Tory 2024 landslide looking less likely on that news.
Probably, something that is on Sunak's to do list at some point in the future.
Surely the 2020 election provides them with a mandate for this. I'm sure it was in their manifesto somewhere. In fact, privatising the NHS was why people voted for Brexit. Let's Get Brexit Done and Privatise the NHS! Tax cuts for Tory donors all round.
It is not privatising the NHS, it would be moving to a social insurance healthcare system like even France and Germany have if you read the article
France and Germany have a mixture of public and private insurance and a mixture of public and private provision (eg 38% of French hospital beds are in private hospitals). So moving from a system of public provision free at the point of use to this kind of system is accurately referred to as privatisation. The purpose of this kind of move is to switch the burden of paying for the system from all taxpayers onto individuals. Generally it will mean higher payments for middle income people on PAYE as a French or German system is basically a hypothecated tax on salaried income, with a resultant drop in tax for those with large incomes from capital. Plus you will allow the wealthy to access superior care with some of the cost subsidised, rather than having to pay for the NHS while also paying for private insurance as now. You can see why this is a donor class wet dream and why it was so important to dangle Brexit in front of those red wall voters, who would never have voted for this but may be getting it anyway, judging from this article.
We need a mix of public and private provision too, Labour's ideological obsession with the state running and funding all healthcare via tax is why it is held back.
However that is still not the same as having a US style system where private insurance funds virtually all healthcare and all hospitals are private
The German government spends more on healthcare than ours. So does the American government.
The US only spends more once you include private spending, we have about the average public spending on health but lower private spending than average
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either or a British overseas territory but a British crown dependency
I wake up this morning to hear Cummings is leaving
I am so pleased that finally influential ladies in number 10 have delivered their coup de grace and seen off Cummings
I hope a deal with the EU is now more likely with a fazed transition
I expect Boris is likely to remain in post through 2021 as he attempts to turn things round and especially move to a strong climate change agenda working with Joe Biden and others culminating in the climate conference next year in Glasgow
And of course Trump will be over in January which is really good news
New PB rule, if you're going to use French words, you have to make sure you use the appropriate l'accent circonflexe et al.
That is beyond my ability to be honest
Might I suggest that you do what I do; cheat. That is I look up what I want to to write in French on Google or Google translate, then cut and paste.
I can spot the output of Google Translate in my students' work with 100% accuracy. It's haphazard with les prépositions and at least four of the seven non-compound tenses. I think it's actually worse going from French to English as English has twelve verb tenses and we use them all.
Merde! Fortunately I'm not trying to cheat my through an essay or similar. No-one's corrected me on here so far, although I wonder if that's a hostage to fortune.
Google Translate is rubbish with Thai, that I do know! I'm not sure it's all that good with Welsh, either.
Anderson seems better in this than the previous snippets.
I've been reliably informed that Anderson is going to win all of the awards, apparently her portrayal is incredible and the studio are putting her forwards for basically every award going.
Hmm. I haven't watched a minute of The Crown, but I should like to see Gillian Anderson as Thatcher.
Do any connoisseurs have a view about whether it's feasible to start watching at this point?
You can jump in at any point, but I'd recommend watching from the start, you'll miss Claire Foy's and Matt Smith's brilliant portrayals.
Plus the very first episode has the best scene IMHO, when Churchill arrives at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth whilst 'I vow to thee my country' is being sung.
Thanks to everyone for their advice.
I had been looking for more longish-term pandemic viewing, so will put this near the top of my list.
I was impressed by Claire Foy as Little Dorrit and Anne Boleyn.
Anderson seems better in this than the previous snippets.
I've been reliably informed that Anderson is going to win all of the awards, apparently her portrayal is incredible and the studio are putting her forwards for basically every award going.
Hmm. I haven't watched a minute of The Crown, but I should like to see Gillian Anderson as Thatcher.
Do any connoisseurs have a view about whether it's feasible to start watching at this point?
You probably can as the characters are largely based on real life so you can pick up most of the character development pretty easily if you know the story of the royals and post war political history (and if you post here then I expect you have a passing interest in the latter at least!).
It's an absolutely incredible series though and I can't recommend watching it from the start enough. Genuinely the best British TV series to be made in ages.
