I'm worried Starmer will go all Free Movement. Could that ever be profitable at all, never mind post-pandemic? Maybe for seat gains here and there and whip up the Guardianistas, but Labour need to appeal to C2's and DE's again to hit the Tories properly. I don't think Labour support can come back there with bylines of "Starmer Competent at PMQ's," although he will be.
I note that the Government has quietly pulled the Immigration Bill. The question: "Is this a good moment to bar the source of care workers who make up a fifth of the workforce?" answers itself. The argument that measuring entitlement to immigration by salary is Tory short-sightedness is suddenly much easier to make than it used to be.
It was always nonsense because what we needed isnt lots of immigrants earning £30-£50k - those jobs have plenty of interest from people already here. The jobs that arent getting filled are mostly above and below those ranges, above for specialist positions where there are gaps and below because the jobs tend to be neither fun nor well paid so people dont want to do them. But the jobs need to be done, so immigration in the hundreds of thousands will continue to be needed.
I think my worry with this story is that Cummings has a long standing, well known and very public contempt for experts, because he genuinely, if usually wrongly, thinks he is more intelligent than they are. I’ve always thought the comment of one of his friends that Cummings will one day kill himself mending his boiler because he’s convinced he will do better than a plumber to be all too horribly apt.
Therefore, leaving aside the fact that he’s dishonest and a bully and shouldn’t be in government in any form at all, he’s absolutely the wrong person to be involved in this.
I'm worried Starmer will go all Free Movement. Could that ever be profitable at all, never mind post-pandemic? Maybe for seat gains here and there and whip up the Guardianistas, but Labour need to appeal to C2's and DE's again to hit the Tories properly. I don't think Labour support can come back there with bylines of "Starmer Competent at PMQ's," although he will be.
I note that the Government has quietly pulled the Immigration Bill. The question: "Is this a good moment to bar the source of care workers who make up a fifth of the workforce?" answers itself. The argument that measuring entitlement to immigration by salary is Tory short-sightedness is suddenly much easier to make than it used to be.
It was always nonsense because what we needed isnt lots of immigrants earning £30-£50k - those jobs have plenty of interest from people already here. The jobs that arent getting filled are mostly above and below those ranges, above for specialist positions where there are gaps and below because the jobs tend to be neither fun nor well paid so people dont want to do them. But the jobs need to be done, so immigration in the hundreds of thousands will continue to be needed.
With an effective points system to manage it
Fine. But it wasnt effective so they pulled it!
And we have had a points system for many years as you well know.
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits,
but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about
scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So we’ll go WTO then.
That seems to be the plan. We will have to wait to find out whether the WTO will still be there as a fallback option in the future.
I think the WTO is pretty defunct already, with Trump refusing to allow appointments to adjudication tribunals rendering them inquorate.
It will be everyone for themselves after Covid-19, equivalent to the 1930s trade wars after the Wall St Crash.
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits,
but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about
scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So we’ll go WTO then.
That seems to be the plan. We will have to wait to find out whether the WTO will still be there as a fallback option in the future.
Out of curiosity, is the relevant WTO committee quorate now? Or are they still arguing over a replacement for that member who died?
The talks should just end. They are entirely pointless. There will be no transition extension. There will be no FTA. We are best off preparing for the consequences of that now.
Our Brexit stockpile turned into our Covid stockpile. It will be exhausted by actual real Brexit day.
According to the Israeli professor the virus should disappear in about 20 days' time.
Odds of that happening must be astronomical.
It clearly won't be worldwide, but localised outbreaks are probably on that timescale.
It is the pattern of epidemics, to burn out after about 3 months. We saw it in China and Iran for example. The problem then becomes the whack a mole of fresh outbreaks.
When was the last time the Grauniad had a remarkable story.? I i mean a really remarkable story that stood up to scrutiny. This one just fell on its arse.
You regard support for the Conservative party as paramount, as is clear from that comment.
You are talking to someone who is a liberal one nation conservative who has twice voted labour as HYUFD constantly reminds me and do not see any other party as relevant to take us through covid and yes, brexit, but hopefully with a deal
I'm not looking for a governing party that is "relevant" to taking us through coronavirus, I'm looking for one that is capable of displaying a modicum of competance towards managing an issue that should transcend normal political boundaries. The best that might be said for this lot is that they haven't as yet proven that they are incapable of putting the omnishambles of the last three months behind them. We can live in hope if not expectation.
