it is an outsouced supplier the incentive is to operate as that is where the profit lies. It sounds like it is the former.
Ask what the 18 week RTT (Referral To Treatment) outcome is. If the outcome is to "stop the clock" such as initiating treatment by physio, then you are off the waiting list. If it is "ongoing wait" and the RTT clock still ticking, then you do not lose your place in the queue.
I cannot advise on conditions, but can on process.
When/if parliament votes on any leaving deal with the EU it can only choose between
a) the deal negotiated with the EU or b) no deal and WTO trade terms
Parliament does not have a realistic option of voting for the governmnet to go back and negotiate a better deal (the EU has already rejected that) or to stay within the EU (Article 50 has been triggered).
A lot will depend on the EU's attitude towards the alternative. They are negotiating with a very hard line because their rules dictate formal physical borders with external 3rd parties, so that won't waiver. The only question will be which "no deal" scenario they prefer - the UK crashing out with the inevitable economic disruption it brings to them, or the UK asking "can we rescind A50?"
For all that I keep reading about the referendum being a red line that cannot be crossed (unless May is talking about the Catalan one when of course its entirely different in principle...), Parliament will not vote for suicide. By the time we get to a vote - and I expect one forced at a time not of the government's choosing - I doubt a viable deal will be on the table. It will also be clear that "no deal" would be catastrophic, and I cannot see how Parliament will quote Goebels at the end of Downfall and declare "they voted to slit their own throats" and carry it out.
The clarifications are likely to have been given by authorities within Europe rather than just our own as to the extent to which it is possible for a bank with a presence in the EU can use an entity outside it to carry out many of the functions for and on behalf of the the EU based entity. The more it can, the less need to move jobs to the EU.
If I’m right on this, then it is both interesting in terme of the attitude of the EU authorities and helpful for the UK.
I see your old friend Mr K has stepped down in disgrace. It's funny how people get done for minor things in the scheme of his overall wrongdoing!
Well, alleged insider dealing is not that minor. But yes your point holds. That he was ever considered fit to hold such a senior position within a regulator, which an exchange also is, given his record, was an utter disgrace. It’s not as if the regulators weren’t warned (and there was plenty they were told about that wasn’t in the public domain). Rewards for failure indeed!
It is one reason why I think Frankfurt will have a hard job becoming an alternative to London. Its regulators are some of the weakest in Europe. They have a tendency not to grasp the nettle, as the state of some obvious German banks shows. Weak regulation, even if ostensibly following the same rule-book, especially when financial expertise will be split across among a number of different centres, some within the EU and some without, is a considerable risk.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
An 'edgy' reference to an alleged multiple rapist who abused disparities of power - yes that nails the Humphries/Gove dynamic quite exactly.
Like I say, a shit joke - about as amusing as the reflexive 'Fatcha' gags of 80s comedians.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
Surely the pro Remain parties are Lib Dems in England, SNP in Scotland and Welsh Nationalists in Wales.
As it currently stands. I could see either of the main 2 parties changing to a pro EU membership line, but neither will before the A50 expiry.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective.
So why the Gove apology ?
Political correctness no doubt - but we all need to rediscover perspective
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
Surely the pro Remain parties are Lib Dems in England, SNP in Scotland and Welsh Nationalists in Wales.
As it currently stands. I could see either of the main 2 parties changing to a pro EU membership line, but neither will before the A50 expiry.
Not with the EU and Juncker's as it is now with the drive for a federal state, uniform taxes and an army
I am off to a privatised part of the NHS this morning to be assessed whether I should have an operation or not. My GP thinks I should and need it urgently but I've been trying to work out whether it is in the firm's financial interest for me to have it or not. My guess is the latter. This is demand management.
If it is a referral management centre, then the incentive is to divert to other management (eg phisio) if it is an outsouced supplier the incentive is to operate as that is where the profit lies. It sounds like it is the former.
Ask what the 18 week RTT (Referral To Treatment) outcome is. If the outcome is to "stop the clock" such as initiating treatment by physio, then you are off the waiting list. If it is "ongoing wait" and the RTT clock still ticking, then you do not lose your place in the queue.
I cannot advise on conditions, but can on process.
Best wishes on whatever the issue is.
To add, a referral management centre also has an agenda to refer you to one of 5 choices via "Choose and Book". They have an incentive to refer you to the one with the shortest RTT so as to meet waiting time targets. This may bear little relation to which is best for your condition. Indeed the best often have the most demand. Ask about what information on outcomes that they have on the various options. Caveat Emptor.
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
Surely the pro Remain parties are Lib Dems in England, SNP in Scotland and Welsh Nationalists in Wales.
As it currently stands. I could see either of the main 2 parties changing to a pro EU membership line, but neither will before the A50 expiry.
Not with the EU and Juncker's as it is now with the drive for a federal state, uniform taxes and an army
Plus the Euro of course. EFTA is a long term possibility but not the EU.
But the fact remains Remainers were only able to cost Theresa her majority because Labour lied and pretended they were in favour of Brexit, thus splitting the Leave vote between Lab and Con.
That is exactly the discovery we made at the 2017 election. The political sweet spot is now 'leave, but do it as gently as possible'. This is not much of a problem for Labour - who might well have reached that position even without the voters pushing them that way. I have a feeling that the Conservatives will find a way to end up there as well. They have the survival instincts of cockroaches after all.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
An 'edgy' reference to an alleged multiple rapist who abused disparities of power - yes that nails the Humphries/Gove dynamic quite exactly.
Like I say, a shit joke - about as amusing as the reflexive 'Fatcha' gags of 80s comedians.
To save time, it would be helpful for those of us with no access to or interest in Twitter, if someone could tell us whether the objection to Gove is:-
(a) he made a joke about Weinstein (b) he made a bad joke about Weinstein (c) he is a Tory and therefore automatically “bad”.
Laughing uproariously at Weinstein and making cutting remarks the moment he dropped his trousers might have done more to deflate the disgusting old booby than running from him in tears. That .... and a very sharp pin.
