They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
It's funny because all the action in Parliament was about preventing Brexit (or a hard Brexit, if you are charitable). They've ended up even closer to that result than they would have had they voted for May's deal.
Brexit is Brexit. At least this way the frothers cant blame Remainers for implementing the wrong type of Brexit and that’s why it’s sh*t.
"ministers are poised to allow Huawei, effectively China’s state-owned tech company, to play a central role in the development of Britain’s 5G network. This technology is not, as some say, simply the next generation for mobile phones. It will be at the heart of everything we do – in life at home, commerce, public services and our national security – for years to come."
If true - and I fear it is - a disastrous decision. Quite the worst any government will take in my lifetime, I suspect.
I don't see the issue really. China is clearly spying on us. This makes it a bit easier possibly? We're already snooped upon by big business, the US, and our own agencies, and goodness alone knows who else. I cannot get worked up about adding the Chinese to the list. Yet again the US wanted us to fight their battles and pay for their more expensive 5G. No thanks.
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
It's funny because all the action in Parliament was about preventing Brexit (or a hard Brexit, if you are charitable). They've ended up even closer to that result than they would have had they voted for May's deal.
Brexit is Brexit. At least this way the frothers cant blame Remainers for implementing the wrong type of Brexit and that’s why it’s sh*t.
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
It's funny because all the action in Parliament was about preventing Brexit (or a hard Brexit, if you are charitable). They've ended up even closer to that result than they would have had they voted for May's deal.
Brexit is Brexit. At least this way the frothers cant blame Remainers for implementing the wrong type of Brexit and that’s why it’s sh*t.
The FA should kick Liverpool out of the Cup and not let them back in until they have a new manager. He is an utter disgrace.
Calm down.
Is this even close to the holders not competing in the tournament?
How much did the FA fine/ban Fergie/Manchester United in 2000?
Man Utd were told to participate in the FIFA Club World Cup because we were bidding for the 2006 World Cup. They were FORCED by the FA to miss the FA Cup 4th Round.
This fixture pile up is because we were told to play in the Club World Cup.
Didn’t see anyone defend Liverpool being forced to play two games in 24 hours in two continents.
What fixture pile up? You've got a (self-inflicted) replay and then 11 days off.
And no one criticised Liverpool for playing the kids v Aston Villa.
Yes they did. Have a look at social media at the time of the announcement/during the Villa match.
Right, well I certainly didn't and no one who's opinion I respect criticised them. If you want to see fixture congestion, look at Arsenal's 1979-80 season:
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
It's funny because all the action in Parliament was about preventing Brexit (or a hard Brexit, if you are charitable). They've ended up even closer to that result than they would have had they voted for May's deal.
Brexit is Brexit. At least this way the frothers cant blame Remainers for implementing the wrong type of Brexit and that’s why it’s sh*t.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
Of course it’s the civil service’s fault and not the government’s. Jesus wept.
This goes back decades.
Where are Plessey, GEC, Marconi?
Our short term mentality means we are in the mess we are in.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
Of course it’s the civil service’s fault and not the government’s. Jesus wept.
Well ultimately Boris takes the blame, but it's the arseholes in the civil service that think they know best pushing the pro-China agenda. I've been watching this develop over the last year or so from afar and not so far away, the intelligence services and ministers are against, the civil service are in favour based on cost and delay grounds. The civil service are presenting the argument that the US hasn't provided any evidence other that "yeah, but China, are you really asking?" Which has been incorrectly and cynically framed as not enough literally because "yeah but China" is a very valid argument here.
The arseholes keep asking for "alternatives" as one of the criteria to block Huawei, knowing full well that Huawei has basically had tens of billions in Chinese government subsidies to ensure there are no alternatives for at least two years. It's a complete joke and it's at times like these that I want Dom to go and sack every single one of them. They are literally putting the security of the nation at risk because they think they are smarter than everyone else (including the fucking Chinese government).
I hope the US pushes back very hard in the next few days. Otherwise Boris, driven by the arseholes and their idiotic framing, will doom us to a life of being under Chinese state intrusion.
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
It's funny because all the action in Parliament was about preventing Brexit (or a hard Brexit, if you are charitable). They've ended up even closer to that result than they would have had they voted for May's deal.
Brexit is Brexit. At least this way the frothers cant blame Remainers for implementing the wrong type of Brexit and that’s why it’s sh*t.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
Of course it’s the civil service’s fault and not the government’s. Jesus wept.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
Of course it’s the civil service’s fault and not the government’s. Jesus wept.
This goes back decades.
Where are Plessey, GEC, Marconi?
Our short term mentality means we are in the mess we are in.
