It's due to hit the shelves on 28 July, four weeks before the Republican convention. Her family background may have been a factor in her decision to pursue a doctorate in clinical psychology.
This could damage Trump much more than the Bolton book and adds to the grounds for believing he hasn't got a hope in hell of winning the election. There must be so much that people have been holding back because after he won in November 2016 there was no point in releasing it until the 2020 campaign given especially that the Republicans kept control of the Senate in 2018.
Not really. 16% has been fairly typical of SLab support in recent years.
But they ought to be worried. Why no Starmer effect? He has great approval ratings, even in Scotland.
Westminster polls in Scotland are irrelevant to his chances of becoming PM anyway as the SNP will always vote to make Starmer PM over Boris or any other Tory.
However beyond that he just needs to wait for the SNP civil war when either the Nationalists win another majority at Holyrood and Sturgeon refused to hold indyref2 without Westminster consent when Boris vetoes it, or there is a Unionist majority and in which case SLab will be up anyway
Are you seriously trying to tell us that Starmer considers Scotland to be “irrelevant”? That is classic psychological projection. Just because you and your tawdry party have given up on Scotland does not mean that everyone else has.
It is also pretty gobsmacking that a Tory, of all people, should accuse other parties of having civil wars. Your own civil wars have been ongoing ever since the days of “Wets” and “Bastards”, and don’t look like they are going to end any time soon.
At Westminster level yes, an SNP or Labour MP will both vote to make Starmer PM, a Tory MP from England or Wales will not.
The Tories MPs are now united behind getting Brexit done which they delivered in January, SNP MPs and MSPs are split down the middle on transgender rights and in Sturgeon and Salmond camps now
You love lumping folk together:
SCon + Slab + SLD = same thing
Lab + SNP = same thing
Tory spin + reality = same thing
Of course, the real world is more complex than that.
Then we have your Tories Are United line, which is self-evident nonsense, and will become increasingly obvious as the Johnson regime collapses due to mass unemployment, a collapse in international trade, gross incompetence, in-fighting and a broken, obese, decayed circus performer at the helm.
Tried a new Netflix series last night at the suggestion of my wife: Snowpiercer.
There's willing suspension of disbelief, and then there's Snowpiercer.
I have to virtually suspend my whole brain to watch it.
I have an easier time believing the more outlandish fantasies in Star Trek.
Yes we all know about The Wire, Sopranos, Breaking Bad, etc.
But increasingly I am coming to think that The Americans (Amazon Prime) ranks as one of the very best mini-series ever made.
I tried The Americans. The premise was good, but the execution left a lot to be desired. Ultimately, they were incredibly conspicuous spies and assassinations on US soil on such a regular basis was a stretch too far. They made boring desk jokey spies look like James Bond because no one would watch a show about spies that do their work from behind a desk or by cultivating relationships with federal employees over 3 years.
It's well made, but it doesn't rank with The Wire. There have been loads of ex gang members and police who say The Wire is about as true to life as it gets for the war on drugs.
Perhaps if kids were going to school, then free school meals would be happening.
Free school meals are happening now. The problem is the imminent summer holidays. Read the Marcus Rashford letter; lobby your MP; prepare to be unshocked when Boris extends the programme.
But what's happening now that's different to any normal school holiday that means they need to continue through the holiday?
Exactly. These kids are used to starving and having to fend for themselves in the summer. It's good for them...
I've always wondered what happens to the poor buggers in the summer.
It probably wouldn't actually cost that much to do, so perhaps the government should just agree to it. But as I've just said, I'd be tempted to go nuclear and introduce UBI paid for by the chattering middle classes.
While I would love a universal basic income, how do you actually pull it off.
A robot tax but only if automation leads to few permanent full time paid jobs
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
Perhaps if kids were going to school, then free school meals would be happening.
Free school meals are happening now. The problem is the imminent summer holidays. Read the Marcus Rashford letter; lobby your MP; prepare to be unshocked when Boris extends the programme.
But what's happening now that's different to any normal school holiday that means they need to continue through the holiday?
Exactly. These kids are used to starving and having to fend for themselves in the summer. It's good for them...
I've always wondered what happens to the poor buggers in the summer.
It probably wouldn't actually cost that much to do, so perhaps the government should just agree to it. But as I've just said, I'd be tempted to go nuclear and introduce UBI paid for by the chattering middle classes.
While I would love a universal basic income, how do you actually pull it off.
If a UK government attempted UBI it would be "Finnished"!
O/t, but I have been watching with interest the repeated arrivals on our screen of the guy who carried the apparently hostile, although very drunk, 'protestor' out of harms way. Pleasant articulate chap. However, why, I wonder have we heard nothing from the chap he carried...... although the comment this morning was that he was probably too drunk to remember.
However, one would have thought he had friends who recognised and who could be persuaded, for the price of a couple of pints, to tell all to an inquiring journalist.
The GOv't should stand firm on this. Remember Hammond backing down over equalisation of tax plans for the self employed. Was the beginning of the end.
See my post below - I believe a precedent was set when money was paid for Easter and Whitsun. What the Government should be doing is compromising - we will do this for this summer and that's it. Instead the Government have screwed this up and are going to end up doing paying this on a permanent basis.
Why does the Gov't have to compromise on this ? It's the very definition of a big story this week, forgotten into the general anti-Tory memes the next.
Giving in means you can attach conditions and ensure it's a one off. Not giving in now means you will still end up doing it but won't be able to attach the same conditions.
But in reality it's needed you can't say that people need £x a week when children are being fed at school and the same £x a week when the children aren't at school and need to find money for their lunch (and probably breakfast as well).
Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.
This is an old article, from 2007, but I'm inclined to suspect that Rashford has heard stories of similar being threatened more recently. It's not exactly easy for families without enough money to pay the water bill to enforce the law.
"Water companies are permitted to disconnect the supply in certain circumstances - say, if the property is unoccupied. And Citizens Advice says that, increasingly, firms chasing bills are threatening disconnection on the grounds that the house has become empty when they know - or should know - it is occupied."
Theresa Coffey should be sacked for that comment alone
Although I had read last week she is one of the ministers on the way out in the July shuffle
Stating the facts is hardly a sackable offence and if a house is unoccupied is the only legal ground to disconnect there is nobody in it anyway
I think the government is making a mistake here but even putting that aside Rashford is one seriously impressive young man. His mother should be very proud.
Without looking at the issue has Rashford put any of his own considerable money into funding such a scheme.
If he has then he is to be applauded if he hasn't then perhaps he should.
He's raised over £20m which I understand includes contributions from him and his team mates.
Perhaps if kids were going to school, then free school meals would be happening.
Free school meals are happening now. The problem is the imminent summer holidays. Read the Marcus Rashford letter; lobby your MP; prepare to be unshocked when Boris extends the programme.
But what's happening now that's different to any normal school holiday that means they need to continue through the holiday?
Exactly. These kids are used to starving and having to fend for themselves in the summer. It's good for them...
I've always wondered what happens to the poor buggers in the summer.