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits,
but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about
scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So we’ll go WTO then.
That seems to be the plan. We will have to wait to find out whether the WTO will still be there as a fallback option in the future.
I think the WTO is pretty defunct already, with Trump refusing to allow appointments to adjudication tribunals rendering them inquorate.
It will be everyone for themselves after Covid-19, equivalent to the 1930s trade wars after the Wall St Crash.
It is very obvious that you are right. US, China, India, Russia will be very nationalistic and have little regard or care for what the rest of the world thinks, including thru the WTO. Even the US under Obama didnt even follow the decisions of the WTO, it just ignored them as there is nothing smaller countries can do.
Global institutions already have low credibility and that will get worse.
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits, but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
The current members are the ones deciding the approach. Do you think they are deliberately trying to intimidate themselves?
This might not be as illogical as you're implying!
I don't know if you've ever studied game theory but have you ever come across the concept of "burning money"? I don't mean à la the KLF, but sometimes it's beneficial to deliberately damage your own pay-offs because you can reach a better equilibrium this way. It works successfully in games like Bach or Stravinsky aka Opera or Football aka Battle of the Sexes. It is essentially the same as intertemporal commitment problems like the smoker or swearer trying to give up, who knows that tomorrow their incentives will encourage them to take it up again, so they try to alter their future incentives eg via a swear jar or its cigarette equivalent. One might even argue it's particularly relevant to governments seeking intertemporal commitment because they know that the country they govern will, in future, be run by other people with different opinions and incentives, so they would like to find ways to bind them.
Yes, but at least that allows for them having agency, rather than it being something imposed on them by "the EU".
You regard support for the Conservative party as paramount, as is clear from that comment.
You are talking to someone who is a liberal one nation conservative who has twice voted labour as HYUFD constantly reminds me and do not see any other party as relevant to take us through covid and yes, brexit, but hopefully with a deal
I'm not looking for a governing party that is "relevant" to taking us through coronavirus, I'm looking for one that is capable of displaying a modicum of competance towards managing an issue that should transcend normal political boundaries. The best that might be said for this lot is that they haven't as yet proven that they are incapable of putting the omnishambles of the last three months behind them. We can live in hope if not expectation.
If you’re looking for competence from any given current political party in British politics, you’re in for a very long search.
Wow, so the claim is that Cummings was sitting on the SAGE committee as a participant, not just observing. That’s quite a thing.
Asking questions or for clarifications. What's wrong with that?
Another Bubble story.
No. One. Cares
Why don't the media get this?
I have to say, I think we should all care, and indeed be very alarmed, if the National response to the greatest public health emergency for 100 years is being led by a failed think tank operator with no integrity all of whose previous executive roles have ended in total fiasco because of his arrogance and poor judgment.
Whether the country as a whole will or not is another question.
Wow, so the claim is that Cummings was sitting on the SAGE committee as a participant, not just observing. That’s quite a thing.
Shocking if true
Implying no special advisor has ever raised their voice at any SAGE meeting previously. Has this been checked or confirmed? Damian Green thinks that claim is bollocks.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
No. They were too eager and blew it on a weak case, when they could, have been patient and had a strong one. He’ll be in the Democrats’ dett, ol the way to re-election.
Wow, so the claim is that Cummings was sitting on the SAGE committee as a participant, not just observing. That’s quite a thing.
Shocking if true
They can appoint who they like, and that's precisely how it should be. Is it right that he should have been appointed to serve on such a committee can only be judged by those that appointed him. Whether the appointers are doing a good job with such appointees is another matter, but that is only peripheral in that their jobs are far broader - are they delivering on those tasks? UK Government is doing ok at the moment. Terrible mistakes being made which the worthless media swarm in on, but also good, strong, decisions which are working.
One moment the Government are being criticised for not doing enough critical interrogation of the scientists, the next they are criticised for leading them...
If the Prime Minister decided he wanted to sit in on a SAGE meeting, would he be allowed to ask a question?
Is Dom the PM?
Why does it matter? If the charge is that his presence indicates that "the Government are interfering with/leading the scientific advice"? Is it Cummings you object to, or the principle of non scientists asking questions of the committee?
