You can't by definition put a time on the end of time itself. You have to come up with a different measurement. I'm working on it but am not there yet. What I can say is that there is no mad rush. Certainly will not be before 29/03/19 so if we want to revoke article 50 we ought to get cracking. That's not a decision that can be shelved on account of "why bother the end is nigh."
Look, I am working on the premise that the end of the Brexit debates is in sight. Don't knock it.
Don’t forget the post mortem...
After the energy death of the Universe even PB might find posts hard to come by. I accept that if anything can achieve it Brexit probably can.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
All three amount to pretty solid evidence of corruption. The public sector tendering process exists for a reason. To bypass it without good reason allowing you to funnel millions of public money into a shell company owned by a party donor with zero boats and zero track record is pretty open and shut corruption. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition.
But like I said, it's not Grayling's corruption that annoys me, it's that he's too fucking useless to even attempt to cover it up properly.
No - at most they create a risk of corruption not evidence that it has occurred
There was a process to award multiple “no deal” contracts. I have no idea whether this was the same or different to the normal procurement process. But I could see arguments for why it should be different.
Where you might have a case is if Seaboutbe was treated differently to all other contracts awarded at the same time
You can't by definition put a time on the end of time itself. You have to come up with a different measurement. I'm working on it but am not there yet. What I can say is that there is no mad rush. Certainly will not be before 29/03/19 so if we want to revoke article 50 we ought to get cracking. That's not a decision that can be shelved on account of "why bother the end is nigh."
Look, I am working on the premise that the end of the Brexit debates is in sight. Don't knock it.
Don’t forget the post mortem...
After the energy death of the Universe even PB might find posts hard to come by. I accept that if anything can achieve it Brexit probably can.
Which will come first
1. The heat death of the universe 2. PB stops talking about Brexit
On topic, while I'm a bit reluctant to dismiss out of hand a 130/1 shot for Romney to win the election (which, IMO, is better value than 50/1 for the GOP nomination), I don't really see the route.
It's quite clear that there's no love lost between him and Trump, and Trump will respond to what he will see as a personal betrayal and insult with his usual tact and restraint. There's therefore no chance at all that Romney would be offered the Vice Presidency should it become available before 2021 (which itself seems a long shot), putting him in line to succeed in the event that Trump falls (another thing which the odds overrate). Even if there were a vacancy and the Democrats demanded a Trump-sceptic as VP as the price for supporting a Republican, which is entirely plausible, I think Trump would rather refuse to nominate - or would nominate his own candidate to be voted down - than to acquiesce to that kind of Democrat powerplay.
Which leaves a direct challenge through the primaries. There was loose talk on a BBC News chat yesterday about the 'grown-ups' in the Republican party retaking control from Trump but I fail to see how they do so. Trump's approval figures are poor but not dire and his base remains strong and fired up. A lot of people think he is doing a fine job. Trump's potential attack lines against someone who lost one presidential election and a further Republican primary campaign in 2008 are simple enough - why replace a proven winner with a serial loser? Challenges against sitting presidents are rare enough and successful challenges are even rarer: none has been definitively won since the 19th century, though both Truman and Johnson withdrew when at risk of being beaten. Against Trump, with a base he keeps returning to, and with a new enemy to blame in the Democratic House (as well as with 'GOP collaborators like Romney'), he can not deliver on his promises with a deal of impunity.
Of course, things could change during 2019. Mueller could produce a gun sufficiently large and sufficiently smoking to undermine Trump with his own base and hence to convince enough GOP senators to carry an impeachment - and if Pence then chose not to run again (would he not?), or is sufficiently discredited in the process to make a challenge from outside the administration viable, there opens up another route. But while it's possible to see why Trump might not be the candidate, it's harder to see why Romney would be.
That said, the Democrat field is as yet fairly weak, made up of retreads, unprovens and second-raters. Against many of them, Romney should be odds-on in a direct head-to-head, so there's a fairly big disparity in the nomination/GE odds: 130/1 to win outright is not bad when he would be a change and consensus candidate in his own right at a time when much of the country might be looking for both change and consensus.
Totally depressing programme on radio this morning about the new passports without the 'European Union' written on them and how we will now have to go into the much longer queues with 'others' and the difficulty service industries are going to face working in Europe. It might for example be possible to ply your trade in one EU country but require a permit to work in another.
My loathing for Leavers would require the vocabulary of Shakespeare to begin to describe it.
I’m sure someone on a council estate in Hull is weeping into his bacon butty after contemplating that a riviera based ad exec is struggling to describe his hatred of him. I think it’s described as a first world problem.
Could you explain how Brexit is going to benefit people on council estates in Hull?
Who knows? Probably won't really effect him much- if he is poor now, he'll still be poor after Brexit. He might well be even poorer, but once you're poor, you're poor. What Roger's comment does show is just how unequal our society is. Rog is a rich old fella who flits between the World's major cities, drinking espresso in the south of France and commenting on the majestic Nice sunset. He no more understands why the bloke in Hull decided to roll the dice and vote for Brexit than the bloke in Hull understands him. The bloke in Hull would probably loathe Roger as much as Roger loathes him.
Roger does NOT loathe the bloke in Hull! It is the bloke in Hull who loathes foreigners. That is the problem and why we're in this mess
Where you might have a case is if Seaboutbe was treated differently to all other contracts awarded at the same time
One presumes the other companies awarded contracts weren't non-functional shell companies designed to hoover up public funds into the wallets of Tory donors?
But Seaborne is, and Grayling is responsible for it.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
All three amount to pretty solid evidence of corruption. The public sector tendering process exists for a reason. To bypass it without good reason allowing you to funnel millions of public money into a shell company owned by a party donor with zero boats and zero track record is pretty open and shut corruption. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition.
But like I said, it's not Grayling's corruption that annoys me, it's that he's too fucking useless to even attempt to cover it up properly.
Here are some facts. From the Guardian so presumably you will accept them as not biased
Totally depressing programme on radio this morning about the new passports without the 'European Union' written on them and how we will now have to go into the much longer queues with 'others' and the difficulty service industries are going to face working in Europe. It might for example be possible to ply your trade in one EU country but require a permit to work in another.
My loathing for Leavers would require the vocabulary of Shakespeare to begin to describe it.
I’m sure someone on a council estate in Hull is weeping into his bacon butty after contemplating that a riviera based ad exec is struggling to describe his hatred of him. I think it’s described as a first world problem.
Could you explain how Brexit is going to benefit people on council estates in Hull?
Who knows? Probably won't really effect him much- if he is poor now, he'll still be poor after Brexit. He might well be even poorer, but once you're poor, you're poor. What Roger's comment does show is just how unequal our society is. Rog is a rich old fella who flits between the World's major cities, drinking espresso in the south of France and commenting on the majestic Nice sunset. He no more understands why the bloke in Hull decided to roll the dice and vote for Brexit than the bloke in Hull understands him. The bloke in Hull would probably loathe Roger as much as Roger loathes him.
Roger does NOT loathe the bloke in Hull! It is the bloke in Hull who loathes foreigners. That is the problem and why we're in this catastrophic mess
Fuck me, what part of "My loathing for Leavers would require the vocabulary of Shakespeare to begin to describe it" didn't you write, then? That is Corbyn grade lying!
Netflix has removed from its streaming service in Saudi Arabia an episode of a satirical comedy that was critical of the kingdom's rulers.
The second episode of Patriot Act, with US comedian Hasan Minhaj, was removed following an official complaint that it had violated Saudi anti-cybercrime law.
This might satisfy Roger, and even references Shakespeare:
'What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit'
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n01/on-brexit/what-europeans-talk-about-when-they-talk-about-brexit The leftish Information provides the most useful articles. One has a headline in English, though anchored in the land of Elsinore: ‘To Be or Not to Be, That Is Not the Question’. The real ‘question’ doesn’t concern the merits of Leave or Remain, but the complexities of a twin crisis, in both the UK and the EU. Another piece, published shortly after the referendum, describes the division of a nation into Leavers and Remainers as afgrundsdyb. Meaning ‘abyssal’, the term, I am told, hints at the unfathomable as well as the unbridgeable, while evoking something that is certainly dangerous to approach….
This bit is quite amusing: Some years ago, a UK tabloid ran a contemptuous article claiming that the majority of Belgians weren’t proud to be Belgian, and that surveys revealed Belgians to be the world’s least patriotic people. Statistics like these make me proud to be Belgian….
…In the UK things seem to be happening both very fast and very slowly, as if Brexit had created its own durée: every hour there are new crises, new declarations, new denunciations, and yet things are no further advanced than the day after the referendum. I found more preparation for Brexit on Zeebrugge port’s website than I’ve seen, read or heard from British politicians or (most of) the media. Zeebrugge will be ‘entirely Brexit-proof’, the port authority says. The view from Belgium is that the only place that isn’t Brexit-proof is Britain itself.
Totally depressing programme on radio this morning about the new passports without the 'European Union' written on them and how we will now have to go into the much longer queues with 'others' and the difficulty service industries are going to face working in Europe. It might for example be possible to ply your trade in one EU country but require a permit to work in another.
My loathing for Leavers would require the vocabulary of Shakespeare to begin to describe it.
I’m sure someone on a council estate in Hull is weeping into his bacon butty after contemplating that a riviera based ad exec is struggling to describe his hatred of him. I think it’s described as a first world problem.
Could you explain how Brexit is going to benefit people on council estates in Hull?
