The civil service reform is very the reason he was appointed, Johnson, Gove and Cummings have been planning this for years.
That's the problem. They have no plan.
They may have wanted to destroy the civil service for years, but there is no plan for what comes next.
Destroy the old and hope something emerges from the rubble.
They tried it at education.
Epic fuckup
The independent PISA rankings disagree with you. As do hundreds of thousands of parents and children that have benefited from free schools over the past decade - many of whom came from the lower socio-economic groups in inner city locations, and have gone on to graduate from top universities.
Reading has shown a reasonably steady improvement in scores since before the Cameron government.
Science has shown a steady decrease.
Maths showed a sharp increase in the most recent study; I'll let Gove and Cummings have that one.
And whilst there are some great free schools, there have also been some terrible ones. There have been schools which never opened and schools which were closed because they were inadequate. Those parents and children didn't benefit.
Basically this is what you'd expect if you run things with an attitude of "move fast and break things". But we're not talking a new website where the only risk is a Venture Capitalist's money. We're talking the actual education of real children, and you have to be at least a bit cautious. That's the bit of brain missing from both Gove and Cummings. That's why they both resent and need the checks and balances.
Closing down the failing schools, and in many places replacing the management and reopening them as academies, was way overdue before yet another generation of pupils were failed by them. The reforms weren't perfect in every way, but more children are now getting a good education than was previously the case.
Where it's relevant to today, is that it showed up the institutional inertia across government, a civil service full of people who thought 'Yes, Minister' was a documentary, made to highlight their role in frustrating the government of the day. This is what the government are determined to address, against the howls of anguish from the entrenched interests.
I think the evidence on the effectiveness of the Academies programme is more mixed than you suggest. I am not an ideological opponent of Academies (my own kids attend them) but I think one needs to be really focused on the evidence rather than simply asserting that educational reforms have been transformative when they really haven't.
A "Rooseveltian approach" is not saying he is like Roosevelt. It gives an idea (for those who know a bit more history than most) of what they are trying to do.
When I do my couch to 5km challenge I get encouragement from my good pal Michael Johnson. By listening to him and taking his encouragement am I comparing myself to one of the greatest runners of all time? I hardly think so.
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
You don't have to associate yourself with violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism to fight racism. Still, that's the way he chose to advertise it
You really have become utterly unhinged on this one. Even the most rabid Tories cannot seriously think that Starmer associates himself with "violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism". Starmer has condemned all violence, and has already done plenty to demonstrate that he has no time for far left Marxists or anti-semitism.
You are losing credibility with your frequent posts of Starmer taking the knee and your bizarre interpretation of it.
What credibility?
I don't really care what other people on here think, I say it as I see it. I've been told I was talking nonsense here many times and been right.
BLM are marxists, their website paraphrases the communist manifesto. They are anti Semitic, they bang on about Zionism. They want to defund the police and now we see violence against police and their property after BLM rallies. They're to the left of Corbyn, and Starmer adopts their pose.
So, far from refusing to give the Tories a culture war, he is the only one to have explicitly taken sides
Well said. For someone who apparently 'wants to avoid a culture war', he sure put his foot - or rather his knee - in it the first chance he got, and tweeted it all out to the world for virtue-signalling points.
It's doomed as a strategy anyway - lefties live for the culture war. Controlling speech, cancelling people, wrecking monuments, banning this, no-platforming that, getting that person sacked - it's not just their job, it's their passion!
And that's the albatross around Labour's neck that makes the public think twice before putting them in power.
p.s. You have an awful lot of credibility on this topic - which is why they don't like you bringing up this particular sore point.
Nothing you say on this topic is of any relevance. You are as obsessed as the people you claim to hate. It’s frankly embarrassing.
Anyone care to guess ...? ...CanSino declined to disclose whether the innoculation of the vaccine candidate is mandatory or optional, citing commercial secrets...
Don't worry - I am quite sure they did a mass study on volunteers.
Volunteers in the boarding schools they so kindly setup to help the Uighurs become good citizens.
I called this several months ago. The Chinese will be desparate to be the first to claim they have a working vaccine. How much it works or what side effects will be secondary.
What advantage would it be to the Chinese - or anybody else for that matter - to have the first vaccine if it didn't work or had bad side effects? There's no election pending in China.
A combination of wanting to sell seven billion of them, and wanting to show the world that they're at the forefront of medicine?
(Whist really hoping we all forget about the dodgy food markets).
Do any of you do any trading or anything like that? I've recently got into oil
Just make sure you close your positions in time. You don't want to get a call from Cushing, Oklahoma saying the tanker's arrived and where would you like to put the stuff?
Do any of you do any trading or anything like that? I've recently got into oil
Just make sure you close your positions in time. You don't want to get a call from Cushing, Oklahoma saying the tanker's arrived and where would you like to put the stuff?
I'm trading CFDs that automatically close before expiry, so no risk at present but thanks for the advice.
Anyone care to guess ...? ...CanSino declined to disclose whether the innoculation of the vaccine candidate is mandatory or optional, citing commercial secrets...
Don't worry - I am quite sure they did a mass study on volunteers.
Volunteers in the boarding schools they so kindly setup to help the Uighurs become good citizens.
I called this several months ago. The Chinese will be desparate to be the first to claim they have a working vaccine. How much it works or what side effects will be secondary.
What advantage would it be to the Chinese - or anybody else for that matter - to have the first vaccine if it didn't work or had bad side effects? There's no election pending in China.
A combination of wanting to sell seven billion of them, and wanting to show the world that they're at the forefront of medicine?
(Whist really hoping we all forget about the dodgy food markets).
Well that wouldn't work "if it didn't work or had bad side effects", would it?
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
You don't have to associate yourself with violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism to fight racism. Still, that's the way he chose to advertise it
It is better than not fighting racism at all. Which would be the preference of most of the people who are upset by the Starmer photo or trying to use it against him.
Well lets take the Dom one as an example since he so triggers you. There are approximately 430k people working in the Whitehall civil service. Do you really believe for a moment that Dom wants to take an axe to all of them? Or is he looking for some slightly more dynamic leadership at the top? I mean, what do you think might be a more accurate description?
History suggests he would happily fire all 430k if they didn't endorse his latest scheme
How come Brexiteers are so supportive of Dominic Cummings when they hate unelected bureaucrats? Or is it just British exceptionalism which is actually covering thinly veiled racism again
Agreed; we didn’t have debt-deflation, because the BoE is not insane & nor was the government. But the realignment of the economy that we saw was around low-productivity service jobs, many of which are only viable thanks to government subsidies in the form of in-work benefits. We could have done so much better.
The government could have invested in training & infrastructure projects, but deliberately chose not to do so at a time when borrowing costs were the lowest they had been in a century. Pension funds everywhere were falling over themselves to lend money to the government at almost any rates offered. Honestly, I still don’t really understand why the government didn’t take the hint, but there it is.
The government couldn't afford it. We needed to get the deficit under control after years of "investment" from Brown.
The deficit was going to balloon anyway & the markets didn’t care, as demonstrated by the long term bond rates. So the short term expenditure is irrelevant: what matters is that people believe in the future of your economy.