And I don’t mean to make light of or minimise the very real fear and apprehension women feel when faced with a powerful man behaving like that. It is very difficult to respond when when you are faced with a sexually aggressive male who is stronger than you, physically, and in lots of other ways.
But women have to use whatever weapons we have, even though in a civilised world we absolutely should not be put in such a position. Scathing humour is one way of cutting bullies down to size, that’s all.
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
Surely the pro Remain parties are Lib Dems in England, SNP in Scotland and Welsh Nationalists in Wales.
As it currently stands. I could see either of the main 2 parties changing to a pro EU membership line, but neither will before the A50 expiry.
Not with the EU and Juncker's as it is now with the drive for a federal state, uniform taxes and an army
The Tories have been officially pro EU memberhip for nearly the entirety of the last 5 decades, on pro business grounds. The exception is the last 16 months. They could revert to their longstanding pro-business policy, but I agree not while they are so wrapped up in fortress Britain inward looking nationalism. I see a timescale of 5-10 years before the pendulum swings back.
It's a great piece by David as indeed it always is. It puts it's finger on one of the three central dynamics of the negotiation. Three dynamics which can't all be accommodated which means at least one will have to give. #1 There is no majority in the Commons for No Deal and push back on this point is well advanced.#2 A FTA isn't going to be ready by March 2019 and even the Brexit fantasists in government have started admitting as much. #3 May has said transition will only happen if a deal is in place by March 2019.
All current British politics is about how these three incompatible dynamics are accommodated either by industrial scale fudge or by one collapsing publically. David helpfully describes one very plausible sort of fudge.
There may well be no parliamentary majority for 'No Deal', but 'No Deal' is just what happens no deal is agreed.
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
Surely the pro Remain parties are Lib Dems in England, SNP in Scotland and Welsh Nationalists in Wales.
As it currently stands. I could see either of the main 2 parties changing to a pro EU membership line, but neither will before the A50 expiry.
Not with the EU and Juncker's as it is now with the drive for a federal state, uniform taxes and an army
The Tories have been officially pro EU memberhip for nearly the entirety of the last 5 decades, on pro business grounds. The exception is the last 16 months. They could revert to their longstanding pro-business policy, but I agree not while they are so wrapped up in fortress Britain inward looking nationalism. I see a timescale of 5-10 years before the pendulum swings back.
It will only swing back if the EU change themselves and become innovative and flexible. Federal EU will not happen
Dr. Foxinsox, you do rather neglect to mention that the alternative would have been Cameron/May ignoring the referendum result and subsequent vote in Parliament.
The electorate, on the first occasion of being asked their view on leaving or remaining within the EU, expressed their view.
F1: Ricciardo edging out again, was around 7.8 earlier, now has a back value of 10. It'll fall a bit if he doesn't take a penalty, but if he does that's about a third or lower the price it should be. I'd avoid it.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
An 'edgy' reference to an alleged multiple rapist who abused disparities of power - yes that nails the Humphries/Gove dynamic quite exactly.
Like I say, a shit joke - about as amusing as the reflexive 'Fatcha' gags of 80s comedians.
To save time, it would be helpful for those of us with no access to or interest in Twitter, if someone could tell us whether the objection to Gove is:-
(a) he made a joke about Weinstein (b) he made a bad joke about Weinstein (c) he is a Tory and therefore automatically “bad”.
Laughing uproariously at Weinstein and making cutting remarks the moment he dropped his trousers might have done more to deflate the disgusting old booby than running from him in tears. That .... and a very sharp pin.
And I don’t mean to make light of or minimise the very real fear and apprehension women feel when faced with a powerful man behaving like that. It is very difficult to respond when when you are faced with a sexually aggressive male who is stronger than you, physically, and in lots of other ways.
But women have to use whatever weapons we have, even though in a civilised world we absolutely should not be put in such a position. Scathing humour is one way of cutting bullies down to size, that’s all.
He made a mildly funny off the cuff joke which no except the perpetually offended could take offence at.
Mr Pioneers’ posts concern me; he(assumption) apparently buys actual ‘things” rather than providing services and he is becoming worried that when he now starts a negotiation to buy something he doesn’t know whether the end price will be that on which he and his supplier agree, or whether there will extra tariffs or something similar placed on the goods. In my experience there are often problems with deliveries, but it would appear, too, that those problems may well be exacerbated by hitherto unusual delays at the ports.
I think we should take his concerns very seriously.
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
Surely the pro Remain parties are Lib Dems in England, SNP in Scotland and Welsh Nationalists in Wales.
As it currently stands. I could see either of the main 2 parties changing to a pro EU membership line, but neither will before the A50 expiry.
Not with the EU and Juncker's as it is now with the drive for a federal state, uniform taxes and an army
The Tories have been officially pro EU memberhip for nearly the entirety of the last 5 decades, on pro business grounds. The exception is the last 16 months. They could revert to their longstanding pro-business policy, but I agree not while they are so wrapped up in fortress Britain inward looking nationalism. I see a timescale of 5-10 years before the pendulum swings back.
The types of business pushing for a rejoin the EU line are not likely to be politically popular.
Dr. Foxinsox, you do rather neglect to mention that the alternative would have been Cameron/May ignoring the referendum result and subsequent vote in Parliament.
The electorate, on the first occasion of being asked their view on leaving or remaining within the EU, expressed their view.
F1: Ricciardo edging out again, was around 7.8 earlier, now has a back value of 10. It'll fall a bit if he doesn't take a penalty, but if he does that's about a third or lower the price it should be. I'd avoid it.
Anyway, I'm off for now. Will be back on later.
I have never suggested ignoring the referendum result. All I ask is for competent preparation for Brexit, including the contingency of no deal.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective.
So why the Gove apology ?
Political correctness no doubt - but we all need to rediscover perspective
I hope all those opposing political correctness in judging Gove were equally indulgent of O'Mara...