It probably wouldn't actually cost that much to do, so perhaps the government should just agree to it. But as I've just said, I'd be tempted to go nuclear and introduce UBI paid for by the chattering middle classes.
While I would love a universal basic income, how do you actually pull it off.
Do you mean politically or financially? I'd have thought a big hike in income tax could cover it. Of course, it could bugger people with big mortgages, but hey, never mind.
Politically, I think Johnson could get his MPs to agree to it.
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
Have you any idea how the UK Government would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances?
Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.
This is an old article, from 2007, but I'm inclined to suspect that Rashford has heard stories of similar being threatened more recently. It's not exactly easy for families without enough money to pay the water bill to enforce the law.
"Water companies are permitted to disconnect the supply in certain circumstances - say, if the property is unoccupied. And Citizens Advice says that, increasingly, firms chasing bills are threatening disconnection on the grounds that the house has become empty when they know - or should know - it is occupied."
Theresa Coffey should be sacked for that comment alone
Although I had read last week she is one of the ministers on the way out in the July shuffle
Stating the facts is hardly a stackable offence and if a house is unoccupied is the only legal ground to disconnect there is nobody in it anyway
The trick is that you claim it's unoccupied and as the disconnection is done outside you can often get away with it.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
Thing about fishing for the Brexit negotiations. Access to UK waters is one of the few good cards the UK holds. ie it's something we have that the other side wants. But cards don't have value unless you play them. In other words, the UK either uses fishing quotas as a bargaining chip or it gives the waters to UK fisherman. It can't do both.
On the contrary, what we need are markets into which to sell our fish.
Indeed. The EU has plenty of things that we want (and have taken for granted up to now). A concession is the other side of the coin from a card to play. In response to @DavidL's comment about fish processing being more important than fish catching, he's right. That's why tariffs on processed fish are a lot higher than fresh fish. Brexit will be very challenging to the Scottish smoked salmon industry and will probably kill it in the case of No Deal.
Perhaps if kids were going to school, then free school meals would be happening.
Free school meals are happening now. The problem is the imminent summer holidays. Read the Marcus Rashford letter; lobby your MP; prepare to be unshocked when Boris extends the programme.
But what's happening now that's different to any normal school holiday that means they need to continue through the holiday?
Exactly. These kids are used to starving and having to fend for themselves in the summer. It's good for them...
I've always wondered what happens to the poor buggers in the summer.
It probably wouldn't actually cost that much to do, so perhaps the government should just agree to it. But as I've just said, I'd be tempted to go nuclear and introduce UBI paid for by the chattering middle classes.
While I would love a universal basic income, how do you actually pull it off.
Do you mean politically or financially? I'd have thought a big hike in income tax could cover it. Of course, it could bugger people with big mortgages, but hey, never mind.
Politically, I think Johnson could get his MPs to agree to it.
Implementation would be my concern (and I know people who have looked into trying to implement it).
Is this something the Johnson Gov't has taken away that was there previously ? If it's implemented doesn't it mean an even more marginal tax rate (I know it's not actually a tax hike but will be presented as such) between Benefits and the equivalent income parents will need to make to have the same benefit outwith the benefits system.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
Why should he? Using his profile to shame Mr Johnson into a "U"turn is good enough, and it'll save Radford £63m on your terms.
If a Brexit trade Deal can be done that ends free movement and respects UK fishing waters then certainly it is possible
I can't see how there isn't a massive trade off for the EU relinquishing FOM. No, I just can't see that on the table, otherwise what's left for the remaining 27 states? We will have had our cake and eaten it.
Although, I understand we still hold all the cards. Lol
Barnier is only demanding a level playing field in respecting EU regulations, he has still not asked for FOM for a deal.
The GOv't should stand firm on this. Remember Hammond backing down over equalisation of tax plans for the self employed. Was the beginning of the end.
See my post below - I believe a precedent was set when money was paid for Easter and Whitsun. What the Government should be doing is compromising - we will do this for this summer and that's it. Instead the Government have screwed this up and are going to end up doing paying this on a permanent basis.
Temporary schemes have a habit of becoming permanent.
Yep - the issue is that a temporary scheme was created for Easter and Whitsun..
PS the ability to change laws after elections as the red line that matters is why I couldn't give less of a shit over the so-called border in the Irish Sea. Since the future of the special arrangements are devolved to Stormont under Boris's deal (not the case under May's) there is a very simple solution, if the people of NI are unhappy the can elect to Stormont those who will end the special arrangements.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
I always thought Ed Miliband missed a trick in February 2015. The moment the 2016-19 Premier League deal was announced, he should have said Labour would put a windfall tax on them (say 50% of the increase compared with 2013-16 - which would have raised around £1 billion).
Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.
This is an old article, from 2007, but I'm inclined to suspect that Rashford has heard stories of similar being threatened more recently. It's not exactly easy for families without enough money to pay the water bill to enforce the law.
"Water companies are permitted to disconnect the supply in certain circumstances - say, if the property is unoccupied. And Citizens Advice says that, increasingly, firms chasing bills are threatening disconnection on the grounds that the house has become empty when they know - or should know - it is occupied."
Theresa Coffey should be sacked for that comment alone
Although I had read last week she is one of the ministers on the way out in the July shuffle
Stating the facts is hardly a stackable offence and if a house is unoccupied is the only legal ground to disconnect there is nobody in it anyway
The trick is that you claim it's unoccupied and as the disconnection is done outside you can often get away with it.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
What the government should say is that they will allow footballers a 45% tax rebate for all money they donate to FSM.
Given that the average premier league footballers earns well over a million they should be able to raise the money with ease. If they want to.
If a Brexit trade Deal can be done that ends free movement and respects UK fishing waters then certainly it is possible
I can't see how there isn't a massive trade off for the EU relinquishing FOM. No, I just can't see that on the table, otherwise what's left for the remaining 27 states? We will have had our cake and eaten it.
Although, I understand we still hold all the cards. Lol
Barnier is only demanding a level playing field in respecting EU regulations, he has still not asked for FOM for a deal.
But how is relinquishing FOM with the UK a level playing field?
Though I expect a change of heart on Rashford I say well done to the government so far for sticking to their guns. Just because a celebrity puts something forward it doesn't make it a well thought out policy, and also twitter pressure isn't always real pressure. I don't think now the economic reality is hitting home that more cash giveaways will be as popular as they were 2 or 3 months ago.
Its also startling that the hyprocrisy of the likes of Gary Lineker who pushed back on kids returning to school yet are now trying to help their mate out. The lack of education for 6 months for many of the poorest kids will cause considerably greater long term damage than any argument about meals.
I find it somewhat depressing that schools are expected to feed children in the holidays. The initial policy seemed a fair (generous even) one, and now it appears that the Government is going to be punished for it.
I am also impressed that a 22 year old footballer has mounted this campaign. However, there are clearly still a few lessons he needs to learn if he thinks #maketheuturn is a persuasive hashtag. Making a u-turn is precisely what the Government won't want to be seen to be doing.