Exactly. The time to worry about China was when they were actively acquiring technology by any means possible. Now they have the technology, it is far too late. Better to wise up on how to sell our tourism, heritage, luxury brands and anything else we have got that they want, to make a little of our money back.
Brexit is Brexit. At least this way the frothers cant blame Remainers for implementing the wrong type of Brexit and that’s why it’s sh*t.
A good point. The May Deal was opposed by "Boris" and the ERG. If it had gone through they had an alibi for the consequences. Wrong Brexit. A Remainers' Brexit. Not us guv. This way they don't. Won't stop them bullshitting, of course, if it goes pear, but it will be transparent to all with faculties intact.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
It's time to shit can the league cup and FA cup replays. That or give PL teams a bye into the 4th round instead. Give the league cup Europa League spot to sixth in the Premier League
I hate myself for agreeing with Klopp, but it's time to actually do something about fixture congestion. Other European leagues don't have this problem, only we do.
My suggestion for the EFL Cup is to
1) Abolish the two legged semis
2) Bar the teams who have qualified for Europe from entry to that season's EFL Cup.
There's also an argument to be made that to protect the FA Cup replays we move the third round of the FA Cup to December.
Is there any point to the EFL Cup when we already have the FA Cup?
Clue is in the name.
Yes, but is there any point to it?
It’s a competition. That league teams enter. To win theoretically. (and is a route into Europe).
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
Set up a mobile technology centre of excellence in conjunction with Newcastle University in Blyth...
Oh and make it a tax free enterprise zone or something.
Why don’t we just steal the technology from Huawei? 🤷♂️
Unlike China, we stick to the rules. It's the same reason we saw EU regulations as rules to stick by and others saw them as guidelines to igborecwgen convenient.
Ultimately we need to force China to stick to the rules, which does mean freezing subsidised companies out of global markets. Unfortunately it's a losing battle, our civil service is too weak and too scared.
We no longer have the will to win this fight, we're a sad and beaten people, and that's not just the UK, it's true for the whole of Europe wet China.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
So, the massive burning question is why?
The next gen is not just 5G, it is AI and so on. We are losing tech to China. Do we want that?
If Cummings is actually more than just an weirdo in crap clothing who dreams of a job in Silicon Valley maybe he needs to spend tomorrow morning convening a committee in Downing Street to work out the mess the UK is in on computer tech.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
Not the Tory c***s running the country and giving the civil service minions the orders, what a brass neck, it is the fat lying toad at Number 10 giving the orders, f*** all to do with civil service.
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
What does "own the result" actually mean? It just seems a rather meaningless marker for a bit of premature schadenfreude. In this context it is simply wrong if it is meant to suggest that the behaviour of Remainers over the past 3 years has played no part in deciding whist exact brexit we get. Of course it has.
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
What does "own the result" actually mean? It just seems a rather meaningless marker for a bit of premature schadenfreude. In this context it is simply wrong if it is meant to suggest that the behaviour of Remainers over the past 3 years has played no part in deciding whist exact brexit we get. Of course it has.
Eh? Boris has a majority. He can have whatever Brexit he wants. We will see what he does with it.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
So, the massive burning question is why?
The next gen is not just 5G, it is AI and so on. We are losing tech to China. Do we want that?
If Cummings is actually more than just an weirdo in crap clothing who dreams of a job in Silicon Valley maybe he needs to spend tomorrow morning convening a committee in Downing Street to work out the mess the UK is in on computer tech.
China is willing to pour tens of billions in subsidies to companies doing this. We aren't. Ultimately that has a cost. The solution is to make China play by the rules, not for us to pour the same kind of public funding into private business.
There is little to no appetite to make China play by the rules in Europe. The US is trying, but getting basically no support from us or the EU. If the EU pushed the same agenda as the US and put mega tariffs ok Chinese good their economy would be stuffed and they would have no choice but to fall in line. Unfortunately the EU seems to be too scared or hate Trump too much to do anything about it.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
Thatcher did this.
I dunno, as someone involved in a very minor way, my memory is Arnie Weinstock had a lot to do with it, combined with the usual City short term mentality.
The FA should kick Liverpool out of the Cup and not let them back in until they have a new manager. He is an utter disgrace.
Calm down.
Is this even close to the holders not competing in the tournament?
How much did the FA fine/ban Fergie/Manchester United in 2000?
Man Utd were told to participate in the FIFA Club World Cup because we were bidding for the 2006 World Cup. They were FORCED by the FA to miss the FA Cup 4th Round.
This fixture pile up is because we were told to play in the Club World Cup.
Didn’t see anyone defend Liverpool being forced to play two games in 24 hours in two continents.
What fixture pile up? You've got a (self-inflicted) replay and then 11 days off.
And no one criticised Liverpool for playing the kids v Aston Villa.
Yes they did. Have a look at social media at the time of the announcement/during the Villa match.