Adapting the Kerslake "quote" below:
Have just spoken to Sir Bob Kerslake, former Head of the Civil Service. He told me that if the PM is a full member of SAGE: “it’s both surprising and concerning. The risk is the government is leading the science when it’s supposed to be the other way round.”
To return to an incident which received much coverage a couple of weeks ago. The Labour Mayor of Heaton was widely criticised for the comments she made re- Johnson when the latter was seriously ill , and it was reported that she had been expelled from her party and subsequently dismissed by her employer. This person was clearly very unwise to make such comments given the public position she holds - and certainly deserved to be reprimanded. However, the suggestion that she has been expelled surely cannot be accurate - the party leader does not have that power and such a decision can only be taken - after due process - by the NEC. Whether she would have a case for Unfair Dismissal from her Law firm I am not sure, but as a paralegal specialist in Employment Law she is doubtless well glued up on that matter. However, I do seriously wonder whether she would have faced such consequences had she made the same remarks in relation to Donald Trump - or Kim Yung of North Korea - or indeed the Chinese leader. If not , then it can be contended that - at least to some extent - she is herself the victim of political bias or prejudice. I can well imagine that something similar might have happened back in 2003 after the Iraq Invasion. Had someone wished ill on Blair or Bush, he or she might well have faced criticism or sanctions of various kinds. On the other hand, had the same comments been made re Saddam Hussein - or Bin Laden - very little would have been said.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Starmer would agree to the EU terms, Boris would not.
So the choice at the next general election will either be to rejoin the single market or a FTA that is aligned with the single market in most respects anyway, or a harder Brexit with Boris on WTO terms if the EU will not back down
By the next GE we will have had Hard Brexit for 3 years. Any EEA style deal would be quite a change, but would do little to preserve existing cross channel trade. After 3 years the damage would probably be fairly complete.
By then we might well have new trade deals and expanded exports beyond the EEA
I thought the Brexiteers are looking to stop trade with China? And the US are looking to stop trade with everyone unless it is on their terms.
Who can we cross off the list next?
Only xenophobes are wanting to stop trade with China, not Brexiteers. A potential trade deal with China - and other economies - has long been touted as a potential benefit of Brexit. Including by our very own now Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
Touting it as a benefit of Brexit is not sufficient. To do a long term beneficial trade deal with China you need to accept their way of politics is different, and that saving face is very important, so avoid going for the favourable press headlines that come with attacking them for coronavirus.
Now they are in charge, Brexiteer choices will have to start becoming consistent. If China is the goal fine, then train the cabinet in how to deal with China and sack those who prefer to grandstand.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Business is business and politics is politics.
China does care about face but they don't need or care for supplicants and grovelers. In order to get a good trade deal we just need a deal that can be to the benefit of both parties while respecting each others uniqueness. We won't be trying to force our politics on them, they won't be trying to force their politics on us.
That's the difference to the EU. The EU are trying to make us supplicants. They do want to force their politics on us and their courts on us in a way they don't with any other trade partner outside of Europe. That doesn't work and we need to say a firm no to that until they grow up and drop that idiocy. But other nations won't expect that any more than the EU expected Canada to accept that.
I disagree.
I think the EU wants to make it clear that there is no "better" deal on the table if you leave them, and that (sadly) dominates their thinking.
Yes, of course. The EU needs to make clear that club members enjoy benefits of club membership that non-members cannot enjoy. That's the whole point of having a club.
But Matt, that is not what the EU is trying to do here. They are posturing that if you leave the club, not only won't you be eligible for member benefits,
but we'll make sure you won't even have as good a deal as certain other non-members. So it is more than just club membership benefits, it is about
scaring the current members into not even thinking about leaving.
I think that's a misconception. The EU has always pointed out that there's a spectrum of different guest membership schemes available. Each one with its own distinct balance of membership obligations and privileges. The problem is that HMG seems to aspire to a level of market access that doesn't reconcile with the level of obligations it is prepared to agree to.
So why is a Canada-style agreement taken off the table? And spare me the proximity argument.
Given the fact that the UK economy is already much, much more connected to the pan-european economy, the UK is aiming for a new legal status that can sustain a significant share of that entanglement. That's much more than CETA could provide and requires much more adherence to common regulation.
So we’ll go WTO then.
That seems to be the plan. We will have to wait to find out whether the WTO will still be there as a fallback option in the future.
