The second wave is crashing through Spain at the moment. I really think the government needs to rethink the idea of quarantine and replace it with flight bans. Right now British people are going to Spain, coming back infected and then not doing the quarantine because no one is enforcing it.
I should think our second wave is in a couple of weeks?
I reckon yes, in the next couple of weeks it will become clear where we are.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
Personally I'd be in favour of a rule where former MPs cannot be made Lords until, say, 5 years have elapsed since they were in the Commons. I don't like the Lords being treated as a retirement benefit or reward for those who've lost their seats. And the passage of time would allow for those former MPs to hopefully show if they still have something worthwhile to contribute beyond party loyalty. Possibly there could be a rule of no more than a certain proportion of former MPs in the Lords at any one time as well, so that it is not too many party hacks.
But I would agree the lumping in of Jo Johnson makes little sense given he clearly isn't a pushover even for family, and enough said about the idea you'd have a lifetime of service to get in the Lords.
Personally I'd go the other way.
Devalue the House of Lords completely by recognising it as a chamber purely for advice and that only the House of Commons makes decisions. Make it easier not harder for people to get appointed into the Lords but abolish payments to the Lords. If people want to volunteer their time to advise then they can do so - without exhorbitant cost to the Treasury and since the Lords would be toothless partisan numbers wouldn't matter at all as only Commons votes would matter.
I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?
I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.
I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’
Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.
I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb.
So why was he picked ahead of say, Amber Rudd or David Gauke, both of whom have far more distinguished careers of public service, resigned for the same reasons and have far more to contribute to public life?
Perhaps you didn't see where I wrote 'the family connection while of course reason for it'? I don't think that automatically disqualifies someone, but I wasn't saying it was a good appointment, but that doesn't mean a really stupid objection should be used to object to it like suggesting anyone appointed should have had a lifetime's worth of service, unless we want to see nothing but 80 year olds in there.
You don't make a good argument stronger by including weak arguments with it, that;s why the lifetime service part was stupid.
On the whole I think that only the most eminent and senior politicians should be in the Lords. Not mere time servers. The usual reason for putting in politicians has been that they are either eminent and their expertise is valuable or still have much to offer after a lifetime of public service. I do think there is value in having older people there. And if there is to be a second chamber it should be for eminent people with something worthwhile to offer from other professions eg scientists, doctors, teachers etc.
I do not think it should be an alternative for those who no longer want to be bothered with the hard slog of being a democratic politician which is, frankly, what Jo Johnson decided to do.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I always value your comments on what I write. They often sniff out the weaknesses in my arguments which is valuable, if mildly annoying! 🙂
I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?
I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.
I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’
Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.
I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb.
So why was he picked ahead of say, Amber Rudd or David Gauke, both of whom have far more distinguished careers of public service, resigned for the same reasons and have far more to contribute to public life?
Perhaps you didn't see where I wrote 'the family connection while of course reason for it'? I don't think that automatically disqualifies someone, but I wasn't saying it was a good appointment, but that doesn't mean a really stupid objection should be used to object to it like suggesting anyone appointed should have had a lifetime's worth of service, unless we want to see nothing but 80 year olds in there.
You don't make a good argument stronger by including weak arguments with it, that;s why the lifetime service part was stupid.
On the whole I think that only the most eminent and senior politicians should be in the Lords. Not mere time servers. The usual reason for putting in politicians has been that they are either eminent and their expertise is valuable or still have much to offer after a lifetime of public service. I do think there is value in having older people there. And if there is to be a second chamber it should be for eminent people with something worthwhile to offer from other professions eg scientists, doctors, teachers etc.
I do not think it should be an alternative for those who no longer want to be bothered with the hard slog of being a democratic politician which is, frankly, what Jo Johnson decided to do.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I always value your comments on what I write. They often sniff out the weaknesses in my arguments which is valuable, if mildly annoying! 🙂
Valuable but mildly annoying is my brand.
I would agree Jo Johnson's motivation is pretty suspect, given it's not as though he lost and was given this to make up for it, he just got lazy.
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
Indeed. My partner is busier than ever. She has barely left the house for 5 months. Cos she's always working. What she isn't doing... Schlepping to London at great expense once a month for meetings. Traipsing to Newcastle every week for networking. Travelling every day to do what she's doing now. Which all means she's getting more actual working in.
Abolish the HoL and make it elected but you can't be in there and be a member of a party
Hmm. Not sure that would help all that much. The Nebraska Legislature is officially and legally non-partisan, but it doesn't prevent the de facto position being known and still party controlled.
I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?
I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.
I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’
Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.
I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb.
So why was he picked ahead of say, Amber Rudd or David Gauke, both of whom have far more distinguished careers of public service, resigned for the same reasons and have far more to contribute to public life?
Perhaps you didn't see where I wrote 'the family connection while of course reason for it'? I don't think that automatically disqualifies someone, but I wasn't saying it was a good appointment, but that doesn't mean a really stupid objection should be used to object to it like suggesting anyone appointed should have had a lifetime's worth of service, unless we want to see nothing but 80 year olds in there.
You don't make a good argument stronger by including weak arguments with it, that;s why the lifetime service part was stupid.
On the whole I think that only the most eminent and senior politicians should be in the Lords. Not mere time servers. The usual reason for putting in politicians has been that they are either eminent and their expertise is valuable or still have much to offer after a lifetime of public service. I do think there is value in having older people there. And if there is to be a second chamber it should be for eminent people with something worthwhile to offer from other professions eg scientists, doctors, teachers etc.
I do not think it should be an alternative for those who no longer want to be bothered with the hard slog of being a democratic politician which is, frankly, what Jo Johnson decided to do.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I always value your comments on what I write. They often sniff out the weaknesses in my arguments which is valuable, if mildly annoying! 🙂
I agree with kle4.
If politicians like Jo Johnson wish to contribute from the Lords rather than the Commons then I do not see why that should be discouraged? Albeit the Lords are a rather powerless body, so it should be seen as a distinct step down from the Commons not a step up.
I do not think it is a good idea to have a chamber dominated by the elderly. Different generations can see things differently and quite frankly our politics can be too dominated with the views of older generations already. Getting more younger people into the chamber to balance it out is something that should be encouraged as a good thing in its own right.
I suppose it depends firstly upon what you is the purpose for the Lords existance in the first place. But in my view having a group of largely septuagenarians discussing thing with little input, regard or challenge from others is not going to be conducive to anything productive.
EDIT: Actually reading some of kle4's other posts I'm not sure that is agreement. Anyway what I wrote is my view even if not that of others.
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
Indeed. My partner is busier than ever. She has barely left the house for 5 months. Cos she's always working.
I worked 9 until midnight 4 days last week. Could never have done that in the office.
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
Indeed. My partner is busier than ever. She has barely left the house for 5 months. Cos she's always working. What she isn't doing... Schlepping to London at great expense once a month for meetings. Traipsing to Newcastle every week for networking. Travelling every day to do what she's doing now. Which all means she's getting more actual working in.
My theory is we could work about three hours less a day and still get more work done, just because we don't have the pointless interruptions, some of which you highlight.
I look forward to going back to the office - but I don't think it will ever be 5 days a week ever again.
In fairness there have been some changes to the Lords in recent years. If we're not abolishing it but want to make it work while accepting the principal of an appointed chamber to utilise skills and knowledge of those who might not usually be legislators, some things you'd probably need could be:
An maximum length of active service, say 20 years.
Requirement to attend a certain number of votes per parliamentary term or lose your place
An upper limit of seats
Time gap between time in the Commons and taking place in the Lords
No party doners may receive a place unless substantial time has passed since last donation
You're trying to ensure people are not fossilising or placed in at a young age so they can loyally be a party hack for decades and decades, you're trying to ensure even if you are from a particular area of expertise rather than a normal politician you still have to contribute regularly, you'll weed out the timeservers, and you can still put in people at the end of one career, like Supreme Court Justices, or people in the prime of life.
If it doesn't work, then it must go. But they really do need to try to make it work a bit more than they do.
I read some Tweets earlier about the US Elections, which I've now lost.
But the general gist was that we're so conditioned now to think what the polls and prevailing sentiment are saying, will not happen, that maybe just maybe, this time it will just be what we would expect to happen. And they made the comparison to GE19 which Johnson historically should have always been expected to win: more popular, miles ahead in the polls, etc.