Right, well I certainly didn't and no one who's opinion I respect criticised them. If you want to see fixture congestion, look at Arsenal's 1979-80 season:
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
What does "own the result" actually mean? It just seems a rather meaningless marker for a bit of premature schadenfreude. In this context it is simply wrong if it is meant to suggest that the behaviour of Remainers over the past 3 years has played no part in deciding whist exact brexit we get. Of course it has.
Eh? Boris has a majority. He can have whatever Brexit he wants. We will see what he does with it.
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
What does "own the result" actually mean? It just seems a rather meaningless marker for a bit of premature schadenfreude. In this context it is simply wrong if it is meant to suggest that the behaviour of Remainers over the past 3 years has played no part in deciding whist exact brexit we get. Of course it has.
Eh? Boris has a majority. He can have whatever Brexit he wants. We will see what he does with it.
So what does "own the result" actually mean?
If it turns out to be crap, they only have themselves to blame. What else would it mean?
Do most CLPs just not bother? 75 out of 650 doesn’t exactly indicate huge engagement in what seems to be a pretty important role in the process.
Not sure I follow.
If there was an expectation that 650 CLPs might nominate somebody, then it would seem a bit premature to completely write off anyone’s chances of securing 33 nominations.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
Thatcher did this.
Not really, it's just the same failure of British management to think beyond the next quarter's bonus. Not sure that's changed much in 100 years.
Do most CLPs just not bother? 75 out of 650 doesn’t exactly indicate huge engagement in what seems to be a pretty important role in the process.
Not sure I follow.
If there was an expectation that 650 CLPs might nominate somebody, then it would seem a bit premature to completely write off anyone’s chances of securing 33 nominations.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
Thatcher did this.
Not really, it's just the same failure of British management to think beyond the next quarter's bonus. Not sure that's changed much in 100 years.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
Thatcher did this.
Not really, it's just the same failure of British management to think beyond the next quarter's bonus. Not sure that's changed much in 100 years.
So what do you do about it? The culture I mean.
Read one of Will Hutton's many books on UK economy and short term thinking?
Starmer has today gone to his shortest ever price - now 1.33.
A small amount was matched at 1.32, I think earlier today.
I don't think RLB will win - she's behind in nominations, and nominations reflect the views of the active members who turn up at meetings (no postal or proxy votes for the nominations)/ I'd expect non-attendees to be less committed to her.
Nandy might still win. She needs to come second AND to get the large majority of RLB's 2nd prefs. It might then be fairly tight.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
Thatcher did this.
Not really, it's just the same failure of British management to think beyond the next quarter's bonus. Not sure that's changed much in 100 years.
So what do you do about it? The culture I mean.
I don't know. It's pervasive as well. Union bosses do the same, they only think about next year's pay settlement, management only think about next year's bonus, shareholders only think about the next dividend.
Honestly, it's a problem that isn't even really acknowledged let alone being targeted for fixing.
Do most CLPs just not bother? 75 out of 650 doesn’t exactly indicate huge engagement in what seems to be a pretty important role in the process.
Not sure I follow.
If there was an expectation that 650 CLPs might nominate somebody, then it would seem a bit premature to completely write off anyone’s chances of securing 33 nominations.
633 - Northern Ireland is one "big" CLP.
There is until 15th Feb if I have understood the rules correctly.
Exit polls from Regionals in Italy (focussed on coalition lists for regional president):
Emilia-Romagna: Left (PD led) 47-51 (-2-+2 since 2014) Right (Lega led) 44-48 (+14-18)
Left leading but within MoE, and in line with pre-election polls.
Suggests a massive squeeze on other candidates, including M5S (who polled 13% last time). That in itself could ultimately end up being a risk to the PD-M5S coalition government.
Calabria:
Right (Forza led) 51 (+20 since 2014) Left (ind led) 31 (-30)
Lega stood in Emilia in 2014, but not in Calabria. The latter is being seen as far less totemic.
We should reject Huawei, and accept that 5G will be years late in the UK.
And then ask ourselves long and deeply why we can't develop next gen Internet technology in the country that invented the computer.
A huge part of the equation is Huawei being able to undercut Western companies due to Chinese government subsidies. It's completely crazy that we're going to allow it, but speaks volumes about the complete c***s in the civil service that are pushing to approve it.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
Waiting until Nokia and Ericson have the tech ready to go, so are the US. The US proposal is for the UK and US to form a joint 5G infrastructure company, but it's not realistic as neither country really has the expertise any more.
Thatcher did this.
Not really, it's just the same failure of British management to think beyond the next quarter's bonus. Not sure that's changed much in 100 years.
So what do you do about it? The culture I mean.
Read one of Will Hutton's many books on UK economy and short term thinking?