A third way would seem to be the most sensible option. If I were the Government, I would cost the policy, and pledge match funding for any money raised by donations. This would shine a light back on wealthy footballers, who will be encouraged to put their money where their mouths are. If it's a success, it's a Tory succes. If it's a failure, people know who to blame.
Not really. 16% has been fairly typical of SLab support in recent years.
But they ought to be worried. Why no Starmer effect? He has great approval ratings, even in Scotland.
Westminster polls in Scotland are irrelevant to his chances of becoming PM anyway as the SNP will always vote to make Starmer PM over Boris or any other Tory.
However beyond that he just needs to wait for the SNP civil war when either the Nationalists win another majority at Holyrood and Sturgeon refused to hold indyref2 without Westminster consent when Boris vetoes it, or there is a Unionist majority and in which case SLab will be up anyway
Are you seriously trying to tell us that Starmer considers Scotland to be “irrelevant”? That is classic psychological projection. Just because you and your tawdry party have given up on Scotland does not mean that everyone else has.
It is also pretty gobsmacking that a Tory, of all people, should accuse other parties of having civil wars. Your own civil wars have been ongoing ever since the days of “Wets” and “Bastards”, and don’t look like they are going to end any time soon.
At Westminster level yes, an SNP or Labour MP will both vote to make Starmer PM, a Tory MP from England or Wales will not.
The Tories MPs are now united behind getting Brexit done which they delivered in January, SNP MPs and MSPs are split down the middle on transgender rights and in Sturgeon and Salmond camps now
You love lumping folk together:
SCon + Slab + SLD = same thing
Lab + SNP = same thing
Tory spin + reality = same thing
Of course, the real world is more complex than that.
Then we have your Tories Are United line, which is self-evident nonsense, and will become increasingly obvious as the Johnson regime collapses due to mass unemployment, a collapse in international trade, gross incompetence, in-fighting and a broken, obese, decayed circus performer at the helm.
“F*ck business” he said. And he meant it.
Johnson has his party fully united behind his message.
Sturgeon increasingly looks like Theresa May, the backbenchers are getting restless at her dithering over independence and her trans rights focus and looking to Salmond, the Prince across the Water
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
Why should he? Using his profile to shame Mr Johnson into a "U"turn is good enough, and it'll save Radford £63m on your terms.
Why on Earth should the taxpayer fund the virtue-signalling of a decamillionaire? He's more than capable of raising the funds himself if he put his mind to it - perhaps in partnership with the Government, as I suggest - but nooo...
Is this something the Johnson Gov't has taken away that was there previously ? If it's implemented doesn't it mean an even more marginal tax rate (I know it's not actually a tax hike but will be presented as such) between Benefits and the equivalent income parents will need to make to have the same benefit outwith the benefits system.
You're bringing too much reality to the discussion.
If a Brexit trade Deal can be done that ends free movement and respects UK fishing waters then certainly it is possible
I can't see how there isn't a massive trade off for the EU relinquishing FOM. No, I just can't see that on the table, otherwise what's left for the remaining 27 states? We will have had our cake and eaten it.
Although, I understand we still hold all the cards. Lol
Barnier is only demanding a level playing field in respecting EU regulations, he has still not asked for FOM for a deal.
But how is relinquishing FOM with the UK a level playing field?
The EU have already relinquished FOM with the UK. They're not even attempting to negotiate it continuing.
If in your eyes that means we'll be having our cake and eating it, then I hope you enjoy eating cake. 🍰
Tried a new Netflix series last night at the suggestion of my wife: Snowpiercer.
There's willing suspension of disbelief, and then there's Snowpiercer.
I have to virtually suspend my whole brain to watch it.
I have an easier time believing the more outlandish fantasies in Star Trek.
Yes we all know about The Wire, Sopranos, Breaking Bad, etc.
But increasingly I am coming to think that The Americans (Amazon Prime) ranks as one of the very best mini-series ever made.
I tried The Americans. The premise was good, but the execution left a lot to be desired. Ultimately, they were incredibly conspicuous spies and assassinations on US soil on such a regular basis was a stretch too far. They made boring desk jokey spies look like James Bond because no one would watch a show about spies that do their work from behind a desk or by cultivating relationships with federal employees over 3 years.
It's well made, but it doesn't rank with The Wire. There have been loads of ex gang members and police who say The Wire is about as true to life as it gets for the war on drugs.
Yes. The reality was that, as far as is known, not one single murder was conducted by any KGB agent on US soil. The illegals they had were mostly sleepers, gathering a bit of info and working their way quietly into positions where they could be useful, waiting for an event that never came.
Two things struck me re-watching the two early series. The premise is ridiculous in a way that only American producers seem to try and carry off - for example the whole thing with the FBI agent tasked with finding spies living in an adjoining house, forever popping into their house, chatting to the spies in the garage whilst they have a US agent tied up in the trunk of their car. Etc.
And that they present extraordinarily crudely a lot of the themes that, as I recall (not having rewatched), are handled with more nuance in later series. For example the tension in their relationship because she is more ardently communist than he (in a very early episode they just have him effectively say "why don't we defect now?"), the growing suspicions of the daughter (in an early episode she goes searching their basement), Stan's slowly closing in on them (in an early episode Stan simply breaks into and searches their garage after dark). They obviously didn't plan for a long-running series and 'used up' a lot of ideas in the first series that they returned to and worked through more thoughtfully later.
A couple of episodes after Stan's being suspicious enough to have broken into his neighbours' garage, he is looking blankly at a couple of quite accurate photofits of the pair of them.
If a Brexit trade Deal can be done that ends free movement and respects UK fishing waters then certainly it is possible
I can't see how there isn't a massive trade off for the EU relinquishing FOM. No, I just can't see that on the table, otherwise what's left for the remaining 27 states? We will have had our cake and eaten it.
Although, I understand we still hold all the cards. Lol
Barnier is only demanding a level playing field in respecting EU regulations, he has still not asked for FOM for a deal.
But how is relinquishing FOM with the UK a level playing field?
It is single market regulations he wants respected, he has not once mentioned retaining FOM for a deal since we said we would leave the SM.
If he did of course there would be zero chance of a trade deal
Though I expect a change of heart on Rashford I say well done to the government so far for sticking to their guns. Just because a celebrity puts something forward it doesn't make it a well thought out policy, and also twitter pressure isn't always real pressure. I don't think now the economic reality is hitting home that more cash giveaways will be as popular as they were 2 or 3 months ago.
Its also startling that the hyprocrisy of the likes of Gary Lineker who pushed back on kids returning to school yet are now trying to help their mate out. The lack of education for 6 months for many of the poorest kids will cause considerably greater long term damage than any argument about meals.
Oh FFS feeding kids already *is* government policy. The change is to extend it over the summer.
I wonder if Hodges Kemlinology is in the right area.
Rishi is the King Over the Water.
What better way to spike his guns than allow him to get the blame for starving kids.
4D chess, lads...
Hmm. Maybe something in this. It fits the leaks about increasing inheritance tax just before Cummings got rid of Javid. I am certain not giving free meals to deprived children isn't an oversight or a technically difficult thing to do. It's a conscious choice based on the politics.