I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?
I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.
I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’
Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.
I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb.
So why was he picked ahead of say, Amber Rudd or David Gauke, both of whom have far more distinguished careers of public service, resigned for the same reasons and have far more to contribute to public life?
Perhaps you didn't see where I wrote 'the family connection while of course reason for it'? I don't think that automatically disqualifies someone, but I wasn't saying it was a good appointment, but that doesn't mean a really stupid objection should be used to object to it like suggesting anyone appointed should have had a lifetime's worth of service, unless we want to see nothing but 80 year olds in there.
You don't make a good argument stronger by including weak arguments with it, that;s why the lifetime service part was stupid.
On the whole I think that only the most eminent and senior politicians should be in the Lords. Not mere time servers. The usual reason for putting in politicians has been that they are either eminent and their expertise is valuable or still have much to offer after a lifetime of public service. I do think there is value in having older people there. And if there is to be a second chamber it should be for eminent people with something worthwhile to offer from other professions eg scientists, doctors, teachers etc.
I do not think it should be an alternative for those who no longer want to be bothered with the hard slog of being a democratic politician which is, frankly, what Jo Johnson decided to do.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I always value your comments on what I write. They often sniff out the weaknesses in my arguments which is valuable, if mildly annoying! 🙂
I agree with kle4.
If politicians like Jo Johnson wish to contribute from the Lords rather than the Commons then I do not see why that should be discouraged? Albeit the Lords are a rather powerless body, so it should be seen as a distinct step down from the Commons not a step up.
I do not think it is a good idea to have a chamber dominated by the elderly. Different generations can see things differently and quite frankly our politics can be too dominated with the views of older generations already. Getting more younger people into the chamber to balance it out is something that should be encouraged as a good thing in its own right.
I suppose it depends firstly upon what you is the purpose for the Lords existance in the first place. But in my view having a group of largely septuagenarians discussing thing with little input, regard or challenge from others is not going to be conducive to anything productive.
EDIT: Actually reading some of kle4's other posts I'm not sure that is agreement. Anyway what I wrote is my view even if not that of others.
It's partial agreement - I'm not entirely consistent on this as my thoughts are in flux. I agree entirely that we don't want one dominated by the elderly, I have no issue with people getting in a bit earlier and so I have no issue with Jo getting in onthat basis, though I accept whether he is genuinely worthy on other grounds is debateable.
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
Indeed. My partner is busier than ever. She has barely left the house for 5 months. Cos she's always working. What she isn't doing... Schlepping to London at great expense once a month for meetings. Traipsing to Newcastle every week for networking. Travelling every day to do what she's doing now. Which all means she's getting more actual working in.
My theory is we could work about three hours less a day and still get more work done, just because we don't have the pointless interruptions, some of which you highlight.
I look forward to going back to the office - but I don't think it will ever be 5 days a week ever again.
How many hours a week are wasted with the "How was your weekend, Geoff?" conversations? Which neither I nor Geoff, nor any bugger else is at all interested in? I think it is many many.
The worrying thing about that Yo-Semites clip is not even that the President mispronounced Yosemite, one of the most famous National Parks in America. Mispronunciations happen.
It that when he's stumbling over it trying to read it, its like it is a completely unfamiliar name he has never heard of before. Its like he's trying to sound out phoenetically a name that is completely unfamiliar to him - I genuinely am concerned both Presidential nominees have early stages of dementia but how can the President of the United States mind be that far gone that he can't even recognise one of the most famous place names in America?
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
Indeed. My partner is busier than ever. She has barely left the house for 5 months. Cos she's always working. What she isn't doing... Schlepping to London at great expense once a month for meetings. Traipsing to Newcastle every week for networking. Travelling every day to do what she's doing now. Which all means she's getting more actual working in.
My theory is we could work about three hours less a day and still get more work done, just because we don't have the pointless interruptions, some of which you highlight.
I look forward to going back to the office - but I don't think it will ever be 5 days a week ever again.
How many hours a week are wasted with the "How was your weekend, Geoff?" conversations? Which neither I nor Geoff, nor any bugger else is at all interested in? I think it is many many.
Well probably, but on balance overall I am more productive thanks to general banter and social interaction at the office. Certainly some time is wasted, but I'm happier and more productive with it.
I must say I was surprised at that David Lammy story about the racist shoe on Amazon. He described it as a micro-aggression, which seemed pretty mild in the circumstances!
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
Indeed. My partner is busier than ever. She has barely left the house for 5 months. Cos she's always working. What she isn't doing... Schlepping to London at great expense once a month for meetings. Traipsing to Newcastle every week for networking. Travelling every day to do what she's doing now. Which all means she's getting more actual working in.
My theory is we could work about three hours less a day and still get more work done, just because we don't have the pointless interruptions, some of which you highlight.
I look forward to going back to the office - but I don't think it will ever be 5 days a week ever again.
How many hours a week are wasted with the "How was your weekend, Geoff?" conversations? Which neither I nor Geoff, nor any bugger else is at all interested in? I think it is many many.
Well probably, but on balance overall I am more productive thanks to general banter and social interaction at the office. Certainly some time is wasted, but I'm happier and more productive with it.
Well each to their own, I hope most good businesses accept a balance is to be found.
I just don't like the idea that the Mail seems to think we're all sitting at home watching Netflix or something. It's just so old-fashioned.
In fairness there have been some changes to the Lords in recent years. If we're not abolishing it but want to make it work while accepting the principal of an appointed chamber to utilise skills and knowledge of those who might not usually be legislators, some things you'd probably need could be:
An maximum length of active service, say 20 years.
Requirement to attend a certain number of votes per parliamentary term or lose your place
An upper limit of seats
Time gap between time in the Commons and taking place in the Lords
No party doners may receive a place unless substantial time has passed since last donation
You're trying to ensure people are not fossilising or placed in at a young age so they can loyally be a party hack for decades and decades, you're trying to ensure even if you are from a particular area of expertise rather than a normal politician you still have to contribute regularly, you'll weed out the timeservers, and you can still put in people at the end of one career, like Supreme Court Justices, or people in the prime of life.
If it doesn't work, then it must go. But they really do need to try to make it work a bit more than they do.
I don't think you need to make it overly complicated.
Just abolish payments to Lords. That way it is not a sinecure and if people wish to contribute they can but they're doing so on their own time.
Especally your requriement to attend a certain number of votes per term, combined with the current policy of paying people £300 per day they turn up, in my eye gives completely the wrong incentive. Get a chamber full of party hacks, politicians and grifters who turn up, pocket their check but what are they actually doing?
Plus if someone has niche skills what they have to offer may not always be relevant. Take someone who is an expert in epidemiology to take something topical, that might be someone whose expertise you might want to be contributing to a Lords debate on planning for a future pandemic and maybe other healthcare issues . . . but then while that's not what is being debated should they be turning up to take part in discussions that have nothing to do with what they have to offer?
Before I go to bed I should say that I was once taken to lunch at the Lords by one of its genuinely eminent members. And the catering is indeed excellent.
I can imagine that lunch at Lords would be good. Personally I've been to Old Trafford, Trent Bridge and the MCG but never to Lords.
In fairness there have been some changes to the Lords in recent years. If we're not abolishing it but want to make it work while accepting the principal of an appointed chamber to utilise skills and knowledge of those who might not usually be legislators, some things you'd probably need could be:
An maximum length of active service, say 20 years.
Requirement to attend a certain number of votes per parliamentary term or lose your place
An upper limit of seats
Time gap between time in the Commons and taking place in the Lords
No party doners may receive a place unless substantial time has passed since last donation
You're trying to ensure people are not fossilising or placed in at a young age so they can loyally be a party hack for decades and decades, you're trying to ensure even if you are from a particular area of expertise rather than a normal politician you still have to contribute regularly, you'll weed out the timeservers, and you can still put in people at the end of one career, like Supreme Court Justices, or people in the prime of life.
If it doesn't work, then it must go. But they really do need to try to make it work a bit more than they do.
I don't think you need to make it overly complicated.
Just abolish payments to Lords. That way it is not a sinecure and if people wish to contribute they can but they're doing so on their own time.