Genuine thanks for the recommendation. Ive been meaning to read a book about this.
"ministers are poised to allow Huawei, effectively China’s state-owned tech company, to play a central role in the development of Britain’s 5G network. This technology is not, as some say, simply the next generation for mobile phones. It will be at the heart of everything we do – in life at home, commerce, public services and our national security – for years to come."
If true - and I fear it is - a disastrous decision. Quite the worst any government will take in my lifetime, I suspect.
I don't see the issue really. China is clearly spying on us. This makes it a bit easier possibly? We're already snooped upon by big business, the US, and our own agencies, and goodness alone knows who else. I cannot get worked up about adding the Chinese to the list. Yet again the US wanted us to fight their battles and pay for their more expensive 5G. No thanks.
The issue is not spying. It is that utterly vital UK infrastructure will be under the control of the Chinese Communist party, which runs one of the nastiest and most authoritarian regimes in the world.
Why on earth would a PM who has railed against EU regulations and about wanting to take back control want to make us a vassal of the Chinese state? If they control our infrastructure that is exactly what we will be.
They had a soft Brexit handed to them on a platter, but they still voted it down.
Why is that funny? The Brexiteers own the result. The negative consequences are theirs to deal with.
What does "own the result" actually mean? It just seems a rather meaningless marker for a bit of premature schadenfreude. In this context it is simply wrong if it is meant to suggest that the behaviour of Remainers over the past 3 years has played no part in deciding whist exact brexit we get. Of course it has.
Eh? Boris has a majority. He can have whatever Brexit he wants. We will see what he does with it.
So what does "own the result" actually mean?
If it turns out to be crap, they only have themselves to blame. What else would it mean?
Something interesting and non-obvious, I was hoping.
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
"ministers are poised to allow Huawei, effectively China’s state-owned tech company, to play a central role in the development of Britain’s 5G network. This technology is not, as some say, simply the next generation for mobile phones. It will be at the heart of everything we do – in life at home, commerce, public services and our national security – for years to come."
If true - and I fear it is - a disastrous decision. Quite the worst any government will take in my lifetime, I suspect.
I don't see the issue really. China is clearly spying on us. This makes it a bit easier possibly? We're already snooped upon by big business, the US, and our own agencies, and goodness alone knows who else. I cannot get worked up about adding the Chinese to the list. Yet again the US wanted us to fight their battles and pay for their more expensive 5G. No thanks.
The issue is not spying. It is that utterly vital UK infrastructure will be under the control of the Chinese Communist party, which runs one of the nastiest and most authoritarian regimes in the world.
Why on earth would a PM who has railed against EU regulations and about wanting to take back control want to make us a vassal of the Chinese state? If they control our infrastructure that is exactly what we will be.
The argument has been presented as such:
1. There's no real alternative, even if we commit to a non Huawei solution it's an additional £3-5bn and 2-3 years away. 2. Huawei won't be involved in the "core" parts of the network, so critical infrastructure will be "protected", though it's not clear what that means for Joe public, so we have to live with Chinese state intrusion? 3. People who oppose China are alarmist idiots and you wouldn't want to be one of those, plus cost the country all the money from point 1.
That's from the Japanese point of view of the British civil service argument being pushed to the British government.
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
No. But China is a surveillance state, so why take the risk?
"ministers are poised to allow Huawei, effectively China’s state-owned tech company, to play a central role in the development of Britain’s 5G network. This technology is not, as some say, simply the next generation for mobile phones. It will be at the heart of everything we do – in life at home, commerce, public services and our national security – for years to come."
If true - and I fear it is - a disastrous decision. Quite the worst any government will take in my lifetime, I suspect.
I don't see the issue really. China is clearly spying on us. This makes it a bit easier possibly? We're already snooped upon by big business, the US, and our own agencies, and goodness alone knows who else. I cannot get worked up about adding the Chinese to the list. Yet again the US wanted us to fight their battles and pay for their more expensive 5G. No thanks.
The issue is not spying. It is that utterly vital UK infrastructure will be under the control of the Chinese Communist party, which runs one of the nastiest and most authoritarian regimes in the world.
Why on earth would a PM who has railed against EU regulations and about wanting to take back control want to make us a vassal of the Chinese state? If they control our infrastructure that is exactly what we will be.
The argument has been presented as such:
1. There's no real alternative, even if we commit to a non Huawei solution it's an additional £3-5bn and 2-3 years away. 2. Huawei won't be involved in the "core" parts of the network, so critical infrastructure will be "protected", though it's not clear what that means for Joe public, so we have to live with Chinese state intrusion? 3. People who oppose China are alarmist idiots and you wouldn't want to be one of those, plus cost the country all the money from point 1.