Who knows? Probably won't really effect him much- if he is poor now, he'll still be poor after Brexit. He might well be even poorer, but once you're poor, you're poor. What Roger's comment does show is just how unequal our society is. Rog is a rich old fella who flits between the World's major cities, drinking espresso in the south of France and commenting on the majestic Nice sunset. He no more understands why the bloke in Hull decided to roll the dice and vote for Brexit than the bloke in Hull understands him. The bloke in Hull would probably loathe Roger as much as Roger loathes him.
The truth is that both Roger and the bloke in Hull will lose out from Brexit, in very different ways. But they will both lose, as will just about everyone else in the UK. It's very, very hard to see how any benefit to anyone will come out of it.
Where you might have a case is if Seaboutbe was treated differently to all other contracts awarded at the same time
One presumes the other companies awarded contracts weren't non-functional shell companies designed to hoover up public funds into the wallets of Tory donors?
But Seaborne is, and Grayling is responsible for it.
Once again an accusation without facts
According to the Guardian, Seabourbe is backed by city institutions (ie you are my pension funds).
That’s the city providing finance to new businesses - exactly what it is supposed to do
Totally depressing programme on radio this morning about the new passports without the 'European Union' written on them and how we will now have to go into the much longer queues with 'others' and the difficulty service industries are going to face working in Europe. It might for example be possible to ply your trade in one EU country but require a permit to work in another.
My loathing for Leavers would require the vocabulary of Shakespeare to begin to describe it.
I’m sure someone on a council estate in Hull is weeping into his bacon butty after contemplating that a riviera based ad exec is struggling to describe his hatred of him. I think it’s described as a first world problem.
Could you explain how Brexit is going to benefit people on council estates in Hull?
Who knows? Probably won't really effect him much- if he is poor now, he'll still be poor after Brexit. He might well be even poorer, but once you're poor, you're poor. What Roger's comment does show is just how unequal our society is. Rog is a rich old fella who flits between the World's major cities, drinking espresso in the south of France and commenting on the majestic Nice sunset. He no more understands why the bloke in Hull decided to roll the dice and vote for Brexit than the bloke in Hull understands him. The bloke in Hull would probably loathe Roger as much as Roger loathes him.
Roger does NOT loathe the bloke in Hull! It is the bloke in Hull who loathes foreigners. That is the problem and why we're in this mess
Not quite - the bloke in Hull loathes the impact of Freedom of Movement that has resulted in increased competition for low skilled work that has resulted in (his) wages being virtually stagnant for well over a decade. What you will find is that he hates the foreigners he doesn't know but the ones he knows personally are fine.
Now the problem here is that the issue isn't actually the EU but rather our benefit system and our laissez-faire employment attitude where companies don't play the you don't have good enough Dutch / Danish / French / Italian trump card the rest of europe use.
Sadly your typical bloke in Hull couldn't do anything about that so when he was given a protest vote that was about laissez-faire employment immigration he took the opportunity to stick it to the Government.
* Grayling bypassed the public sector tendering process. He gave no justification for doing so.
* He awarded the contract, without tender, to a company that has no track record, and NO ACTUAL BOATS.
* The company is owned by the brother of the single largest Tory donor.
It's not even the corruption aspect of it annoys me, it's that it's so blatant, and so little attempt has been made to hide it, that it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to even be lowering ourselves to Grayling's level.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
It's almost as if the last government spunked lots of money on welfare to try and buy voters, and the new government just corrected it back before the splurge.
Interesting chart. The money (not) being spent on education is a real concern with serious implications for future productivity and indeed immigration. The spend on pensions is in those circumstances not much short of a disgrace.
It's mitigated by the increasing percentage of people drawing a pension. It's spend per capita, not spend per pensioner.
[Mind you, the proportional increase still looks too much considering the decreases elsewhere]
Romney's an interesting candidate from the anti-Trump side but it's also worth thinking about who would be the *Trumpist* non-Trump candidate. This is particularly important if Trump meets with misfortune after some or all of the primaries have taken place, because he's already got a bunch of delegates sewn up. But even if it's the party bigwigs deciding, the party in general is becoming increasingly Trumpified, and in any case they'll be terrified of upsetting Trump's supporters, who have highly-developed conspiracy theory skills.
If Trump is still alive in this situation then his endorsement becomes important; Obviously Pence is possible, but Trump will want somebody who's shown loyalty to him personally, in which case the obvious choice is Newt Gingrich.
Only if the Republicans are absolutely determined to lose at all costs.
No, it's a good question.
What we have to remember is that if - and this is classic political drama territory that the real world rarely goes near - Trump falls between then end of the primaries and the convention, then the convention will, by definition, be packed with Trump supporters. Who the party bigwigs support will be of some interest because there'd no doubt be a lot of manouevring to get a preferred candidate in place but the final say would be made by the delegates and with a pro-Trump majority in the hall, then even a tarnished Trump's word carries huge weight. It wouldn't be a matter of whether 'the Republicans' are determined to lose at all costs; it'd be a matter of who the delegates in the hall wanted to represent them.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
They must have done surveys, surely ? I was under the impression that you cannot apply for planning permission on any significant work in a mining area without doing so ?
I have no idea how many surveys were done before construction of the TGV line. ISTR they knew trenches were in the area, but that that particular trench / gallery had not been detected, and therefore had not been mitigated (some of the WW1 trenches were very deep, and were even tunnels). It's perfectly feasible they might not have been detected.
As for the chase line: the attitude was very different 150 years ago. If they came across old mine workings they'd fill them in, or build a raft over them. And probably not record where they were. Over time, the fill settles or the raft decays and a hole forms.
Most of this would be over with by now, but the stanchions/masts for the electrification scheme are slightly away from the track, and could easily hit something that would not affect the track.
On topic, while I'm a bit reluctant to dismiss out of hand a 130/1 shot for Romney to win the election (which, IMO, is better value than 50/1 for the GOP nomination), I don't really see the route...
Of course, things could change during 2019. Mueller could produce a gun sufficiently large and sufficiently smoking to undermine Trump with his own base and hence to convince enough GOP senators to carry an impeachment - and if Pence then chose not to run again (would he not?), or is sufficiently discredited in the process to make a challenge from outside the administration viable, there opens up another route. But while it's possible to see why Trump might not be the candidate, it's harder to see why Romney would be....
That is precisely the route. If Trump is disgraced sufficiently for the Republican to ditch him, irrespective of impeachment, then who else is going to be a front runner for the nomination ?
The party has been so craven in the face of Trump that there aren't many obvious alternatives - Sasse... Flake... ?
I think Romney has a decent shot. And, of course, plenty of cash.
Romney's an interesting candidate from the anti-Trump side but it's also worth thinking about who would be the *Trumpist* non-Trump candidate. This is particularly important if Trump meets with misfortune after some or all of the primaries have taken place, because he's already got a bunch of delegates sewn up. But even if it's the party bigwigs deciding, the party in general is becoming increasingly Trumpified, and in any case they'll be terrified of upsetting Trump's supporters, who have highly-developed conspiracy theory skills.
If Trump is still alive in this situation then his endorsement becomes important; Obviously Pence is possible, but Trump will want somebody who's shown loyalty to him personally, in which case the obvious choice is Newt Gingrich.
Only if the Republicans are absolutely determined to lose at all costs.
No, it's a good question.
What we have to remember is that if - and this is classic political drama territory that the real world rarely goes near - Trump falls between then end of the primaries and the convention, then the convention will, by definition, be packed with Trump supporters. Who the party bigwigs support will be of some interest because there'd no doubt be a lot of manouevring to get a preferred candidate in place but the final say would be made by the delegates and with a pro-Trump majority in the hall, then even a tarnished Trump's word carries huge weight. It wouldn't be a matter of whether 'the Republicans' are determined to lose at all costs; it'd be a matter of who the delegates in the hall wanted to represent them.
Fair enough; but I think 'if Trump meets with misfortune after some or all of the primaries have taken place' is something of an edge case.
I remember going to see my daughter in Gronnigen last year. We had to switch between 2 trains about half way there maybe 50 miles north of Amsterdam. The helpful clerk explained (in perfect English, natch) that there were 2 minutes between them but it was ok because they would be on opposing platforms. When I suggested that this might cause a problem she looked a little confused. It didn't of course. Our first train arrived to the minute when it should have done and the other left exactly on time. Dutch trains have drivers but operate with a level of precision and reliability that we simply cannot imagine. They were pretty cheap too.
Yes I used Dutch railways in the summer, and was very impressed. The stations are modern, clean, well equipped (with small sandwich bars on most platforms as well as a lot of shops above) and signposted, and everything ran to time. The German and Italian high speed trains were more impressive but less punctual.
Totally depressing programme on radio this morning about the new passports without the 'European Union' written on them and how we will now have to go into the much longer queues with 'others' and the difficulty service industries are going to face working in Europe. It might for example be possible to ply your trade in one EU country but require a permit to work in another.
My loathing for Leavers would require the vocabulary of Shakespeare to begin to describe it.
I’m sure someone on a council estate in Hull is weeping into his bacon butty after contemplating that a riviera based ad exec is struggling to describe his hatred of him. I think it’s described as a first world problem.
Could you explain how Brexit is going to benefit people on council estates in Hull?
I don’t think it will but when you have little or nothing now you’re not really bricking it about GDP being down 5% in 15 years, or particularly bothered by problems at Passport control for far flung businessmen.