Especally your requriement to attend a certain number of votes per term, combined with the current policy of paying people £300 per day they turn up, in my eye gives completely the wrong incentive. Get a chamber full of party hacks, politicians and grifters who turn up, pocket their check but what are they actually doing?
Plus if someone has niche skills what they have to offer may not always be relevant. Take someone who is an expert in epidemiology to take something topical, that might be someone whose expertise you might want to be contributing to a Lords debate on planning for a future pandemic and maybe other healthcare issues . . . but then while that's not what is being debated should they be turning up to take part in discussions that have nothing to do with what they have to offer?
To the latter, because if we just want their expertise on one particular matter they can give evidence to a select committee or something, not give them a position of legislative authority for life when their topic of expertise may not come up very often.
The idea, to my mind, is that you get to appoint people who are experts in their fields, so you certainly reap the benefits there, but that is only part of it. The other part is about gaining the involvement of people who would not normally be participants in the political process as they are not party hacks. Sure their primary expertise would be useful, but we would also want at least some sort of general contribution from them. An expert epidemiologist may well have much to contribute even on other topics.
And that way it is also not a huge amount of potential authority with limited expectations, there are expectations they will actually work a bit for that authority. It's public service, it's not for people who want to come in twice a year and the rest of the time get called Lord so and so because it sounds neat. If you just want to get respect and a title ask for a gong, if you want to put some of your skills to work in the legislature, you need to put some additional time in as well. It need not be onerous.
Certainly I think an allowance per day should be scrapped. And I want fewer party hacks (or at least, party hacks for whom that is their sole quality). A relatively low annual allowance if you participate sufficiently generally I think would be reasonable. You don't get extra for being there 90% of the time versus 30% of the time, it's up to you to put in that effort, but you get nothing if you don't show up say 25% of the time (without a reason like an authorised absence for sickness etc)
As for complexity, perhaps. I think given solving the problem of the Lords seems insurmountable, doing it via minor tweaks step by step and seeing if it improves things may be the most effective path we have though.
Do Lords have "huge amount of potential authority"?
With great power comes great responsibility, but do Lords have great power? Do they have any? The Commons has all the authority, or should do - and if people are in the Lords to wield 'authority' I think they're also there for the wrong reasons.
Do Lords have "huge amount of potential authority"?
With great power comes great responsibility, but do Lords have great power? Do they have any? The Commons has all the authority, or should do - and if people are in the Lords to wield 'authority' I think they're also there for the wrong reasons.
Yes they do, as members of the legislature. It's not huge authority compared to the commons but its massive compared to you or I, and it should be earned and effort put it in.
Looks Like Trumpsky Read (or Had Read To Him) OGH's Recent Post
“Whether you call it Vote by Mail or Absentee Voting, in Florida the election system is Safe and Secure, Tried and True. Florida’s Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail! #MAGA”
I’ve no idea. A C17 can land on a level surface even if it isn’t paved.
The RAF don't do rough strip ops with the C-17. It was one of the limitations (see also AAR and para dropping) of the original lease agreement with the USAF which continued after the aircraft were purchased.
HMS QNLZ is currently tied up in Pompey preparing for the 2021 WESTPAC cruise (or Force Z 2.0 as wags in the Admiralty are calling it) and is useless for this type of caper anyway as it has no COD capability. The plan for that on CSG21 is to go needy ex-wife with the USN/USMC and beg them to do it for us.
I’ve no idea. A C17 can land on a level surface even if it isn’t paved.
The RAF don't do rough strip ops with the C-17. It was one of the limitations (see also AAR and para dropping) of the original lease agreement with the USAF which continued after the aircraft were purchased.
HMS QNLZ is currently tied up in Pompey preparing for the 2021 WESTPAC cruise (or Force Z 2.0 as wags in the Admiralty are calling it) and is useless for this type of caper anyway as it has no COD capability. The plan for that on CSG21 is to go needy ex-wife with the USN/USMC and beg them to do it for us.
I cant see the QLNZ going very far at all in 2021 - the idea that the UK can afford the cost of a flotilla on the other side of Suez is fanciful, plus can you see any country wanting to allow 1500 plus sailors a run ashore in the current COVID controlled world.
I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?
I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.
I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’
Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.
I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb.
So why was he picked ahead of say, Amber Rudd or David Gauke, both of whom have far more distinguished careers of public service, resigned for the same reasons and have far more to contribute to public life?
Perhaps you didn't see where I wrote 'the family connection while of course reason for it'? I don't think that automatically disqualifies someone, but I wasn't saying it was a good appointment, but that doesn't mean a really stupid objection should be used to object to it like suggesting anyone appointed should have had a lifetime's worth of service, unless we want to see nothing but 80 year olds in there.
You don't make a good argument stronger by including weak arguments with it, that;s why the lifetime service part was stupid.
On the whole I think that only the most eminent and senior politicians should be in the Lords. Not mere time servers. The usual reason for putting in politicians has been that they are either eminent and their expertise is valuable or still have much to offer after a lifetime of public service. I do think there is value in having older people there. And if there is to be a second chamber it should be for eminent people with something worthwhile to offer from other professions eg scientists, doctors, teachers etc.
I do not think it should be an alternative for those who no longer want to be bothered with the hard slog of being a democratic politician which is, frankly, what Jo Johnson decided to do.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I always value your comments on what I write. They often sniff out the weaknesses in my arguments which is valuable, if mildly annoying! 🙂
There used to be a clear distinction between Lords who were there on merit (eg Clarke or Hammond) and “working peers” who are needed to provide a bench of people to represent the government
I have no issue with Jo Johnson being a “working peer”
Before I go to bed I should say that I was once taken to lunch at the Lords by one of its genuinely eminent members. And the catering is indeed excellent.
I can imagine that lunch at Lords would be good. Personally I've been to Old Trafford, Trent Bridge and the MCG but never to Lords.
So you have an obsessive anti-Brexiteer’s tweets vs a (presumably briefed) article to a sympathetic newspaper. Not sure either adds much value
Also, while high-ish end (Porsche and Lexus up) might be shipped between countries, $30,000 cars simply aren't. It's not worth the added time, loss of flexbility, and shipping costs. This is why Mercedes makes the A, C, and E Class in the US despite it only having 2.5% tariffs on passenger cars; it's because there's no business case for shipping anything other than the most expensive cars across Oceans.
(Or to put it another way, people will wait 14 weeks to get their dream, optioned, Aston Martin. They won't do it for their Nissan Quasqai.)
I feel insulted by the idea that many of us aren't really working if we're working from home.
I've been working flat out since March on a major project, I'm doing more work than I did in the office and more important work too. I know a lot of people have been furloughed but a lot of us have been hard at work too.
Just skimming that piece there is very much a conflation of the two issues. Whether Treasury or Home Office civil servants are in Whitehall or working from home doesn't really matter. But quite how passports and driving licences aren't being processed, I don't know. That implies workers not going to the non-London offices/factories is an issue.
So to come back to Beirut, this is a summary of what I have gleaned from various sites this morning.
1) Everyone believes it was an accident. Both Israel and Hezbollah have denied responsibility and added they don’t think the other is responsible either. So while there were rumours of an Israeli air strike, they seem to be without foundation.
2) The port has been destroyed, and is unusable.
3) Beirut’s airport is operational, but on a very much reduced level. It would appear from checking their departures and arrivals they have cancelled all flights using aircraft above a certain size. That may mean the runways are blocked with debris, and as soon as a couple of bulldozers and some guys with broomsticks arrive, it will be reopened, or it may be a sign of something more serious.
4) A large part of Beirut has been completely destroyed. This includes many foreign embassies, business premises and political organisations’ headquarters. It also includes thousands of homes, particularly among the Christian community.
5) The death toll will be horrendous and the injury count even worse.
6) The medical service can not cope and needs urgent reinforcement. It was in a shambles before due to Covid-19.
That’s all pretty bleak. This is going to be really, really bad.
Looks Like Trumpsky Read (or Had Read To Him) OGH's Recent Post
“Whether you call it Vote by Mail or Absentee Voting, in Florida the election system is Safe and Secure, Tried and True. Florida’s Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail! #MAGA”
source Politico.com
I don’t expect it will stop him claiming a rigged ballot if he loses.
So to come back to Beirut, this is a summary of what I have gleaned from various sites this morning.