Ergo, Osborne was right to hold his ground on day-to-day government expenditure, but we would have been in a far better position if he’d spent on infrastructure + training to match.
The UK unemployment rate from 2009-2013 was 8%, double that before the crisis. That’s millions of people on the dole who could have been doing useful work, or been in training for something worthwhile. Since then the unemployment rate has dropped back to 4-5%, but that’s been driven mostly by women going out to work in low wage service industry jobs. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Osborne’s economic policy, is it?
The deficit was not going to balloon anyway. In fact the deficit shrank every single year from 2010 until COVID19 struck so I'm not sure where you pull such nonsense from, far from ballooning it was brought under control.
As for the long term bond markets, they included expectations that the UK would both elect a Tory government (pre-election) and expectations that the government would do the right thing and bring the deficit under control. Which it did. Had the government kept the spending taps on like Brown had for half a decade before the crash hit then the markets would have reacted differently.
The UK unemployment rate was higher because we'd just had a recession. They found work afterwards. Full employment at all times is a horrible idea that leads to people being in economically unsuitable jobs.
Looking at the situation pre-COVID we had: Full employment, growing wages, the deficit effectively eliminated, a faster growing economy than our peers, debt to GDP falling. A massively ringing endorsement of a job well done by Osborne.
Exactly: the government deficit ballooned enormously in the years immediately following 2008: Markets didn’t care. Osborne chose to reduce the deficit in a period of high unemployment instead of spending on putting those people to good use.
Frankly, full employment is great: full employment means people in jobs, earning money, living fulfilling lives. Nothing about full employment means that people are stuck in some gradgrindish slavery, chained to a single job. On the contrary, genuine full employment means that employers need to actually make the effort to retain their workers, otherwise they start to leave for better options elsewhere.
I just don’t see having an extra 4% of your population sitting around idle waiting for the economy to find a use for them as being the best we could possibly do in the circumstances. Wouldn’t it have been better for those people to have been in almost any kind of training, or if there was infrastructure work to be done that would pay off in the future, to be doing that instead?
Markets did care, there was a great difference between the UK's bond yields and eg Germany's. But the markets also thought the [future Tory] government would put it right and they were right to think that. People who lose money on markets often do so by not realising markets don't just judge what's happening now but what is expected to happen in the future.
The UK has had full employment for years now. Can you name any counter example of a nation whose economics you wish we'd followed more that have had a better employment rate than ours?
You seem to be in denial over the fact that Osborne's economics led to both full employment and a balanced deficit combined.
I’m glad you agree that markets are forward looking. If Osborne had announced that the government intended to sell bonds to fund training plan to prepare those made unemployed after the crisis for future opportunities, or to invest in 3-4 year infrastructure projects, do you really think that the bond markets would have thrown up their hands and given up on the UK? Clearly not - there was no sign that there was any lack of appetite for UK bonds, despite the QE bond buying by the BoE.
So no denial here. Just a sadness over the loss of 6 years of productive work that was burnt on the meaningless alter of "fiscal probity". Were we back to near-full employment in 2019 (ignoring 2020 & Covid-19 obviously): Sure! And that’s great.
But we lost 6 years for nothing. Six years when 4% of the population sat around unable to work, with all the knock-on effects on future earnings & immediate social costs that entails. What a waste.
We didn't lose six years for nothing. We kept throughout our unemployment rate lower than most other European nations running deficits like we were - and we eliminated Brown's deficit that his hubris created.
Can you name any other nation with a comparable deficit to run better unemployment or growth figures than ours over the past decade? Any examples at all please?
"We didn’t do as badly as some others" does not mean that we couldn’t have done better.
Huh, I didn't know he voted against HS2. That's a poor decision from Starmer, HS2 is vital.
Presumably reflected impact of Euston rebuilding on his constituents? I think some residents were treated quite shabbily. Hopefully as LotO he will take a more big picture view. Of course the case for HS2 may be weaker post Covid but I suspect it still makes sense (I love trains so may be biased on this).
Looks like Leicester is going to be the pilot site for the 'tactical lockdown' plans, it's unlikely that the industry in the town isn't to some extent responsible for the spike in cases there.
Nah, just 2 more weeks for pubs, restaurants and hairdressers to stay closed. Not sure what the limits geographically are, and it was a charactestically crap bit of communication from the government.
Numbers of inpatients stable over June, so not a second wave so much as a long fat tail.
@Big_G_NorthWales you were doing so well for a few weeks but now it's back to CCHQ propaganda from you, what a shame. Of course we all knew you'd find a way to go back to being a Johnson fanboy eventually.
Were you here when Big G penned his tory party resignation letter, sealed the Basildon Bond envelope with his own tears and then never sent it? It was fucking mint.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
Always endless!y fascinating to hear how someone without a vote would vote. Of course on the most recent polling, 40%+ of Scottish Labour voters would vote yes.
I used to live in Scotland and vote
I used to get off with beautiful 20 year old women, not any more.
Really? Sounds interesting!
Much more interesting than some of that which is on the site at the moment. I suppose that's what discussing Trump does to us!
A fairly normal pursuit for a twentyish presentable bloke. Nowadays I would hesitate to comment on the getting off with beautiful 20 year old women demographic, let alone speculate on their motivations.
However as with so many areas, I believe PB has a hands-on expert on the subject.
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
You don't have to associate yourself with violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism to fight racism. Still, that's the way he chose to advertise it
You really have become utterly unhinged on this one. Even the most rabid Tories cannot seriously think that Starmer associates himself with "violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism". Starmer has condemned all violence, and has already done plenty to demonstrate that he has no time for far left Marxists or anti-semitism.
You are losing credibility with your frequent posts of Starmer taking the knee and your bizarre interpretation of it.
Just leave the moronic, nutty Tories to it. It's a complete waste of time and effort arguing with some people.
I don't believe isam's ever identified himself as a Tory. He's for years been a UKIP/Farage fan though now that UKIP have folded I don't know if he has a natural home.
Previously member of the Labour party.
I want ever a member of Labour, I just used to vote for them
@Big_G_NorthWales you were doing so well for a few weeks but now it's back to CCHQ propaganda from you, what a shame. Of course we all knew you'd find a way to go back to being a Johnson fanboy eventually.
Were you here when Big G penned his tory party resignation letter, sealed the Basildon Bond envelope with his own tears and then never sent it? It was fucking mint.
I sent it all right with copies to the Welsh party chairman and my local AM
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
Always endless!y fascinating to hear how someone without a vote would vote. Of course on the most recent polling, 40%+ of Scottish Labour voters would vote yes.
I used to live in Scotland and vote
I used to get off with beautiful 20 year old women, not any more.
I still do. Of course she is not 20 anymore. But neither am I.
Nationalism is a poisonous disease that is based on prejudice and hatred, and it gradually infects the body politic of nations . The Scottish version is based on the poorly disguised hatred of English people, and the English version (Brexit) is based on the poorly disguised hatred of French and Germans.
This is undeniably true, and both sets of petty nationalists get really upset when anyone points this out.