I find it somewhat depressing that schools are expected to feed children in the holidays. The initial policy seemed a fair (generous even) one, and now it appears that the Government is going to be punished for it.
I am also impressed that a 22 year old footballer has mounted this campaign. However, there are clearly still a few lessons he needs to learn if he thinks #maketheuturn is a persuasive hashtag. Making a u-turn is precisely what the Government won't want to be seen to be doing.
A third way would seem to be the most sensible option. If I were the Government, I would cost the policy, and pledge match funding for any money raised by donations. This would shine a light back on wealthy footballers, who will be encouraged to put their money where their mouths are. If it's a success, it's a Tory succes. If it's a failure, people know who to blame.
That's not a bad idea and keeps it as a one-off thing for this summer rather than expecting it to then continue next summer.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
You really are talking utter rubbish and showing no political sense at all
The cost of the meals is £117 million and when put against the billions spent so far is petty cash
You do the party no service whatsoever, indeed I am ashamed any so called conservative could make such a statement which so utterly out of touch and lacking compassion
I think the government is making a mistake here but even putting that aside Rashford is one seriously impressive young man. His mother should be very proud.
Without looking at the issue has Rashford put any of his own considerable money into funding such a scheme.
If he has then he is to be applauded if he hasn't then perhaps he should.
He's raised over £20m which I understand includes contributions from him and his team mates.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
What the government should say is that they will allow footballers a 45% tax rebate for all money they donate to FSM.
Given that the average premier league footballers earns well over a million they should be able to raise the money with ease. If they want to.
I don't understand this argument. Premier League footballers are the undeserving wealthy.
Whenever say, Branson demands government action nobody expects him to finance the project. Indeed Branson is pleading for state help to bail out airlines. He isn't expected to fund it by selling Necker Island.
Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.
This is an old article, from 2007, but I'm inclined to suspect that Rashford has heard stories of similar being threatened more recently. It's not exactly easy for families without enough money to pay the water bill to enforce the law.
"Water companies are permitted to disconnect the supply in certain circumstances - say, if the property is unoccupied. And Citizens Advice says that, increasingly, firms chasing bills are threatening disconnection on the grounds that the house has become empty when they know - or should know - it is occupied."
Theresa Coffey should be sacked for that comment alone
Although I had read last week she is one of the ministers on the way out in the July shuffle
Stating the facts is hardly a sackable offence and if a house is unoccupied is the only legal ground to disconnect there is nobody in it anyway
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
Why should he? Using his profile to shame Mr Johnson into a "U"turn is good enough, and it'll save Radford £63m on your terms.
Why on Earth should the taxpayer fund the virtue-signalling of a decamillionaire? He's more than capable of raising the funds himself if he put his mind to it - perhaps in partnership with the Government, as I suggest - but nooo...
Haha, great minds think alike, see above. Although I am not sure Rashford should be asked to stump up for half - he has plenty of rich friends.
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
Not really. 16% has been fairly typical of SLab support in recent years.
But they ought to be worried. Why no Starmer effect? He has great approval ratings, even in Scotland.
Westminster polls in Scotland are irrelevant to his chances of becoming PM anyway as the SNP will always vote to make Starmer PM over Boris or any other Tory.
However beyond that he just needs to wait for the SNP civil war when either the Nationalists win another majority at Holyrood and Sturgeon refused to hold indyref2 without Westminster consent when Boris vetoes it, or there is a Unionist majority and in which case SLab will be up anyway
Are you seriously trying to tell us that Starmer considers Scotland to be “irrelevant”? That is classic psychological projection. Just because you and your tawdry party have given up on Scotland does not mean that everyone else has.
It is also pretty gobsmacking that a Tory, of all people, should accuse other parties of having civil wars. Your own civil wars have been ongoing ever since the days of “Wets” and “Bastards”, and don’t look like they are going to end any time soon.
At Westminster level yes, an SNP or Labour MP will both vote to make Starmer PM, a Tory MP from England or Wales will not.
The Tories MPs are now united behind getting Brexit done which they delivered in January, SNP MPs and MSPs are split down the middle on transgender rights and in Sturgeon and Salmond camps now
You love lumping folk together:
SCon + Slab + SLD = same thing
Lab + SNP = same thing
Tory spin + reality = same thing
Of course, the real world is more complex than that.
Then we have your Tories Are United line, which is self-evident nonsense, and will become increasingly obvious as the Johnson regime collapses due to mass unemployment, a collapse in international trade, gross incompetence, in-fighting and a broken, obese, decayed circus performer at the helm.
“F*ck business” he said. And he meant it.
Johnson has his party fully united behind his message.
Sturgeon increasingly looks like Theresa May, the backbenchers are getting restless at her dithering over independence and her trans rights focus and looking to Salmond, the Prince across the Water
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
What the government should say is that they will allow footballers a 45% tax rebate for all money they donate to FSM.
Given that the average premier league footballers earns well over a million they should be able to raise the money with ease. If they want to.
I don't understand this argument. Premier League footballers are the undeserving wealthy.
Whenever say, Branson demands government action nobody expects him to finance the project. Indeed Branson is pleading for state help to bail out airlines. He isn't expected to fund it by selling Necker Island.
I haven't seen any support for Branson's demands on here!
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Paddy Power have launched their over/under seats prices for the next UK GE. They are very bullish on Lib Dem and Con seats, and very bearish on Labour seats. An opportunity?
All priced at 5/6 (GE 2019)
Con seats over/under 329.5 (365)
Lab seats over/under 206.5 (202)
SNP seats over/under 47.5 (48)
Lib Dem seats over/under 40.5 (11)
Is Starmer really only expected to get five more seats than Corbyn? Really?
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
You really are talking utter rubbish and showing no political sense at all
The cost of the meals is £117 million and when put against the billions spent so far is petty cash
You do the party no service whatsoever, indeed I am ashamed any so called conservative could make such a statement which so utterly out of touch and lacking compassion
As I keep reminding people, I'm not a member of the Conservative Party - I'm an actual conservative
Once you establish the principle that (incredibly rich) celebrities can force the elected government to spend unlimited quantities of public money on their pet projects, we may as well give up on the whole concept of managing the public finances at all.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
What the government should say is that they will allow footballers a 45% tax rebate for all money they donate to FSM.
Given that the average premier league footballers earns well over a million they should be able to raise the money with ease. If they want to.
I don't understand this argument. Premier League footballers are the undeserving wealthy.
Whenever say, Branson demands government action nobody expects him to finance the project. Indeed Branson is pleading for state help to bail out airlines. He isn't expected to fund it by selling Necker Island.
The argument is simple - put your own money where your mouth is and we will provide money as well.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
I would imagine that the Man Utd squad's PAYE contributions probably cover most of the cost already so seems a bit odd to ask for them to pay for it twice. Can't imagine what it is about working class black people earning a lot of money that excites so much politics of envy on the Right.
Paddy Power have launched their over/under seats prices for the next UK GE. They are very bullish on Lib Dem and Con seats, and very bearish on Labour seats. An opportunity?