1) Everyone believes it was an accident. Both Israel and Hezbollah have denied responsibility and added they don’t think the other is responsible either. So while there were rumours of an Israeli air strike, they seem to be without foundation.
2) The port has been destroyed, and is unusable.
3) Beirut’s airport is operational, but on a very much reduced level. It would appear from checking their departures and arrivals they have cancelled all flights using aircraft above a certain size. That may mean the runways are blocked with debris, and as soon as a couple of bulldozers and some guys with broomsticks arrive, it will be reopened, or it may be a sign of something more serious.
4) A large part of Beirut has been completely destroyed. This includes many foreign embassies, business premises and political organisations’ headquarters. It also includes thousands of homes, particularly among the Christian community.
5) The death toll will be horrendous and the injury count even worse.
6) The medical service can not cope and needs urgent reinforcement. It was in a shambles before due to Covid-19.
That’s all pretty bleak. This is going to be really, really bad.
So to come back to Beirut, this is a summary of what I have gleaned from various sites this morning.
1) Everyone believes it was an accident. Both Israel and Hezbollah have denied responsibility and added they don’t think the other is responsible either. So while there were rumours of an Israeli air strike, they seem to be without foundation.
2) The port has been destroyed, and is unusable.
3) Beirut’s airport is operational, but on a very much reduced level. It would appear from checking their departures and arrivals they have cancelled all flights using aircraft above a certain size. That may mean the runways are blocked with debris, and as soon as a couple of bulldozers and some guys with broomsticks arrive, it will be reopened, or it may be a sign of something more serious.
4) A large part of Beirut has been completely destroyed. This includes many foreign embassies, business premises and political organisations’ headquarters. It also includes thousands of homes, particularly among the Christian community.
5) The death toll will be horrendous and the injury count even worse.
6) The medical service can not cope and needs urgent reinforcement. It was in a shambles before due to Covid-19.
That’s all pretty bleak. This is going to be really, really bad.
7) The economy was already in crisis.
Could add 8) the government was already barely functioning.
So you have an obsessive anti-Brexiteer’s tweets vs a (presumably briefed) article to a sympathetic newspaper. Not sure either adds much value
Also, while high-ish end (Porsche and Lexus up) might be shipped between countries, $30,000 cars simply aren't. It's not worth the added time, loss of flexbility, and shipping costs. This is why Mercedes makes the A, C, and E Class in the US despite it only having 2.5% tariffs on passenger cars; it's because there's no business case for shipping anything other than the most expensive cars across Oceans.
(Or to put it another way, people will wait 14 weeks to get their dream, optioned, Aston Martin. They won't do it for their Nissan Quasqai.)
I am not entirely sure that is accurate, your point about US assembled German and Japanese cars aside.
The 35,000 people that work for NYK Line might be in for a shock if low-end cars aren't being shipped between countries. Heritage Leader pulled into Southampton last week from Yokohama. It left Yokohama full, with expensive and cheaper vehicles (Plant and Trucks as well as cars). On its way, it off loaded at Singapore, Durban and Vigo, leaving Southampton for Bremerhaven and Zeebrugge. In Vigo, Southampton, Bremerhaven and Zeebrugge, it replaced its Far Eastern stock with European vehicles, set for South America, North America and the Far East.
Portbury Dock is currently full of Suzukis, granted some of which are from Hungary but the greater proportion will be Japanese.
An interesting BBC2 documentary on Castro last night. Full of good intentions but as crazy as a shithouse rat. With Guevara as his sidekick, he single-handledly did his best to start WW3.
They glossed over his demand that Krushchev nuke Washington in 1962, and that Cuba would be proud to perish to forward the glorious revolution. Mr K then realised how barmy the man was.
The CIA might have been up to their old tricks, but even the S, American revolutionaries baulked at Che as their commander. The late-sixties students loved him, thugh.
Simon Clarke was being interviewed on LBC Breakfast yesterday morning and this came up. If the government is deploring everyone to go back into the office minister, why are you working from home today...?
From a quick Control and F search, not a single person mentioned Fulham or Brentford. Did a terrible cricket match really catch the eye, if only for its awfulness?
Simon Clarke was being interviewed on LBC Breakfast yesterday morning and this came up. If the government is deploring everyone to go back into the office minister, why are you working from home today...?
From a quick Control and F search, not a single person mentioned Fulham or Brentford. Did a terrible cricket match really catch the eye, if only for its awfulness?
A play off final where you have to be a fan of either team to care. OK so it would have been quite funny for Brentford to make it to the Premier League but I don't expect Fulham to do much better.
The spread of coronavirus in the UK could have been slowed with earlier quarantine restrictions on arrivals, a group of MPs has said.
The Home Affairs committee said a lack of border measures earlier in the pandemic was a "serious mistake".
It added ministers had underestimated the threat of importing the virus from Europe as opposed to Asia.
We really do need a ‘bear shits in woods’ emoji.
I din't believe their dates. By mid-March it was already here. The ZOE Covid people estimate 1.7 million people had symptomatic Covid by the end of March. Add in the asymptomatic cases and you are certainly talking about many hundreds of thousands by the middle of the month. 10,000 people re-importing it is therefore negligible. Closing the borders would have had to have been a month earlier to be effective and preferably before February half term otherwise you would have just trapped a load of Brits abroad, it would have been better to stop them travelling. I think you would have had to be prescient to do it that early ... however I think it is now why we are seeing travel advice and quarantine for countries with relatively low rates of infection and small spikes.
From a quick Control and F search, not a single person mentioned Fulham or Brentford. Did a terrible cricket match really catch the eye, if only for its awfulness?
"terrible' cricket match? I thought it was why people watch the game; swung one way and then another, often as a result of happenstance. Essex vs Kent was nailbiting, too, although the on site TV was awful.
From a quick Control and F search, not a single person mentioned Fulham or Brentford. Did a terrible cricket match really catch the eye, if only for its awfulness?
"terrible' cricket match? I thought it was why people watch the game; swung one way and then another, often as a result of happenstance. Essex vs Kent was nailbiting, too, although the on site TV was awful.
Really? How so? Gloucestershire's was very good I thought, apart from the dismal result.
From a quick Control and F search, not a single person mentioned Fulham or Brentford. Did a terrible cricket match really catch the eye, if only for its awfulness?
"terrible' cricket match? I thought it was why people watch the game; swung one way and then another, often as a result of happenstance. Essex vs Kent was nailbiting, too, although the on site TV was awful.
Really? How so? Gloucestershire's was very good I thought, apart from the dismal result.
To what are you referring? If it's the TV, Essex has a fixed camera behind one end and it's in such a position that it doesn't always show the head of the batsman at the other end.
So you have an obsessive anti-Brexiteer’s tweets vs a (presumably briefed) article to a sympathetic newspaper. Not sure either adds much value
Also, while high-ish end (Porsche and Lexus up) might be shipped between countries, $30,000 cars simply aren't. It's not worth the added time, loss of flexbility, and shipping costs. This is why Mercedes makes the A, C, and E Class in the US despite it only having 2.5% tariffs on passenger cars; it's because there's no business case for shipping anything other than the most expensive cars across Oceans.
(Or to put it another way, people will wait 14 weeks to get their dream, optioned, Aston Martin. They won't do it for their Nissan Quasqai.)
I am not entirely sure that is accurate, your point about US assembled German and Japanese cars aside.
The 35,000 people that work for NYK Line might be in for a shock if low-end cars aren't being shipped between countries. Heritage Leader pulled into Southampton last week from Yokohama. It left Yokohama full, with expensive and cheaper vehicles (Plant and Trucks as well as cars). On its way, it off loaded at Singapore, Durban and Vigo, leaving Southampton for Bremerhaven and Zeebrugge. In Vigo, Southampton, Bremerhaven and Zeebrugge, it replaced its Far Eastern stock with European vehicles, set for South America, North America and the Far East.
Portbury Dock is currently full of Suzukis, granted some of which are from Hungary but the greater proportion will be Japanese.
Plus all the Tesla Model 3s in the UK come from San Francisco.
I think the point made elsewhere about why some people got gongs and peerages when they are not particularly useful and it would just cause issues is a strong one in this debate. Moral high ground can be easy to hold. In the case of Fox, what is she bringing to the table?