Let’s look at it the other way - if we cancel Brexit and remain in the EU are people and businesses suddenly going to flock to the council estates of Hull, or any other post industrial town outside the South East. Probably not. Who benefits from improved access to EU markets. Probably SE and major cities. Who benefits from access to larger labour pool, business owners and those who can afford to pay for nannies, or building works to their own houses. (So benefits accrue to those who already have wealth). Who benefits from ease of travel around EU - those who can afford to travel. Who would be negatively impacted by asset devaluation? Those who have assets. I voted to remain as I am part of that system but can fully appreciate why someone on a council estate wouldn’t give two hoots about Roger having a slightly longer queue at Passport Control on his way back to his i’m sure lovely and well earned house on the French Riviera.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
It may be convenient, but that isn't sufficient for it to be corrupt.
On topic, while I'm a bit reluctant to dismiss out of hand a 130/1 shot for Romney to win the election (which, IMO, is better value than 50/1 for the GOP nomination), I don't really see the route...
Of course, things could change during 2019. Mueller could produce a gun sufficiently large and sufficiently smoking to undermine Trump with his own base and hence to convince enough GOP senators to carry an impeachment - and if Pence then chose not to run again (would he not?), or is sufficiently discredited in the process to make a challenge from outside the administration viable, there opens up another route. But while it's possible to see why Trump might not be the candidate, it's harder to see why Romney would be....
That is precisely the route. If Trump is disgraced sufficiently for the Republican to ditch him, irrespective of impeachment, then who else is going to be a front runner for the nomination ?
The party has been so craven in the face of Trump that there aren't many obvious alternatives - Sasse... Flake... ?
I think Romney has a decent shot. And, of course, plenty of cash.
Personally it's why Romney is a decent trading bet. He's not likely to win the nomination but enough things may occur to allow a profit to be taken..
Where you might have a case is if Seaboutbe was treated differently to all other contracts awarded at the same time
One presumes the other companies awarded contracts weren't non-functional shell companies designed to hoover up public funds into the wallets of Tory donors?
But Seaborne is, and Grayling is responsible for it.
Once again an accusation without facts
According to the Guardian, Seabourbe is backed by city institutions (ie you are my pension funds)....
The fares seem designed to confuse, baffle and cheat. Season ticket prices seem to increase more than your pay packet each year. Good luck getting a seat. If the train isn't cancelled. Or on strike.
BR may have been rubbish, but people got the perception that because it wasn't run by the private sector, there was no deliberate attempt to pick their pockets. It was incompetence rather than malice. That perception is very different now.
Yes, that's something of more general application. The probvlem of the public sector is that they're perceived as often inefficient. The problem of the private sector is that they're perceived to often want to rip you off. Where there is genuine competition (breakfast cereal, say, or broadband providers), it's easy to switch to one that seems to offer better value - even the mos hardened Trot is not demanding British Rice Krispies. But natural monopolies that are private combine the temptation to rip you off with the means to do it without comeback.
The most irritating thing about private sector pricing - thinking of broadband but also almost all insurance nowadays - is how sticking with renewing with the same company gets you ripped off, unless you go through the annual routine of phoning them up and making a fuss. It's probably the one financial feature of the modern world that actually goes against the older generation.
I agree. You’d have thought it’s a waste of everyone’s time and there would be a code they could apply so you dont have to use 15 minutes of call centre time
With BT its almost like that. I get some arbitrary discount off their full price, and whenever my contract comes round the renewal proposal doesn't include it, but as soon as I phone them up it quickly gets offered again.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
It may be convenient, but that isn't sufficient for it to be corrupt.
It might be; people have been convicted of corruption offences for similar crimes. I'd say there's certainly reasonable suspicion to begin criminal proceedings against Grayling and Seaborne Freight.
We'll let a jury decided exactly how non-suspicious Grayling's behaviour is.
On topic, while I'm a bit reluctant to dismiss out of hand a 130/1 shot for Romney to win the election (which, IMO, is better value than 50/1 for the GOP nomination), I don't really see the route...
Of course, things could change during 2019. Mueller could produce a gun sufficiently large and sufficiently smoking to undermine Trump with his own base and hence to convince enough GOP senators to carry an impeachment - and if Pence then chose not to run again (would he not?), or is sufficiently discredited in the process to make a challenge from outside the administration viable, there opens up another route. But while it's possible to see why Trump might not be the candidate, it's harder to see why Romney would be....
That is precisely the route. If Trump is disgraced sufficiently for the Republican to ditch him, irrespective of impeachment, then who else is going to be a front runner for the nomination ?
The party has been so craven in the face of Trump that there aren't many obvious alternatives - Sasse... Flake... ?
I think Romney has a decent shot. And, of course, plenty of cash.
Well, maybe. But the evidence so far - heck, the evidence of his behaviour before he was even elected - is pretty damning and Trump's ratings are not just holding up but improving.
Actually, the one thing that might do for him (or the one thing, if combined with serious developments re Mueller), would be a big downturn in the economy.
In that case, I could see the opportunity for Romney to Trump Trump and run on the basis that you need a chief executive who knows how to run things rather than a serial bankrupt.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
All three amount to pretty solid evidence of corruption. The public sector tendering process exists for a reason. To bypass it without good reason allowing you to funnel millions of public money into a shell company owned by a party donor with zero boats and zero track record is pretty open and shut corruption. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition.
But like I said, it's not Grayling's corruption that annoys me, it's that he's too fucking useless to even attempt to cover it up properly.
Every council in the land will bypass their procedures process a dozen or so times a year at least. It sometimes happens. it is not evidence of corruption.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
A contract for which the company will only receive money if they are 1) actually asked to provide services and 2) actually provide them...
Every council in the land will bypass their procedures process a dozen or so times a year at least. It sometimes happens. it is not evidence of corruption.
You realize that saying "other corruptions are available" isn't really much of a defence, right?
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
For heaven's sake - it is less than 13 weeks to the possible crash-out date, how on earth would there be time for the normal procurement process?
The criticism of Grayling and the civil servants on this is a fine example of purely partisan tosh. The BBC were joining in with relish yesterday (well there's a surprise), with a long piece on R4 news yesterday where some bloke from the 'Ramsgate Action Group' was given free rein to trash the contract. Who the hell are the Ramsgate Action Group, you might ask (although you won't get an answer)? And why the hell did the BBC not tell us who the hell they are, and why they were being treated as thought they were experts on ferry logistics?
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
Surely it’s not surprising that the people with enough money and interest to donate to the Tory party also have anough money to invest in emerging business opportunities.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
For heaven's sake - it is less than 13 weeks to the possible crash-out date, how on earth would there be time for the normal procurement process?
The criticism of Grayling and the civil servants on this is a fine example of purely partisan tosh. The BBC were joining in with relish yesterday (well there's a surprise), with a long piece on R4 news yesterday where some bloke from the 'Ramsgate Action Group' was given free rein to trash the contract. Who the hell are the Ramsgate Action Group, you might ask (although you won't get an answer)? And why the hell did the BBC not tell us who the hell they are, and why they were being treated as thought they were experts on ferry logistics?
I have no idea whether it is the right appointment.
Is there a balanced look at whether it will be able to perform its contractual commitments somewhere?
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
For heaven's sake - it is less than 13 weeks to the possible crash-out date, how on earth would there be time for the normal procurement process?
There isn't. But in that case Grayling should have given the contract to an actual functioning freight company, not a made-up freight company designed to hoover up public funds into the private bank accounts of large Tory donors.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
All three amount to pretty solid evidence of corruption. The public sector tendering process exists for a reason. To bypass it without good reason allowing you to funnel millions of public money into a shell company owned by a party donor with zero boats and zero track record is pretty open and shut corruption. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition.
But like I said, it's not Grayling's corruption that annoys me, it's that he's too fucking useless to even attempt to cover it up properly.
Before you further conspirajizz all over yourself too embarrassingly ..
As far as I can tell - Mark Bamford brother of of Tory donor Lord Bamford is the one on the left here
Mark Bamford - Director of Cambell Johnston Clark, the solicitors with the same address as the new ferry company
Totally depressing programme on radio this morning about the new passports without the 'European Union' written on them and how we will now have to go into the much longer queues with 'others' and the difficulty service industries are going to face working in Europe. It might for example be possible to ply your trade in one EU country but require a permit to work in another.
My loathing for Leavers would require the vocabulary of Shakespeare to begin to describe it.
I’m sure someone on a council estate in Hull is weeping into his bacon butty after contemplating that a riviera based ad exec is struggling to describe his hatred of him. I think it’s described as a first world problem.
Could you explain how Brexit is going to benefit people on council estates in Hull?
I don’t think it will but when you have little or nothing now you’re not really bricking it about GDP being down 5% in 15 years, or particularly bothered by problems at Passport control for far flung businessmen.
Let’s look at it the other way - if we cancel Brexit and remain in the EU are people and businesses suddenly going to flock to the council estates of Hull, or any other post industrial town outside the South East. Probably not. Who benefits from improved access to EU markets. Probably SE and major cities. Who benefits from access to larger labour pool, business owners and those who can afford to pay for nannies, or building works to their own houses. (So benefits accrue to those who already have wealth). Who benefits from ease of travel around EU - those who can afford to travel. Who would be negatively impacted by asset devaluation? Those who have assets. I voted to remain as I am part of that system but can fully appreciate why someone on a council estate wouldn’t give two hoots about Roger having a slightly longer queue at Passport Control on his way back to his i’m sure lovely and well earned house on the French Riviera.