Which is why Brexit is such a terrible idea.
I know, I know. But I've been pro-European getting together since I was about 18 and while I'm not averse to changing my mind I see no reason to do so on that topic.
And Pan-Europeanism is a just as much based on dislike of the US... :-)
Orwell on nationalism summed it up - the supra-nationalisms are just another layer in the same game.
I'm pretty sure Voltaire wasn't motivated by anti-Americanism.
I was talking about the modern version - it doesn't take much to get pro European politicians talking about the wonders of Europe vs the US in quite a... nationalistic way.
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
How very dare Cummings prioritize new houses over loft insulation...
Here's the thing though. The key word mentioned is that insulation is "boring".
Now to be fair to Dom, it's a second-hand report. His actual views may be more nuanced than that.
But, as someone who has the kind of physics qualifications that Dom C professes to respect, it shows the shallowness of his science-ness.
Getting loft insulation right is boring. But it's also something that the UK hasn't got right in the past, doesn't cost much, pays for itself pretty quickly, improves people's standard of living by reducing fuel bills and benefits the environment.
It's not sexy, but it's a no-brainer and the sort of thing where Dom's persuasive talents could actually do some good.
It parallels the things that seem to have gone wrong with the management of the Virus. Huge management effort went into the Nightingale hospitals, the ventilator challenge, the app... if we look at the countries who are managing this thing well, they put their effort into old-school contact tracing much earlier than we did. When the inquiry comes, the government had better have a better excuse than contact tracing is boring.
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
You don't have to associate yourself with violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism to fight racism. Still, that's the way he chose to advertise it
You really have become utterly unhinged on this one. Even the most rabid Tories cannot seriously think that Starmer associates himself with "violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism". Starmer has condemned all violence, and has already done plenty to demonstrate that he has no time for far left Marxists or anti-semitism.
You are losing credibility with your frequent posts of Starmer taking the knee and your bizarre interpretation of it.
What credibility?
I don't really care what other people on here think, I say it as I see it. I've been told I was talking nonsense here many times and been right.
BLM are marxists, their website paraphrases the communist manifesto. They are anti Semitic, they bang on about Zionism. They want to defund the police and now we see violence against police and their property after BLM rallies. They're to the left of Corbyn, and Starmer adopts their pose.
So, far from refusing to give the Tories a culture war, he is the only one to have explicitly taken sides
Well said. For someone who apparently 'wants to avoid a culture war', he sure put his foot - or rather his knee - in it the first chance he got, and tweeted it all out to the world for virtue-signalling points.
It's doomed as a strategy anyway - lefties live for the culture war. Controlling speech, cancelling people, wrecking monuments, banning this, no-platforming that, getting that person sacked - it's not just their job, it's their passion!
And that's the albatross around Labour's neck that makes the public think twice before putting them in power.
p.s. Isam - you have an awful lot of credibility on this topic - which is why they don't like you bringing up this particular sore point.
Seems like one or two on here have deluded themselves that everyone who voted Conservative in 2019 shares their unpleasant views on these matters, displaying the same sort of hubris that brought the liberal consensus down a few years earlier.
If Starmer continues behaving as he is, avoiding a culture war but doing what is right, and Tories keep trying to villify him for kneeling in support of an event marking George Floyd's death, it will do much to reaffirm their status as the Nasty Party. Please carry on!
Well done Scotland and I am sure most will think, this is fantastic news for the UK as a whole.
Its a pity we are still dithering about opening things up though. Some shops today but not in shopping centres. Bars and restaurants who knows when? Barbers and hairdressers on 15th July. Spas and tattoo parlours (not that I ever use either) unspecified. It's chaotic and undermines acceptance of the remaining guidance which seems to be almost universally ignored as a result.
Nationalism is a poisonous disease that is based on prejudice and hatred, and it gradually infects the body politic of nations . The Scottish version is based on the poorly disguised hatred of English people, and the English version (Brexit) is based on the poorly disguised hatred of French and Germans.
This is undeniably true, and both sets of petty nationalists get really upset when anyone points this out.
Which is why Brexit is such a terrible idea.
I know, I know. But I've been pro-European getting together since I was about 18 and while I'm not averse to changing my mind I see no reason to do so on that topic.
And Pan-Europeanism is a just as much based on dislike of the US... :-)
Orwell on nationalism summed it up - the supra-nationalisms are just another layer in the same game.
I'm pretty sure Voltaire wasn't motivated by anti-Americanism.
I was talking about the modern version - it doesn't take much to get pro European politicians talking about the wonders of Europe vs the US in quite a... nationalistic way.
There's nothing wrong with nationalism. On its own it can be a virtue not a vice, it is when it is abused by extremists it becomes bad.
Agreed; we didn’t have debt-deflation, because the BoE is not insane & nor was the government. But the realignment of the economy that we saw was around low-productivity service jobs, many of which are only viable thanks to government subsidies in the form of in-work benefits. We could have done so much better.
The government could have invested in training & infrastructure projects, but deliberately chose not to do so at a time when borrowing costs were the lowest they had been in a century. Pension funds everywhere were falling over themselves to lend money to the government at almost any rates offered. Honestly, I still don’t really understand why the government didn’t take the hint, but there it is.
The government couldn't afford it. We needed to get the deficit under control after years of "investment" from Brown.
The deficit was going to balloon anyway & the markets didn’t care, as demonstrated by the long term bond rates. So the short term expenditure is irrelevant: what matters is that people believe in the future of your economy.
Ergo, Osborne was right to hold his ground on day-to-day government expenditure, but we would have been in a far better position if he’d spent on infrastructure + training to match.
The UK unemployment rate from 2009-2013 was 8%, double that before the crisis. That’s millions of people on the dole who could have been doing useful work, or been in training for something worthwhile. Since then the unemployment rate has dropped back to 4-5%, but that’s been driven mostly by women going out to work in low wage service industry jobs. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Osborne’s economic policy, is it?
The deficit was not going to balloon anyway. In fact the deficit shrank every single year from 2010 until COVID19 struck so I'm not sure where you pull such nonsense from, far from ballooning it was brought under control.
As for the long term bond markets, they included expectations that the UK would both elect a Tory government (pre-election) and expectations that the government would do the right thing and bring the deficit under control. Which it did. Had the government kept the spending taps on like Brown had for half a decade before the crash hit then the markets would have reacted differently.
The UK unemployment rate was higher because we'd just had a recession. They found work afterwards. Full employment at all times is a horrible idea that leads to people being in economically unsuitable jobs.
Looking at the situation pre-COVID we had: Full employment, growing wages, the deficit effectively eliminated, a faster growing economy than our peers, debt to GDP falling. A massively ringing endorsement of a job well done by Osborne.
Exactly: the government deficit ballooned enormously in the years immediately following 2008: Markets didn’t care. Osborne chose to reduce the deficit in a period of high unemployment instead of spending on putting those people to good use.
Frankly, full employment is great: full employment means people in jobs, earning money, living fulfilling lives. Nothing about full employment means that people are stuck in some gradgrindish slavery, chained to a single job. On the contrary, genuine full employment means that employers need to actually make the effort to retain their workers, otherwise they start to leave for better options elsewhere.
