I fight strongly for the principle that the politicians of NI have been more than capable of fking the place up by themselves and that outside assistance is just overkill :-)
It was always a mystery to me why Enoch Powell felt so happy in the sectarian and bigoted world of Ulster Unionism.
he tried the Pakistanis first and they wouldnt have him
"Jeremy Hunt and Gavin Williamson both took the unusual step of insisting they had not been the source of information about Huawei’s future role in the UK’s 5G mobile network, putting pressure on other ministers to follow suit."
So has the disgraced national security risk Liam Fox.
So that only leaves....
Quite a list. I assume loads of aides and civil servants are also involved in these meetings and their preparations.
I fight strongly for the principle that the politicians of NI have been more than capable of fking the place up by themselves and that outside assistance is just overkill :-)
It was always a mystery to me why Enoch Powell felt so happy in the sectarian and bigoted world of Ulster Unionism.
he tried the Pakistanis first and they wouldnt have him
What bothers me more is the decision to invite the Chinese into our telecoms infrastructure.
Seconded....while the leak is incredibly serious, it is overshadowing the fact the government are willing to go with them, despite serious warnings from the likes of the US.
Whilst I share your concerns, the US are not exactly disinterested parties in this, in several ways.
GCHQ says the risk is manageable according to Telegraph. So it is not a cut and dried issue.
Personally I think we would be bonkers to take the risk, but a decision above my pay grade.
"Jeremy Hunt and Gavin Williamson both took the unusual step of insisting they had not been the source of information about Huawei’s future role in the UK’s 5G mobile network, putting pressure on other ministers to follow suit."
So has the disgraced national security risk Liam Fox.
So that only leaves....
Quite a list. I assume loads of aides and civil servants are also involved in these meetings and their preparations.
I would not assume that the leak necessarily came from someone in this country.
Shouldn't we the public have a right to know if a Chinese company is about to snoop on us be involved in setting up 5G?
Yes - but that is a different question as to whether there has been a leak of intelligence material. I am not entirely sure why the fact that some Ministers may have objected is an official secret. So I wonder if there is something else going on, some other reason for concern.
Also I think a decision as important as this one is one which should be reached by the whole government not by one person alone, overriding everyone else. May does not have good judgment, has little authority or following and a decision which will affect us for decades should not be taken by one politician who may not be there in a few weeks.
What bothers me more is the decision to invite the Chinese into our telecoms infrastructure.
Seconded....while the leak is incredibly serious, it is overshadowing the fact the government are willing to go with them, despite serious warnings from the likes of the US.
Whilst I share your concerns, the US are not exactly disinterested parties in this, in several ways.
Is the problem that Huawei lets the Chinese spy on us, or that it doesn't let the Americans spy on us? I always work on the assumption that someone could read all my electronic communications if they wanted to, and it doesn't bother me personally as I am not doing anything anyone would be interested in. (typed on a Huawei phone).
"Jeremy Hunt and Gavin Williamson both took the unusual step of insisting they had not been the source of information about Huawei’s future role in the UK’s 5G mobile network, putting pressure on other ministers to follow suit."
So has the disgraced national security risk Liam Fox.
So that only leaves....
I'm perplexed Fox was brought into the cabinet, even more perplexed he was given something supposedly important to do, and baffled someone thought him sitting on the National Security Council was a good idea. I know May needed a symbol that she was bringing Brexiteers on board, but still... it's not even as if Fox was a particularly "big beast" with a strong base in the party, or that there weren't Leave-supporting Tory MPs with more economic/trade experience. His single-minded Atlanticism was always a poor fit for the international trade brief anyway - I know rcs has written despairingly about where he sent off his trade negotiators...
On this thread: Conservative Leavers complaining about the idea of requiring adequate representation based on a single characteristic.
Also on this thread: Conservative Leavers complaining about lack of adequate representation based on a single characteristic.
So far 3 people have discussed Woolley’s suggestion on this thread. I am neither a Conservative nor a Leaver. @Sean_F has not, as far as I know, complained about not having adequate representation based on a single characteristic. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make or against whom.
I don't care what colour, race, sexuality, gender or religion my political representatives are. I just want them to be competent, honest and to have been fairly elected. I feel similarly about those working in the police and health services.
On radio 4 this morning, Simon Woolley the director of Operation Black Vote was demanding all-black short lists for political representatives in areas with higher BME populations, since those communities could not trust the system if it didn't represent them (ie look like them).
Isn't this profoundly racist?