I do though think the point about Jo Johnson doesn't really fit with the other complaints. As the description of him shows he is not simply an example of cronyism since he didn't simply do what his brother wanted, so the nepotism is not as huge a deal as it is made out to be. The 'However worthy, it's not exactly a lifetime of public service' line I find to be rather odd. If he's worthy, then does it matter it was not a lifetime? If not worthy, a lifetime of service would not make it ok, and in any case it's not merely a place for people with a lifetime of service.
I read that as ‘however worthy/praiseworthy in itself, it isn’t a lifetime of public service.’
Yes, but that's my point too - the Lords is not simply a reward for a lifetime of public service, it can also be somewhere where people are still contributing to public service and not some kind of pension.
I'm not saying he was the greatest of options to contribute as a member of the Lords, but I think the family connection while of course reason for it not in itself proof it is a bad thing because he is not so much of a yes man that he would fail to resign from his own brother's government, and the suggestion he should have had a lifetime of service before getting such a role I find to be extremely dumb.
So why was he picked ahead of say, Amber Rudd or David Gauke, both of whom have far more distinguished careers of public service, resigned for the same reasons and have far more to contribute to public life?
Perhaps you didn't see where I wrote 'the family connection while of course reason for it'? I don't think that automatically disqualifies someone, but I wasn't saying it was a good appointment, but that doesn't mean a really stupid objection should be used to object to it like suggesting anyone appointed should have had a lifetime's worth of service, unless we want to see nothing but 80 year olds in there.
You don't make a good argument stronger by including weak arguments with it, that;s why the lifetime service part was stupid.
On the whole I think that only the most eminent and senior politicians should be in the Lords. Not mere time servers. The usual reason for putting in politicians has been that they are either eminent and their expertise is valuable or still have much to offer after a lifetime of public service. I do think there is value in having older people there. And if there is to be a second chamber it should be for eminent people with something worthwhile to offer from other professions eg scientists, doctors, teachers etc.
I do not think it should be an alternative for those who no longer want to be bothered with the hard slog of being a democratic politician which is, frankly, what Jo Johnson decided to do.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I always value your comments on what I write. They often sniff out the weaknesses in my arguments which is valuable, if mildly annoying! 🙂
I agree with kle4.
If politicians like Jo Johnson wish to contribute from the Lords rather than the Commons then I do not see why that should be discouraged? Albeit the Lords are a rather powerless body, so it should be seen as a distinct step down from the Commons not a step up.
I do not think it is a good idea to have a chamber dominated by the elderly. Different generations can see things differently and quite frankly our politics can be too dominated with the views of older generations already. Getting more younger people into the chamber to balance it out is something that should be encouraged as a good thing in its own right.
I suppose it depends firstly upon what you is the purpose for the Lords existance in the first place. But in my view having a group of largely septuagenarians discussing thing with little input, regard or challenge from others is not going to be conducive to anything productive.
EDIT: Actually reading some of kle4's other posts I'm not sure that is agreement. Anyway what I wrote is my view even if not that of others.
It is obscene that the fat F*** can not only fill the trough with his chums and ne'er do wells but is brazen enough of the lack of morals in England that he can load it with his close family as well. England is well below banana republic nowadays. Run by crooks, grafters and morons.
From a quick Control and F search, not a single person mentioned Fulham or Brentford. Did a terrible cricket match really catch the eye, if only for its awfulness?
"terrible' cricket match? I thought it was why people watch the game; swung one way and then another, often as a result of happenstance. Essex vs Kent was nailbiting, too, although the on site TV was awful.
Really? How so? Gloucestershire's was very good I thought, apart from the dismal result.
To what are you referring? If it's the TV, Essex has a fixed camera behind one end and it's in such a position that it doesn't always show the head of the batsman at the other end.
Ah. Well, that's not great.
Gloucestershire experimented last year with a fixed camera at either end. This year, they have half a dozen cameras, which cover all angles of the ground, and while the batsman on strike is the key shot they have somebody picking which angle to show on replay for boundaries/catches/runouts.
Plus, it's linked to the BBC Bristol radio commentary team so you get radio standard ball by ball commentary as well. They have a link to the camera staff so they can suggest replays, and a livestream where you can contact them and ask for comments and give feedback.
On the last afternoon, that live stream was full of Worcestershire fans singing Gloucestershire's praises, and not just because we were collapsing in an embarassing heap. Even Andrew Tye, the overseas player, was watching and chipping in from Oz.
It really was very good indeed. OK, it wasn't quite Sky standard but you could compare it favourably to the not too early days of TV coverage.
The Lords grew up as the Crown’s representatives in Parliament. The Commons as they “people’s”.
Quite an antiquated arrangement most would agree, especially given the ennoblement process. If you will allow me to go all Rory Stewart for a moment.
What about instead keeping the Commons as is, according to FPTP. But make the Lords truly the people’s chamber. With representatives chosen at random akin to a form of long term jury duty. A year’s posting at a time perhaps, with the new cadre rotating in once per quarter.
Stops the cronyism. Implements a form of direct democracy in the constitutional structure. And means over time the public become better engaged and educated about the processes under which we’re governed.
So you have an obsessive anti-Brexiteer’s tweets vs a (presumably briefed) article to a sympathetic newspaper. Not sure either adds much value
Its all true though: the UK has agreed an immediate cut in tarrifs on Japanese cars imports whereas the EU deal has a taper. That makes 31 December an actual cut-off for the likes of Nissan in Sunderland:
From a quick Control and F search, not a single person mentioned Fulham or Brentford. Did a terrible cricket match really catch the eye, if only for its awfulness?
"terrible' cricket match? I thought it was why people watch the game; swung one way and then another, often as a result of happenstance. Essex vs Kent was nailbiting, too, although the on site TV was awful.
Really? How so? Gloucestershire's was very good I thought, apart from the dismal result.
To what are you referring? If it's the TV, Essex has a fixed camera behind one end and it's in such a position that it doesn't always show the head of the batsman at the other end.
Ah. Well, that's not great.
Gloucestershire experimented last year with a fixed camera at either end. This year, they have half a dozen cameras, which cover all angles of the ground, and while the batsman on strike is the key shot they have somebody picking which angle to show on replay for boundaries/catches/runouts.
Plus, it's linked to the BBC Bristol radio commentary team so you get radio standard ball by ball commentary as well. They have a link to the camera staff so they can suggest replays, and a livestream where you can contact them and ask for comments and give feedback.
On the last afternoon, that live stream was full of Worcestershire fans singing Gloucestershire's praises, and not just because we were collapsing in an embarassing heap. Even Andrew Tye, the overseas player, was watching and chipping in from Oz.
It really was very good indeed. OK, it wasn't quite Sky standard but you could compare it favourably to the not too early days of TV coverage.
That's unquestionably a great deal better. Essex link to the BBC commentary too, but there are grouses about that. If this 'sport in the era of Covid-19' is going to continue, counties like Essex are going to have to up their TV game. Given the level of support we have, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone to organise it.
I wonder if today will be when history charts the beginning of the end of the BBC as we know it - as 800 "agents" chase up the over-75s for their licence fee. I reckon it has the makings of a PR disaster if they do - and a financial disaster if they don't.
I don't understand why it matters if you eat in or not. Surely if its intended aim is to support the industry, it should apply either way.
The aim is more to persuade people it is safe to sit and eat a restaurant or cafe meal again imho.
Indeed, people have been getting takeaways and deliveries throughout. That's not the point of this scheme.
But I think its somewhat inevitable some customers would abuse it. I'm not sure how much its on the restaurant to police their customers.
I thought perhaps it was aimed more at the sit down restaurants that didn't do takeaways. Not specifically to encourage people to have a sit down MaccieD's instead of a takeaway. It's just the way it was framed it wasn't possible to distinguish so those that did both have benefitted.
How could you frame it otherwise?
A great many restaurants that never previously did takeaways have started to do so in recent months to try and keep at least some cash in the tills - while many more have for years done takeaways as a side interest in order to get extra cash even if its not the main element of the business. And a few more restaurants in recent years have turned to things like Uber Eats in order to get more revenue, while again remaining properly restaurants and not takeaways.
Other than demanding that people sit at a table I'm not sure how much more could be done to distinguish the two?