I just don’t see having an extra 4% of your population sitting around idle waiting for the economy to find a use for them as being the best we could possibly do in the circumstances. Wouldn’t it have been better for those people to have been in almost any kind of training, or if there was infrastructure work to be done that would pay off in the future, to be doing that instead?
Markets did care, there was a great difference between the UK's bond yields and eg Germany's. But the markets also thought the [future Tory] government would put it right and they were right to think that. People who lose money on markets often do so by not realising markets don't just judge what's happening now but what is expected to happen in the future.
The UK has had full employment for years now. Can you name any counter example of a nation whose economics you wish we'd followed more that have had a better employment rate than ours?
You seem to be in denial over the fact that Osborne's economics led to both full employment and a balanced deficit combined.
I’m glad you agree that markets are forward looking. If Osborne had announced that the government intended to sell bonds to fund training plan to prepare those made unemployed after the crisis for future opportunities, or to invest in 3-4 year infrastructure projects, do you really think that the bond markets would have thrown up their hands and given up on the UK? Clearly not - there was no sign that there was any lack of appetite for UK bonds, despite the QE bond buying by the BoE.
So no denial here. Just a sadness over the loss of 6 years of productive work that was burnt on the meaningless alter of "fiscal probity". Were we back to near-full employment in 2019 (ignoring 2020 & Covid-19 obviously): Sure! And that’s great.
But we lost 6 years for nothing. Six years when 4% of the population sat around unable to work, with all the knock-on effects on future earnings & immediate social costs that entails. What a waste.
We didn't lose six years for nothing. We kept throughout our unemployment rate lower than most other European nations running deficits like we were - and we eliminated Brown's deficit that his hubris created.
Can you name any other nation with a comparable deficit to run better unemployment or growth figures than ours over the past decade? Any examples at all please?
"We didn’t do as badly as some others" does not mean that we couldn’t have done better.
We did well. We achieved what we wanted to (fixing Brown's mess), we grew and did better than all others.
You're the one claiming, despite all evidence, that we should have done something other than what we did. Something other than what worked well. What is it then? What example is it that it works?
Or are you claiming that despite us being best in class we could have been even better. Its that sort of hubris that led to Brown's deficit in the first place!
The civil service reform is very the reason he was appointed, Johnson, Gove and Cummings have been planning this for years.
That's the problem. They have no plan.
They may have wanted to destroy the civil service for years, but there is no plan for what comes next.
Destroy the old and hope something emerges from the rubble.
They tried it at education.
Epic fuckup
The independent PISA rankings disagree with you. As do hundreds of thousands of parents and children that have benefited from free schools over the past decade - many of whom came from the lower socio-economic groups in inner city locations, and have gone on to graduate from top universities.
Reading has shown a reasonably steady improvement in scores since before the Cameron government.
Science has shown a steady decrease.
Maths showed a sharp increase in the most recent study; I'll let Gove and Cummings have that one.
And whilst there are some great free schools, there have also been some terrible ones. There have been schools which never opened and schools which were closed because they were inadequate. Those parents and children didn't benefit.
Basically this is what you'd expect if you run things with an attitude of "move fast and break things". But we're not talking a new website where the only risk is a Venture Capitalist's money. We're talking the actual education of real children, and you have to be at least a bit cautious. That's the bit of brain missing from both Gove and Cummings. That's why they both resent and need the checks and balances.
Closing down the failing schools, and in many places replacing the management and reopening them as academies, was way overdue before yet another generation of pupils were failed by them. The reforms weren't perfect in every way, but more children are now getting a good education than was previously the case.
Where it's relevant to today, is that it showed up the institutional inertia across government, a civil service full of people who thought 'Yes, Minister' was a documentary, made to highlight their role in frustrating the government of the day. This is what the government are determined to address, against the howls of anguish from the entrenched interests.
I think the evidence on the effectiveness of the Academies programme is more mixed than you suggest. I am not an ideological opponent of Academies (my own kids attend them) but I think one needs to be really focused on the evidence rather than simply asserting that educational reforms have been transformative when they really haven't.
Yes, there's a school I know well that was falling apart because the LEA didn't help it properly when it really needed it; conversion to an academy should benefit that school a lot. (Though there are now schools which are having to be moved from one trust to another because academy conversion doesn't always work).
Not everything Gove did at education was wrong. Lots was needed and some helped. But a lot of avoidable mistakes were made, because "are you sure this is wise, Sir?" was interpreted as the Intransigent Blob.
SKS probably doing his level best not to stick his hand into the meat grinder that is TERF / trans politics, but he’s probably going to have to work out a way to either thread that needle or pick a side (which will have to be the trans side, there’s no way the Labour party will wear anything else) without frightening the horses.
Societal change is not always easy & I understand the visceral response that some women have to the idea of trans-women, but TERF types are busy repeating the same tired old arguments that were used against gay people in the 70s: When you find yourself sharing political space with US Dominionist Christians it might be time to take a long hard look at yourself and ask "are we the baddies?".
If you’re using the actions of one or two sociopaths as a stick to beat an entire vulnerable community, just as the actions of paedophiles were used in the past as an excuse to repress gay people, then your arguments are deeply suspect. They ought to be able to stand up on their own, without needing the shock value of the actions of individuals that could have been prevented in far less interventionist ways.
Fundamentally it comes done to conflicting rights. Women’s refuges are about protecting people and making them *feel* safe. If they are accessible to trans people in the early stages of the process (not sure of the right terminology but no offence intended) and who still physically resemble men then that could undermine the process.
Women's shelters have the absolute and total right to refuse trans-women entry. No-one is proposing any changes to legislation that would alter that.
Any women's shelter or rape crisis centre that accepts trans women has freely chosen to do so and has set their own limits on what they find acceptable.
There are anti-trans activists who repeat the claim that shelters will be forced to accept trans-women but this is not true. It is exactly the same tactic as used by anti-gay marriage proponents who kept claiming that churches would be forced to marry gay couples.
Fair enough. It’s not a debate I’ve paid any attention to whatsoever (beyond converting one of the gents at my office to a unisex facility). That’s the only claim I’m aware of but I’ve not checked at all whether it’s accurate or fair.
They did, though, uniquely call Wisconsin correctly in 2016... albeit they overestimated Trump's lead there and elsewhere that they polled (indeed, Biden would narrowly win Wisconsin if this poll had the same error as in 2016).
I agree paying too much attention to single polls rather than the average is a mistake, but equally let's not totally dismiss something as a rogue poll just because it's out of line, particularly when it's from a pollster that did reasonably well overall in 2016.
The way to separate the issues is by doing what Starmer and the Premier League is doing. Every single decent person should be saying Black Lives Matter - because they do. And we should ensure we demonstrate that through appropriate means.
If an organisation says extreme things that aren't relevant to the catchphrase then sideline and ignore the organisation. That may sound arrogant, it might even be "appropriation" but its right to do.
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Err, the posturing is irrelevant its the quantum of the "concessions" which do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
How very dare Cummings prioritize new houses over loft insulation...