All priced at 5/6 (GE 2019)
Con seats over/under 329.5 (365)
Lab seats over/under 206.5 (202)
SNP seats over/under 47.5 (48)
Lib Dem seats over/under 40.5 (11)
Is Starmer really only expected to get five more seats than Corbyn? Really?
Blimey. I don't fancy locking my money away for four years, but yeah, those figures look wrong.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
Your desperate twisting of reality is very funny to observe.
The UK didn't announce that it would leave it's border wide open in the event of no deal?
Whatever they did or did not announce would be temporary. A deal would be permanent. Saying they are going to delay enforcing the border rules until they have the infrastructure in place does not in any way mean we cannot diverge. Your claims are just plain wrong.
Richard, we cannot diverge without the ability to enforce said divergence. And it will take years not months to set up the physical infrastructure, the computer system, the army of bureaucrats etc etc. Nor do we have anything to diverge to - trade deals also take years not months.
Johnson is like Eric Idle in Life of Brian demanding the right to have babies. The EU will accept our absolute sovereign right to diverge. Knowing that having won that right we can't diverge because where's the foetus gonna gestate- in a box?
Nope rubbish again. If we tied ourselves to a trade deal on disadvantageous terms - particularly if it has ECJ oversight - then that is us screwed permanently. However long it takes for us to sort out our own arrangements, once we do choose to diverge we will be able to - something we could never do if we had agreed a poor deal with the EU.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
All those conditions apply to EEA including termination...
The silent majority are patriotic and want our culture and heritage respected.
Equal opportunities does not mean ignoring our history
So why is so little of it taught, in the gap between the Tudors and the Twentieth Century ?
The history of the slave trade and empire is pretty well ignored.
I thought the period was glorified not ignored, which is it?
I think our teaching of history has some pretty glaring omissions - I was not once taught at school about the civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s for instance - and I suspect the silent majority are not overly proud or overly condemnatory, they are overly apathetic.
We dont know enough about history in general, which is why we get overly defensive or overly emotional in a negative sense by viewing too much of it through the prism of present politics, shorn of any national or global context.
It takes two sides to fight a culture war, he cannot wage it alone. Therefore I suspect what he wants to do is, while not unimportant, also is not definitive.
I do like 'went out of her way to attack it' rather than just 'attacked it'. Subtlely adding a layer of unreasonableness to her attacks (I cannot speak as to how unreasonable it was).
As I understand it, the trend has been to teach modules of history (schools skip from the Victorians to the Vikings to WW2 etc.) rather than the "gallop through history" whereby history is taught in chronological order. Simon Schama has been very critical of the module approach.
History is also an optional subject at GCSE, so a significant number of pupils will not study it after they are 14. It is expected that most pupils will study at least one humanity (basically geography or history) but even that was met with howls of protest from the creative arts as it reduced the numbers doing Art, music, drama, and so on.
From 7 to 14 all schools will have covered the history curriculum from the Greeks and Romans, the Vikings and Saxons to the Middle Ages, the Tories and Stuarts, the British Empire and slavery up to the 20th century.
Whether you then decide to continue to GCSE and A Level or not you will still have studied the full chronological spectrum
Not really. 16% has been fairly typical of SLab support in recent years.
But they ought to be worried. Why no Starmer effect? He has great approval ratings, even in Scotland.
Westminster polls in Scotland are irrelevant to his chances of becoming PM anyway as the SNP will always vote to make Starmer PM over Boris or any other Tory.
However beyond that he just needs to wait for the SNP civil war when either the Nationalists win another majority at Holyrood and Sturgeon refused to hold indyref2 without Westminster consent when Boris vetoes it, or there is a Unionist majority and in which case SLab will be up anyway
Are you seriously trying to tell us that Starmer considers Scotland to be “irrelevant”? That is classic psychological projection. Just because you and your tawdry party have given up on Scotland does not mean that everyone else has.
It is also pretty gobsmacking that a Tory, of all people, should accuse other parties of having civil wars. Your own civil wars have been ongoing ever since the days of “Wets” and “Bastards”, and don’t look like they are going to end any time soon.
At Westminster level yes, an SNP or Labour MP will both vote to make Starmer PM, a Tory MP from England or Wales will not.
The Tories MPs are now united behind getting Brexit done which they delivered in January, SNP MPs and MSPs are split down the middle on transgender rights and in Sturgeon and Salmond camps now
You love lumping folk together:
SCon + Slab + SLD = same thing
Lab + SNP = same thing
Tory spin + reality = same thing
Of course, the real world is more complex than that.
Then we have your Tories Are United line, which is self-evident nonsense, and will become increasingly obvious as the Johnson regime collapses due to mass unemployment, a collapse in international trade, gross incompetence, in-fighting and a broken, obese, decayed circus performer at the helm.
“F*ck business” he said. And he meant it.
Johnson has his party fully united behind his message.
Sturgeon increasingly looks like Theresa May, the backbenchers are getting restless at her dithering over independence and her trans rights focus and looking to Salmond, the Prince across the Water
Yes, of course, Theresa May was forever at 50% in the VI polls and posting approval ratings north of +80. How could I have forgotten that?
To be “fully united behind his message”, we’d have to know what the prime minister’s message was. Neither his party nor the electorate can fathom what his message is. Except “F*ck Business” of course. That much is obvious.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
You really are talking utter rubbish and showing no political sense at all
The cost of the meals is £117 million and when put against the billions spent so far is petty cash
You do the party no service whatsoever, indeed I am ashamed any so called conservative could make such a statement which so utterly out of touch and lacking compassion
As I keep reminding people, I'm not a member of the Conservative Party - I'm an actual conservative
Once you establish the principle that (incredibly rich) celebrities can force the elected government to spend unlimited quantities of public money on their pet projects, we may as well give up on the whole concept of managing the public finances at all.
You clearly have no empathy with Marcus nor any knowledge of his own efforts in this field recently. He is articulate and is fighting a just cause
And he has 8.4 million followers so a spectacular own goal so to speak by Boris
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
What the government should say is that they will allow footballers a 45% tax rebate for all money they donate to FSM.
Given that the average premier league footballers earns well over a million they should be able to raise the money with ease. If they want to.
I don't understand this argument. Premier League footballers are the undeserving wealthy.
Whenever say, Branson demands government action nobody expects him to finance the project. Indeed Branson is pleading for state help to bail out airlines. He isn't expected to fund it by selling Necker Island.
The argument is simple - put your own money where your mouth is and we will provide money as well.
Why should he?
He has earned his money fairly, paid the correct amount of tax on it and it has to last him for decades after he retires at 30.
You could argue he doesn't deserve his money for what he does, although Sky and BT make even more money on the back of his skills.
Yours, is a silly response to a question of inequality.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
What the government should say is that they will allow footballers a 45% tax rebate for all money they donate to FSM.
Given that the average premier league footballers earns well over a million they should be able to raise the money with ease. If they want to.
I don't understand this argument. Premier League footballers are the undeserving wealthy.