I think the WTO is pretty defunct already, with Trump refusing to allow appointments to adjudication tribunals rendering them inquorate.
It will be everyone for themselves after Covid-19, equivalent to the 1930s trade wars after the Wall St Crash.
Arguing about the damage a no deal exit will do is going to be pretty academic by the end of the year. There will not be much left to damage.
SAGE is supposed to be a scientific not a political group. I am sure that having today’s Malcolm Tucker in there leads to better objective advice. Ahem.
Wow, so the claim is that Cummings was sitting on the SAGE committee as a participant, not just observing. That’s quite a thing.
Asking questions or for clarifications. What's wrong with that?
When the CMOs of Scotland, NI and Wales could only submit written questions in advance?
Very interesting, given the standard UNionist trope that the devolved governments are in lockstep with the "UK" [recte English, for this purpose] government. If they are so handicapped ...
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
Well let’s see where we end up and we can judge how much it’s in our interests to act in the spirit, the letter, or between the lines.
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
To return to an incident which received much coverage a couple of weeks ago. The Labour Mayor of Heaton was widely criticised for the comments she made re- Johnson when the latter was seriously ill , and it was reported that she had been expelled from her party and subsequently dismissed by her employer. This person was clearly very unwise to make such comments given the public position she holds - and certainly deserved to be reprimanded. However, the suggestion that she has been expelled surely cannot be accurate - the party leader does not have that power and such a decision can only be taken - after due process - by the NEC. Whether she would have a case for Unfair Dismissal from her Law firm I am not sure, but as a paralegal specialist in Employment Law she is doubtless well glued up on that matter. However, I do seriously wonder whether she would have faced such consequences had she made the same remarks in relation to Donald Trump - or Kim Yung of North Korea - or indeed the Chinese leader. If not , then it can be contended that - at least to some extent - she is herself the victim of political bias or prejudice. I can well imagine that something similar might have happened back in 2003 after the Iraq Invasion. Had someone wished ill on Blair or Bush, he or she might well have faced criticism or sanctions of various kinds. On the other hand, had the same comments been made re Saddam Hussein - or Bin Laden - very little would have been said.
With all his many and egregious faults - and I don’t think anyone could accuse me of being a Johnson fan - he is not in any way shape or form comparable to Xi, Kim, Hussein, or Bin Laden.
As for the others, I think it’s fair to heavily criticise all of them, but to wish a painful death on them is going much too far. If Donald Trump dies, I will not feel sorrow. But nor will I be celebrating.
In this case though, I think the sheer lack of judgement displayed in those remarks meant she wasn’t fit to be a solicitor. Would you want legal advice from somebody so hysterical?
Wow, so the claim is that Cummings was sitting on the SAGE committee as a participant, not just observing. That’s quite a thing.
The scientists sitting on the committee getting intimidated & changing their advice due to one non scientist on the committee.....I'ts a view.
Well let's see the minutes and find out.
My money is that it was not "the science changed"* but rather that the polling and focus group work did.
Those older Tory voters didn't fancy meeting the grim reaper in order to facilitate Johnson's Herd Immunity plan.
*curiously changed to what the scientists were saying in the rest of the world.
Well indeed. However if Plan A is to listen to nudge theiry behavioural scientists and Plan B is to listen to epidemiologists then it is science led. But out renders term redundant.
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
When was the last time the Grauniad had a remarkable story.? I i mean a really remarkable story that stood up to scrutiny. This one just fell on its arse.
Is Damian Green reliable on this point? The Guardian has former Chief Scientist Sir David King and David Lidington, de facto deputy to Theresa May, saying there were no political appointees, ministers or SpAds on SAGE or its predecessors.
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
Wow, so the claim is that Cummings was sitting on the SAGE committee as a participant, not just observing. That’s quite a thing.
The scientists sitting on the committee getting intimidated & changing their advice due to one non scientist on the committee.....I'ts a view.
Well let's see the minutes and find out.
My money is that it was not "the science changed"* but rather that the polling and focus group work did.
Those older Tory voters didn't fancy meeting the grim reaper in order to facilitate Johnson's Herd Immunity plan.
*curiously changed to what the scientists were saying in the rest of the world.
There's also the odd case of the stories being allowed to circulate for a week or two that the "Nudge Unit" were very influential on government decisions. Anyone else remember that? Are we going to find out what their advice was, and if it changed government policies?