Its madness. The government are still out propagating a line that everyone knows is bullshit - and 'no transition deal before we have a deal' / 'no deal will be done in time' is at the heart of it. The ONLY deal that is realistic to implement in March 2019 is EFTA/EEA - the one option that none of the politicians from any party want to talk about.
Something has to give because the proposed route ends in contradictory failure. Business knows this, and as we sail past Christmas with this bullshit still being proposed they will have no choice - as they have made very clear - than to take defensive measures to protect the viability of their businesses and industries.
2018 is going to be a brutal reality check for a lot of people. For Europhobe fantasists they will be left as exposed as flat-earthers trying to explain how GPS works. [snip]
Their idiotic incompetent fantasist bullshit excuse for negotiations will stop. They can't maintain the lie that it'll be ok, they need us more, they'll give in, our deal will be better and quicker than any other in history, that the economy will be better not worse, that there aren't problems with the ports or HMRC or tariffs or Ireland. Never mind "BMW will force the German government to concede", when BMW announce the transfer of business out of the UK I wonder what their response will be? More importantly what public opinion will do?
Its political Extinction for Hard Brexiteers. Unless May grows a spine it will probably be ELE for the Tories as well.
I disagree with your conclusion. "Failing and blaming" (and its cousin "Lying and pretending") will carry the Brexiteers quite far politically, even if the economy goes tits up. The Thatcherite changes of the 80's hurt an absolute shit-ton of people, but she still won three elections. Hyufd's outlined approach (no inheritance tax, retaliatory tariffs, open Irish border) accompanied by "failing and blaming" has political traction, and the wildly-erroneous conviction held by many PB posters that the EU will be massively hurt by our departure will ease the pain. Remember that many Conservative voters are very well off and can easily afford an economic dip, even if large.
Be honest. Look thru the politicians who voted for Brexit, the newspapers who pushed it, the people on here who post in favour of it. Will Brexit make their lives sufficiently worse to require a change of mind? Will Boris Johnson, a special-needs child in a fatsuit, stop earning a colossal salary? I could go on, but you get the point: for many Brexiteers, the cost-benefit calculation is still in the green. Brexit may hurt other people, but many people care about other people dispassionately if at all.
In short, even if Brexit fucks up the economy, that doesn't obviously lead to a Tory/Brexiteer ELE, and there are ways in which it might even help them politically.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
An 'edgy' reference to an alleged multiple rapist who abused disparities of power - yes that nails the Humphries/Gove dynamic quite exactly.
Like I say, a shit joke - about as amusing as the reflexive 'Fatcha' gags of 80s comedians.
To save time, it would be helpful for those of us with no access to or interest in Twitter, if someone could tell us whether the objection to Gove is:-
(a) he made a joke about Weinstein (b) he made a bad joke about Weinstein (c) he is a Tory and therefore automatically “bad”.
Laughing uproariously at Weinstein and making cutting remarks the moment he dropped his trousers might have done more to deflate the disgusting old booby than running from him in tears. That .... and a very sharp pin.
And I don’t mean to make light of or minimise the very real fear and apprehension women feel when faced with a powerful man behaving like that. It is very difficult to respond when when you are faced with a sexually aggressive male who is stronger than you, physically, and in lots of other ways.
But women have to use whatever weapons we have, even though in a civilised world we absolutely should not be put in such a position. Scathing humour is one way of cutting bullies down to size, that’s all.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective.
So why the Gove apology ?
Political correctness no doubt - but we all need to rediscover perspective
I hope all those opposing political correctness in judging Gove were equally indulgent of O'Mara...
Surely there’s a difference between making a joke about perversion and misogyny, and being a pervert and misogynist?
In terms of A50 withdrawal, I cannot see it. It would require a second referendum, and that would require a further GE, and a party that favoured continuing membership to win. There simply is not enough time or will.
Indeed no, it took nearly 40 years for a party other than the Unionists to win a majority after 1906 while Labour were replacing the Liberals. If the only major national pro-European party - the Liberal Democrats - are to replace either Tories or Labour we're looking at one hell of an extension - potentially longer than our membership to date.
I agree with the rest of your post. No extension and no deal is a crash out, not anchange our minds.
Change can happen a lot faster when there's a sufficient prompt. Look at the rise of the SNP in Scotland, or the replacement of the Whigs by the Republicans in the US in the 1850s, for example. If Brexit does become a defining, cleavage issue, then inevitably there will end up being a pro-Brexit/Out party and a pro-Remain/Rejoin party. The Tories will be the former; who would be the latter is open to doubt. Labour would start as strong favourites, though the Corbyn factor complicates matters.
Surely the pro Remain parties are Lib Dems in England, SNP in Scotland and Welsh Nationalists in Wales.
As it currently stands. I could see either of the main 2 parties changing to a pro EU membership line, but neither will before the A50 expiry.
Not with the EU and Juncker's as it is now with the drive for a federal state, uniform taxes and an army
The Tories have been officially pro EU memberhip for nearly the entirety of the last 5 decades, on pro business grounds. The exception is the last 16 months. They could revert to their longstanding pro-business policy, but I agree not while they are so wrapped up in fortress Britain inward looking nationalism. I see a timescale of 5-10 years before the pendulum swings back.
The types of business pushing for a rejoin the EU line are not likely to be politically popular.
And, of course, such predictions were being made about the Conservative attitude to joining the Euro 15-20 years ago.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective.
So why the Gove apology ?
Political correctness no doubt - but we all need to rediscover perspective
I hope all those opposing political correctness in judging Gove were equally indulgent of O'Mara...
Surely there’s a difference between making a joke about perversion and misogyny, and being a pervert and misogynist?
Innapropriate language in a joke? such as wishing someone sodomised by a piano for example?
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective.
So why the Gove apology ?
Political correctness no doubt - but we all need to rediscover perspective
I hope all those opposing political correctness in judging Gove were equally indulgent of O'Mara...