Whenever say, Branson demands government action nobody expects him to finance the project. Indeed Branson is pleading for state help to bail out airlines. He isn't expected to fund it by selling Necker Island.
I haven't seen any support for Branson's demands on here!
Necker Island is worth a tiny fraction of what Branson is demanding in loans, as well.
I think the government is making a mistake here but even putting that aside Rashford is one seriously impressive young man. His mother should be very proud.
Without looking at the issue has Rashford put any of his own considerable money into funding such a scheme.
If he has then he is to be applauded if he hasn't then perhaps he should.
He's raised over £20m which I understand includes contributions from him and his team mates.
I think the one in the Times is better: “Today I focus on a trophy that stands for something much bigger than football. “A U-turn on the decision to stop the free food voucher scheme continuing over the summer holidays could help us reach the next round but we still have a very long way to go as a country to eventually lift the trophy. In this case, the trophy is combating child poverty. “I don’t claim to have the education of an MP in parliament, but I do have a social education. I am clued up on the difference a U-turn decision would make on the 1.3 million vulnerable children across the UK who are registered for free school meals because 10 years ago I was one of them.”
Paddy Power have launched their over/under seats prices for the next UK GE. They are very bullish on Lib Dem and Con seats, and very bearish on Labour seats. An opportunity?
All priced at 5/6 (GE 2019)
Con seats over/under 329.5 (365)
Lab seats over/under 206.5 (202)
SNP seats over/under 47.5 (48)
Lib Dem seats over/under 40.5 (11)
Is Starmer really only expected to get five more seats than Corbyn? Really?
Backed Leicester a while ago as winner without Liverpool/Manchester City, largely thanks to good tipping from Dr. Foxy, decided to hedge a smidge at 1.4 on Betfair just to balance things a bit more.
I hope Leicester do it, but almost as good if Chelsea get it. Still green if others sneak ahead but Leicester/Chelsea would be optimal for me.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
You really are talking utter rubbish and showing no political sense at all
The cost of the meals is £117 million and when put against the billions spent so far is petty cash
You do the party no service whatsoever, indeed I am ashamed any so called conservative could make such a statement which so utterly out of touch and lacking compassion
I would imagine this is the view of a substantial minority of conservatives, if not the majority.
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
Our influence on the EU's decisions? Yes, it is over.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
I would imagine that the Man Utd squad's PAYE contributions probably cover most of the cost already so seems a bit odd to ask for them to pay for it twice. Can't imagine what it is about working class black people earning a lot of money that excites so much politics of envy on the Right.
Leaving aside your fatuous 'point', one positive of these events could and should be a trend toward philanthropy in the footballing community, which is currently absent. Perhaps one day there will be a Marcus Rashford statue.
Paddy Power have launched their over/under seats prices for the next UK GE. They are very bullish on Lib Dem and Con seats, and very bearish on Labour seats. An opportunity?
All priced at 5/6 (GE 2019)
Con seats over/under 329.5 (365)
Lab seats over/under 206.5 (202)
SNP seats over/under 47.5 (48)
Lib Dem seats over/under 40.5 (11)
Is Starmer really only expected to get five more seats than Corbyn? Really?
Blimey. I don't fancy locking my money away for four years, but yeah, those figures look wrong.
“Wrong” prices = opportunity
Unfortunately, since making a killing in the Holyrood 2007 GE, Paddy Power limits my stakes to a packet of Wrigleys and a couple of Dolly Mixtures.
Once you establish the principle that (incredibly rich) celebrities can force the elected government to spend unlimited quantities of public money on their pet projects, we may as well give up on the whole concept of managing the public finances at all.
On the other hand, of course the genius of The Americans was producing a show for a US audience that has you rooting for what are, objectively, a couple of pretty appalling (communist!) characters who do a string of truly terrible things.
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
It is BigG, bar the horse trading. It's legacy won't be over for decades.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
You really are talking utter rubbish and showing no political sense at all
The cost of the meals is £117 million and when put against the billions spent so far is petty cash
You do the party no service whatsoever, indeed I am ashamed any so called conservative could make such a statement which so utterly out of touch and lacking compassion
As I keep reminding people, I'm not a member of the Conservative Party - I'm an actual conservative
Once you establish the principle that (incredibly rich) celebrities can force the elected government to spend unlimited quantities of public money on their pet projects, we may as well give up on the whole concept of managing the public finances at all.
You clearly have no empathy with Marcus nor any knowledge of his own efforts in this field recently. He is articulate and is fighting a just cause
And he has 8.4 million followers so a spectacular own goal so to speak by Boris
That's fine. In which case he should stow his political campaigning and instead propose a way of splitting the cost between himself, his rich friends, and the taxpayer - a genuinely collaborative partnership, rather than #uturnnow.
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
It is BigG, bar the horse trading. It's legacy won't be over for decades.
I still hope that I shall live long enough to see us back in the EU!
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
I would imagine that the Man Utd squad's PAYE contributions probably cover most of the cost already so seems a bit odd to ask for them to pay for it twice. Can't imagine what it is about working class black people earning a lot of money that excites so much politics of envy on the Right.
Leaving aside your fatuous 'point', one positive of these events could and should be a trend toward philanthropy in the footballing community, which is currently absent. Perhaps one day there will be a Marcus Rashford statue.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
Market doesn't exist. It'll be an old price from before the GE with oddschecker picking up stale information. I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
I would imagine that the Man Utd squad's PAYE contributions probably cover most of the cost already so seems a bit odd to ask for them to pay for it twice. Can't imagine what it is about working class black people earning a lot of money that excites so much politics of envy on the Right.
I thought you supported higher taxes for the rich.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
All those conditions apply to EEA including termination...
Indeed which is why it has always been my preferred end point.
Well actually they don't all apply as EFTA EEA members cannot piggy back on EU trade deals. Nor would they want to given that they have better trade deals than the EU.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
I would imagine that the Man Utd squad's PAYE contributions probably cover most of the cost already so seems a bit odd to ask for them to pay for it twice. Can't imagine what it is about working class black people earning a lot of money that excites so much politics of envy on the Right.
I thought you supported higher taxes for the rich.
I do. I just don't think they should be applied selectively. My politics of envy is an equal opportunities one.
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
Our influence on the EU's decisions? Yes, it is over.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
I would imagine that the Man Utd squad's PAYE contributions probably cover most of the cost already so seems a bit odd to ask for them to pay for it twice. Can't imagine what it is about working class black people earning a lot of money that excites so much politics of envy on the Right.
Leaving aside your fatuous 'point', one positive of these events could and should be a trend toward philanthropy in the footballing community, which is currently absent. Perhaps one day there will be a Marcus Rashford statue.
Yes, famously no footballer ever gives to charity.
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
It is BigG, bar the horse trading. It's legacy won't be over for decades.
I still hope that I shall live long enough to see us back in the EU!
I am not sure full membership is now ever likely, although politics works in cycles, so who knows?
I do think a BINO arrangement, sooner rather than later, by a non-Conservative government might be likely, if it turns out we were sold a pup.