By that logic, white people living in such districts could only be represented by white MP's and councillors.
And how long before it is decreed that Jewish councillors shouldn't be representing majority non-Jewish constituencies....
That's a very odd post - I fail to see how you could make that comparison, and there are much more obvious candidates in the political world - especially if you include men.
Odd? I don't think so. Not unless I'm odd, because it was genuinely what I was thinking as I watched the programme.
The idea that what we need is to get away from squabbling partisan 'old' politicians and be governed instead by a sensible, pragmatic, highly competent individual who is driven purely by 'what works' and has the interests of the nation rather than party always at heart - this is what I am getting at.
Heidi sprang to mind because the character was a charismatic female and the above para is the essence of Heidi's pitch and her appeal. "I'm not a Tory, I'm not a socialist or a social democrat, I'm none of those things. I'm a tough-minded woman with a brain and a heart. I ran a business and I can run a country just as well. Trust me, I can and I will."
It's a stretch but it's a valid one. Fascists don't have to appear with a uniform and a marching band.
On this thread: Conservative Leavers complaining about the idea of requiring adequate representation based on a single characteristic.
Also on this thread: Conservative Leavers complaining about lack of adequate representation based on a single characteristic.
So far 3 people have discussed Woolley’s suggestion on this thread. I am neither a Conservative nor a Leaver. @Sean_F has not, as far as I know, complained about not having adequate representation based on a single characteristic. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make or against whom.
I think Alastair is referring to complaints about not enough Brexiteers on Question Time.
I'd wearily guess that somewhere on the ether someone has made the case for Blake being a Brexiteer.
And someone will be along shortly to say that England's in the first verse is wrong; it should of course say pre-Anglo-Saxon-Logres' mountains and pleasant pastures green.
***Trigger Warning: a Beastly Internet Ex-HMF Musket-Bearing Poster is About to Respond***
You lot of ******* ****** voted for Brexit and are now insisting on a flavour of Brexit which can not, as you, others on here, and the ERG picture it, be delivered. The backstop is a vital element of the ongoing relationship between the UK & NI and the RoI.
FFS put a 10 year initial term, automatic renewal for 5 years and 5 years notice of termination required
If there hasn’t been a solution no U.K. government is actually going to terminate it.
We just need to be able to tell the nutters we can
I mean that might fly. In politics it is of course an eon. Bet the ERG-ers would have you up against the wall for even suggesting it, that said.
I’m not an ERG-er
It's an eminently respectable, deliverable and fairly obvious way forward. If anyone knows why it's not been part of the debate, then please enlighten me.
I mean obviously the ERG and Faragists would scream and wail regardless. And if the backstop was solved there would be another, insurmountable reason that the WA was a betrayal of Brexit. They don't exist as a political force without a grievance, and I suspect they've hitched their horses to the backstop as the easiest way to perpetuate one.
It gets you the DUP and a few of the ERG. Labour Leavers can do the rest.
That ship has sailed. There are three reasons why this won't work:
1) The deal has been negotiated, so far as the EU is concerned. Britain has spent far too long faffing around for those on the EU side to be willing to unpick aspects now without the most sensational incentive to do so.
2) In the last few months so many Leavers have so casually on so many occasions made it clear that they would be looking to unpick aspects of the settlement after Brexit that the EU is not going to offer any leeway now on the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" principle.
3) This does not look like it would deliver the stable consensus the EU is looking for if it is to invest effort into renegotiation.
What bothers me more is the decision to invite the Chinese into our telecoms infrastructure.
Seconded....while the leak is incredibly serious, it is overshadowing the fact the government are willing to go with them, despite serious warnings from the likes of the US.
Whilst I share your concerns, the US are not exactly disinterested parties in this, in several ways.
Is the problem that Huawei lets the Chinese spy on us, or that it doesn't let the Americans spy on us? I always work on the assumption that someone could read all my electronic communications if they wanted to, and it doesn't bother me personally as I am not doing anything anyone would be interested in. (typed on a Huawei phone).
It’s not just the spying but that it effectively gives control of essential infrastructure to a state that is not necessarily friendly and could very well be hostile to our interests. As a Chinese company it will ultimately do what the Chinese government commands it to do. If that means doing something that will harm Britain it will do, no matter how much flannel it may give us now about being a private sector company. Plus it may make it impossible for to be part of the Five Eyes Network, which is a big minus for Britain given that intelligence is supposed to be one of our USP’s, especially in a post-Brexit world. And that the distinction between core and non-core parts of the network (the justification for allowing Huwaei in) is an essentially meaningless one.