Here's the thing though. The key word mentioned is that insulation is "boring".
Now to be fair to Dom, it's a second-hand report. His actual views may be more nuanced than that.
But, as someone who has the kind of physics qualifications that Dom C professes to respect, it shows the shallowness of his science-ness.
Getting loft insulation right is boring. But it's also something that the UK hasn't got right in the past, doesn't cost much, pays for itself pretty quickly, improves people's standard of living by reducing fuel bills and benefits the environment.
It's not sexy, but it's a no-brainer and the sort of thing where Dom's persuasive talents could actually do some good.
It parallels the things that seem to have gone wrong with the management of the Virus. Huge management effort went into the Nightingale hospitals, the ventilator challenge, the app... if we look at the countries who are managing this thing well, they put their effort into old-school contact tracing much earlier than we did. When the inquiry comes, the government had better have a better excuse than contact tracing is boring.
Given that loft and cavity wall insulation has been free for almost all people for the past 20 years I suspect all the low hanging fruit has been caught.
What is now left with older homes is the harder and far more expensive items such as external or internal wall insulation.
Looks like Leicester is going to be the pilot site for the 'tactical lockdown' plans, it's unlikely that the industry in the town isn't to some extent responsible for the spike in cases there.
Nah, just 2 more weeks for pubs, restaurants and hairdressers to stay closed. Not sure what the limits geographically are, and it was a charactestically crap bit of communication from the government.
Numbers of inpatients stable over June, so not a second wave so much as a long fat tail.
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Err, the posturing is irrelevant its the quantum of the "concessions" which do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
No, the link says the EU has conceded on LPF provisions. Which means a looser agreement with the potential for retaliatory tariffs but that's what we've been calling for.
The UK was the one demanding it. It was Frost himself who first suggested that if zero tariffs were what was getting in the way of the EU backing down on the LPF then the UK would be prepared to have tariffs.
Barnier wasn't interested in that but fast forward a month or two later and now Frost's solution is winning the day. The "concession" is to follow through with what we suggested months ago. Long may we continue to concede if that's how negotiations are going!
The job should not be saying "you can't do that". The job should be saying "if you want to do that, you must do this and the consequence will be these and the risk is that". Simply saying no should not be the job.
Well done Scotland and I am sure most will think, this is fantastic news for the UK as a whole.
Its a pity we are still dithering about opening things up though. Some shops today but not in shopping centres. Bars and restaurants who knows when? Barbers and hairdressers on 15th July. Spas and tattoo parlours (not that I ever use either) unspecified. It's chaotic and undermines acceptance of the remaining guidance which seems to be almost universally ignored as a result.
I would be cautious about the news from Scotland until we are out of the weekend reporting "shadow"
How come Brexiteers are so supportive of Dominic Cummings when they hate unelected bureaucrats? Or is it just British exceptionalism which is actually covering thinly veiled racism again
Because he's appointed by our elected Government, and those in Europe are not. It's really not difficult to understand.
Oh, and as for the accusation of 'British exceptionalism covering thinly veiled racism' - that's a prime example of the leftwing culture war right there, which you hypocritically pretend to have no part in.
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
If we hadn't been repeatedly told it was impossible, short of complete surrender, I would think we might be on course to get a deal.
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Err, the posturing is irrelevant its the quantum of the "concessions" which do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
No, the link says the EU has conceded on LPF provisions. Which means a looser agreement with the potential for retaliatory tariffs but that's what we've been calling for.
The UK was the one demanding it. It was Frost himself who first suggested that if zero tariffs were what was getting in the way of the EU backing down on the LPF then the UK would be prepared to have tariffs.
Barnier wasn't interested in that but fast forward a month or two later and now Frost's solution is winning the day. The "concession" is to follow through with what we suggested months ago. Long may we continue to concede if that's how negotiations are going!
Can you read? Admitedly its a tiny NIB but the LPF's will be enforced and you can tell that because it says that the ECJ will not be policing them. Therefore someone or something else will, almost certainly the UK government actually with EU oversight which the EU already does for standards monitoing in other trade agreements.
What has the EU actually conceded here? A different body to oversee the LPFs - big win!
The job should not be saying "you can't do that". The job should be saying "if you want to do that, you must do this and the consequence will be these and the risk is that". Simply saying no should not be the job.
Rubbish. If a Minister proposes something that is illegal, for instance, the correct advice is to say no, you cannot do that. If a Minister proposes to do something that is dishonest or corrupt, no is the answer which should be given.
I have been in exactly this situation when I worked as a government legal advisor.
Speaking truth to power is exactly what advisors should be doing and those in power should listen.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
David, I have to agree with much of what you say , however the boil needs lancing before we can proceed. Independence and then we can elect the government we want. As long as we are ruled from England and only given pocket money the SNP will be in power. We need to throw off the yoke and start afresh.
Trump is 89% to win the nomination Trump is 33.5% to win the Presidency GOP is 35.5% to win the Presidency
My brain is short circuiting to work out what Trump not getting the Nom would mean for the GOP winning party price?
If those figures represented objective truth then the conditional probability of the GOP winning the presidency given that their candidate wasn't Trump would be 18% :-)
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Err, the posturing is irrelevant its the quantum of the "concessions" which do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
No, the link says the EU has conceded on LPF provisions. Which means a looser agreement with the potential for retaliatory tariffs but that's what we've been calling for.
The UK was the one demanding it. It was Frost himself who first suggested that if zero tariffs were what was getting in the way of the EU backing down on the LPF then the UK would be prepared to have tariffs.
Barnier wasn't interested in that but fast forward a month or two later and now Frost's solution is winning the day. The "concession" is to follow through with what we suggested months ago. Long may we continue to concede if that's how negotiations are going!
Can you read? Admitedly its a tiny NIB but the LPF's will be enforced and you can tell that because it says that the ECJ will not be policing them. Therefore someone or something else will, almost certainly the UK government actually with EU oversight which the EU already does for standards monitoing in other trade agreements.
What has the EU actually conceded here? A different body to oversee the LPFs - big win!
All it took was a weekend and possibility of retaliatory tarrifs is accepted.
If these reports are true the EU has conceded we will not be tied into dynamic alignment of EU LPF rules.
As for what Frost said last week, never believe anything until its been officially denied. Of course if both sides never made compromises then a deal would be impossible.
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
The Tories want a culture war. They need ongoing division in order to win. That's what Cummings is all about. However, Starmer will not give them one. The big question is whether he can bring the rest of the Labour party with him. My guess is that most Labour members and MPs will happily back him, but the ones who won't will make a lot of noise.
He's already done it
There will be some who will never forgive Keir Starmer for showing solidarity with the BAME communities in that way. But my guess is that they will be in a minority. I don't think most people in the UK will have a problem with it.
You don't have to associate yourself with violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism to fight racism. Still, that's the way he chose to advertise it
You really have become utterly unhinged on this one. Even the most rabid Tories cannot seriously think that Starmer associates himself with "violence against the police, extreme left Marxists and anti Semitism". Starmer has condemned all violence, and has already done plenty to demonstrate that he has no time for far left Marxists or anti-semitism.