Market doesn't exist. It'll be an old price from before the GE with oddschecker picking up stale information. I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
Aha! Sorry about that!
Paddy Power, and all other bookies, block me from their websites because of my Swedish IP address. (Since Brexit.) So I am 100% dependent on Oddschecker. I’ll drop them a line.
Market doesn't exist. It'll be an old price from before the GE with oddschecker picking up stale information. I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
1 pence is approximately how much I'm allowed on Betfair Sportsbook political markets these days.
Demonstrating we're ready to go for No Deal if the EU aren't reasonable causes them to start acting like adults and accept we're not going to be their fishing colony, who'd've thunk it.
It's the exact opposite. We caved. We announced the reality that we cannot set up a physical border by the end of the year. That means we cannot diverge from the EU whether we want to or not. Having conceded our major aim they in turn have said they are happy to negotiate access to our waters (from a position of power) rather than keep demanding it so that HOG can save face.
We lost. Because the government are incompetent and stupid.
@Philip_Thompson refused to take my £10 charity bet yesterday when I offered it. I said the govt would cave on at least two red lines. He didn't see them caving on red lines as caving, rather he saw it as a desirable outcome. The fact that it was the EU's preferred outcome and an outcome that the UK had said it didn't want, didn't seem to register or trouble him.
And from a logical perspective I get it. He wants the optimum outcome. The fact that for him the optimum outcome coincides with what the EU wants, begs the question why the fuck did he want to leave the EU in the first place.
Black really is white and white is black.
No, I think compromise involves movement from both sides.
Would you be happy to define it as the EU caving on at least two red lines?
The eventual deal will be neither the UK's preferred outcome, nor the EU's preferred outcome, it will be a compromise that both parties are happy to live with even if they don't get everything they wanted.
As we have seen with the new Irish border and customs checks, my concern is that it will be more the EU's preferred outcome than the UK's preferred outcome. In other words, we will get the worse end of the deal although we will no doubt achieve some successes although if pushed I can't think of any that would be worthwhile in practice (there will be enough wins in theory for Johnson to trumpet them for his less diligent fans).
So you would probably want an end to ECJ oversight. I can see that that would be something that we achieve. I am also interested, not to say apprehensive about what that might mean in practice.
I'm quite simple in what I want. I want the UK to be able to change laws after elections. That is my sole red line that matters.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
OK, Thought Experiment. This is a genuine question, honest!
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
Yes I'd be happy with that. So long as it was the UK's choice whether to stay aligned etc and we didn't require the EU's consent to diverge just give a notice period, sure.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
FWIW I'm not sure the scenario here ended free movement and kept us out of the CAP or CFP. The scenario which kept all the benefits, ended payments, ended FoM and got us out of CAP and CFP plus you can leave when you like would have cheerfully closed down the discussion some time ago. It's called having your cake and eating it.
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
Just a puzzled question: Is it normal for nations as wealthy as ours to have hundreds of thousands/millions of children go hungry because schools don't feed them in August. And if so, why?
Most people seem to be talking about Marcus Rashford's letter rather than Brexit. Does anyone really care about Brexit at the moment? I mean, apart from a few old white blokes choking on their false teeth.
This is an old article, from 2007, but I'm inclined to suspect that Rashford has heard stories of similar being threatened more recently. It's not exactly easy for families without enough money to pay the water bill to enforce the law.
"Water companies are permitted to disconnect the supply in certain circumstances - say, if the property is unoccupied. And Citizens Advice says that, increasingly, firms chasing bills are threatening disconnection on the grounds that the house has become empty when they know - or should know - it is occupied."
Theresa Coffey should be sacked for that comment alone
Although I had read last week she is one of the ministers on the way out in the July shuffle
Stating the facts is hardly a sackable offence and if a house is unoccupied is the only legal ground to disconnect there is nobody in it anyway
You are as stupid as she is
Perhaps you would prefer to engage in facts rather than abuse
Sorry to pour cold water on the header, but no amount of "oomph" can close the position. Fisheries may be of small economic consequence, but it isnt just an important constituency in Cornwall and NE Scotland, but also for a number of EU states. All of which have to ratify whatever Deal is produced. Continuing fishing access is not just going to be dropped.
Personally, I think WTO is on the cards for 31 Dec. Reason has long since left the building.
I concur.
The main flaw with the header, and most coverage of a Deal, is that it only considers HMG and the European Commission. Those bodies are only two out of twenty-nine organisations that have to unanimously support a Deal.
It is inconceivable that a deal agreed with the commission, Angela Merkel in her role over the next six months, and HMG is going to be rejected and the hope seems to be the last throw of a losing hand as we progress to a new relationship with the EU on the 1st January 2021
It really is time for our exit to be accepted and rather than throw 'toys out of the pram' those EU devotees should look to improving any deal over the next few years by campaigning to re-join the single market
It is not “EU Devotees” that you need to worry about. There are plenty of European governments that are dischuffed with HMG and/or the European Commision. Hungary and Italy spring to mind.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it was caused by a supposed over-centralisation of sovereignty, but it will fail because EU decision-making is not centralised enough.
To be honest I am not worried.
Have you any idea how the EU would look if they rejected an agreement in these circumstances
It is not going to happen
How did it look when De Gaulle vetoed our membership deal?
It is over William.
Our influence on the EU's decisions? Yes, it is over.
It was never worth anything anyway.
Even within the UK, London is incapable of operating in a collegiate way. If you think our influence was worthless, perhaps that's the reason.
Comments
Rishi is the King Over the Water.
What better way to spike his guns than allow him to get the blame for starving kids.
4D chess, lads...
This could damage Trump much more than the Bolton book and adds to the grounds for believing he hasn't got a hope in hell of winning the election. There must be so much that people have been holding back because after he won in November 2016 there was no point in releasing it until the 2020 campaign given especially that the Republicans kept control of the Senate in 2018.
SCon + Slab + SLD = same thing
Lab + SNP = same thing
Tory spin + reality = same thing
Of course, the real world is more complex than that.
Then we have your Tories Are United line, which is self-evident nonsense, and will become increasingly obvious as the Johnson regime collapses due to mass unemployment, a collapse in international trade, gross incompetence, in-fighting and a broken, obese, decayed circus performer at the helm.
“F*ck business” he said. And he meant it.
It's well made, but it doesn't rank with The Wire. There have been loads of ex gang members and police who say The Wire is about as true to life as it gets for the war on drugs.
1. Rashford's plan for FSM costs £63 million.
2. Rashford earns over £10 million a year.
The solution seems obvious: the Government agrees to fund the meals now, and in exchange takes a lien on his net salary until the debt is paid off. That shouldn't take him much more than a decade.
I'm sure his selfless commitment to spending his own money as readily as other people's will be an inspiration to us all...
Pleasant articulate chap. However, why, I wonder have we heard nothing from the chap he carried...... although the comment this morning was that he was probably too drunk to remember.
However, one would have thought he had friends who recognised and who could be persuaded, for the price of a couple of pints, to tell all to an inquiring journalist.