I wasn't saying they could. Just pointing out that the primary aim was to support restaurants that couldn't survive as a takeaway option (if it was even an option). It wasn't to encourage sit down dining at MccDonalds. So the Government really don't care that much about abuse of the rules for the latter. The issue might be more that the likes of KfC and McDonalds (not the intended beneficiaries) have embraced it enthusiastically. Whereas the "proper" restaurants, anecdotally not so much.
It's also worth noting that McDonalds and KFC restaurants are mostly operated as franchises, by small businesses as desperate to get people in the door as other small businesses. They ask the customer if they are eating in, apply the discount and then don't really care - if anything they're happy they have one more table free.
I cant see the QLNZ going very far at all in 2021 - the idea that the UK can afford the cost of a flotilla on the other side of Suez is fanciful, plus can you see any country wanting to allow 1500 plus sailors a run ashore in the current COVID controlled world.
It will be of nugatory military value but of course it will happen, there are too many flag rank (and aspirant flag rank) careers riding on it. As for the cost, what price do you think an Empire 2.0 plastic flag patriot like Johnson puts on a 1920 x 1080 HD wallpaper of a carrier flying the White Ensign in front of Sydney Harbour Bridge?
From a quick Control and F search, not a single person mentioned Fulham or Brentford. Did a terrible cricket match really catch the eye, if only for its awfulness?
"terrible' cricket match? I thought it was why people watch the game; swung one way and then another, often as a result of happenstance. Essex vs Kent was nailbiting, too, although the on site TV was awful.
Really? How so? Gloucestershire's was very good I thought, apart from the dismal result.
To what are you referring? If it's the TV, Essex has a fixed camera behind one end and it's in such a position that it doesn't always show the head of the batsman at the other end.
Ah. Well, that's not great.
Gloucestershire experimented last year with a fixed camera at either end. This year, they have half a dozen cameras, which cover all angles of the ground, and while the batsman on strike is the key shot they have somebody picking which angle to show on replay for boundaries/catches/runouts.
Plus, it's linked to the BBC Bristol radio commentary team so you get radio standard ball by ball commentary as well. They have a link to the camera staff so they can suggest replays, and a livestream where you can contact them and ask for comments and give feedback.
On the last afternoon, that live stream was full of Worcestershire fans singing Gloucestershire's praises, and not just because we were collapsing in an embarassing heap. Even Andrew Tye, the overseas player, was watching and chipping in from Oz.
It really was very good indeed. OK, it wasn't quite Sky standard but you could compare it favourably to the not too early days of TV coverage.
That's unquestionably a great deal better. Essex link to the BBC commentary too, but there are grouses about that. If this 'sport in the era of Covid-19' is going to continue, counties like Essex are going to have to up their TV game. Given the level of support we have, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone to organise it.
Indeed yes. It would have been more amazing, albeit in a good way, if there hadn’t been.
But the worst part about this explosion is buried towards the bottom of the report.
It’s destroyed the port of Beirut and left it unusable.
How is aid going to get in?
You mean in general, or specifically to assist with this disaster?
Both. Lebanon needed help urgently even before this.
But also, the main airport is in the port. It appears to have been damaged, I don’t know how badly.
Even if it hadn’t there are comparatively few people who could fly in aid on the scale needed. Realistically, we would be talking about the USAF.
And nobody can get at it overland because it’s surrounded by Syria and Israel.
Israel could do itself a power of good if it provided or allowed in humanitarian aid through its border to Lebanon. That poor country. RIP for those killed.it is so sad.
It could - but it’s not as simple as that. The south is controlled by Hezbollah. They may not let aid through, or demand payment for it. Even if they did, and didn’t, they would probably still try to take advantage to attack Israel.
So I do not think the Israelis will allow aid in from Haifa, even though it would be a diplomatic coup and a fine humanitarian gesture.
Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?
Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.
I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?
Why do you despise her?
When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.
Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.
That's quite enough on its own for me.
Yes, am surprised the Queen let her through.
I do wonder why, of all the possible former Brexit Party MEPs, why she was chosen. Some like Farage may still have electoral ambitions (though sending him to the Lords might next that nicely!), others may have unsavoury links, but could they be worse than Fox?
My hunch is that Cummings decided it. He loathes most of the other Brexiteers, but I get the feeling that he likes the Spiked former Revolutionary Communists. Their Leninist clique seizing power appeals to him.
If true, that would be more evidence of Cummings’ stupidity and poor judgement.
Not that more evidence is needed, of course.
If true?
Its literally some bloke off the Internet's Wednesday Brain fart and you're going with if true?
Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?
Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.
I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?
Why do you despise her?
When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.
Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.
That's quite enough on its own for me.
Yes, am surprised the Queen let her through.
I do wonder why, of all the possible former Brexit Party MEPs, why she was chosen. Some like Farage may still have electoral ambitions (though sending him to the Lords might next that nicely!), others may have unsavoury links, but could they be worse than Fox?
My hunch is that Cummings decided it. He loathes most of the other Brexiteers, but I get the feeling that he likes the Spiked former Revolutionary Communists. Their Leninist clique seizing power appeals to him.
If true, that would be more evidence of Cummings’ stupidity and poor judgement.
Not that more evidence is needed, of course.
If true?
Its literally some bloke off the Internet's Wednesday Brain fart and you're going with if true?
Christ.
I don't think Cummings has ever claimed that he's Jesus.
It must be about the only thing he hasn't claimed.
Not really understanding what Joe Johnson did wrong. He disagreed with his brother about Brexit, resigned and then decided to get off the stage given his brother was PM. Seems both reasonable and honourable to me.
As for Ms Fox, she clearly takes libertarian principles too far (or at least did when she was younger). She’s wrong but hypocrisy, nepotism and cronyism? Not really seeing it.
So you have an obsessive anti-Brexiteer’s tweets vs a (presumably briefed) article to a sympathetic newspaper. Not sure either adds much value
Also, while high-ish end (Porsche and Lexus up) might be shipped between countries, $30,000 cars simply aren't. It's not worth the added time, loss of flexbility, and shipping costs. This is why Mercedes makes the A, C, and E Class in the US despite it only having 2.5% tariffs on passenger cars; it's because there's no business case for shipping anything other than the most expensive cars across Oceans.
(Or to put it another way, people will wait 14 weeks to get their dream, optioned, Aston Martin. They won't do it for their Nissan Quasqai.)
I am not entirely sure that is accurate, your point about US assembled German and Japanese cars aside.
The 35,000 people that work for NYK Line might be in for a shock if low-end cars aren't being shipped between countries. Heritage Leader pulled into Southampton last week from Yokohama. It left Yokohama full, with expensive and cheaper vehicles (Plant and Trucks as well as cars). On its way, it off loaded at Singapore, Durban and Vigo, leaving Southampton for Bremerhaven and Zeebrugge. In Vigo, Southampton, Bremerhaven and Zeebrugge, it replaced its Far Eastern stock with European vehicles, set for South America, North America and the Far East.
Portbury Dock is currently full of Suzukis, granted some of which are from Hungary but the greater proportion will be Japanese.
Plus all the Tesla Model 3s in the UK come from San Francisco.
The average gross margin on Tesla Model 3s are unusually high for the sticker price, predominantly because of the software packages (but also because of carbon credits that can be sold to European producers of ICE vehicles).
It’s therefore still been possible to carry the expense of intercontinental delivery fees and the higher capital cost from having inventory spending so long between factory gate and customer.
Even so Tesla is furiously building in Berlin to serve the european market from local production. And rumours abound of a Tesla plant in the West Country for the Uk market.
Car production is generally a low margin game, or in a lot of cases negative margin. You don’t go blowing margin on intercontinental delivery if your volumes are big enough to avoid it.
Looks like Georgia's second wave is going to have a lower peak than it's first. It's daily positive tests has peaked and is heading downwards sicne the 10th July and deaths have levelled off and soon to fall.
Anyone any idea about how lockdowney it has got this time around?
As an aside, in terms of case numbers, Georgia's second peak was way larger (like 5x bigger) than the first.
Positive tests amongst the young exploded in the second wave.
In terms of positive test numbers the second wave makes the first wave look like a blip.
The spread of coronavirus in the UK could have been slowed with earlier quarantine restrictions on arrivals, a group of MPs has said.
The Home Affairs committee said a lack of border measures earlier in the pandemic was a "serious mistake".
It added ministers had underestimated the threat of importing the virus from Europe as opposed to Asia.