The clarifications are likely to have been given by authorities within Europe rather than just our own as to the extent to which it is possible for a bank with a presence in the EU can use an entity outside it to carry out many of the functions for and on behalf of the the EU based entity. The more it can, the less need to move jobs to the EU.
If I’m right on this, then it is both interesting in terme of the attitude of the EU authorities and helpful for the UK.
I see your old friend Mr K has stepped down in disgrace. It's funny how people get done for minor things in the scheme of his overall wrongdoing!
Well, alleged insider dealing is not that minor. But yes your point holds. That he was ever considered fit to hold such a senior position within a regulator, which an exchange also is, given his record, was an utter disgrace. It’s not as if the regulators weren’t warned (and there was plenty they were told about that wasn’t in the public domain). Rewards for failure indeed!
It is one reason why I think Frankfurt will have a hard job becoming an alternative to London. Its regulators are some of the weakest in Europe. They have a tendency not to grasp the nettle, as the state of some obvious German banks shows. Weak regulation, even if ostensibly following the same rule-book, especially when financial expertise will be split across among a number of different centres, some within the EU and some without, is a considerable risk.
My understanding was the purchase was part of a regular buying programme - but if it was a specific purchase I guess it depends whether you define 7 years in prison as minor or not!
Thank you David, as always, for my mental workout on a Saturday morning - well, that and the Racing Post of course.
I think we're back to this curious situation mentioned earlier in the week - Parliament can only vote on a deal if there's a deal to vote on. We can crash out without a deal and a vote and there's no provision for a rejection of "no deal" (pardon the negatives).
I do agree A50 will be extended (as it can be by mutual consent) by a month or longer to allow for the ratification process to take place but it will be very much a gun to everyone's head by that point (and that includes the EU as well).
Forcing the issue by brinkmanship and closing down proper scrutiny of what's being proposed by dint of time seems a poor way of going about things but that seems regrettably to be where we're heading.
No doubt the pro-May apologists will laud any deal as a personal triumph and argue that rejecting the deal will be tantamount to economic and political suicide so we come back to the notion that any deal is in fact better than no deal and that a bad deal is better than no deal.
Not sure that's been a consistent message but that's what it will be.
Sane people accept there has to be a cost to leaving the EU, but what the hell were we doing getting tied up in a political union that you can't get out of?
Sure you can get out, it's just: 1) It's going to be unbelievably expensive because you lose all the economic benefits that were the reason for joining in the first place then agreeing all the subsequent steps, and you have the transition costs to boot. 2) Due to domestic pressure the government bollocksed up the process and gave itself a hard deadline before it had any idea wtf it wanted, and the deadline can only be extended by the generosity and good grace of their negotiating partners. 3) There's no way to avoid disappointing a large chunk of leave supporters, because they want contradictory things.
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
To save time, it would be helpful for those of us with no access to or interest in Twitter, if someone could tell us whether the objection to Gove is:-
(a) he made a joke about Weinstein (b) he made a bad joke about Weinstein (c) he is a Tory and therefore automatically “bad”.
Laughing uproariously at Weinstein and making cutting remarks the moment he dropped his trousers might have done more to deflate the disgusting old booby than running from him in tears. That .... and a very sharp pin.
And I don’t mean to make light of or minimise the very real fear and apprehension women feel when faced with a powerful man behaving like that. It is very difficult to respond when when you are faced with a sexually aggressive male who is stronger than you, physically, and in lots of other ways.
But women have to use whatever weapons we have, even though in a civilised world we absolutely should not be put in such a position. Scathing humour is one way of cutting bullies down to size, that’s all.
I think the objection is that the joke made light of the alleged assaults as comparable to a harsh interview, and he also implied the victims lost their dignity by saying he hoped to escape with his intact. Right he apologised, although as ever people are fanning outrage way beyond a misplaced joke - in part no doubt as payback for the Tories giving Labour a savaging over Mr O'Mara.
There's a time and a place for slightly risky jokes that might upset some people or be taken the wrong way - one is among mates who know context, another is at a stand-up show people have paid to see your act and may want to be shocked or challenged. One isn't when you're a leading politician appearing on national radio. Some of the outrage is overblown, but right he apologised for acting like a bit of a prat, and we can all move on to more important stuff.
Its madness. The government are still out propagating a line that everyone knows is bullshit - and 'no transition deal before we have a deal' / 'no deal will be done in time' is at the heart of it. The ONLY deal that is realistic to implement in March 2019 is EFTA/EEA - the one option that none of the politicians from any party want to talk about.
Something has to give because the proposed route ends in contradictory failure. Business knows this, and as we sail past Christmas with this bullshit still being proposed they will have no choice - as they have made very clear - than to take defensive measures to protect the viability of their businesses and industries.
Its political Extinction for Hard Brexiteers. Unless May grows a spine it will probably be ELE for the Tories as well.
I disagree with your conclusion. "Failing and blaming" (and its cousin "Lying and pretending") will carry the Brexiteers quite far politically, even if the economy goes tits up. The Thatcherite changes of the 80's hurt an absolute shit-ton of people, but she still won three elections. Hyufd's outlined approach (no inheritance tax, retaliatory tariffs, open Irish border) accompanied by "failing and blaming" has political traction, and the wildly-erroneous conviction held by many PB posters that the EU will be massively hurt by our departure will ease the pain. Remember that many Conservative voters are very well off and can easily afford an economic dip, even if large.
Be honest. Look thru the politicians who voted for Brexit, the newspapers who pushed it, the people on here who post in favour of it. Will Brexit make their lives sufficiently worse to require a change of mind? Will Boris Johnson, a special-needs child in a fatsuit, stop earning a colossal salary? I could go on, but you get the point: for many Brexiteers, the cost-benefit calculation is still in the green. Brexit may hurt other people, but many people care about other people dispassionately if at all.
In short, even if Brexit fucks up the economy, that doesn't obviously lead to a Tory/Brexiteer ELE, and there are ways in which it might even help them politically.