That's from the Japanese point of view of the British civil service argument being pushed to the British government.
Hell, why worry - they can already turn the lights off after Theresa May agreed Hinckly C. That - and turning down the tidal lagoons......
"ministers are poised to allow Huawei, effectively China’s state-owned tech company, to play a central role in the development of Britain’s 5G network. This technology is not, as some say, simply the next generation for mobile phones. It will be at the heart of everything we do – in life at home, commerce, public services and our national security – for years to come."
If true - and I fear it is - a disastrous decision. Quite the worst any government will take in my lifetime, I suspect.
I don't see the issue really. China is clearly spying on us. This makes it a bit easier possibly? We're already snooped upon by big business, the US, and our own agencies, and goodness alone knows who else. I cannot get worked up about adding the Chinese to the list. Yet again the US wanted us to fight their battles and pay for their more expensive 5G. No thanks.
The issue is not spying. It is that utterly vital UK infrastructure will be under the control of the Chinese Communist party, which runs one of the nastiest and most authoritarian regimes in the world.
Why on earth would a PM who has railed against EU regulations and about wanting to take back control want to make us a vassal of the Chinese state? If they control our infrastructure that is exactly what we will be.
Possibly because whilst he was taking IT lessons from a blonde he was distracted?
"ministers are poised to allow Huawei, effectively China’s state-owned tech company, to play a central role in the development of Britain’s 5G network. This technology is not, as some say, simply the next generation for mobile phones. It will be at the heart of everything we do – in life at home, commerce, public services and our national security – for years to come."
If true - and I fear it is - a disastrous decision. Quite the worst any government will take in my lifetime, I suspect.
I don't see the issue really. China is clearly spying on us. This makes it a bit easier possibly? We're already snooped upon by big business, the US, and our own agencies, and goodness alone knows who else. I cannot get worked up about adding the Chinese to the list. Yet again the US wanted us to fight their battles and pay for their more expensive 5G. No thanks.
The issue is not spying. It is that utterly vital UK infrastructure will be under the control of the Chinese Communist party, which runs one of the nastiest and most authoritarian regimes in the world.
Why on earth would a PM who has railed against EU regulations and about wanting to take back control want to make us a vassal of the Chinese state? If they control our infrastructure that is exactly what we will be.
The argument has been presented as such:
1. There's no real alternative, even if we commit to a non Huawei solution it's an additional £3-5bn and 2-3 years away. 2. Huawei won't be involved in the "core" parts of the network, so critical infrastructure will be "protected", though it's not clear what that means for Joe public, so we have to live with Chinese state intrusion? 3. People who oppose China are alarmist idiots and you wouldn't want to be one of those, plus cost the country all the money from point 1.
That's from the Japanese point of view of the British civil service argument being pushed to the British government.
Whats a few bn when we’re spending 100bn on a train track?
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
Yes, the theory is that Huawei retain ultimate control over their equipment (which they do to some degree) and if the Chinese state decided it wanted to know what Britain was doing they could call up the Huawei CEO and just ask. In practice it's a bit tougher, but Huawei is the primary maintenance contractor for its equipment, it's not a case of them just selling it, they also have on going access.
Also, there's the unfortunate case of them actually leaving s backdoor open in a lot of their current equipment which they had to admit to. It could hav given malicious state actors a way into core networks too iirc.
All in all, they aren't to be trusted and neither is China.
Do most CLPs just not bother? 75 out of 650 doesn’t exactly indicate huge engagement in what seems to be a pretty important role in the process.
Not sure I follow.
If there was an expectation that 650 CLPs might nominate somebody, then it would seem a bit premature to completely write off anyone’s chances of securing 33 nominations.
633 - Northern Ireland is one "big" CLP.
Did I read that the CLPs in Scotland line up with Scottish parliament constituencies, so 73 rather than 59? Which would make 647....
"ministers are poised to allow Huawei, effectively China’s state-owned tech company, to play a central role in the development of Britain’s 5G network. This technology is not, as some say, simply the next generation for mobile phones. It will be at the heart of everything we do – in life at home, commerce, public services and our national security – for years to come."
If true - and I fear it is - a disastrous decision. Quite the worst any government will take in my lifetime, I suspect.
I don't see the issue really. China is clearly spying on us. This makes it a bit easier possibly? We're already snooped upon by big business, the US, and our own agencies, and goodness alone knows who else. I cannot get worked up about adding the Chinese to the list. Yet again the US wanted us to fight their battles and pay for their more expensive 5G. No thanks.
The issue is not spying. It is that utterly vital UK infrastructure will be under the control of the Chinese Communist party, which runs one of the nastiest and most authoritarian regimes in the world.
Why on earth would a PM who has railed against EU regulations and about wanting to take back control want to make us a vassal of the Chinese state? If they control our infrastructure that is exactly what we will be.