I agree with most of that but my point is that if we are to be able to offer better public services and opportunities to the bloke in Hull we need to mamximise the UKs economic strength (and also have a government genuinely committed to doing something about social exclusion etc) and Brexit will not bring about either of those things. In fact it will make them much less likely.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
For heaven's sake - it is less than 13 weeks to the possible crash-out date, how on earth would there be time for the normal procurement process?
There isn't. But in that case Grayling should have given the contract to an actual functioning freight company, not a made-up freight company designed to hoover up public funds into the private bank accounts of large Tory donors.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
It may be convenient, but that isn't sufficient for it to be corrupt.
It might be; people have been convicted of corruption offences for similar crimes. I'd say there's certainly reasonable suspicion to begin criminal proceedings against Grayling and Seaborne Freight.
We'll let a jury decided exactly how non-suspicious Grayling's behaviour is.
Why don’t you go down the police station and tell them then. They might not have noticed the coincidence, and would surely love to interfere on the Government preparations for Brexit, in a situation where an admittedly sketchy company provides real services for money.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
All three amount to pretty solid evidence of corruption. The public sector tendering process exists for a reason. To bypass it without good reason allowing you to funnel millions of public money into a shell company owned by a party donor with zero boats and zero track record is pretty open and shut corruption. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition.
But like I said, it's not Grayling's corruption that annoys me, it's that he's too fucking useless to even attempt to cover it up properly.
Before you further conspirajizz all over yourself too embarrassingly ..
As far as I can tell - Mark Bamford brother of of Tory donor Lord Bamford is the one on the left here
Mark Bamford - Director of Cambell Johnston Clark, the solicitors with the same address as the new ferry company
Every council in the land will bypass their procedures process a dozen or so times a year at least. It sometimes happens. it is not evidence of corruption.
You realize that saying "other corruptions are available" isn't really much of a defence, right?
That *isnt* corruption. Corruption is exceptionally rare in Government, local or national. Not that it doesnt happen at a local level.
The only time I can think of in the last thirty years in which it even got close was the "selling of peerages" under Blair, and even that was for noble reasons. Bung a million or two into an academy school and we will get you in the Lords.
Of course parliamentarians are, like most other people greedy sods, and a good number over claimed or over egged their own personal expenses.
But go on, help me out, give me an example of some kind of criminal investigation and subsequent charges that have resulted from a member of any recent british government awarding contracts.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
It may be convenient, but that isn't sufficient for it to be corrupt.
It might be; people have been convicted of corruption offences for similar crimes. I'd say there's certainly reasonable suspicion to begin criminal proceedings against Grayling and Seaborne Freight.
We'll let a jury decided exactly how non-suspicious Grayling's behaviour is.
Come on, show me a British government minister in such a situation.
Totally depressing programme on radio this morning about the new passports without the 'European Union' written on them and how we will now have to go into the much longer queues with 'others' and the difficulty service industries are going to face working in Europe. It might for example be possible to ply your trade in one EU country but require a permit to work in another.
I’m sure someone on a council estate in Hull is weeping into his bacon butty after contemplating that a riviera based ad exec is struggling to describe his hatred of him. I think it’s described as a first world problem.
Could you explain how Brexit is going to benefit people on council estates in Hull?
I don’t think it will but when you have little or nothing now you’re not really bricking it about GDP being down 5% in 15 years, or particularly bothered by problems at Passport control for far flung businessmen.
Let’s look at it the other way - if we cancel Brexit and remain in the EU are people and businesses suddenly going to flock to the council estates of Hull, or any other post industrial town outside the South East. Probably not. Who benefits from improved access to EU markets. Probably SE and major cities. Who benefits from access to larger labour pool, business owners and those who can afford to pay for nannies, or building works to their own houses. (So benefits accrue to those who already have wealth). Who benefits from ease of travel around EU - those who can afford to travel. Who would be negatively impacted by asset devaluation? Those who have assets. I voted to remain as I am part of that system but can fully appreciate why someone on a council estate wouldn’t give two hoots about Roger having a slightly longer queue at Passport Control on his way back to his i’m sure lovely and well earned house on the French Riviera.
I agree with most of that but my point is that if we are to be able to offer better public services and opportunities to the bloke in Hull we need to mamximise the UKs economic strength (and also have a government genuinely committed to doing something about social exclusion etc) and Brexit will not bring about either of those things. In fact it will make them much less likely.
Agreed. I’m just bored with well off people ponitificating about how inconvenient Brexit is for manufacturers or business owners or GDP? I think remain lost because the Labour Party has lost its working class voices who can talk to those of C2DE backgrounds and explain the benefits to them for their circumstances and in their language. And ranting about how xenophobic or loathed they are is not really helpful.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
All three amount to pretty solid evidence of corruption. The public sector tendering process exists for a reason. To bypass it without good reason allowing you to funnel millions of public money into a shell company owned by a party donor with zero boats and zero track record is pretty open and shut corruption. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition.
But like I said, it's not Grayling's corruption that annoys me, it's that he's too fucking useless to even attempt to cover it up properly.
Before you further conspirajizz all over yourself too embarrassingly ..
As far as I can tell - Mark Bamford brother of of Tory donor Lord Bamford is the one on the left here
Mark Bamford - Director of Cambell Johnston Clark, the solicitors with the same address as the new ferry company
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
All three amount to pretty solid evidence of corruption. The public sector tendering process exists for a reason. To bypass it without good reason allowing you to funnel millions of public money into a shell company owned by a party donor with zero boats and zero track record is pretty open and shut corruption. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition.
But like I said, it's not Grayling's corruption that annoys me, it's that he's too fucking useless to even attempt to cover it up properly.
Before you further conspirajizz all over yourself too embarrassingly ..
As far as I can tell - Mark Bamford brother of of Tory donor Lord Bamford is the one on the left here
Mark Bamford - Director of Cambell Johnston Clark, the solicitors with the same address as the new ferry company
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
It may be convenient, but that isn't sufficient for it to be corrupt.
It might be; people have been convicted of corruption offences for similar crimes. I'd say there's certainly reasonable suspicion to begin criminal proceedings against Grayling and Seaborne Freight.
We'll let a jury decided exactly how non-suspicious Grayling's behaviour is.
Come on, show me a British government minister in such a situation.
There aren't any, because any other government minister would make at least a token effort to cover their tracks. Grayling is unusually inept at everything, including corruption.
Where you might have a case is if Seaboutbe was treated differently to all other contracts awarded at the same time
One presumes the other companies awarded contracts weren't non-functional shell companies designed to hoover up public funds into the wallets of Tory donors?
But Seaborne is, and Grayling is responsible for it.
Once again an accusation without facts
According to the Guardian, Seabourbe is backed by city institutions (ie you are my pension funds)....
* Grayling bypassed the public sector tendering process. He gave no justification for doing so.
* He awarded the contract, without tender, to a company that has no track record, and NO ACTUAL BOATS.
* The company is owned by the brother of the single largest Tory donor.
It's not even the corruption aspect of it annoys me, it's that it's so blatant, and so little attempt has been made to hide it, that it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to even be lowering ourselves to Grayling's level.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
Don't go in to bat for these bent fuckers. Ferrygate is just going to be the tip of the shitberg when it comes to corruption and waste on no deal spending.
There isn't. But in that case Grayling should have given the contract to an actual functioning freight company, not a made-up freight company designed to hoover up public funds into the private bank accounts of large Tory donors.
The company was set up by a group of former senior executives of another ferry company in April 2017, specifically to run a ferry freight service from Ramsgate to Ostend.
I would prefer to lay Trump for the nomination rather than the bi-partite bet of (a) Trump not getting the nomination (b) it being by mechanism X or Y, favouring a particular part of the GOP, and (c) that part of the GOP putting forward the named candidate. Half of OGH's bets have (d), that the candidate wins.
* Grayling bypassed the public sector tendering process. He gave no justification for doing so.
* He awarded the contract, without tender, to a company that has no track record, and NO ACTUAL BOATS.
* The company is owned by the brother of the single largest Tory donor.
It's not even the corruption aspect of it annoys me, it's that it's so blatant, and so little attempt has been made to hide it, that it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to even be lowering ourselves to Grayling's level.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
Don't go in to bat for these bent fuckers. Ferrygate is just going to be the tip of the shitberg when it comes to corruption and waste on no deal spending.
^^^^^^^^
Which is why Fakenews festers. You want it to be true. Even when it is proven to you that is is not true, you shrug and say, it will be true elsewhere.
I agree with most of that but my point is that if we are to be able to offer better public services and opportunities to the bloke in Hull we need to mamximise the UKs economic strength (and also have a government genuinely committed to doing something about social exclusion etc) and Brexit will not bring about either of those things. In fact it will make them much less likely.
Places suffering under austerity voted Leave, those areas that were doing OK voted remain. Votes are determined by how people feel today and how people think things are going to be in the near future (which will either by today made worse or today made better based on how things changed for them over the previous year).
So even if you showed people that the UK is better inside the EU the fact they see the job in Aldi they hoped for going to foreigners rather than themselves or others in the Council Estate in Leyland (yes its the example I've used since the referendum) is enough for them to feel the EU is doing them no favours....
Many people forget how important the small things that impact people directly are in the bigger picture. Remember the difference between a recession and a depression is the difference between my neighbour losing their job and me losing my job...
* Grayling bypassed the public sector tendering process. He gave no justification for doing so.
* He awarded the contract, without tender, to a company that has no track record, and NO ACTUAL BOATS.
* The company is owned by the brother of the single largest Tory donor.