You are losing credibility with your frequent posts of Starmer taking the knee and your bizarre interpretation of it.
I agree but he does have one thing right - the shiny almost electric suit.
Well done Scotland and I am sure most will think, this is fantastic news for the UK as a whole.
It is the result of Nicola following Devi Sridhar's advice in her advocacy of a very tight lockdown aimed at supressing the Sars-Cov2 virus completely in Scotland: the same policy as New Zealand. Contrast with the much higher infection rates and erratic lockdown in England. You know what comes next.
The job should not be saying "you can't do that". The job should be saying "if you want to do that, you must do this and the consequence will be these and the risk is that". Simply saying no should not be the job.
Rubbish. If a Minister proposes something that is illegal, for instance, the correct advice is to say no, you cannot do that. If a Minister proposes to do something that is dishonest or corrupt, no is the answer which should be given.
I have been in exactly this situation when I worked as a government legal advisor.
Speaking truth to power is exactly what advisors should be doing and those in power should listen.
No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.
The time to make a real mark on Labour is when the EHRC investigation comes out. If RLB is anything to go by, Starmer is going to have a large cleanout.
And that is where the problem arises.
It is easy to sack a cabinet minister but retain the whip
If as expected the ECHR report is scathing and names individual mps Starmer will have no choice but to expel them from the labour party, possibly including some of the better known backbenchers
If that really does arise it will very definitely be his 'Kinnock' moment which I remember so vividly
The Tories allow a bloke who has called Africans picanninies with water melon smiles to retain the whip - even when he has also claimed they woud be better off ruled by Europeans. Every party has its racists, but at least Starmer seems intent on taking on the ones Labour is home to.
The conservatives are not facing an ECHR report
Does that make having racist MPs OK then?
SO don't you know they have a majority of 80 and can ride roughshod over anybody and anything they want , as we are often told by the fanboys on here.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
David, I have to agree with much of what you say , however the boil needs lancing before we can proceed. Independence and then we can elect the government we want. As long as we are ruled from England and only given pocket money the SNP will be in power. We need to throw off the yoke and start afresh.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
Always endless!y fascinating to hear how someone without a vote would vote. Of course on the most recent polling, 40%+ of Scottish Labour voters would vote yes.
I used to live in Scotland and vote
I used to get off with beautiful 20 year old women, not any more.
Really? Sounds interesting!
Much more interesting than some of that which is on the site at the moment. I suppose that's what discussing Trump does to us!
Trump brings out the worst in everyone. It is his singular skill but he does possess it in spades.
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
I understand that but it is what keeps this issue alive.
In a representative democracy it is not sufficient to simply win a referendum and that is it. It is necessary to both win a referendum and elect a government and a Parliament that respects the referendum.
Scotland post-2014 and the UK from 2017 failed in this respect. In Scotland the referendum result, Holyrood and the government do not align. They do not respect each others results.
In the UK from 2017 to 2019 we had the same problem. The House of Commons did not reflect the referendum result and MPs like Grieve went out of their way to try and reverse it. It is only by changing the composition of the Commons in December 2019 that now the Commons reflects the will of the voter in the referendum and we can start to move on.
Scotland needs to decide what it wants. To use a vulgar expression it needs to "crap or get off the pot". Then it needs its government, referendum result and Holyrood to be aligned on respecting the result.
Yet we are constantly told we can only do what we want at the whim of Bozo the Clown despite constant mandates for an independence vote..
But but but yesterday ydoethur was after telling us that the shift to Yes was mythical and all MoE stuff and that Britannia would rule over Caledonia for a thousand years. Or something like that.
Now they imagine Scottish Tories will vote Labour , barking
Even if there is a significant SCon to SLab swing, it is actually a far less efficient use of the Unionist vote in Scotland.
If you simply switch the SLab and SCon percentage vote from last year (18.6% and 25.1% respectively) then these two parties actually end up with two fewer MPs (2 SLab + 3 SCon = 5; compared with current 1SLab + 6 SCon = 7).
There is of course the question of what happens to the 9.5% the SLDs got last year. I haven’t a scoobie, but I’m open to suggestions.
Strongly Unionist voters would probably be well-advised sticking with the SCons, but I’m sure SLab will do their utmost to muddy the waters and lure a significant chunk to waste their votes on them instead.
That's simplistic Stuart. In the north east, the borders and rural areas it makes sense to vote Tory. In Glasgow, where there is a whole crop of low hanging fruit just out of SLAB's grasp it doesn't. Voting Labour was deeply problematic with Corbyn in charge and beyond most Tory's comfort zone. They may not have the same problem with Sir Kneel.
Of course the 3 way split of the Unionist vote helps the SNP enormously. Unionists need to think about the efficiency of their votes.
Surely it depends how important unionism is as an issue.
Some people might be willing to vote No in a referendum but not care that much elsewhere in which case the notion of Tory or Lab being interchangeable is silly.
Scottish politics is dominated by the Independence debate. Its extremely unhealthy, leads to the neglect of various priorities and is deeply frustrating but it is what it is.
It is the most important political event in Scotland David so hardly surprising. Neglect and obstruction by Westminster and removal of the few powers we had are our main problems. We will never prosper whilst our bullying large neighbour controls our money and our economy.
We have control of schools but have had the uncorrected disaster of Curriculum for Excellence resulting in our falling down the Pisa tables because the government is scared of taking on the EIS and making teachers accountable for their results.
We have control of our police and the total embarrassment of Police Scotland and a police force that seems ever more focused on politics rather than actual crime prevention.
We have control of our criminal justice system. Its a disgrace, constantly fiddling with new crimes to make political points, trying to tip the playing field in favour of complainers because the rape conviction rate is deemed not high enough and letting psychopaths out of overcrowded prisons because some boxes have been ticked.
We have control of our University sector. We are now in serious danger of real damage to our leading 3 Universities because of a dishonest system which involved Scottish students getting fewer and fewer places whilst being subsidised by the English students paying 5x as much for the same course.
The sad truth is that the opposition both Tory and Labour are not really addressing these issues either. Instead we have election after election dominated by the sterile debate of independence and Scotland's urgent problems remain neglected or an after thought.
It is of course an irony that the cumulative damage done by this neglect pushes Scotland further and further from being a viable country.
How do you see that ever ending without independence?
It is part of the reason why I support Scottish independence. To excise that issue from your body politic and give Scottish politicians nowhere to hide.
Given Scotland will always by definition be a minority of the UK I don't see any other plausible way for that to end now its been stirred.
I fear we are going to have to go through another referendum with yet more damage to our tax base (so many companies went south in the period before and after 2014) and our economy. When Independence loses again we will hopefully have an administration and opposition that actually wants to pay attention to the knitting.
The once in a generation referendum resolved nothing ultimately. I suppose you have to be sanguine about a second referendum doing any better but I don't see an alternative.
Regretfully your referendum didn't resolve anything because it gave the wrong answer.
The question of the UK's membership of the EU has been resolved. Its taking years to get through that to the other side, but the question has been answered. Your one hasn't.