Wow, so the claim is that Cummings was sitting on the SAGE committee as a participant, not just observing. That’s quite a thing.
The scientists sitting on the committee getting intimidated & changing their advice due to one non scientist on the committee.....I'ts a view.
Well let's see the minutes and find out.
My money is that it was not "the science changed"* but rather that the polling and focus group work did.
Those older Tory voters didn't fancy meeting the grim reaper in order to facilitate Johnson's Herd Immunity plan.
*curiously changed to what the scientists were saying in the rest of the world.
There's also the odd case of the stories being allowed to circulate for a week or two that the "Nudge Unit" were very influential on government decisions. Anyone else remember that? Are we going to find out what their advice was, and if it changed government policies?
Wow, so the claim is that Cummings was sitting on the SAGE committee as a participant, not just observing. That’s quite a thing.
The scientists sitting on the committee getting intimidated & changing their advice due to one non scientist on the committee.....I'ts a view.
Well let's see the minutes and find out.
My money is that it was not "the science changed"* but rather that the polling and focus group work did.
Those older Tory voters didn't fancy meeting the grim reaper in order to facilitate Johnson's Herd Immunity plan.
*curiously changed to what the scientists were saying in the rest of the world.
There's also the odd case of the stories being allowed to circulate for a week or two that the "Nudge Unit" were very influential on government decisions. Anyone else remember that? Are we going to find out what their advice was, and if it changed government policies?
They were spun off as an outside operation and have been quite successful. Wiki says they are up to 750 projects.
The talks should just end. They are entirely pointless. There will be no transition extension. There will be no FTA. We are best off preparing for the consequences of that now.
Indeed, the heady cocktail of the financial aftermath of the Coronavirus pandemic and a trade-agreement-free Brexit should make for one massive hangover.
It's pretty clear that's where we are heading to. I genuinely don't understand what benefits the government believes it will deliver over an extension, but I imagine I am in a minority on that. It will be fascinating to see how we all cope.
I guess the Government views the Coronavirus aftermath as a handy cloak for a WTO trade arrangement.
A statement that comes to mind is this: 'No Deal Brexit would have been fantastic but for Covid-19'!
Quite. If you’re tanking by double digits in 2020, WTO is a rounding figure, at worst.
The EU are going to overplay their hand yet again if they are not careful. They are playing chicken with an opponent that doesn’t care. Add in they were getting nowhere on their budget pre (!) corona, and the tables are a lot more even than a year ago.
Barnier sounded a bit non plussed today, as if he’s pressing the buttons he pressed with May and doesn’t understand why it’s not working.
Barnier is still in the stop UK succeeding at all cost mode and the EU ever since Cameron have always given the impression that they do not have to negotiate seriously as we need them more than they need us
However, the dynamics have changed and changed in a way never imagined. The EU have failed their member states over covid as each country fights for itself, hence Macron hijacking British PPE and Italy becoming seriously anti EU over lack of support
June will come and all Boris has to do is to announce we cannot agree to pay billions more into the EU, we cannot be responsible for their debts, and we cannot be restricted by Brussels and the ECJ in taking domestic UK decisions on how we deal with this economic armageddon and especially state aid and EU taxation rules
It is not where we want to be but Barnier needs to get real, or see no deal brexit occur and all the downside that would involve to the EU
Barnier no longer holds all the aces. Now is the time for him to get real
What are a few more avoidable deaths to a diehard Conservative slavishly loyal to the government?
You need a new line Alastair.
You will not provoke me with that tired old argument
And by the way, thank you for your suggestion that I contact my credit card company re BA's evasion over my full refund in the flights they have cancelled to Vancouver in mid may. I received a very helpful letter from the Nationwide but also, after waiting one and a half hours on the line, a BA customer service rep was excellent and promised a full refund in 14 days. It has actually come through in four days
My partner takes and needs anti-seizure medication. Matt Hancock was not prepared to guarantee that medicine supplies could all be met in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Anti-seizure medication was one of the medicines at risk. Nothing in the last three months inspires confidence in the government’s ability to deliver even promises made on logistics.
You were concerned when a relative at Airbus might have had his job threatened by no-deal Brexit. You’re entirely comfortable with my partner having to take his chances. Because his possible pain or death is irrelevant as compared with blindly backing the Conservative party.