It's not even the corruption aspect of it annoys me, it's that it's so blatant, and so little attempt has been made to hide it, that it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to even be lowering ourselves to Grayling's level.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
Don't go in to bat for these bent fuckers. Ferrygate is just going to be the tip of the shitberg when it comes to corruption and waste on no deal spending.
Why invoke some grand conspiracy to defraud when "people being a bit crap" would do just fine?
There isn't. But in that case Grayling should have given the contract to an actual functioning freight company, not a made-up freight company designed to hoover up public funds into the private bank accounts of large Tory donors.
The company was set up by a group of former senior executives of another ferry company in April 2017, specifically to run a ferry freight service from Ramsgate to Ostend.
A ferry service run by a shell company with no boats.
At least Ramsgate exists, I suppose. It's a start.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
For heaven's sake - it is less than 13 weeks to the possible crash-out date, how on earth would there be time for the normal procurement process?
The criticism of Grayling and the civil servants on this is a fine example of purely partisan tosh. The BBC were joining in with relish yesterday (well there's a surprise), with a long piece on R4 news yesterday where some bloke from the 'Ramsgate Action Group' was given free rein to trash the contract. Who the hell are the Ramsgate Action Group, you might ask (although you won't get an answer)? And why the hell did the BBC not tell us who the hell they are, and why they were being treated as thought they were experts on ferry logistics?
The Ramsgate Action Group, according their Facebook page, provides an 'Information page for the community campaign to protect Port Ramsgate and the surrounding environment from industrial pollution.' Their website has 'Maintenance being carried out'.
They don't appear to be experts on ferry logistics, per se, but they are a group of Ramsgate citizens, with varying levels of expertise in varying subjects, who, again according their Facebook page 'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018.', and which has now uncovered some apparently somewhat disturbing facts.
Have you ever been involved in public procurement? The elected politician does not decide outside of the recommendations given. It would have avoided the normal procurement process because of urgency. The corruption would need to involve the civil servants and the minister. Which is as close to zero as its possible to be.
Avoided the normal procurement process to somehow end up in the non-functional shell company of a major Tory donor?
How *gosh darned* convenient!
For heaven's sake - it is less than 13 weeks to the possible crash-out date, how on earth would there be time for the normal procurement process?
The criticism of Grayling and the civil servants on this is a fine example of purely partisan tosh. The BBC were joining in with relish yesterday (well there's a surprise), with a long piece on R4 news yesterday where some bloke from the 'Ramsgate Action Group' was given free rein to trash the contract. Who the hell are the Ramsgate Action Group, you might ask (although you won't get an answer)? And why the hell did the BBC not tell us who the hell they are, and why they were being treated as thought they were experts on ferry logistics?
They are an action group that is opposed to “over industrialisation of the harbour”
I suspect they may not be supportive of any ferry services
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
Don't go in to bat for these bent fuckers. Ferrygate is just going to be the tip of the shitberg when it comes to corruption and waste on no deal spending.
That's why I'm annoyed at Grayling. I expect Tories to be corrupt, but I expect at least a token effort to cover it up. Insulting.
Looks like the same guy. Haircut's different, but the same in-bred piggy little piggy face.
I'm gonna say, yes.
So his brother is Anthony Bamford of the family owned business JCB, whose net worth is in the Billions, and his businessman brother is somehow corruptly obtaining government contracts rather than making a limited investment into a possible business opportunity that may happen if no deal Brexit happens.
They don't appear to be experts on ferry logistics, per se, but they are a group of Ramsgate citizens, with varying levels of expertise in varying subjects, who, again according their Facebook page 'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018.', and which has now uncovered some apparently somewhat disturbing facts.
DYOR.
The disturbing fact that the company doesn't meaningfully exist except as a backchannel into the wallet of a Tory donor, presumably?
I would prefer to lay Trump for the nomination rather than the bi-partite bet of (a) Trump not getting the nomination (b) it being by mechanism X or Y, favouring a particular part of the GOP, and (c) that part of the GOP putting forward the named candidate. Half of OGH's bets have (d), that the candidate wins.
Looks like the same guy. Haircut's different, but the same in-bred piggy little piggy face.
I'm gonna say, yes.
So his brother is Anthony Bamford of the family owned business JCB, whose net worth is in the Billions, and his businessman brother is somehow corruptly obtaining government contracts rather than making a limited investment into a possible business opportunity that may happen if no deal Brexit happens.
Romney's an interesting candidate from the anti-Trump side but it's also worth thinking about who would be the *Trumpist* non-Trump candidate. This is particularly important if Trump meets with misfortune after some or all of the primaries have taken place, because he's already got a bunch of delegates sewn up. But even if it's the party bigwigs deciding, the party in general is becoming increasingly Trumpified, and in any case they'll be terrified of upsetting Trump's supporters, who have highly-developed conspiracy theory skills.
If Trump is still alive in this situation then his endorsement becomes important; Obviously Pence is possible, but Trump will want somebody who's shown loyalty to him personally, in which case the obvious choice is Newt Gingrich.
Only if the Republicans are absolutely determined to lose at all costs.
No, it's a good question.
What we have to remember is that if - and this is classic political drama territory that the real world rarely goes near - Trump falls between then end of the primaries and the convention, then the convention will, by definition, be packed with Trump supporters. Who the party bigwigs support will be of some interest because there'd no doubt be a lot of manouevring to get a preferred candidate in place but the final say would be made by the delegates and with a pro-Trump majority in the hall, then even a tarnished Trump's word carries huge weight. It wouldn't be a matter of whether 'the Republicans' are determined to lose at all costs; it'd be a matter of who the delegates in the hall wanted to represent them.
Fair enough; but I think 'if Trump meets with misfortune after some or all of the primaries have taken place' is something of an edge case.
Yes, I completely agree. But I still expect a disproportionate amount of time to be spent on questions like this simply because they're intrinsically interesting even if - as you rightly say - the scenarios they consider are very much edge ones.
I would prefer to lay Trump for the nomination rather than the bi-partite bet of (a) Trump not getting the nomination (b) it being by mechanism X or Y, favouring a particular part of the GOP, and (c) that part of the GOP putting forward the named candidate. Half of OGH's bets have (d), that the candidate wins.
I agree, though in fairness there's a question of value but also a question of personal preference/temperament here. I've spent this morning topping up on Trump to be the nominee, but I could have laid Romney instead (some available at around 30s on Betfair). OGH gets huge odds by being willing to go for very specific bets from a general viewpoint. And he does have a good track record of some long odds winners in primaries.
Looks like the same guy. Haircut's different, but the same in-bred piggy little piggy face.
I'm gonna say, yes.
So his brother is Anthony Bamford of the family owned business JCB, whose net worth is in the Billions, and his businessman brother is somehow corruptly obtaining government contracts rather than making a limited investment into a possible business opportunity that may happen if no deal Brexit happens.
No - there is no one called Bamford listed as a director of Seaborne Freight on the Companies house database. I think we are getting into deep water here (I'll get my coat).
It looks like a small startup though, and the accounts for 2018 show negative assets of more than £300k so it would not be likely to pass the kind of financial solvency test that would normally be part of public procurement procedures,
Every council in the land will bypass their procedures process a dozen or so times a year at least. It sometimes happens. it is not evidence of corruption.
You realize that saying "other corruptions are available" isn't really much of a defence, right?
That *isnt* corruption. Corruption is exceptionally rare in Government, local or national. Not that it doesnt happen at a local level.
The only time I can think of in the last thirty years in which it even got close was the "selling of peerages" under Blair, and even that was for noble reasons. Bung a million or two into an academy school and we will get you in the Lords.
Of course parliamentarians are, like most other people greedy sods, and a good number over claimed or over egged their own personal expenses.
But go on, help me out, give me an example of some kind of criminal investigation and subsequent charges that have resulted from a member of any recent british government awarding contracts.
Bernie Ecclestone and his million.
Blair feared the game was up after barely a few months in the job. Luckily, a "honeymoon period" press gave him a free pass.
They don't appear to be experts on ferry logistics, per se, but they are a group of Ramsgate citizens, with varying levels of expertise in varying subjects, who, again according their Facebook page 'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018.', and which has now uncovered some apparently somewhat disturbing facts.
DYOR.
The disturbing fact that the company doesn't meaningfully exist except as a backchannel into the wallet of a Tory donor, presumably?
OK. This what their Facebook page says. Direct copy; it's apparently in the public domain.
'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018. And in the absence of any action from TDC, we have twice undertaken such an exercise ourselves, showing that Seaborne Freight did not have the ships they claimed to have – or the investors. But the Ramsgate Action Group has now had sight of a formal company risk assessment of Seaborne Freight and Albany Shipping conducted by an FCA licensed lender using a highly reputable credit check company. Because of confidentiality and data protection law, we cannot publish these reports in detail. However, we can say the following things in general. 1) The credit score recommends a credit limit of no more than £500 and a contract limit of no more than £1,000. (as a point of comparison when I enter my own details into the same credit check, my credit limits and contract limits are more than ten times higher) 2) In the commentary, the report identifies two aspects of both companies’ finances which it considers to be very high risk; and one that it considers to be a “matter of concern”. 3) The report is also worried that Seaborne Freight has not made its VAT number or Company Registered Number obviously available in any of its details. So far, so damning. But it gets worse. If you add the £93k deficit on Albany’s books to the £416k short term loans “repayable to investors” in Seaborne Freight’s accounts, you have two companies who are technically insolvent. But if they are awarded a Government contract – or indeed any contract – that £509,000 of taxpayers’ money which comes straight off the top of any funds available. (Spookily, the first thing that Seaborne did on being awarded the contract (Dec 22nd) was to “pay” themselves by publishing accounts which showed the directors were owed upwards of £82k each in “consultancy fees”.)