The argument has been presented as such:
1. There's no real alternative, even if we commit to a non Huawei solution it's an additional £3-5bn and 2-3 years away. 2. Huawei won't be involved in the "core" parts of the network, so critical infrastructure will be "protected", though it's not clear what that means for Joe public, so we have to live with Chinese state intrusion? 3. People who oppose China are alarmist idiots and you wouldn't want to be one of those, plus cost the country all the money from point 1.
That's from the Japanese point of view of the British civil service argument being pushed to the British government.
Whats a few bn when we’re spending 100bn on a train track?
And it's £3-5bn of private money from BT, Vodafone and Telefonica. No subsidies required for mobile infrastructure. It the delay that's getting the most traction, and having to turn off existing 5G.
"ministers are poised to allow Huawei, effectively China’s state-owned tech company, to play a central role in the development of Britain’s 5G network. This technology is not, as some say, simply the next generation for mobile phones. It will be at the heart of everything we do – in life at home, commerce, public services and our national security – for years to come."
If true - and I fear it is - a disastrous decision. Quite the worst any government will take in my lifetime, I suspect.
I don't see the issue really. China is clearly spying on us. This makes it a bit easier possibly? We're already snooped upon by big business, the US, and our own agencies, and goodness alone knows who else. I cannot get worked up about adding the Chinese to the list. Yet again the US wanted us to fight their battles and pay for their more expensive 5G. No thanks.
The issue is not spying. It is that utterly vital UK infrastructure will be under the control of the Chinese Communist party, which runs one of the nastiest and most authoritarian regimes in the world.
Why on earth would a PM who has railed against EU regulations and about wanting to take back control want to make us a vassal of the Chinese state? If they control our infrastructure that is exactly what we will be.
The argument has been presented as such:
1. There's no real alternative, even if we commit to a non Huawei solution it's an additional £3-5bn and 2-3 years away. 2. Huawei won't be involved in the "core" parts of the network, so critical infrastructure will be "protected", though it's not clear what that means for Joe public, so we have to live with Chinese state intrusion? 3. People who oppose China are alarmist idiots and you wouldn't want to be one of those, plus cost the country all the money from point 1.
That's from the Japanese point of view of the British civil service argument being pushed to the British government.
Whats a few bn when we’re spending 100bn on a train track?
And it's £3-5bn of private money from BT, Vodafone and Telefonica. No subsidies required for mobile infrastructure. It the delay that's getting the most traction, and having to turn off existing 5G.
2 or 3 years? We can live with that.
And if we can't then I suggest we convene the Royal Commission I suggested earlier and find out why the hell the country that invented the computer and the Web has got into this mess.
As far as I can tell, Police Scotland has major governance issues. Most of these are internal to the force and many seem somehow connected with the previous chief constable. The government doesn't run the force and
Exit polls from Regionals in Italy (focussed on coalition lists for regional president):
Emilia-Romagna: Left (PD led) 47-51 (-2-+2 since 2014) Right (Lega led) 44-48 (+14-18)
Left leading but within MoE, and in line with pre-election polls.
Suggests a massive squeeze on other candidates, including M5S (who polled 13% last time). That in itself could ultimately end up being a risk to the PD-M5S coalition government.
Calabria:
Right (Forza led) 51 (+20 since 2014) Left (ind led) 31 (-30)
Lega stood in Emilia in 2014, but not in Calabria. The latter is being seen as far less totemic.
Emilia Romagna is one of the more functional parts of Italy. Calabria isn't. Anyway have to hope Salvini doesn't win there. He's a nasty bit of work.
Do most CLPs just not bother? 75 out of 650 doesn’t exactly indicate huge engagement in what seems to be a pretty important role in the process.
Not sure I follow.
If there was an expectation that 650 CLPs might nominate somebody, then it would seem a bit premature to completely write off anyone’s chances of securing 33 nominations.
633 - Northern Ireland is one "big" CLP.
Did I read that the CLPs in Scotland line up with Scottish parliament constituencies, so 73 rather than 59? Which would make 647....
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
Yes, the theory is that Huawei retain ultimate control over their equipment (which they do to some degree) and if the Chinese state decided it wanted to know what Britain was doing they could call up the Huawei CEO and just ask. In practice it's a bit tougher, but Huawei is the primary maintenance contractor for its equipment, it's not a case of them just selling it, they also have on going access.
Also, there's the unfortunate case of them actually leaving s backdoor open in a lot of their current equipment which they had to admit to. It could hav given malicious state actors a way into core networks too iirc.
All in all, they aren't to be trusted and neither is China.
Backdoor. Backdoor. Backdoor. Why take the bloody risk?