That's a very odd post - I fail to see how you could make that comparison, and there are much more obvious candidates in the political world - especially if you include men.
Odd? I don't think so. Not unless I'm odd, because it was genuinely what I was thinking as I watched the programme.
The idea that what we need is to get away from squabbling partisan 'old' politicians and be governed instead by a sensible, pragmatic, highly competent individual who is driven purely by 'what works' and has the interests of the nation rather than party always at heart - this is what I am getting at.
Heidi sprang to mind because the character was a charismatic female and the above para is the essence of Heidi's pitch and her appeal. "I'm not a Tory, I'm not a socialist or a social democrat, I'm none of those things. I'm a tough-minded woman with a brain and a heart. I ran a business and I can run a country just as well. Trust me, I can and I will."
It's a stretch but it's a valid one. Fascists don't have to appear with a uniform and a marching band.
Hmmm. It's a mahoossive stretch. Then again, we all see what we want to see.
I don't care what colour, race, sexuality, gender or religion my political representatives are. I just want them to be competent, honest and to have been fairly elected. I feel similarly about those working in the police and health services.
On radio 4 this morning, Simon Woolley the director of Operation Black Vote was demanding all-black short lists for political representatives in areas with higher BME populations, since those communities could not trust the system if it didn't represent them (ie look like them).
Isn't this profoundly racist?
Not for me.
I would describe it as an unhelpful and inappropriate way to combat racism.
The important question is to what extent the racism is real as opposed to just perceived. I don't know the answer to that.
A postgraduate degree now needed to significantly increase earnings, by 30 earnings are 40% above non graduates for postgraduates but just 21% above non graduates for graduates alone.
Between the ages of 16 and 64 postgraduates earn £40,000 on average compared to £34 000 for graduates and £24 000 for non graduates
Assume that is an average given you do not need a degree to earn good money in reality
Obviously the difference will actually be bigger as earnings in graduate and post graduate careers will be hindered by years of non earning whilst studying.
I wonder what the best earning non graduate positions are?
Not sure of relevance but I , with no degree make good bit more than both graduate and post graduate together. I am in IT , commercial nowadays but previously an engineer.
What bothers me more is the decision to invite the Chinese into our telecoms infrastructure.
Seconded....while the leak is incredibly serious, it is overshadowing the fact the government are willing to go with them, despite serious warnings from the likes of the US.
We know they are thicker than a pound of mince so no surprise in their decision making, only the fact that they actually made one.
Comments
As the Telegraph guy says this may be a 'sputnik moment' when the west realises we are losing the tech race.
https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/status/1121530015647174656
That’s much more productive that debating the difference between a genetic characteristic and a political belief
Personally I think we would be bonkers to take the risk, but a decision above my pay grade.
Also I think a decision as important as this one is one which should be reached by the whole government not by one person alone, overriding everyone else. May does not have good judgment, has little authority or following and a decision which will affect us for decades should not be taken by one politician who may not be there in a few weeks.
So far 3 people have discussed Woolley’s suggestion on this thread. I am neither a Conservative nor a Leaver. @Sean_F has not, as far as I know, complained about not having adequate representation based on a single characteristic. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make or against whom.
The idea that what we need is to get away from squabbling partisan 'old' politicians and be governed instead by a sensible, pragmatic, highly competent individual who is driven purely by 'what works' and has the interests of the nation rather than party always at heart - this is what I am getting at.
Heidi sprang to mind because the character was a charismatic female and the above para is the essence of Heidi's pitch and her appeal. "I'm not a Tory, I'm not a socialist or a social democrat, I'm none of those things. I'm a tough-minded woman with a brain and a heart. I ran a business and I can run a country just as well. Trust me, I can and I will."
It's a stretch but it's a valid one. Fascists don't have to appear with a uniform and a marching band.
NEW THREAD
1) The deal has been negotiated, so far as the EU is concerned. Britain has spent far too long faffing around for those on the EU side to be willing to unpick aspects now without the most sensational incentive to do so.
2) In the last few months so many Leavers have so casually on so many occasions made it clear that they would be looking to unpick aspects of the settlement after Brexit that the EU is not going to offer any leeway now on the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" principle.
3) This does not look like it would deliver the stable consensus the EU is looking for if it is to invest effort into renegotiation.
That is what I understand the objections to be.
I would describe it as an unhelpful and inappropriate way to combat racism.
The important question is to what extent the racism is real as opposed to just perceived. I don't know the answer to that.