That post is dated 31st Dec. As I say, it's a copy; I take no responsibility for anything said there which may be inaccurate. Others may well be able to challenge or otherwise disprove the statements made, but take them up on a third party basis, please, don't attribute anything to me.
Looks like the same guy. Haircut's different, but the same in-bred piggy little piggy face.
I'm gonna say, yes.
So his brother is Anthony Bamford of the family owned business JCB, whose net worth is in the Billions, and his businessman brother is somehow corruptly obtaining government contracts rather than making a limited investment into a possible business opportunity that may happen if no deal Brexit happens.
No - there is no one called Bamford listed as a director of Seaborne Freight on the Companies house database. I think we are getting into deep water here (I'll get my coat).
It looks like a small startup though, and the accounts for 2018 show negative assets of more than £300k so it would not be likely to pass the kind of financial solvency test that would normally be part of public procurement procedures,
That would depend on what financial backing they have lined up, which won't be public information.
Look, I am working on the premise that the end of the Brexit debates is in sight. Don't knock it.
I know what you mean. Brexit has become so pervasive that an end to it is as hard to conceive of as the dying of the sun. But therein lies the genius of TM's Deal. It will end it. This is why I'm rooting for it heart & soul.
The alternatives are truly terrifying. Consider the state of the nation after either a WTO clean break or a revocation of article 50 in order to Remain. In either case, half of the nation will be in a permanent condition of gloating ecstasy and the other half will feel nauseous and empty, almost like their innards have been ripped out.
Imagine being an Everton fan, Liverpool having just scored a last second winner in the Merseyside derby, and Jurgen Klopp celebrating in your face ... forever.
With apologies to George Orwell, that is how it will feel. Not hard to envisage serious civil unrest in such circumstances.
Enter the Deal. And in particular, the rather fabulous Irish Backstop. If we leave with that and (as we surely will) get stuck in limbo for the foreseeable, pretty much the whole country, man woman and child, will be cheesed off.
It will be like the weather. A unifying topic of complaint. A safe and reliable ice-breaker for strangers to open up with.
"That Backstop, eh," people will say, rolling their eyes, as they wait at the bus-stop. Or wherever. No bile. No fury. No malice.
* Grayling bypassed the public sector tendering process. He gave no justification for doing so.
* He awarded the contract, without tender, to a company that has no track record, and NO ACTUAL BOATS.
* The company is owned by the brother of the single largest Tory donor.
It's not even the corruption aspect of it annoys me, it's that it's so blatant, and so little attempt has been made to hide it, that it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to even be lowering ourselves to Grayling's level.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
Don't go in to bat for these bent fuckers. Ferrygate is just going to be the tip of the shitberg when it comes to corruption and waste on no deal spending.
I’ve a very simple approach.
When someone is corrupt or breaks the law they should be prosecuted and punished if found guilty. Public office is a huge responsibility and probity is of utmost importance
But members of the public have a responsibility not to devalue a serious crime by making allegations without evidence of wrongdoing
The amount copied from the Facebook page was too long, so I've pasted it in two sections; the second portion is
'Even more disturbingly, there is a Blind Trust in the name Seaborne, registered @ Broadgate Tower EC1 along with approx 250 other companies with names including consultancy and property management firms. Are the two companies connected? And if so, who are the hidden beneficiaries of the Blind Trust and can they pass normal due diligence and compliance? Yet, in its press release, the Department of Transport claim: “as with all contracts, we carefully vetted the company's commercial, technical and financial position in detail before making the award." Really? This is a company that has no ships, no funds, no identified investors, no employees and no real premises. It has only one telephone line which goes straight to voicemail and appears to have no European (Belgian) numbers to take bookings or conduct business. And Seaborne Freight’s website is barely a lick and a promise. It also operates in conjunction with Albany Shipping which has connections with a variety of dubious off-shore companies and investment funds identified in the Paradise Papers. What kind of “careful vetting” fails to notice these facts? What kind of commercial, technical and financial position would a company have to be in to not get awarded a contract by the Dept of Transport? So, it is beyond belief that Chris Grayling could approve handing over £14 million of taxpayers’ money in these circumstances.'
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
All three amount to pretty solid evidence of corruption. The public sector tendering process exists for a reason. To bypass it without good reason allowing you to funnel millions of public money into a shell company owned by a party donor with zero boats and zero track record is pretty open and shut corruption. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition.
But like I said, it's not Grayling's corruption that annoys me, it's that he's too fucking useless to even attempt to cover it up properly.
Before you further conspirajizz all over yourself too embarrassingly ..
As far as I can tell - Mark Bamford brother of of Tory donor Lord Bamford is the one on the left here
Mark Bamford - Director of Cambell Johnston Clark, the solicitors with the same address as the new ferry company
That post is dated 31st Dec. As I say, it's a copy; I take no responsibility for anything said there which may be inaccurate. Others may well be able to challenge or otherwise disprove the statements made, but take them up on a third party basis, please, don't attribute anything to me.
Oh wow. Dodgy as fuck. I'm sure the secretary of state wouldn't have skipped doing any due diligence, so I assume he knew all of this when he awarded a ferry contract to an insolvent, boatless shell company owned by a large Tory donor.
Looks like the same guy. Haircut's different, but the same in-bred piggy little piggy face.
I'm gonna say, yes.
So his brother is Anthony Bamford of the family owned business JCB, whose net worth is in the Billions, and his businessman brother is somehow corruptly obtaining government contracts rather than making a limited investment into a possible business opportunity that may happen if no deal Brexit happens.
No - there is no one called Bamford listed as a director of Seaborne Freight on the Companies house database. I think we are getting into deep water here (I'll get my coat).
It looks like a small startup though, and the accounts for 2018 show negative assets of more than £300k so it would not be likely to pass the kind of financial solvency test that would normally be part of public procurement procedures,
That would depend on what financial backing they have lined up, which won't be public information.
Apparently they have the financial backing of the British taxpayer.
That post is dated 31st Dec. As I say, it's a copy; I take no responsibility for anything said there which may be inaccurate. Others may well be able to challenge or otherwise disprove the statements made, but take them up on a third party basis, please, don't attribute anything to me.
Oh wow. Dodgy as fuck. I'm sure the secretary of state wouldn't have skipped doing any due diligence, so I assume he knew all of this when he awarded a ferry contract to an insolvent, boatless shell company owned by a large Tory donor.
They don't appear to be experts on ferry logistics, per se, but they are a group of Ramsgate citizens, with varying levels of expertise in varying subjects, who, again according their Facebook page 'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018.', and which has now uncovered some apparently somewhat disturbing facts.
DYOR.
The disturbing fact that the company doesn't meaningfully exist except as a backchannel into the wallet of a Tory donor, presumably?
I have no knowledge of the circumstances behind the award of this contract.
But it is possible to libel a company and, also unnamed persons such as the civil servants involved in this. So you might want to tone it down a bit rather than saying that there is evidence of corruption (for which the bar is high and which, IMO, you have not reached), for the sake of OGH’s wallet and peace of mind.
Looks like the same guy. Haircut's different, but the same in-bred piggy little piggy face.
I'm gonna say, yes.
So his brother is Anthony Bamford of the family owned business JCB, whose net worth is in the Billions, and his businessman brother is somehow corruptly obtaining government contracts rather than making a limited investment into a possible business opportunity that may happen if no deal Brexit happens.
No - there is no one called Bamford listed as a director of Seaborne Freight on the Companies house database. I think we are getting into deep water here (I'll get my coat).
It looks like a small startup though, and the accounts for 2018 show negative assets of more than £300k so it would not be likely to pass the kind of financial solvency test that would normally be part of public procurement procedures,
The Guardian set that there were “well known City institutions” behind it that were “ready to provide equity and debt financing”
Presumably they gave comfort letters to get around this concern - but don’t want to finance the company upfront as there is no point of it doesn’t get to operate the ferry route
The amount copied from the Facebook page was too long, so I've pasted it in two sections; the second portion is
'Even more disturbingly, there is a Blind Trust in the name Seaborne, registered @ Broadgate Tower EC1 along with approx 250 other companies with names including consultancy and property management firms. Are the two companies connected? And if so, who are the hidden beneficiaries of the Blind Trust and can they pass normal due diligence and compliance? Yet, in its press release, the Department of Transport claim: “as with all contracts, we carefully vetted the company's commercial, technical and financial position in detail before making the award." Really? This is a company that has no ships, no funds, no identified investors, no employees and no real premises. It has only one telephone line which goes straight to voicemail and appears to have no European (Belgian) numbers to take bookings or conduct business. And Seaborne Freight’s website is barely a lick and a promise. It also operates in conjunction with Albany Shipping which has connections with a variety of dubious off-shore companies and investment funds identified in the Paradise Papers. What kind of “careful vetting” fails to notice these facts? What kind of commercial, technical and financial position would a company have to be in to not get awarded a contract by the Dept of Transport? So, it is beyond belief that Chris Grayling could approve handing over £14 million of taxpayers’ money in these circumstances.'
Caveats in my first posting, of course, apply.
I’m not saying that the above is acceptable. However should we be surprised that Billionaires are able to risk having to set up (or possibly compete the purchase of ?!?) a company in the event of no deal. The risk is not in bidding and being nominated - the risk happens at no deal and the Bamfords are suitably rich and connected to ththe Tories and public Brexit backers that you would expect for rhemto want to make it work.