But in reality it's needed you can't say that people need £x a week when children are being fed at school and the same £x a week when the children aren't at school and need to find money for their lunch (and probably breakfast as well).
Politically, I think Johnson could get his MPs to agree to it.
To be honest, you should be worried.
With that in mind, I want as free a trade deal as possible.
If it's implemented doesn't it mean an even more marginal tax rate (I know it's not actually a tax hike but will be presented as such) between Benefits and the equivalent income parents will need to make to have the same benefit outwith the benefits system.
Spot the problem...
If they don't do so, that's their choice.
Given that the average premier league footballers earns well over a million they should be able to raise the money with ease. If they want to.
Its also startling that the hyprocrisy of the likes of Gary Lineker who pushed back on kids returning to school yet are now trying to help their mate out. The lack of education for 6 months for many of the poorest kids will cause considerably greater long term damage than any argument about meals.
I assume "It's basic. Feed the kids" is not the headline he was chasing
I am also impressed that a 22 year old footballer has mounted this campaign. However, there are clearly still a few lessons he needs to learn if he thinks #maketheuturn is a persuasive hashtag. Making a u-turn is precisely what the Government won't want to be seen to be doing.
A third way would seem to be the most sensible option. If I were the Government, I would cost the policy, and pledge match funding for any money raised by donations. This would shine a light back on wealthy footballers, who will be encouraged to put their money where their mouths are. If it's a success, it's a Tory succes. If it's a failure, people know who to blame.
Sturgeon increasingly looks like Theresa May, the backbenchers are getting restless at her dithering over independence and her trans rights focus and looking to Salmond, the Prince across the Water
If in your eyes that means we'll be having our cake and eating it, then I hope you enjoy eating cake. 🍰
Two things struck me re-watching the two early series. The premise is ridiculous in a way that only American producers seem to try and carry off - for example the whole thing with the FBI agent tasked with finding spies living in an adjoining house, forever popping into their house, chatting to the spies in the garage whilst they have a US agent tied up in the trunk of their car. Etc.
And that they present extraordinarily crudely a lot of the themes that, as I recall (not having rewatched), are handled with more nuance in later series. For example the tension in their relationship because she is more ardently communist than he (in a very early episode they just have him effectively say "why don't we defect now?"), the growing suspicions of the daughter (in an early episode she goes searching their basement), Stan's slowly closing in on them (in an early episode Stan simply breaks into and searches their garage after dark). They obviously didn't plan for a long-running series and 'used up' a lot of ideas in the first series that they returned to and worked through more thoughtfully later.
A couple of episodes after Stan's being suspicious enough to have broken into his neighbours' garage, he is looking blankly at a couple of quite accurate photofits of the pair of them.
If he did of course there would be zero chance of a trade deal
The cost of the meals is £117 million and when put against the billions spent so far is petty cash
You do the party no service whatsoever, indeed I am ashamed any so called conservative could make such a statement which so utterly out of touch and lacking compassion
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/15/protect-the-vulnerable-marcus-rashfords-emotional-letter-to-mps
Whenever say, Branson demands government action nobody expects him to finance the project. Indeed Branson is pleading for state help to bail out airlines. He isn't expected to fund it by selling Necker Island.
One endpoint for this process goes something like this.
1 The EU recognises the UK's sovereign right to diverge whenever it likes, on (say) 18 months notice.
2 As long as the UK stays completely aligned with EU rules, both the current ones and any future ones, there is no need for any border controls or processes.
3 The UK can piggyback on any other trade deals that the EU does.
4 If the UK wishes to diverge, or negotiate other deals, or not adapt to future EU changes it will be necessary to put in full-fat customs borders.
So the UK can do whatever it likes, but it will never be worth moving away from the EU model short of utter evil.
I don't think that's what will happen- not exactly, anyway. It would make a good Gilbert and Sullivan punchline though.
Would you be happy with that?
All priced at 5/6 (GE 2019)
Con seats over/under 329.5 (365)
Lab seats over/under 206.5 (202)
SNP seats over/under 47.5 (48)
Lib Dem seats over/under 40.5 (11)
Is Starmer really only expected to get five more seats than Corbyn? Really?
Once you establish the principle that (incredibly rich) celebrities can force the elected government to spend unlimited quantities of public money on their pet projects, we may as well give up on the whole concept of managing the public finances at all.
To be “fully united behind his message”, we’d have to know what the prime minister’s message was. Neither his party nor the electorate can fathom what his message is. Except “F*ck Business” of course. That much is obvious.
And he has 8.4 million followers so a spectacular own goal so to speak by Boris
He has earned his money fairly, paid the correct amount of tax on it and it has to last him for decades after he retires at 30.
You could argue he doesn't deserve his money for what he does, although Sky and BT make even more money on the back of his skills.
Yours, is a silly response to a question of inequality.
“Today I focus on a trophy that stands for something much bigger than football.
“A U-turn on the decision to stop the free food voucher scheme continuing over the summer holidays could help us reach the next round but we still have a very long way to go as a country to eventually lift the trophy.
In this case, the trophy is combating child poverty.
“I don’t claim to have the education of an MP in parliament, but I do have a social education. I am clued up on the difference a U-turn decision would make on the 1.3 million vulnerable children across the UK who are registered for free school meals because 10 years ago I was one of them.”
I hope Leicester do it, but almost as good if Chelsea get it. Still green if others sneak ahead but Leicester/Chelsea would be optimal for me.
Unfortunately, since making a killing in the Holyrood 2007 GE, Paddy Power limits my stakes to a packet of Wrigleys and a couple of Dolly Mixtures.
No, that would be too sensible.
That would be a truly "cake and eat it" deal - we'd have saved billions per annum in membership costs, ended Free Movement (not something I care about), kept full free trade - and what will it have cost us?
And we could spend a few years negotiating new trade deals with foreign partners which continuing to use existing deals in the interim.
https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=2174&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup
I get "invalid selection" even with a 1 penny bet, and even I'm allowed a penny at Paddy Power.
Well actually they don't all apply as EFTA EEA members cannot piggy back on EU trade deals. Nor would they want to given that they have better trade deals than the EU.
I do think a BINO arrangement, sooner rather than later, by a non-Conservative government might be likely, if it turns out we were sold a pup.
Paddy Power, and all other bookies, block me from their websites because of my Swedish IP address. (Since Brexit.) So I am 100% dependent on Oddschecker. I’ll drop them a line.
They couldn't be that stupid could they?
An extension is politically impossible. No Deal is politically and economically such lunacy as to be effectively impossible. Thus there will be no extension and there will be no No Deal.
Leaves us with one thing. A deal substantively on the EU's terms but with enough fig leaf for Johnson to sell to his sucker audience as great for the UK. Watch out for terms such as "phased future divergence" and "dynamic democratic alignment".
That is the plan. A Surrender Deal badged here as a triumph. Just like last time. You don't change a winning formula.
And since the above is the only way that this can turn out - given the politics and the economics - it should be considered a certainty.
https://twitter.com/aventura71/status/1272567972113059842?s=19