You have some hard thinking to do about your morality.
Alastair, I don’t want to personalise this because, rightly, your partner’s medication is something incredibly important.
But, realistically, how could Matt Hancock GUARANTEE medication supply? There are many cases, even when we were in the EU of critical medicines being out of stock. I know the Bedford Ohio case best, but there was a critical factory there which had quality issues and as a result large parts of the global chemotherapy supply chain went into backorder. What you are asking Hancock to do is to commit to something outside of his control - that is unreasonable
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
Doesn't it rather confirm that the Government *is* being guided by the science? Cummings is Boris' closest policy advisor. If he didn't attend SAGE but did still advise the Government that would be a bigger concern surely.
SAGE is supposed to be a panel of scientists
And Dom...
There was me, that is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, and my three droogs, that is Priti, Govey, and Dom, and we sat in the Kensington Milkbar trying to make up our Raab-oodocks what to do with the evening. The Kensington Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus chlorinated chicken or corn syrup or bleach, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old no-deal Brexit.
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
I'm worried Starmer will go all Free Movement. Could that ever be profitable at all, never mind post-pandemic? Maybe for seat gains here and there and whip up the Guardianistas, but Labour need to appeal to C2's and DE's again to hit the Tories properly. I don't think Labour support can come back there with bylines of "Starmer Competent at PMQ's," although he will be.
I note that the Government has quietly pulled the Immigration Bill. The question: "Is this a good moment to bar the source of care workers who make up a fifth of the workforce?" answers itself. The argument that measuring entitlement to immigration by salary is Tory short-sightedness is suddenly much easier to make than it used to be.
It was always nonsense because what we needed isnt lots of immigrants earning £30-£50k - those jobs have plenty of interest from people already here. The jobs that arent getting filled are mostly above and below those ranges, above for specialist positions where there are gaps and below because the jobs tend to be neither fun nor well paid so people dont want to do them. But the jobs need to be done, so immigration in the hundreds of thousands will continue to be needed.
With an effective points system to manage it
Fine. But it wasnt effective so they pulled it!
And we have had a points system for many years as you well know.
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
I don’t think that Cummings story can be true. I don’t think even Jonson is that crass. The Guardian has got it wrong.
In other news, I had my first shave in 17 days today. It feels very fine to be rid of that itch.
"At the age of 14, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum. It's breathtaking. I suggest you try it."
I don’t think that Cummings story can be true. I don’t think even Jonson is that crass. The Guardian has got it wrong.
In other news, I had my first shave in 17 days today. It feels very fine to be rid of that itch.
We shall see if the Guardian's #SAGE #ClassicDom story is correct when we see tomorrow's front pages. In other words, are the other papers running with it? In the mean time, an awful lot of people are telling us this story is a non-story, and not that it is a false story.
A company selling personal protective equipment (PPE) has been accused of "blatant profiteering" after offering an NHS trust the equipment at 825% of the normal price.
Canada doesn't have a back door to the EU in the form of the Irish land border, and it doesn't need frictionless RoRo traffic at Dover. Different circumstances, different processes, different legal provisions required.
The Withdrawal Agreement ensured no hard border in Ireland
To quote welshowl from above: "That Irish border is going to be fun when we’re not exactly too zealous about tracking what’s leaving Liverpool or
Stranraer, isn’t it?"
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Feeling a touch of possible overreach regret?
Are you suggesting that the British government should ignore the agreement on Northern Ireland that it and all its MPs signed up for?
The key is avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rigorously enforcing checks between Northern Ireland and GB is less important
In a Hard Brexit, those Irish Sea checks are not optional.
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
The talks should just end. They are entirely pointless. There will be no transition extension. There will be no FTA. We are best off preparing for the consequences of that now.
Indeed, the heady cocktail of the financial aftermath of the Coronavirus pandemic and a trade-agreement-free Brexit should make for one massive hangover.
It's pretty clear that's where we are heading to. I genuinely don't understand what benefits the government believes it will deliver over an extension, but I imagine I am in a minority on that. It will be fascinating to see how we all cope.
I guess the Government views the Coronavirus aftermath as a handy cloak for a WTO trade arrangement.
A statement that comes to mind is this: 'No Deal Brexit would have been fantastic but for Covid-19'!