They don't appear to be experts on ferry logistics, per se, but they are a group of Ramsgate citizens, with varying levels of expertise in varying subjects, who, again according their Facebook page 'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018.', and which has now uncovered some apparently somewhat disturbing facts.
DYOR.
The disturbing fact that the company doesn't meaningfully exist except as a backchannel into the wallet of a Tory donor, presumably?
I have no knowledge of the circumstances behind the award of this contract.
But it is possible to libel a company and, also unnamed persons such as the civil servants involved in this. So you might want to tone it down a bit rather than saying that there is evidence of corruption (for which the bar is high and which, IMO, you have not reached), for the sake of OGH’s wallet and peace of mind.
Let's put it this way, there's more than the teeniest whiff of rattus rattus about the whole thing.
This corruption-shaped duck is walking and quacking like one of its own kind.
Apparently they have the financial backing of the British taxpayer.
To run ferry services.
With their zero boats.
I can let you into a little secret, apparently not widely known, especially amongst journalists: London is one of the world's leading centres of ship chartering.
Apparently they have the financial backing of the British taxpayer.
To run ferry services.
With their zero boats.
I can let you into a little secret, apparently not widely known, especially amongst journalists: London is one of the world's leading centres of ship chartering.
As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018.', and which has now uncovered some apparently somewhat disturbing facts.
DYOR.
OK. This what their Facebook page says. Direct copy; it's apparently in the public domain.
'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018. And in the absence of any action from TDC, we have twice undertaken such an exercise ourselves, showing that Seaborne Freight did not have the ships they claimed to have – or the investors. But the Ramsgate Action Group has now had sight of a formal company risk assessment of Seaborne Freight and Albany Shipping conducted by an FCA licensed lender using a highly reputable credit check company. Because of confidentiality and data protection law, we cannot publish these reports in detail. However, we can say the following things in general. 1) The credit score recommends a credit limit of no more than £500 and a contract limit of no more than £1,000. (as a point of comparison when I enter my own details into the same credit check, my credit limits and contract limits are more than ten times higher) 2) In the commentary, the report identifies two aspects of both companies’ finances which it considers to be very high risk; and one that it considers to be a “matter of concern”. 3) The report is also worried that Seaborne Freight has not made its VAT number or Company Registered Number obviously available in any of its details. So far, so damning. But it gets worse. If you add the £93k deficit on Albany’s books to the £416k short term loans “repayable to investors” in Seaborne Freight’s accounts, you have two companies who are technically insolvent. But if they are awarded a Government contract – or indeed any contract – that £509,000 of taxpayers’ money which comes straight off the top of any funds available. (Spookily, the first thing that Seaborne did on being awarded the contract (Dec 22nd) was to “pay” themselves by publishing accounts which showed the directors were owed upwards of £82k each in “consultancy fees”.)
That post is dated 31st Dec. As I say, it's a copy; I take no responsibility for anything said there which may be inaccurate. Others may well be able to challenge or otherwise disprove the statements made, but take them up on a third party basis, please, don't attribute anything to me.
That looks like a standard D&P report. It costs about £20 and is entirely automated.
It’s meaningless in the context of s company like this.
* Grayling bypassed the public sector tendering process. He gave no justification for doing so.
* He awarded the contract, without tender, to a company that has no track record, and NO ACTUAL BOATS.
* The company is owned by the brother of the single largest Tory donor.
It's not even the corruption aspect of it annoys me, it's that it's so blatant, and so little attempt has been made to hide it, that it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to even be lowering ourselves to Grayling's level.
1) it was awarded alongside other similar contracts not on its own. Presumably there was a specific process as part of no deal planning
2) that’s the nature of a start up! They started in 2017 with a view to opening their first services in 2019. Presumably pre-Brexit its not economic
3) irrelevant as to the fact. But good political knock about
That’s not evidence of corruption. That’s an accusation without evidence.
Don't go in to bat for these bent fuckers. Ferrygate is just going to be the tip of the shitberg when it comes to corruption and waste on no deal spending.
I’ve a very simple approach.
When someone is corrupt or breaks the law they should be prosecuted and punished if found guilty. Public office is a huge responsibility and probity is of utmost importance
But members of the public have a responsibility not to devalue a serious crime by making allegations without evidence of wrongdoing
I imagine I can hear Orff's O Fortuna in the background when I read this.
Comments
There was a process to award multiple “no deal” contracts. I have no idea whether this was the same or different to the normal procurement process. But I could see arguments for why it should be different.
Where you might have a case is if Seaboutbe was treated differently to all other contracts awarded at the same time
1. The heat death of the universe
2. PB stops talking about Brexit
It's quite clear that there's no love lost between him and Trump, and Trump will respond to what he will see as a personal betrayal and insult with his usual tact and restraint. There's therefore no chance at all that Romney would be offered the Vice Presidency should it become available before 2021 (which itself seems a long shot), putting him in line to succeed in the event that Trump falls (another thing which the odds overrate). Even if there were a vacancy and the Democrats demanded a Trump-sceptic as VP as the price for supporting a Republican, which is entirely plausible, I think Trump would rather refuse to nominate - or would nominate his own candidate to be voted down - than to acquiesce to that kind of Democrat powerplay.
Which leaves a direct challenge through the primaries. There was loose talk on a BBC News chat yesterday about the 'grown-ups' in the Republican party retaking control from Trump but I fail to see how they do so. Trump's approval figures are poor but not dire and his base remains strong and fired up. A lot of people think he is doing a fine job. Trump's potential attack lines against someone who lost one presidential election and a further Republican primary campaign in 2008 are simple enough - why replace a proven winner with a serial loser? Challenges against sitting presidents are rare enough and successful challenges are even rarer: none has been definitively won since the 19th century, though both Truman and Johnson withdrew when at risk of being beaten. Against Trump, with a base he keeps returning to, and with a new enemy to blame in the Democratic House (as well as with 'GOP collaborators like Romney'), he can not deliver on his promises with a deal of impunity.
Of course, things could change during 2019. Mueller could produce a gun sufficiently large and sufficiently smoking to undermine Trump with his own base and hence to convince enough GOP senators to carry an impeachment - and if Pence then chose not to run again (would he not?), or is sufficiently discredited in the process to make a challenge from outside the administration viable, there opens up another route. But while it's possible to see why Trump might not be the candidate, it's harder to see why Romney would be.
That said, the Democrat field is as yet fairly weak, made up of retreads, unprovens and second-raters. Against many of them, Romney should be odds-on in a direct head-to-head, so there's a fairly big disparity in the nomination/GE odds: 130/1 to win outright is not bad when he would be a change and consensus candidate in his own right at a time when much of the country might be looking for both change and consensus.
But Seaborne is, and Grayling is responsible for it.
Here are some facts. From the Guardian so presumably you will accept them as not biased
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/31/no-deal-brexit-ferries-who-gets-funds-and-how-was-contract-awarded
The second episode of Patriot Act, with US comedian Hasan Minhaj, was removed following an official complaint that it had violated Saudi anti-cybercrime law.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46732786
I would have it removed from Netflix, not because it was critical of KSA, but because the show just isn't very funny.
'What Europeans Talk about when They Talk about Brexit'
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n01/on-brexit/what-europeans-talk-about-when-they-talk-about-brexit
The leftish Information provides the most useful articles. One has a headline in English, though anchored in the land of Elsinore: ‘To Be or Not to Be, That Is Not the Question’. The real ‘question’ doesn’t concern the merits of Leave or Remain, but the complexities of a twin crisis, in both the UK and the EU. Another piece, published shortly after the referendum, describes the division of a nation into Leavers and Remainers as afgrundsdyb. Meaning ‘abyssal’, the term, I am told, hints at the unfathomable as well as the unbridgeable, while evoking something that is certainly dangerous to approach….
This bit is quite amusing:
Some years ago, a UK tabloid ran a contemptuous article claiming that the majority of Belgians weren’t proud to be Belgian, and that surveys revealed Belgians to be the world’s least patriotic people. Statistics like these make me proud to be Belgian….
…In the UK things seem to be happening both very fast and very slowly, as if Brexit had created its own durée: every hour there are new crises, new declarations, new denunciations, and yet things are no further advanced than the day after the referendum. I found more preparation for Brexit on Zeebrugge port’s website than I’ve seen, read or heard from British politicians or (most of) the media. Zeebrugge will be ‘entirely Brexit-proof’, the port authority says. The view from Belgium is that the only place that isn’t Brexit-proof is Britain itself.
All in all, quite a good read.
According to the Guardian, Seabourbe is backed by city institutions (ie you are my pension funds).
That’s the city providing finance to new businesses - exactly what it is supposed to do
Now the problem here is that the issue isn't actually the EU but rather our benefit system and our laissez-faire employment attitude where companies don't play the you don't have good enough Dutch / Danish / French / Italian trump card the rest of europe use.
Sadly your typical bloke in Hull couldn't do anything about that so when he was given a protest vote that was about laissez-faire employment immigration he took the opportunity to stick it to the Government.
[Mind you, the proportional increase still looks too much considering the decreases elsewhere]
What we have to remember is that if - and this is classic political drama territory that the real world rarely goes near - Trump falls between then end of the primaries and the convention, then the convention will, by definition, be packed with Trump supporters. Who the party bigwigs support will be of some interest because there'd no doubt be a lot of manouevring to get a preferred candidate in place but the final say would be made by the delegates and with a pro-Trump majority in the hall, then even a tarnished Trump's word carries huge weight. It wouldn't be a matter of whether 'the Republicans' are determined to lose at all costs; it'd be a matter of who the delegates in the hall wanted to represent them.