The last sentence is spot on.
The UK had set up to deal with infections coming in from Asia, and then cases flooded in at the end of Feb from Italy, France, Spain (the 'return from the skiing holiday' cases). Hence, when you look at any interactive map, the virus cases hit pretty much everywhere all at once.
I'm still not sure its completely over in, say, Italy, where they've had practically no cases south of the Rubicon.
The related issue is as a result of this, it part explains why we dropped contact tracing - they were overloaded with many, seemingly unrelated, cases.
Claire Fox hasn't been ennobled as a Tory has she? I thought she was going to the Lords as a crossbencher?
Not every appointment to the Lords is a Tory.
I despise Fox and think she should be nowhere near the Lords but since she's not going as a Tory who did choose her to go there?
Why do you despise her?
When I was eleven years old the IRA bombed my hometown. They murdered a 12 year old boy and a three year old boy from my town who were out shopping for Mother's Day.
Claire Fox in the days afterwards defending that bombing. She has never apologised for doing so.
That's quite enough on its own for me.
Yes, am surprised the Queen let her through.
I do wonder why, of all the possible former Brexit Party MEPs, why she was chosen. Some like Farage may still have electoral ambitions (though sending him to the Lords might next that nicely!), others may have unsavoury links, but could they be worse than Fox?
My hunch is that Cummings decided it. He loathes most of the other Brexiteers, but I get the feeling that he likes the Spiked former Revolutionary Communists. Their Leninist clique seizing power appeals to him.
If true, that would be more evidence of Cummings’ stupidity and poor judgement.
Not that more evidence is needed, of course.
If true?
Its literally some bloke off the Internet's Wednesday Brain fart and you're going with if true?
Christ.
I don't think Cummings has ever claimed that he's Jesus.
It must be about the only thing he hasn't claimed.
Did anyone watch Newsnight last night re track and trace? Would be interested in feedback from it. I had it on in the background and suddenly woke up when I heard a particular item which I would like confirmation on. If I got this right if 6 people in the same family need to be contacted the names are passed to 6 different track and trace people, so the family gets 6 different identical calls. Other than being a huge waste of time the family gets cheesed off and stops cooperating. Have I got this right and if so what the hell is going on?
Tory hypocrisy is nothing new. But it is now moving off the scale. What is really worrying is the assault on the courts. With a big majority and the emasculation of judicial review, the government will be left to do as it wishes. It can turn the UK into the kind of quasi-dictatorship that now exists in Hungary and there will be nothing anyone can do about it. And, of course, right-wingers who proclaim themselves patriotic champions of liberty will cheer as it happens. These are dark, dark days for our country. Our democracy is being stolen from us.
I wonder if today will be when history charts the beginning of the end of the BBC as we know it - as 800 "agents" chase up the over-75s for their licence fee. I reckon it has the makings of a PR disaster if they do - and a financial disaster if they don't.
Maybe so but given the pathetic reasoning usually employed as to why over 75s shouldnt pay - we dont want to, we havent before, and only old people can be poor essentially- I wont be unsympathetic to the BBC here.
Looks like Georgia's second wave is going to have a lower peak than it's first. It's daily positive tests has peaked and is heading downwards sicne the 10th July and deaths have levelled off and soon to fall.
Anyone any idea about how lockdowney it has got this time around?
As an aside, in terms of case numbers, Georgia's second peak was way larger (like 5x bigger) than the first.
Positive tests amongst the young exploded in the second wave.
In terms of positive test numbers the second wave makes the first wave look like a blip.
The Lords grew up as the Crown’s representatives in Parliament. The Commons as they “people’s”.
Quite an antiquated arrangement most would agree, especially given the ennoblement process. If you will allow me to go all Rory Stewart for a moment.
What about instead keeping the Commons as is, according to FPTP. But make the Lords truly the people’s chamber. With representatives chosen at random akin to a form of long term jury duty. A year’s posting at a time perhaps, with the new cadre rotating in once per quarter.
Stops the cronyism. Implements a form of direct democracy in the constitutional structure. And means over time the public become better engaged and educated about the processes under which we’re governed.
Dont people hate jury duty? Enforced service in the Lords for long periods sounds like it would go down poorly. Is direct democracy all its cracked up to be?
I know this is really our reserves team but still, playing against Ireland and only a single wicket for the bowlers so far?
When getting beaten , England love to roll out excuses. Can you not just accept you are being beaten by a better team.
Yes, no one else has ever used excuses after being beaten, definitely something that only happens with England. As true in sport as in politics no doubt.
Did anyone watch Newsnight last night re track and trace? Would be interested in feedback from it. I had it on in the background and suddenly woke up when I heard a particular item which I would like confirmation on. If I got this right if 6 people in the same family need to be contacted the names are passed to 6 different track and trace people, so the family gets 6 different identical calls. Other than being a huge waste of time the family gets cheesed off and stops cooperating. Have I got this right and if so what the hell is going on?
6 cases so 6 sets of people to chase up which does mean 6 different work streams.
Yes, on one level it doesn't make much sense but on another level it does - chances are all 6 people have contacted different sets of friends.
Comments
Devalue the House of Lords completely by recognising it as a chamber purely for advice and that only the House of Commons makes decisions. Make it easier not harder for people to get appointed into the Lords but abolish payments to the Lords. If people want to volunteer their time to advise then they can do so - without exhorbitant cost to the Treasury and since the Lords would be toothless partisan numbers wouldn't matter at all as only Commons votes would matter.
I do not think it should be an alternative for those who no longer want to be bothered with the hard slog of being a democratic politician which is, frankly, what Jo Johnson decided to do.
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I always value your comments on what I write. They often sniff out the weaknesses in my arguments which is valuable, if mildly annoying! 🙂
I would agree Jo Johnson's motivation is pretty suspect, given it's not as though he lost and was given this to make up for it, he just got lazy.
What she isn't doing...
Schlepping to London at great expense once a month for meetings.
Traipsing to Newcastle every week for networking.
Travelling every day to do what she's doing now.
Which all means she's getting more actual working in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature
If politicians like Jo Johnson wish to contribute from the Lords rather than the Commons then I do not see why that should be discouraged? Albeit the Lords are a rather powerless body, so it should be seen as a distinct step down from the Commons not a step up.
I do not think it is a good idea to have a chamber dominated by the elderly. Different generations can see things differently and quite frankly our politics can be too dominated with the views of older generations already. Getting more younger people into the chamber to balance it out is something that should be encouraged as a good thing in its own right.
I suppose it depends firstly upon what you is the purpose for the Lords existance in the first place. But in my view having a group of largely septuagenarians discussing thing with little input, regard or challenge from others is not going to be conducive to anything productive.
EDIT: Actually reading some of kle4's other posts I'm not sure that is agreement. Anyway what I wrote is my view even if not that of others.
I look forward to going back to the office - but I don't think it will ever be 5 days a week ever again.
An amoeba has more awareness than Trump
- An maximum length of active service, say 20 years.
- Requirement to attend a certain number of votes per parliamentary term or lose your place
- An upper limit of seats
- Time gap between time in the Commons and taking place in the Lords
- No party doners may receive a place unless substantial time has passed since last donation
You're trying to ensure people are not fossilising or placed in at a young age so they can loyally be a party hack for decades and decades, you're trying to ensure even if you are from a particular area of expertise rather than a normal politician you still have to contribute regularly, you'll weed out the timeservers, and you can still put in people at the end of one career, like Supreme Court Justices, or people in the prime of life.If it doesn't work, then it must go. But they really do need to try to make it work a bit more than they do.
But the general gist was that we're so conditioned now to think what the polls and prevailing sentiment are saying, will not happen, that maybe just maybe, this time it will just be what we would expect to happen. And they made the comparison to GE19 which Johnson historically should have always been expected to win: more popular, miles ahead in the polls, etc.
I think there's possibly something in that.
Which neither I nor Geoff, nor any bugger else is at all interested in?
I think it is many many.
Labour setting up a battle with the nutty left, I think the right move.
It that when he's stumbling over it trying to read it, its like it is a completely unfamiliar name he has never heard of before. Its like he's trying to sound out phoenetically a name that is completely unfamiliar to him - I genuinely am concerned both Presidential nominees have early stages of dementia but how can the President of the United States mind be that far gone that he can't even recognise one of the most famous place names in America?