An interesting question is why different parts of our intelligence services seem to have different views of this.
“According to the Health Ministry, if France was indeed the first European country to have identified cases, it was "probably because we started testing people very quickly and we were able to identify them", it said Friday evening.”
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
No. But China is a surveillance state, so why take the risk?
Did I read somewhere that Blighty has the second highest per capita concentration of CCTV cameras after China?
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
No. But China is a surveillance state, so why take the risk?
Did I read somewhere that Blighty has the second highest per capita concentration of CCTV cameras after China?
Goodwin has a main thesis which he doesn't like to depart from, the inexorable rise of the populist right (with failing EU as a side dish). Like many monothesists ( a word I have just made up), he's not keen on anything that spoils it.
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
Yes, the theory is that Huawei retain ultimate control over their equipment (which they do to some degree) and if the Chinese state decided it wanted to know what Britain was doing they could call up the Huawei CEO and just ask. In practice it's a bit tougher, but Huawei is the primary maintenance contractor for its equipment, it's not a case of them just selling it, they also have on going access.
Also, there's the unfortunate case of them actually leaving s backdoor open in a lot of their current equipment which they had to admit to. It could hav given malicious state actors a way into core networks too iirc.
All in all, they aren't to be trusted and neither is China.
Backdoor. Backdoor. Backdoor. Why take the bloody risk?
An interesting question is why different parts of our intelligence services seem to have different views of this.
Ultimately they don't, all branches think it's s poor idea, but again the question was framed by the civil service as a "how can this be made to work" kind of one. Most came back and said it can't, but a few said we might be able to "mitigate some of the risks" and they sort of ran with it. Again, it's the framing of the argument.
I don't know why Whitehall is so wedded to Huawei. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it came out that the senior civil servants in charge were being taken in expensive lunches etc by Huawei lobbyists.
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
No. But China is a surveillance state, so why take the risk?
Did I read somewhere that Blighty has the second highest per capita concentration of CCTV cameras after China?
I see the 50p coin as an icon handle is spreading!
On Huawei, I don't have the technical insight, but the Government (which I do not suspect of being anti-Trump) seems to think there isn't a problem and the US are just trying to make life difficult for China, which would be an inadequate reason not to do it. I don't really see it as a party political issue. Does anyone here have technical insight into what risks we are taking?
Yes, the theory is that Huawei retain ultimate control over their equipment (which they do to some degree) and if the Chinese state decided it wanted to know what Britain was doing they could call up the Huawei CEO and just ask. In practice it's a bit tougher, but Huawei is the primary maintenance contractor for its equipment, it's not a case of them just selling it, they also have on going access.
Also, there's the unfortunate case of them actually leaving s backdoor open in a lot of their current equipment which they had to admit to. It could hav given malicious state actors a way into core networks too iirc.
All in all, they aren't to be trusted and neither is China.
I think the longer term goal of the USA is to change the narrative before the the internet of things is in full roll out. They are setting out their position before Chinese tech with firmware in it is rolled out from everything from traffic lights to fridges.
On the point of why don't we just do our own 5G, the issue is that no one country can have it's own 5G. It's an international standard made so that 5G phones all work with 5G everywhere in the world. Huawei owns about 30% of the IP associated with 5G. It has done this by acquiring smaller European telecoms specialists and IP holding companies. There is no way around Huawei's patents, even Nokia (the grandest mobile communications company of all) are having to get a licence.
A British company world start with no IP, no royalties to offset licence costs and no expertise. It would be a disaster.
On the point of why don't we just do our own 5G, the issue is that no one country can have it's own 5G. It's an international standard made so that 5G phones all work with 5G everywhere in the world. Huawei owns about 30% of the IP associated with 5G. It has done this by acquiring smaller European telecoms specialists and IP holding companies. There is no way around Huawei's patents, even Nokia (the grandest mobile communications company of all) are having to get a licence.
A British company world start with no IP, no royalties to offset licence costs and no expertise. It would be a disaster.
"A British company world start with no IP, no royalties to offset licence costs and no expertise. It would be a disaster."
Agreed.
But we need to ask why that is the case. We aint big, but we have the science and the expertise.
Johnson has two decisions this week. I know, I know it is a hell of a lot for him to take on.
But it has to be HS2 Yes, 5G No.
Let's hope he is as good with acronyms as Greek.
My money is it being the other way around.
Mine too. More rail lines are optional; 5G has to happen in the next few years. On my understanding Huawei is getting the nod, not because of any love for the company, but because of a lack of alternatives. France and Germany seem to be coming to the same conclusion.
On the point of why don't we just do our own 5G, the issue is that no one country can have it's own 5G. It's an international standard made so that 5G phones all work with 5G everywhere in the world. Huawei owns about 30% of the IP associated with 5G. It has done this by acquiring smaller European telecoms specialists and IP holding companies. There is no way around Huawei's patents, even Nokia (the grandest mobile communications company of all) are having to get a licence.