How *gosh darned* convenient!
As for the chase line: the attitude was very different 150 years ago. If they came across old mine workings they'd fill them in, or build a raft over them. And probably not record where they were. Over time, the fill settles or the raft decays and a hole forms.
Most of this would be over with by now, but the stanchions/masts for the electrification scheme are slightly away from the track, and could easily hit something that would not affect the track.
The Furness Railway even lost a locomotive into old ironstoee workings. It's still down there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindal_Railway_Incident
If Trump is disgraced sufficiently for the Republican to ditch him, irrespective of impeachment, then who else is going to be a front runner for the nomination ?
The party has been so craven in the face of Trump that there aren't many obvious alternatives - Sasse... Flake... ?
I think Romney has a decent shot. And, of course, plenty of cash.
Let’s look at it the other way - if we cancel Brexit and remain in the EU are people and businesses suddenly going to flock to the council estates of Hull, or any other post industrial town outside the South East. Probably not. Who benefits from improved access to EU markets. Probably SE and major cities. Who benefits from access to larger labour pool, business owners and those who can afford to pay for nannies, or building works to their own houses. (So benefits accrue to those who already have wealth). Who benefits from ease of travel around EU - those who can afford to travel. Who would be negatively impacted by asset devaluation? Those who have assets. I voted to remain as I am part of that system but can fully appreciate why someone on a council estate wouldn’t give two hoots about Roger having a slightly longer queue at Passport Control on his way back to his i’m sure lovely and well earned house on the French Riviera.
Otherwise, typical banker.
We'll let a jury decided exactly how non-suspicious Grayling's behaviour is.
Actually, the one thing that might do for him (or the one thing, if combined with serious developments re Mueller), would be a big downturn in the economy.
In that case, I could see the opportunity for Romney to Trump Trump and run on the basis that you need a chief executive who knows how to run things rather than a serial bankrupt.
The criticism of Grayling and the civil servants on this is a fine example of purely partisan tosh. The BBC were joining in with relish yesterday (well there's a surprise), with a long piece on R4 news yesterday where some bloke from the 'Ramsgate Action Group' was given free rein to trash the contract. Who the hell are the Ramsgate Action Group, you might ask (although you won't get an answer)? And why the hell did the BBC not tell us who the hell they are, and why they were being treated as thought they were experts on ferry logistics?
Is there a balanced look at whether it will be able to perform its contractual commitments somewhere?
The whole story was blatant clickbait from the start, for those desperate for it to be true. Blindingly obvious it wouldn't be as described.
As far as I can tell - Mark Bamford brother of of Tory donor Lord Bamford is the one on the left here
Mark Bamford - Director of Cambell Johnston Clark, the solicitors with the same address as the new ferry company
Might not be the same person..
The only time I can think of in the last thirty years in which it even got close was the "selling of peerages" under Blair, and even that was for noble reasons. Bung a million or two into an academy school and we will get you in the Lords.
Of course parliamentarians are, like most other people greedy sods, and a good number over claimed or over egged their own personal expenses.
But go on, help me out, give me an example of some kind of criminal investigation and subsequent charges that have resulted from a member of any recent british government awarding contracts.
I'm gonna say, yes.
“Your and my pension funds” !
Which is why Fakenews festers. You want it to be true. Even when it is proven to you that is is not true, you shrug and say, it will be true elsewhere.
So even if you showed people that the UK is better inside the EU the fact they see the job in Aldi they hoped for going to foreigners rather than themselves or others in the Council Estate in Leyland (yes its the example I've used since the referendum) is enough for them to feel the EU is doing them no favours....
Many people forget how important the small things that impact people directly are in the bigger picture. Remember the difference between a recession and a depression is the difference between my neighbour losing their job and me losing my job...
Ok..
At least Ramsgate exists, I suppose. It's a start.
Their website has 'Maintenance being carried out'.
They don't appear to be experts on ferry logistics, per se, but they are a group of Ramsgate citizens, with varying levels of expertise in varying subjects, who, again according their Facebook page 'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018.', and which has now uncovered some apparently somewhat disturbing facts.
DYOR.
I suspect they may not be supportive of any ferry services
That's why I'm annoyed at Grayling. I expect Tories to be corrupt, but I expect at least a token effort to cover it up. Insulting.
https://www.jamaicaglobalonline.com/kamala-harris-jamaican-heritage/
It looks like a small startup though, and the accounts for 2018 show negative assets of more than £300k so it would not be likely to pass the kind of financial solvency test that would normally be part of public procurement procedures,
Blair feared the game was up after barely a few months in the job. Luckily, a "honeymoon period" press gave him a free pass.
'As regular followers of RAG will know, we have been demanding proper “due diligence and compliance” on Seaborne Freight since April 2018.
And in the absence of any action from TDC, we have twice undertaken such an exercise ourselves, showing that Seaborne Freight did not have the ships they claimed to have – or the investors.
But the Ramsgate Action Group has now had sight of a formal company risk assessment of Seaborne Freight and Albany Shipping conducted by an FCA licensed lender using a highly reputable credit check company.
Because of confidentiality and data protection law, we cannot publish these reports in detail. However, we can say the following things in general.
1) The credit score recommends a credit limit of no more than £500 and a contract limit of no more than £1,000.
(as a point of comparison when I enter my own details into the same credit check, my credit limits and contract limits are more than ten times higher)
2) In the commentary, the report identifies two aspects of both companies’ finances which it considers to be very high risk; and one that it considers to be a “matter of concern”.
3) The report is also worried that Seaborne Freight has not made its VAT number or Company Registered Number obviously available in any of its details.
So far, so damning. But it gets worse. If you add the £93k deficit on Albany’s books to the £416k short term loans “repayable to investors” in Seaborne Freight’s accounts, you have two companies who are technically insolvent.
But if they are awarded a Government contract – or indeed any contract – that £509,000 of taxpayers’ money which comes straight off the top of any funds available.
(Spookily, the first thing that Seaborne did on being awarded the contract (Dec 22nd) was to “pay” themselves by publishing accounts which showed the directors were owed upwards of £82k each in “consultancy fees”.)
That post is dated 31st Dec. As I say, it's a copy; I take no responsibility for anything said there which may be inaccurate. Others may well be able to challenge or otherwise disprove the statements made, but take them up on a third party basis, please, don't attribute anything to me.
The alternatives are truly terrifying. Consider the state of the nation after either a WTO clean break or a revocation of article 50 in order to Remain. In either case, half of the nation will be in a permanent condition of gloating ecstasy and the other half will feel nauseous and empty, almost like their innards have been ripped out.
Imagine being an Everton fan, Liverpool having just scored a last second winner in the Merseyside derby, and Jurgen Klopp celebrating in your face ... forever.
With apologies to George Orwell, that is how it will feel. Not hard to envisage serious civil unrest in such circumstances.
Enter the Deal. And in particular, the rather fabulous Irish Backstop. If we leave with that and (as we surely will) get stuck in limbo for the foreseeable, pretty much the whole country, man woman and child, will be cheesed off.
It will be like the weather. A unifying topic of complaint. A safe and reliable ice-breaker for strangers to open up with.
"That Backstop, eh," people will say, rolling their eyes, as they wait at the bus-stop. Or wherever. No bile. No fury. No malice.
That's a result.
When someone is corrupt or breaks the law they should be prosecuted and punished if found guilty. Public office is a huge responsibility and probity is of utmost importance
But members of the public have a responsibility not to devalue a serious crime by making allegations without evidence of wrongdoing
'Even more disturbingly, there is a Blind Trust in the name Seaborne, registered @ Broadgate Tower EC1 along with approx 250 other companies with names including consultancy and property management firms.
Are the two companies connected? And if so, who are the hidden beneficiaries of the Blind Trust and can they pass normal due diligence and compliance?
Yet, in its press release, the Department of Transport claim: “as with all contracts, we carefully vetted the company's commercial, technical and financial position in detail before making the award."
Really? This is a company that has no ships, no funds, no identified investors, no employees and no real premises.
It has only one telephone line which goes straight to voicemail and appears to have no European (Belgian) numbers to take bookings or conduct business.
And Seaborne Freight’s website is barely a lick and a promise.
It also operates in conjunction with Albany Shipping which has connections with a variety of dubious off-shore companies and investment funds identified in the Paradise Papers.
What kind of “careful vetting” fails to notice these facts?
What kind of commercial, technical and financial position would a company have to be in to not get awarded a contract by the Dept of Transport?
So, it is beyond belief that Chris Grayling could approve handing over £14 million of taxpayers’ money in these circumstances.'
Caveats in my first posting, of course, apply.
[X] Has boat
[X] Can draw a good picture of a boat
To run ferry services.
With their zero boats.
But it is possible to libel a company and, also unnamed persons such as the civil servants involved in this. So you might want to tone it down a bit rather than saying that there is evidence of corruption (for which the bar is high and which, IMO, you have not reached), for the sake of OGH’s wallet and peace of mind.
Presumably they gave comfort letters to get around this concern - but don’t want to finance the company upfront as there is no point of it doesn’t get to operate the ferry route
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6542519/Its-David-Camer-gone-Ex-PM-loses-access-rights-House-Commons.html
Must... have... Crossrail...
This corruption-shaped duck is walking and quacking like one of its own kind.
No boats, no contacts, no contracts, no crew, no customs posts at either end, no functioning harbour.
This is not a real plan.
It’s meaningless in the context of s company like this.