I agree. Wrapping themselves in the flag is likely to be the short term reaction, and that may play well in the cheap seats. I don't think that can be sustained for long though.
Most likely the Leftist populism of Corbyn will be the benificiaries, but the next GE will be between competing populist visions, neither well grounded in reality.
Its madness. The government are still out propagating a line that everyone knows is bullshit - and 'no transition deal before we have a deal' / 'no deal will be done in time' is at the heart of it. The ONLY deal that is realistic to implement in March 2019 is EFTA/EEA - the one option that none of the politicians from any party want to talk about.
Something has to give because the proposed route ends in contradictory failure. Business knows this, and as we sail past Christmas with this bullshit still being proposed they will have no choice - as they have made very clear - than to take defensive measures to protect the viability of their businesses and industries.
2018 is going to be a brutal reality check for a lot of people. For Europhobe fantasists they will be left as exposed as al Extinction for Hard Brexiteers. Unless May grows a spine it will probably be ELE for the Tories as well.
I disagree with your conclusion. "Failing and blaming" (and its cousin "Lying and pretending") will carry the Brexiteers quite far politically, even if the economy goes tits up. The Thatcherite changes of the 80's hurt an absolute shit-ton of people, but she still won three elections. Hyufd's outlined approach (no inheritance tax, retaliatory tariffs, open Irish border) accompanied by "failing and blaming" has political traction, and the wildly-erroneous conviction held by many PB posters that the EU will be massively hurt by our departure will ease the pain. Remember that many Conservative voters are very well off and can easily afford an economic dip, even if large.
Be honest. Look thru the politicians who voted for Brexit, the newspapers who pushed it, the people on here who post in favour of it. Will Brexit make their lives sufficiently worse to require a change of mind? Will Boris Johnson, a special-needs child in a fatsuit, stop earning a colossal salary? I could go on, but you get the point: for many Brexiteers, the cost-benefit calculation is still in the green. Brexit may hurt other people, but many people care about other people dispassionately if at all.
In short, even if Brexit fucks up the economy, that doesn't obviously lead to a Tory/Brexiteer ELE, and there are ways in which it might even help them politically.
Of course the white working class also voted Leave principally to reduce immigration and end free movement, as long as that happens they will have got what they want and given barely any of them work in the City while a significant proportion of them work in manufacturing a FTA with the EU which keeps tariff free goods exports and reasonably cheap food will suit them fine even if being out of the single market hits the City and financial services sector.
(As a side note I did not say no inheritance tax just keep the new £1 million threshold).
I think the objection is that the joke made light of the alleged assaults as comparable to a harsh interview, and he also implied the victims lost their dignity by saying he hoped to escape with his intact. Right he apologised, although as ever people are fanning outrage way beyond a misplaced joke - in part no doubt as payback for the Tories giving Labour a savaging over Mr O'Mara.
There's a time and a place for slightly risky jokes that might upset some people or be taken the wrong way - one is among mates who know context, another is at a stand-up show people have paid to see your act and may want to be shocked or challenged. One isn't when you're a leading politician appearing on national radio. Some of the outrage is overblown, but right he apologised for acting like a bit of a prat, and we can all move on to more important stuff.
On the weekend that all sorts of rumours about what Westminster has been up to in the creepy old men stakes are swirling around, perhaps not top political smarts from the Gover.
The whole Today at 60 prog was a self-congratulatory, queasiness-making cake of smugness; Gove's joke was just the crappy cherry on the top.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
I just heard the clip on Radio 4 news and it sounded like most of the audience were laughing after he said it, which made me wonder why it was being presented as such a terrible thing to say.
I think the objection is that the joke made light of the alleged assaults as comparable to a harsh interview, and he also implied the victims lost their dignity by saying he hoped to escape with his intact. Right he apologised, although as ever people are fanning outrage way beyond a misplaced joke - in part no doubt as payback for the Tories giving Labour a savaging over Mr O'Mara.
There's a time and a place for slightly risky jokes that might upset some people or be taken the wrong way - one is among mates who know context, another is at a stand-up show people have paid to see your act and may want to be shocked or challenged. One isn't when you're a leading politician appearing on national radio. Some of the outrage is overblown, but right he apologised for acting like a bit of a prat, and we can all move on to more important stuff.
On the weekend that all sorts of rumours about what Westminster has been up to in the creepy old men stakes are swirling around, perhaps not top political smarts from the Gover.
The whole Today at 60 prog was a self-congratulatory, queasiness-making cake of smugness; Gove's joke was just the crappy cherry on the top.
Gove rather enjoys being a wit, and the the devilry of political court politics. It is what makes him entertaining, but also unsuitable as leader. He is too much of a loose cannon.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
I just heard the clip on Radio 4 news and it sounded like most of the audience were laughing after he said it, which made me wonder why it was being presented as such a terrible thing to say.
I think the objection is that the joke made light of the alleged assaults as comparable to a harsh interview, and he also implied the victims lost their dignity by saying he hoped to escape with his intact. Right he apologised, although as ever people are fanning outrage way beyond a misplaced joke - in part no doubt as payback for the Tories giving Labour a savaging over Mr O'Mara.
There's a time and a place for slightly risky jokes that might upset some people or be taken the wrong way - one is among mates who know context, another is at a stand-up show people have paid to see your act and may want to be shocked or challenged. One isn't when you're a leading politician appearing on national radio. Some of the outrage is overblown, but right he apologised for acting like a bit of a prat, and we can all move on to more important stuff.
On the weekend that all sorts of rumours about what Westminster has been up to in the creepy old men stakes are swirling around, perhaps not top political smarts from the Gover.
The whole Today at 60 prog was a self-congratulatory, queasiness-making cake of smugness; Gove's joke was just the crappy cherry on the top.