Quite. If you’re tanking by double digits in 2020, WTO is a rounding figure, at worst.
The EU are going to overplay their hand yet again if they are not careful. They are playing chicken with an opponent that doesn’t care. Add in they were getting nowhere on their budget pre (!) corona, and the tables are a lot more even than a year ago.
Barnier sounded a bit non plussed today, as if he’s pressing the buttons he pressed with May and doesn’t understand why it’s not working.
Barnier is still in the stop UK succeeding at all cost mode and the EU ever since Cameron have always given the impression that they do not have to negotiate seriously as we need them more than they need us
However, the dynamics have changed and changed in a way never imagined. The EU have failed their member states over covid as each country fights for itself, hence Macron hijacking British PPE and Italy becoming seriously anti EU over lack of support
June will come and all Boris has to do is to announce we cannot agree to pay billions more into the EU, we cannot be responsible for their debts, and we cannot be restricted by Brussels and the ECJ in taking domestic UK decisions on how we deal with this economic armageddon and especially state aid and EU taxation rules
It is not where we want to be but Barnier needs to get real, or see no deal brexit occur and all the downside that would involve to the EU
Barnier no longer holds all the aces. Now is the time for him to get real
Yeah, we hold all the cards, even more so post- Coronavirus. Dream-on!
That’s not what he said.
Fundamentally if you start from the baseline that there is no deal then there is a value creating opportunity.
The EU is overplaying their hand. May be they think Boris will fold. May be they are right. May be they are not.
But alienating a close neighbour and missing out on a value creating deal is a big risk
To return to an incident which received much coverage a couple of weeks ago. The Labour Mayor of Heaton was widely criticised for the comments she made re- Johnson when the latter was seriously ill , and it was reported that she had been expelled from her party and subsequently dismissed by her employer. This person was clearly very unwise to make such comments given the public position she holds - and certainly deserved to be reprimanded. However, the suggestion that she has been expelled surely cannot be accurate - the party leader does not have that power and such a decision can only be taken - after due process - by the NEC. Whether she would have a case for Unfair Dismissal from her Law firm I am not sure, but as a paralegal specialist in Employment Law she is doubtless well glued up on that matter. However, I do seriously wonder whether she would have faced such consequences had she made the same remarks in relation to Donald Trump - or Kim Yung of North Korea - or indeed the Chinese leader. If not , then it can be contended that - at least to some extent - she is herself the victim of political bias or prejudice. I can well imagine that something similar might have happened back in 2003 after the Iraq Invasion. Had someone wished ill on Blair or Bush, he or she might well have faced criticism or sanctions of various kinds. On the other hand, had the same comments been made re Saddam Hussein - or Bin Laden - very little would have been said.
With all his many and egregious faults - and I don’t think anyone could accuse me of being a Johnson fan - he is not in any way shape or form comparable to Xi, Kim, Hussein, or Bin Laden.
As for the others, I think it’s fair to heavily criticise all of them, but to wish a painful death on them is going much too far. If Donald Trump dies, I will not feel sorrow. But nor will I be celebrating.
In this case though, I think the sheer lack of judgement displayed in those remarks meant she wasn’t fit to be a solicitor. Would you want legal advice from somebody so hysterical?
I rather agree with your final paragraph - but my real point is that the consequences this person faces relate largely to whom she applied them - rather than the comments in themselves. To return to the Blair/Bush v Saddam Hussein/Bin Laden example, - whilst in the round the latter pair qualify as the most sinister - in the specific context of the 2003 Invasion, Blair and Bush can reasonably be held to have been the principal villains as the obvious aggressors.In those circumstances, to wish them both ill was morally defensible. To this day, both are widely - if not universally - viewed as War Criminals who have escaped Justice in any human sense. I stand by the view I have previously expressed here and elsewhere that - in relation to the Nuremberg Indictment related to Planning for War - Blair and Bush were more guilty than any of those arraigned at the 1945/46 Trial with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
Comments
Therefore, leaving aside the fact that he’s dishonest and a bully and shouldn’t be in government in any form at all, he’s absolutely the wrong person to be involved in this.
And we have had a points system for many years as you well know.
Edit - answered above in the negative.
It's 27th July 1989 on Top of the Pops tonight on BBC4 at 9pm.
Global institutions already have low credibility and that will get worse.
If only he knew his onions.