I just don't like the idea that the Mail seems to think we're all sitting at home watching Netflix or something. It's just so old-fashioned.
Just abolish payments to Lords. That way it is not a sinecure and if people wish to contribute they can but they're doing so on their own time.
Especally your requriement to attend a certain number of votes per term, combined with the current policy of paying people £300 per day they turn up, in my eye gives completely the wrong incentive. Get a chamber full of party hacks, politicians and grifters who turn up, pocket their check but what are they actually doing?
Plus if someone has niche skills what they have to offer may not always be relevant. Take someone who is an expert in epidemiology to take something topical, that might be someone whose expertise you might want to be contributing to a Lords debate on planning for a future pandemic and maybe other healthcare issues . . . but then while that's not what is being debated should they be turning up to take part in discussions that have nothing to do with what they have to offer?
The idea, to my mind, is that you get to appoint people who are experts in their fields, so you certainly reap the benefits there, but that is only part of it. The other part is about gaining the involvement of people who would not normally be participants in the political process as they are not party hacks. Sure their primary expertise would be useful, but we would also want at least some sort of general contribution from them. An expert epidemiologist may well have much to contribute even on other topics.
And that way it is also not a huge amount of potential authority with limited expectations, there are expectations they will actually work a bit for that authority. It's public service, it's not for people who want to come in twice a year and the rest of the time get called Lord so and so because it sounds neat. If you just want to get respect and a title ask for a gong, if you want to put some of your skills to work in the legislature, you need to put some additional time in as well. It need not be onerous.
Certainly I think an allowance per day should be scrapped. And I want fewer party hacks (or at least, party hacks for whom that is their sole quality). A relatively low annual allowance if you participate sufficiently generally I think would be reasonable. You don't get extra for being there 90% of the time versus 30% of the time, it's up to you to put in that effort, but you get nothing if you don't show up say 25% of the time (without a reason like an authorised absence for sickness etc)
As for complexity, perhaps. I think given solving the problem of the Lords seems insurmountable, doing it via minor tweaks step by step and seeing if it improves things may be the most effective path we have though.
With great power comes great responsibility, but do Lords have great power? Do they have any? The Commons has all the authority, or should do - and if people are in the Lords to wield 'authority' I think they're also there for the wrong reasons.
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1290791943765725184?s=21
“Whether you call it Vote by Mail or Absentee Voting, in Florida the election system is Safe and Secure, Tried and True. Florida’s Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail! #MAGA”
source Politico.com
HMS QNLZ is currently tied up in Pompey preparing for the 2021 WESTPAC cruise (or Force Z 2.0 as wags in the Admiralty are calling it) and is useless for this type of caper anyway as it has no COD capability. The plan for that on CSG21 is to go needy ex-wife with the USN/USMC and beg them to do it for us.
https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1290561051889733632
I have no issue with Jo Johnson being a “working peer”
(Or to put it another way, people will wait 14 weeks to get their dream, optioned, Aston Martin. They won't do it for their Nissan Quasqai.)
The Home Affairs committee said a lack of border measures earlier in the pandemic was a "serious mistake".
It added ministers had underestimated the threat of importing the virus from Europe as opposed to Asia.
1) Everyone believes it was an accident. Both Israel and Hezbollah have denied responsibility and added they don’t think the other is responsible either. So while there were rumours of an Israeli air strike, they seem to be without foundation.
2) The port has been destroyed, and is unusable.
3) Beirut’s airport is operational, but on a very much reduced level. It would appear from checking their departures and arrivals they have cancelled all flights using aircraft above a certain size. That may mean the runways are blocked with debris, and as soon as a couple of bulldozers and some guys with broomsticks arrive, it will be reopened, or it may be a sign of something more serious.
4) A large part of Beirut has been completely destroyed. This includes many foreign embassies, business premises and political organisations’ headquarters. It also includes thousands of homes, particularly among the Christian community.
5) The death toll will be horrendous and the injury count even worse.
6) The medical service can not cope and needs urgent reinforcement. It was in a shambles before due to Covid-19.
That’s all pretty bleak. This is going to be really, really bad.
The 35,000 people that work for NYK Line might be in for a shock if low-end cars aren't being shipped between countries. Heritage Leader pulled into Southampton last week from Yokohama. It left Yokohama full, with expensive and cheaper vehicles (Plant and Trucks as well as cars). On its way, it off loaded at Singapore, Durban and Vigo, leaving Southampton for Bremerhaven and Zeebrugge. In Vigo, Southampton, Bremerhaven and Zeebrugge, it replaced its Far Eastern stock with European vehicles, set for South America, North America and the Far East.
Portbury Dock is currently full of Suzukis, granted some of which are from Hungary but the greater proportion will be Japanese.
They glossed over his demand that Krushchev nuke Washington in 1962, and that Cuba would be proud to perish to forward the glorious revolution. Mr K then realised how barmy the man was.
The CIA might have been up to their old tricks, but even the S, American revolutionaries baulked at Che as their commander. The late-sixties students loved him, thugh.
A snide question but a fair one.
Gloucestershire experimented last year with a fixed camera at either end. This year, they have half a dozen cameras, which cover all angles of the ground, and while the batsman on strike is the key shot they have somebody picking which angle to show on replay for boundaries/catches/runouts.
Plus, it's linked to the BBC Bristol radio commentary team so you get radio standard ball by ball commentary as well. They have a link to the camera staff so they can suggest replays, and a livestream where you can contact them and ask for comments and give feedback.
On the last afternoon, that live stream was full of Worcestershire fans singing Gloucestershire's praises, and not just because we were collapsing in an embarassing heap. Even Andrew Tye, the overseas player, was watching and chipping in from Oz.
It really was very good indeed. OK, it wasn't quite Sky standard but you could compare it favourably to the not too early days of TV coverage.
The Lords grew up as the Crown’s representatives in Parliament. The Commons as they “people’s”.
Quite an antiquated arrangement most would agree, especially given the ennoblement process. If you will allow me to go all Rory Stewart for a moment.
What about instead keeping the Commons as is, according to FPTP. But make the Lords truly the people’s chamber. With representatives chosen at random akin to a form of long term jury duty. A year’s posting at a time perhaps, with the new cadre rotating in once per quarter.
Stops the cronyism. Implements a form of direct democracy in the constitutional structure. And means over time the public become better engaged and educated about the processes under which we’re governed.
https://www.ft.com/content/3df986a2-fa57-4755-a799-0ce9cea4c38d
If this 'sport in the era of Covid-19' is going to continue, counties like Essex are going to have to up their TV game. Given the level of support we have, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone to organise it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkTxO73o3S8
You have to access it through the club website, not youtube, which I think is an error, but it's free to sign up.
So this is what can be done. I think Surrey have something similar (which they damn well ought to given the money they have compared to the Shire).
Its literally some bloke off the Internet's Wednesday Brain fart and you're going with if true?
Christ.
It must be about the only thing he hasn't claimed.
It’s therefore still been possible to carry the expense of intercontinental delivery fees and the higher capital cost from having inventory spending so long between factory gate and customer.
Even so Tesla is furiously building in Berlin to serve the european market from local production. And rumours abound of a Tesla plant in the West Country for the Uk market.
Car production is generally a low margin game, or in a lot of cases negative margin. You don’t go blowing margin on intercontinental delivery if your volumes are big enough to avoid it.
In terms of positive test numbers the second wave makes the first wave look like a blip.
But deaths wise the second wave is smaller.
The UK had set up to deal with infections coming in from Asia, and then cases flooded in at the end of Feb from Italy, France, Spain (the 'return from the skiing holiday' cases). Hence, when you look at any interactive map, the virus cases hit pretty much everywhere all at once.
I'm still not sure its completely over in, say, Italy, where they've had practically no cases south of the Rubicon.
The related issue is as a result of this, it part explains why we dropped contact tracing - they were overloaded with many, seemingly unrelated, cases.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClaudiaWebbe/status/1290685903321653251
I see Prof Ferguson has returned to haunt us all with his dismal forecasts. Is he still using the 'model' that predicted 500K deaths in the UK?
Considering we did lockdown and have had about 50k deaths that doesn't seem completely unreasonable.
Yes, on one level it doesn't make much sense but on another level it does - chances are all 6 people have contacted different sets of friends.