Of course the white working class also voted Leave principally to reduce immigration and end free movement, as long as that happens they will have got what they want and given barely any of them work in the City while a significant proportion of them work in manufacturing a FTA with the EU which keeps tariff free goods exports and reasonably cheap food will suit them fine even if being out of the single market hits the City and financial services sector.
(As a side note I did not say no inheritance tax just keep the new £1 million threshold).
I was speaking of the effects on the political class and on Conservative voters, and whether (any) bad effects of Brexit will weigh on them sufficiently to force a vote change. I wasn't speaking of the WWC specifically, nor manufacturing workers nor farmers.
As to your side note regarding IHT: point noted, thank you.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
I just heard the clip on Radio 4 news and it sounded like most of the audience were laughing after he said it, which made me wonder why it was being presented as such a terrible thing to say.
Well I was a bit taken aback when Daily Mirror columnist Kevin Maguire made his infamous comment in 2009 about how the only way for David Cameron to lose the next election was if Madeleine McCann's body was found in his — Cameron's — garage. I thought that was an unacceptable thing to say but most people didn't seem to mind it, brushing it off as a joke. Gove's joke is on the same sort of level in my opinion.
"This suggests the Tories’ best chances of winning a majority at the next election lies in traditionally Labour seats where the Tories came close last time, such as Bishop Auckland, in the North East, which Labour has held since 1935
I am told Gavin Barwell, the PM’s chief of staff, is particularly convinced of this."
"This suggests the Tories’ best chances of winning a majority at the next election lies in traditionally Labour seats where the Tories came close last time, such as Bishop Auckland, in the North East, which Labour has held since 1935
I am told Gavin Barwell, the PM’s chief of staff, is particularly convinced of this."
I think the objection is that the joke made light of the alleged assaults as comparable to a harsh interview, and he also implied the victims lost their dignity by saying he hoped to escape with his intact. Right he apologised, although as ever people are fanning outrage way beyond a misplaced joke - in part no doubt as payback for the Tories giving Labour a savaging over Mr O'Mara.
There's a time and a place for slightly risky jokes that might upset some people or be taken the wrong way - one is among mates who know context, another is at a stand-up show people have paid to see your act and may want to be shocked or challenged. One isn't when you're a leading politician appearing on national radio. Some of the outrage is overblown, but right he apologised for acting like a bit of a prat, and we can all move on to more important stuff.
On the weekend that all sorts of rumours about what Westminster has been up to in the creepy old men stakes are swirling around, perhaps not top political smarts from the Gover.
The whole Today at 60 prog was a self-congratulatory, queasiness-making cake of smugness; Gove's joke was just the crappy cherry on the top.
You are Paul Hollywood and I claim my £5.
I ride a Ducati & fill my leathers more than I'd like, but there the similarity ends.
Gove is a serving Cabinet Minister and former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. He was making a joke about Rape and Rape victims. His joke was timed *during* an ongoing scandal and one which is in the process of hitting Westminster. He made his joke using language suggesting Rape victims lose their dignity. It was also a rather Meta joke as he was referring to the potential for ma!king Gaffes on the Today programme. It's was a fairly extraordinary thing to thing to say on National Radio and view joing about Rape and Rape victims is awful is perfectly reasonable.
That said I agree everyone will have forgotten about it tomorrow.
I think the objection is that the joke made light of the alleged assaults as comparable to a harsh interview, and he also implied the victims lost their dignity by saying he hoped to escape with his intact. Right he apologised, although as ever people are fanning outrage way beyond a misplaced joke - in part no doubt as payback for the Tories giving Labour a savaging over Mr O'Mara.
There's a time and a place for slightly risky jokes that might upset some people or be taken the wrong way - one is among mates who know context, another is at a stand-up show people have paid to see your act and may want to be shocked or challenged. One isn't when you're a leading politician appearing on national radio. Some of the outrage is overblown, but right he apologised for acting like a bit of a prat, and we can all move on to more important stuff.
On the weekend that all sorts of rumours about what Westminster has been up to in the creepy old men stakes are swirling around, perhaps not top political smarts from the Gover.
The whole Today at 60 prog was a self-congratulatory, queasiness-making cake of smugness; Gove's joke was just the crappy cherry on the top.
Indeed. I think with current events politicians have to be extra sensitive and provide reassurance it's something they're going to take seriously. Over the next few days/weeks several alleged harassers are likely to be named and Westminster will face the same questions Hollywood and the media have been getting - why was this all treated as a bit of an open secret and even as a source of humour. Not the best look to be cracking a joke about it. You wouldn't have got very far in 2009 by making a joke about how much you could claim on expenses.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective.
So why the Gove apology ?
Political correctness no doubt - but we all need to rediscover perspective
I hope all those opposing political correctness in judging Gove were equally indulgent of O'Mara...
Gove is a serving Cabinet Minister and former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. He was making a joke about Rape and Rape victims. His joke was timed *during* an ongoing scandal and one which is in the process of hitting Westminster. He made his joke using language suggesting Rape victims lose their dignity. It was also a rather Meta joke as he was referring to the potential for ma!king Gaffes on the Today programme. It's was a fairly extraordinary thing to thing to say on National Radio and view joing about Rape and Rape victims is awful is perfectly reasonable.
That said I agree everyone will have forgotten about it tomorrow.
'cos tomorrow they will be pouring over the westminster groping scandal details?
Of course the white working class also voted Leave principally to reduce immigration and end free movement, as long as that happens they will have got what they want and given barely any of them work in the City while a significant proportion of them work in manufacturing a FTA with the EU which keeps tariff free goods exports and reasonably cheap food will suit them fine even if being out of the single market hits the City and financial services sector.
(As a side note I did not say no inheritance tax just keep the new £1 million threshold).
I was speaking of the effects on the political class and on Conservative voters, and whether (any) bad effects of Brexit will weigh on them sufficiently to force a vote change. I wasn't speaking of the WWC specifically, nor manufacturing workers nor farmers.
As to your side note regarding IHT: point noted, thank you.