If you consider yourself British, as it turned out a majority of Scots did, it gave the right answer but just as with Brexit those on the losing side won't accept the result because they know better.
Brexit is indicative of what is at stake here. Ultimately the budget of the EU was 1% of EU GDP. That is what we were arguing about, the petty cash. UK public spending is approximately 42% of the Scottish economy. We were in the EU for less than 50 years. We have been in a union with England for more than 300 years. Brexit, and all its aftermath, is going to seem like some minor disagreement in the pub compared with what Scottish independence would entail.
The Scots have given the wrong answer at least once.
Either they were wrong to vote No, or they were wrong to elect an SNP government.
They need to collectively either stop voting No, or stop voting SNP.
You maybe do not understand that the SNP attract many who support the union but like their policies ex independence. Indeed I would have voted SNP when I lived in Scotland but at the time labour was the only party on the left
However, voting for independence would have been a very resolute no for me and many current SNP voters
I understand that but it is what keeps this issue alive.
In a representative democracy it is not sufficient to simply win a referendum and that is it. It is necessary to both win a referendum and elect a government and a Parliament that respects the referendum.
Scotland post-2014 and the UK from 2017 failed in this respect. In Scotland the referendum result, Holyrood and the government do not align. They do not respect each others results.
In the UK from 2017 to 2019 we had the same problem. The House of Commons did not reflect the referendum result and MPs like Grieve went out of their way to try and reverse it. It is only by changing the composition of the Commons in December 2019 that now the Commons reflects the will of the voter in the referendum and we can start to move on.
Scotland needs to decide what it wants. To use a vulgar expression it needs to "crap or get off the pot". Then it needs its government, referendum result and Holyrood to be aligned on respecting the result.
Yet we are constantly told we can only do what we want at the whim of Bozo the Clown despite constant mandates for an independence vote..
That's because you voted No in 2014. Had you voted Yes then it would be moot, but you voted No and so now are tied in to the whims of the UK government as a part of the UK.
Bear that in mind next time. Next time, if you don't want the same thing to happen again vote Yes.
The confidence which some posters have in their own beliefs is breathtaking! To be so sure of your views and so strident in expressing them leaves me cold. I would rather there was some evidence of rational thought posted alongside the blunt ‘this is what I think and I’m right’ approach. They don’t add to the wider understanding of the electorate but I’m sure they are happy in their self supporting bubble continually reassuring each other they are right.
No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.
Assuming it was only illegal domestically.
There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
It is actually becoming very amusing how much Boris and Cummings are exercising the remainers. Indeed this is exactly why leave won
It's also exactly why they were all so determined to get Cummings a couple of months ago.
The civil service reform is very the reason he was appointed, Johnson, Gove and Cummings have been planning this for years.
Yes , a bunch of nodding donkeys will be a huge improvement. Cummings will be able to have as many eye tests as he likes, Gove can slither and lie and Bozo can do nothing.
No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.
Assuming it was only illegal domestically.
There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.
The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
The job should not be saying "you can't do that". The job should be saying "if you want to do that, you must do this and the consequence will be these and the risk is that". Simply saying no should not be the job.
Rubbish. If a Minister proposes something that is illegal, for instance, the correct advice is to say no, you cannot do that. If a Minister proposes to do something that is dishonest or corrupt, no is the answer which should be given.
I have been in exactly this situation when I worked as a government legal advisor.
Speaking truth to power is exactly what advisors should be doing and those in power should listen.
No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.
Exactly. GO'D's comment is a perfect illustration of the problem. The senior SC are supposed to support the government with their agenda, not oppose and obstruct for the sake of opposing and obstructing. Of course there will be cases where the minister needs to be sat down, but these should be the exception rather than the norm.
No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.
The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
You are still wrong
If the Government wants to release Sarin gas, the job of the civil service is to say no.
No ifs. No buts.
Leaving the UN would not make it legal, or indeed sane.
Basically, the left needs to stop talking about culture issues. And shock horror, that is what Starmer is doing
But the left are wholly enthralled with the subject
A small minority of the left are obsessed with it. The majority - as you can see by Starmer's support base - are very much not.
I am not.
Reverse your statement and you are accurate
Provide evidence that the majority of the left are obsessed with it. You can't.
My evidence is Starmer winning a landslide in the Leadership Election and promising to take the party away from factionalism and culture wars.
Starmer literally got on his knees before the left-wing culture warriors and tweeted it out! Don't think he's going to be allowed to forget that in a hurry.
Only old racists are getting frothy about Starmer taking the knee in support of Black Lives Matter. Have you not noticed every Premier League footballer doing the same thing?
They have little choice as they would be hounded out, kneeling for their wallets in many cases I bet.
Old King Cole mentions Magic Money Tree, and in the very next post HY gives us yet another daft suggestion for spaffing taxpayers’ money up the wall.
I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Party prided itself on fiscal responsibility. Now it’s all F*ck Business and Ra Ra Ra Range Rovers All Round.
Although it will never be admitted, everything is being sacrificed on the altar of Brexit.
I find Sir Kneel quite dull and overly earnest but has shown a very good grip of where the levers of power are in the party and how to get hold of them. Hopefully the Corbyn nightmare is coming to an end and Labour will be a civilised party again.
No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.
The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
You are still wrong
If the Government wants to release Sarin gas, the job of the civil service is to say no.
No ifs. No buts.
Leaving the UN would not make it legal, or indeed sane.
Get a grip.
You "get a grip".
The original quote was: Gus O'Donnell, former cab sec, to @MattChorley: the job is quite often to say, "No, prime minister, that's not right; you can't do that"
Do you think the government is "often" proposing to release Sarin gas?
@Big_G_NorthWales you were doing so well for a few weeks but now it's back to CCHQ propaganda from you, what a shame. Of course we all knew you'd find a way to go back to being a Johnson fanboy eventually.
The problem for you is that when you receive a counter argument you, like others, try the trick of accusing one of being a fanboy or bot rather than engage with the argument itself
I have no care what you think about me and the conservative party, other than remember that I am a conservative member and as such will defend the government, though of course will criticise Boris as I have done and will continue to do so when necessary
You're a massive, spineless hypocrite. You called me a Blairite despite your massive outbursts whenever someone attempts to call you a Tory.
Well here we go, you're a Johnsonite Tory. Have a good day.
You didn't criticise Johnson, you're up his backside.
Maybe getting a bit over the top now
Calm down
You're a troll and not a very good one.
Big_G is respected here across the spectrum of views, he is no troll. Maybe go for a walk and then come back after some fresh air as you're clearly worked up but I think you should apologise to Big_G for the way you've spoken to him in these past two posts.
Its easy to get worked up here and go too far and I've gone too far sometimes too and apologised for doing so, but there's no need to speak to people like that CHB you're better than that normally.
Nah bollocks. Big G sometimes likes to set himself up as the site's policeman. CHB can say what he wants and if Big G doesn't like it he can ignore his posts.
IMO almost everything is fine on here except one thing - groupthink. If that ever gets a hold the site will lose its USP.
General comment but as I typed it I might have been thinking of the wokaphobic antiwokerati after the witching hour. 👀
He's doing a good job today, to give him credit for needle-threading.