A British company world start with no IP, no royalties to offset licence costs and no expertise. It would be a disaster.
Why the hell did we allow China to buy up such critical technology?
Comments
REMAIN 48%
No wonder the players all smoked.
A small amount was matched at 1.32, I think earlier today.
Where are Plessey, GEC, Marconi?
Our short term mentality means we are in the mess we are in.
The arseholes keep asking for "alternatives" as one of the criteria to block Huawei, knowing full well that Huawei has basically had tens of billions in Chinese government subsidies to ensure there are no alternatives for at least two years. It's a complete joke and it's at times like these that I want Dom to go and sack every single one of them. They are literally putting the security of the nation at risk because they think they are smarter than everyone else (including the fucking Chinese government).
I hope the US pushes back very hard in the next few days. Otherwise Boris, driven by the arseholes and their idiotic framing, will doom us to a life of being under Chinese state intrusion.
What are other countries (ex USA) doing?
What is the point of any competition?
Oh and make it a tax free enterprise zone or something.
Ultimately we need to force China to stick to the rules, which does mean freezing subsidised companies out of global markets. Unfortunately it's a losing battle, our civil service is too weak and too scared.
We no longer have the will to win this fight, we're a sad and beaten people, and that's not just the UK, it's true for the whole of Europe wet China.
The next gen is not just 5G, it is AI and so on. We are losing tech to China.
Do we want that?
If Cummings is actually more than just an weirdo in crap clothing who dreams of a job in Silicon Valley maybe he needs to spend tomorrow morning convening a committee in Downing Street to work out the mess the UK is in on computer tech.
There is little to no appetite to make China play by the rules in Europe. The US is trying, but getting basically no support from us or the EU. If the EU pushed the same agenda as the US and put mega tariffs ok Chinese good their economy would be stuffed and they would have no choice but to fall in line. Unfortunately the EU seems to be too scared or hate Trump too much to do anything about it.
Plus a good dose of Thatcher of course.
Even allowing for the incubation period it does seem surprising .
Nandy might still win. She needs to come second AND to get the large majority of RLB's 2nd prefs. It might then be fairly tight.
Honestly, it's a problem that isn't even really acknowledged let alone being targeted for fixing.
Emilia-Romagna:
Left (PD led) 47-51 (-2-+2 since 2014)
Right (Lega led) 44-48 (+14-18)
Left leading but within MoE, and in line with pre-election polls.
Suggests a massive squeeze on other candidates, including M5S (who polled 13% last time). That in itself could ultimately end up being a risk to the PD-M5S coalition government.
Calabria:
Right (Forza led) 51 (+20 since 2014)
Left (ind led) 31 (-30)
Lega stood in Emilia in 2014, but not in Calabria. The latter is being seen as far less totemic.
Why on earth would a PM who has railed against EU regulations and about wanting to take back control want to make us a vassal of the Chinese state? If they control our infrastructure that is exactly what we will be.
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1221564384855625728?s=20
1. There's no real alternative, even if we commit to a non Huawei solution it's an additional £3-5bn and 2-3 years away.
2. Huawei won't be involved in the "core" parts of the network, so critical infrastructure will be "protected", though it's not clear what that means for Joe public, so we have to live with Chinese state intrusion?
3. People who oppose China are alarmist idiots and you wouldn't want to be one of those, plus cost the country all the money from point 1.
That's from the Japanese point of view of the British civil service argument being pushed to the British government.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1221566658667597825
Also, there's the unfortunate case of them actually leaving s backdoor open in a lot of their current equipment which they had to admit to. It could hav given malicious state actors a way into core networks too iirc.
All in all, they aren't to be trusted and neither is China.
And if we can't then I suggest we convene the Royal Commission I suggested earlier and find out why the hell the country that invented the computer and the Web has got into this mess.
An interesting question is why different parts of our intelligence services seem to have different views of this.
“According to the Health Ministry, if France was indeed the first European country to have identified cases, it was "probably because we started testing people very quickly and we were able to identify them", it said Friday evening.”
I don't know why Whitehall is so wedded to Huawei. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it came out that the senior civil servants in charge were being taken in expensive lunches etc by Huawei lobbyists.
But it has to be HS2 Yes, 5G No.
Let's hope he is as good with acronyms as Greek.
The end of globalisation.
A British company world start with no IP, no royalties to offset licence costs and no expertise. It would be a disaster.
Agreed.
But we need to ask why that is the case. We aint big, but we have the science and the expertise.
They'll all be dead by March......
statement
"The truth is that only nations able to protect their data will be sovereign."