Yes, I can't see much changing the opinion of rich Leave voters, theirs was more ideological about sovereignty even if Brexit may not be great for their share portfolio they will survive.
I think the objection is that the joke made light of the alleged assaults as comparable to a harsh interview, and he also implied the victims lost their dignity by saying he hoped to escape with his intact. Right he apologised, although as ever people are fanning outrage way beyond a misplaced joke - in part no doubt as payback for the Tories giving Labour a savaging over Mr O'Mara.
There's a time and a place for slightly risky jokes that might upset some people or be taken the wrong way - one is among mates who know context, another is at a stand-up show people have paid to see your act and may want to be shocked or challenged. One isn't when you're a leading politician appearing on national radio. Some of the outrage is overblown, but right he apologised for acting like a bit of a prat, and we can all move on to more important stuff.
On the weekend that all sorts of rumours about what Westminster has been up to in the creepy old men stakes are swirling around, perhaps not top political smarts from the Gover.
The whole Today at 60 prog was a self-congratulatory, queasiness-making cake of smugness; Gove's joke was just the crappy cherry on the top.
Indeed. I think with current events politicians have to be extra sensitive and provide reassurance it's something they're going to take seriously. Over the next few days/weeks several alleged harassers are likely to be named and Westminster will face the same questions Hollywood and the media have been getting - why was this all treated as a bit of an open secret and even as a source of humour. Not the best look to be cracking a joke about it. You wouldn't have got very far in 2009 by making a joke about how much you could claim on expenses.
And Jezza making a speech later speaking out against "a culture where the abuse of women has often been accepted and normalised," including at Westminster. Corbyn Labour much more on top of the news cycle than the Maycons, who'd have thunk that a year ago?
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective.
So why the Gove apology ?
Political correctness no doubt - but we all need to rediscover perspective
I hope all those opposing political correctness in judging Gove were equally indulgent of O'Mara...
Do you really not understand the difference?
Yes, one was a former Labour M, the other a Conservative one, and therefore above criticism.
The chatterati will get very excited about Michael Gove's Weinstein joke. No one else will care.
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
Yes, comparing Humphries to an alleged multiple rapist... hilarious. The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
Oh get off that high horse.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Gove has a reputation as a highly intelligent and witty man. This was a shit joke.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
Gove made a good joke which had the added satirical advantage of aligning Today programme's John Humphrey's with Harvey Weinstein.
Listening to the replay of Gove's joke, Kinnocks comment, and the laughter and applause from the audience lays bare the media 'snowflake' approach to so much these days.
We really need to get a sense of perspective.
So why the Gove apology ?
Political correctness no doubt - but we all need to rediscover perspective
I hope all those opposing political correctness in judging Gove were equally indulgent of O'Mara...
Comments
He then said since then he has changed his mind and would now vote Leave, because the EU, Macron and so on have been talking more about shared political power, EU finance budget etc and he doesn't want any part of all that.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/129c569a-64fc-11e4-ab2d-00144feabdc0
Ironically much the view of @williamglenn but taking a sombre rather than optimistic perspective on it!
"Mr Portillo said: “I would say, ‘I voted Remain a year and half a go, but since then I’ve heard President Macron and Mr Juncker talking about having a single budget, a single finance minister, a single European army."
"“‘I now realise the European Union has embarked on a centralising and undemocratic course, which I had not appreciated a year ago, so emphatically I believe we are right to leave.’”
"http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/865908/Brexit-news-Theresa-May-LBC-interview-EU-UK-vote-Michael-Portillo-BBC
As far as quite a few businesses are concerned, we are already in Brexit Limbo - and how many are going to put off planning for the worst until this time next year ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/28/michael-gove-sparks-outrage-harvey-weinstein-joke-today-programme/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41036236
We have too much pressure on housing and services because of uncontrolled EU immigration, exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession in 2004 and the Leave vote was a reaction to that and must be respected which is why free movement will end. Only 5% of nurses for example come from the EU and even fewer teachers so the idea they exist because of EU migration is nonsense, of course EU migrants can still come to work in those fields with the new points system which will replace free movement if they have needed skills though the gradual easing of the public sector pay cap should encourage more domestically trained applicants too.
The '3 months to find a job rule' but full free movement for that three months is not enough of a change, although I accept that is largely down to Blair and his failure to impose transition controls.
"Sorry, Monsieur, 200 soldiers were killed while you were debating whether they were allowed to defend themselves."
https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/924210254107246592
I'm not a fan of Michael Gove but I refuse to get excited about the kind of joke that is told daily up and down the country. The outrage confected about such things is far more alienating for a lot of the general public than the original mal mot.
The point isn't outrage - it's that Gove is an idiot.
I remember reading that Blair / Brown / Cameron were brilliant negotiators who were going to outwit the EU / were far too subtle for sceptics to understand their tactics / hadn't actually humiliatingly surrendered to the EU.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
You lose again Scott.
On another day pb will have anguished discussions why Britain's politicians are so second rate. The hyperbolic reactions to events such as this are a big part why. If people are going to be so easily offended by a pretty normal attempt at levity, why would anyone sane put themselves through the bollock ache?
Which is why the EU have every intention of stringing things out until the last possible moment.
You are the one attempting an inappropriate equine mount.
NATO is a military alliance with common command structures but (Article 5 excepted) it is up to a member whether they contribute to a particular exercise or engagement
The EU Army is a common army under common control. It could, in theory, be committed to action against the wishes of a member and/or a member would be much more restricted in their ability to act unilaterally
All current British politics is about how these three incompatible dynamics are accommodated either by industrial scale fudge or by one collapsing publically. David helpfully describes one very plausible sort of fudge.
a) the deal negotiated with the EU or
b) no deal and WTO trade terms
Parliament does not have a realistic option of voting for the governmnet to go back and negotiate a better deal (the EU has already rejected that) or to stay within the EU (Article 50 has been triggered).