He is clearly saying both that racism is wrong, and also that a somewhat shadowy organisation that wishes to abolish the police and publishes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories doesn't enjoy his support.
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Err, the posturing is irrelevant its the quantum of the "concessions" which do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
No, the link says the EU has conceded on LPF provisions. Which means a looser agreement with the potential for retaliatory tariffs but that's what we've been calling for.
The UK was the one demanding it. It was Frost himself who first suggested that if zero tariffs were what was getting in the way of the EU backing down on the LPF then the UK would be prepared to have tariffs.
Barnier wasn't interested in that but fast forward a month or two later and now Frost's solution is winning the day. The "concession" is to follow through with what we suggested months ago. Long may we continue to concede if that's how negotiations are going!
Can you read? Admitedly its a tiny NIB but the LPF's will be enforced and you can tell that because it says that the ECJ will not be policing them. Therefore someone or something else will, almost certainly the UK government actually with EU oversight which the EU already does for standards monitoing in other trade agreements.
What has the EU actually conceded here? A different body to oversee the LPFs - big win!
All it took was a weekend and possibility of retaliatory tarrifs is accepted.
If these reports are true the EU has conceded we will not be tied into dynamic alignment of EU LPF rules.
As for what Frost said last week, never believe anything until its been officially denied. Of course if both sides never made compromises then a deal would be impossible.
Yes, we've lost by having the EU giving us exactly what we were asking for.
Great news. With nothing at all coming from coal. The government has done a fantastic job at switching our energy from coal to renewables in the past decade.
Not that you'd know it listening to the opposition or the media.
Comments
Huh, I didn't know he voted against HS2. That's a poor decision from Starmer, HS2 is vital.
(Whist really hoping we all forget about the dodgy food markets).
We hold all the cards!
Numbers of inpatients stable over June, so not a second wave so much as a long fat tail.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1277510025347506176?s=19
Well done Scotland and I am sure most will think, this is fantastic news for the UK as a whole.
What this? Another Brexiteer folding like a cheap suit?
However as with so many areas, I believe PB has a hands-on expert on the subject.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/wisconsin/
They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.
What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
Now to be fair to Dom, it's a second-hand report. His actual views may be more nuanced than that.
But, as someone who has the kind of physics qualifications that Dom C professes to respect, it shows the shallowness of his science-ness.
Getting loft insulation right is boring. But it's also something that the UK hasn't got right in the past, doesn't cost much, pays for itself pretty quickly, improves people's standard of living by reducing fuel bills and benefits the environment.
It's not sexy, but it's a no-brainer and the sort of thing where Dom's persuasive talents could actually do some good.
It parallels the things that seem to have gone wrong with the management of the Virus. Huge management effort went into the Nightingale hospitals, the ventilator challenge, the app... if we look at the countries who are managing this thing well, they put their effort into old-school contact tracing much earlier than we did. When the inquiry comes, the government had better have a better excuse than contact tracing is boring.
If Starmer continues behaving as he is, avoiding a culture war but doing what is right, and Tories keep trying to villify him for kneeling in support of an event marking George Floyd's death, it will do much to reaffirm their status as the Nasty Party. Please carry on!
Watching the remoaners Tweet-wanking with each other, while the government get on with what they were elected to do, is highly amusing.
Aaron is doing Keir's work for him.
You're the one claiming, despite all evidence, that we should have done something other than what we did. Something other than what worked well. What is it then? What example is it that it works?
Or are you claiming that despite us being best in class we could have been even better. Its that sort of hubris that led to Brown's deficit in the first place!
Not everything Gove did at education was wrong. Lots was needed and some helped. But a lot of avoidable mistakes were made, because "are you sure this is wise, Sir?" was interpreted as the Intransigent Blob.
I agree paying too much attention to single polls rather than the average is a mistake, but equally let's not totally dismiss something as a rogue poll just because it's out of line, particularly when it's from a pollster that did reasonably well overall in 2016.
The way to separate the issues is by doing what Starmer and the Premier League is doing. Every single decent person should be saying Black Lives Matter - because they do. And we should ensure we demonstrate that through appropriate means.
If an organisation says extreme things that aren't relevant to the catchphrase then sideline and ignore the organisation. That may sound arrogant, it might even be "appropriation" but its right to do.
The UK has accepted the LPF provisions and will enforce them and where it differs the EU will levy tariffs - literally the opposite of what "whisky for breakfast" Frost tweeted last week.
The EU may not use the ECJ to adjudicate but another body will be set-up instead. An arrangement better known as a fig-leaf. The march towards BRINO continues.
No spin, just sunlight continuing to wreak its damage on the Icarus of Brexit Britain.
What is now left with older homes is the harder and far more expensive items such as external or internal wall insulation.
Yes. And that's Johnson's problem with the post.
The UK was the one demanding it. It was Frost himself who first suggested that if zero tariffs were what was getting in the way of the EU backing down on the LPF then the UK would be prepared to have tariffs.
Barnier wasn't interested in that but fast forward a month or two later and now Frost's solution is winning the day. The "concession" is to follow through with what we suggested months ago. Long may we continue to concede if that's how negotiations are going!
The job should not be saying "you can't do that". The job should be saying "if you want to do that, you must do this and the consequence will be these and the risk is that". Simply saying no should not be the job.
Oh, and as for the accusation of 'British exceptionalism covering thinly veiled racism' - that's a prime example of the leftwing culture war right there, which you hypocritically pretend to have no part in.
What has the EU actually conceded here? A different body to oversee the LPFs - big win!
This wasn't what Frost said in his tweet last week that he could accept - https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1276158485743439873
All it took was a weekend and possibility of retaliatory tarrifs is accepted.
Do the BBC read this site? I thought I was supposed to be the only person who had noticed
I have been in exactly this situation when I worked as a government legal advisor.
Speaking truth to power is exactly what advisors should be doing and those in power should listen.
(0.18 * 0.11) + (0.335) = 0.355
As for what Frost said last week, never believe anything until its been officially denied. Of course if both sides never made compromises then a deal would be impossible.
That could cost votes in some key marginals.
Bear that in mind next time. Next time, if you don't want the same thing to happen again vote Yes.
https://twitter.com/ja_sheldon/status/1277564572451442688
There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
No, he's right.
The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
If the Government wants to release Sarin gas, the job of the civil service is to say no.
No ifs. No buts.
Leaving the UN would not make it legal, or indeed sane.
Get a grip.
The original quote was: Gus O'Donnell, former cab sec, to @MattChorley: the job is quite often to say, "No, prime minister, that's not right; you can't do that"
Do you think the government is "often" proposing to release Sarin gas?
More than 50% of electricity being generated by wind/solar/hydro.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
General comment but as I typed it I might have been thinking of the wokaphobic antiwokerati after the witching hour. 👀
And the Civil Service should point that out, which is what Gus O'Donnell said.
That means saying no.
He is clearly saying both that racism is wrong, and also that a somewhat shadowy organisation that wishes to abolish the police and publishes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories doesn't enjoy his support.
Not that you'd know it listening to the opposition or the media.