Then we could stuff him...
No. One. Cares
Why don't the media get this?
Whether the country as a whole will or not is another question.
That attitude is exactly the problem. (Not when coming from welshowl, but from HMG)
Put that coat back, I’ve already done my 20 mile bike ride for today.
But it's all gone on-line these days.
PB has gone interactive!
Adapting the Kerslake "quote" below:
Have just spoken to Sir Bob Kerslake, former Head of the Civil Service. He told me that if the PM is a full member of SAGE: “it’s both surprising and concerning. The risk is the government is leading the science when it’s supposed to be the other way round.”
What is the distinction?
The Labour Mayor of Heaton was widely criticised for the comments she made re- Johnson when the latter was seriously ill , and it was reported that she had been expelled from her party and subsequently dismissed by her employer. This person was clearly very unwise to make such comments given the public position she holds - and certainly deserved to be reprimanded. However, the suggestion that she has been expelled surely cannot be accurate - the party leader does not have that power and such a decision can only be taken - after due process - by the NEC. Whether she would have a case for Unfair Dismissal from her Law firm I am not sure, but as a paralegal specialist in Employment Law she is doubtless well glued up on that matter. However, I do seriously wonder whether she would have faced such consequences had she made the same remarks in relation to Donald Trump - or Kim Yung of North Korea - or indeed the Chinese leader. If not , then it can be contended that - at least to some extent - she is herself the victim of political bias or prejudice.
I can well imagine that something similar might have happened back in 2003 after the Iraq Invasion. Had someone wished ill on Blair or Bush, he or she might well have faced criticism or sanctions of various kinds. On the other hand, had the same comments been made re Saddam Hussein - or Bin Laden - very little would have been said.
Did it take them all night to come up with it, or did it come to them in a Flash?
Might as well be, can't quite remember the name of the other one right now.
Well let’s see where we end up and we can judge how much it’s in our interests to act in the spirit, the letter, or between the lines.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-24/how-do-you-sleep-at-night-ppe-company-accused-of-blatant-profiteering-by-nhs-boss-for-725-price-hike/
My money is that it was not "the science changed"* but rather that the polling and focus group work did.
Those older Tory voters didn't fancy meeting the grim reaper in order to facilitate Johnson's Herd Immunity plan.
*curiously changed to what the scientists were saying in the rest of the world.
As for the others, I think it’s fair to heavily criticise all of them, but to wish a painful death on them is going much too far. If Donald Trump dies, I will not feel sorrow. But nor will I be celebrating.
In this case though, I think the sheer lack of judgement displayed in those remarks meant she wasn’t fit to be a solicitor. Would you want legal advice from somebody so hysterical?
The PM does seem to set the "Wow! What a shocker...." bar very low for many people here.....
I think we should use him as a Guinea pig
Wonder how many complaining to the press the govt weren't taking up their products have been doing exactly the same thing.
In other news, I had my first shave in 17 days today. It feels very fine to be rid of that itch.
They have several international branches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_Insights_Team#United_States
But, realistically, how could Matt Hancock GUARANTEE medication supply? There are many cases, even when we were in the EU of critical medicines being out of stock. I know the Bedford Ohio case best, but there was a critical factory there which had quality issues and as a result large parts of the global chemotherapy supply chain went into backorder. What you are asking Hancock to do is to commit to something outside of his control - that is unreasonable
Obviously can be very light touch with an EEA style deal, but that is not where we are heading.
I expect there will be Irish reunification to square the circle.
Fundamentally if you start from the baseline that there is no deal then there is a value creating opportunity.
The EU is overplaying their hand. May be they think Boris will fold. May be they are right. May be they are not.
But alienating a close neighbour and missing out on a value creating deal is a big risk
To return to the Blair/Bush v Saddam Hussein/Bin Laden example, - whilst in the round the latter pair qualify as the most sinister - in the specific context of the 2003 Invasion, Blair and Bush can reasonably be held to have been the principal villains as the obvious aggressors.In those circumstances, to wish them both ill was morally defensible. To this day, both are widely - if not universally - viewed as War Criminals who have escaped Justice in any human sense. I stand by the view I have previously expressed here and elsewhere that - in relation to the Nuremberg Indictment related to Planning for War - Blair and Bush were more guilty than any of those arraigned at the 1945/46 Trial with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.