"I am not a journalist. I do not write for the Daily Mail. "
Something has to give because the proposed route ends in contradictory failure. Business knows this, and as we sail past Christmas with this bullshit still being proposed they will have no choice - as they have made very clear - than to take defensive measures to protect the viability of their businesses and industries.
2018 is going to be a brutal reality check for a lot of people. For Europhobe fantasists they will be left as exposed as flat-earthers trying to explain how GPS works. They will have to denounce their own as cowards and traitors, but for how long can high Tories and their allies in the press attack big business before they get slapped? For "we just get out it'll be great, what problems" people, the detailed descriptions of why we can't just get out will be a nasty shock, and many still won't believe it. Until they and theirs lose their jobs. And then for the government.
Their idiotic incompetent fantasist bullshit excuse for negotiations will stop. They can't maintain the lie that it'll be ok, they need us more, they'll give in, our deal will be better and quicker than any other in history, that the economy will be better not worse, that there aren't problems with the ports or HMRC or tariffs or Ireland. Never mind "BMW will force the German government to concede", when BMW announce the transfer of business out of the UK I wonder what their response will be? More importantly what public opinion will do?
Its political Extinction for Hard Brexiteers. Unless May grows a spine it will probably be ELE for the Tories as well.
We really need to get a sense of perspective
Ask what the 18 week RTT (Referral To Treatment) outcome is. If the outcome is to "stop the clock" such as initiating treatment by physio, then you are off the waiting list. If it is "ongoing wait" and the RTT clock still ticking, then you do not lose your place in the queue.
I cannot advise on conditions, but can on process.
Best wishes on whatever the issue is.
For all that I keep reading about the referendum being a red line that cannot be crossed (unless May is talking about the Catalan one when of course its entirely different in principle...), Parliament will not vote for suicide. By the time we get to a vote - and I expect one forced at a time not of the government's choosing - I doubt a viable deal will be on the table. It will also be clear that "no deal" would be catastrophic, and I cannot see how Parliament will quote Goebels at the end of Downfall and declare "they voted to slit their own throats" and carry it out.
Contradictory satements, no?
It is one reason why I think Frankfurt will have a hard job becoming an alternative to London. Its regulators are some of the weakest in Europe. They have a tendency not to grasp the nettle, as the state of some obvious German banks shows. Weak regulation, even if ostensibly following the same rule-book, especially when financial expertise will be split across among a number of different centres, some within the EU and some without, is a considerable risk.
Like I say, a shit joke - about as amusing as the reflexive 'Fatcha' gags of 80s comedians.
(a) he made a joke about Weinstein
(b) he made a bad joke about Weinstein
(c) he is a Tory and therefore automatically “bad”.
Laughing uproariously at Weinstein and making cutting remarks the moment he dropped his trousers might have done more to deflate the disgusting old booby than running from him in tears. That .... and a very sharp pin.
And I don’t mean to make light of or minimise the very real fear and apprehension women feel when faced with a powerful man behaving like that. It is very difficult to respond when when you are faced with a sexually aggressive male who is stronger than you, physically, and in lots of other ways.
But women have to use whatever weapons we have, even though in a civilised world we absolutely should not be put in such a position. Scathing humour is one way of cutting bullies down to size, that’s all.
The electorate, on the first occasion of being asked their view on leaving or remaining within the EU, expressed their view.
F1: Ricciardo edging out again, was around 7.8 earlier, now has a back value of 10. It'll fall a bit if he doesn't take a penalty, but if he does that's about a third or lower the price it should be. I'd avoid it.
Anyway, I'm off for now. Will be back on later.
In my experience there are often problems with deliveries, but it would appear, too, that those problems may well be exacerbated by hitherto unusual delays at the ports.
I think we should take his concerns very seriously.
Be honest. Look thru the politicians who voted for Brexit, the newspapers who pushed it, the people on here who post in favour of it. Will Brexit make their lives sufficiently worse to require a change of mind? Will Boris Johnson, a special-needs child in a fatsuit, stop earning a colossal salary? I could go on, but you get the point: for many Brexiteers, the cost-benefit calculation is still in the green. Brexit may hurt other people, but many people care about other people dispassionately if at all.
In short, even if Brexit fucks up the economy, that doesn't obviously lead to a Tory/Brexiteer ELE, and there are ways in which it might even help them politically.
Thank you David, as always, for my mental workout on a Saturday morning - well, that and the Racing Post of course.
I think we're back to this curious situation mentioned earlier in the week - Parliament can only vote on a deal if there's a deal to vote on. We can crash out without a deal and a vote and there's no provision for a rejection of "no deal" (pardon the negatives).
I do agree A50 will be extended (as it can be by mutual consent) by a month or longer to allow for the ratification process to take place but it will be very much a gun to everyone's head by that point (and that includes the EU as well).
Forcing the issue by brinkmanship and closing down proper scrutiny of what's being proposed by dint of time seems a poor way of going about things but that seems regrettably to be where we're heading.
No doubt the pro-May apologists will laud any deal as a personal triumph and argue that rejecting the deal will be tantamount to economic and political suicide so we come back to the notion that any deal is in fact better than no deal and that a bad deal is better than no deal.
Not sure that's been a consistent message but that's what it will be.
Most likely the Leftist populism of Corbyn will be the benificiaries, but the next GE will be between competing populist visions, neither well grounded in reality.
(As a side note I did not say no inheritance tax just keep the new £1 million threshold).
The whole Today at 60 prog was a self-congratulatory, queasiness-making cake of smugness; Gove's joke was just the crappy cherry on the top.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xvjQDNKT-E4
https://twitter.com/Bourdain/status/924241402745294849
As to your side note regarding IHT: point noted, thank you.
I am told Gavin Barwell, the PM’s chief of staff, is particularly convinced of this."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4784895/conservatives-brexit-james-forsyth-opinion/
That said I agree everyone will have forgotten about it tomorrow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/rising-house-prices-inheritance-tax-fuelling-middle-class-equity/
A loophole that Hammond will take a look at?