Agreed, the Crown got us through early lockdown. It's basically a very superior soap opera. Series 1 and 2 are the best so far anyway, Claire Foy is an incredible actress (as she was in Wolf Hall too), there's too much of Sophie from Peep Show in Olivia Colman's depiction of HMQ if you ask me. Although the Aberfan episode in series 3 was very moving. Can't wait for series 4.
Yes the chemistry between Foy and Smith is absolutely incredible. Agree about Coleman, she also suffers from doing the job just after Claire Foy who was better at it which is unfortunate for her. In isolation she does it well, in comparison to Foy she falls flat.
I also can't wait until Sunday for the next season, my mate to works for Sony Pictures has been hyping it up in our WhatsApp group for ages and he's usually pretty honest about their own shows.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
That advantage being.. what? Denying care for people with pre-existing conditions? What's your aim?
One of the attractions for the UK for many EU citizens is its social security and health systems do not require contributions nor do you have to present ID to access services (another attraction is apparently the quality of the primary schools compared with home countries). Full free movement would exacerbate this.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either but a British crown dependency
So the UK is imposing its will on another country?
I've commented many times on the macho, bullying culture around No. 10, and the absence of women in prominent positions - particularly relating to the Covid crisis. Well, the replacement of Cummings and Cain by Stratton and Symonds has turned that on its head, to the good I think. It leaves Priti Patel in an interesting position, because despite her gender I associate her more with the macho bullying culture. I'd put a small bet on her being next to go, especially if Philip Rutnam's bullying allegation against her is found to have substance.
Interesting times. For what it's worth, I suspect that Boris secretly regrets the whole Brexit project. With Covid on top, it's just too much for him. There will be a rubbish deal, lots of caving to the EU, and having dispensed with his right flank within No. 10 Boris will then have problems with his right flank in the Conservative Party, including with a significant rump of MPs. I can't see him emerging from this unscathed.
He does have a clear unambiguous precedent of being able to kick out any dissenters from the Tory party. With an 80 majority he could afford to eject the first wave of Brexiteer critics as a signal to the rest to pipe down.
Boris also still has most of the prominent Brexiteers in the Cabinet.
A Tory pivot back to cuddly Cameroonism will be very good news for Nigel Farage. And, therefore, for Labour.
Cameron won an outright election victory against a far better opponent than Johnson had to face. Johnson was up against the most unelectable leader of a main party in the history of British politics. No debate. And a vile racist at that.
Just saying.
There is a habit, amongst people whose side lose to bad guys, of doing down the people the bad guy beat. In Boris’ case, Livingstone and Corbyn, and in Trump’s, Clinton. Maybe Cameron and EdM too
Does this apply when the supposed good guy wins? Starmer ONLY beat RLB, Biden ONLY beat Trump, and so on?
You're right for a change. People (like me) who acutely dislike "Boris" and Brexit are faced with a problem when that exact combination wins a landslide in a GE. They are loath to accept the obvious implication - that both Bs have wide support amongst the public. They therefore go for the comfort blanket answer. He won not because he was popular or because most people really did want to Get Brexit Done but simply through the pure dumb luck of his opponent being Jeremy Corbyn. There are many on here who push this line. Most of them are posters I agree with on most things, meaning they are really good people, and so it pains me to say that on this they are talking bollox but they are. On this it is bollox they are talking.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
But they can't. The CI "report" to the queen - not the UK government.
And what does the Queen do considering that almost all her perogatives are exercised by the PM on her behalf and she has always agreed to anything that the PM does?
This is why it is time to be honest. The Queen is nothing but a figurehead. We need to stop pretending she has any influence at all and just be honest about where power lies and who exercises it.
If Cummings was clearing up guff like this and streamlining the absurd formalities of the the system, then he might achieve something worthwhile.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
Switzerland too, which has got absolutely world class healthcare, I've lived there and experienced it first hand.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either or a British overseas territory but a British crown dependency
Guernsey doesn't need an independence vote: it is independent!
Mr. Ed, it's striking, bizarre, even, that pro-EU types didn't simply advocate a contributory benefits system (exemptions for long term legal residence or birth in the country to avoid catching Britons in it).
At a stroke it'd decrease the attraction of the UK to those wanting to milk the system *and* weaken the other side of argument.
But some things, like the NHS, seem to just be beyond contemplation.
Edited extra bit: oh, and glad you liked the blog.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
Well, other countries seem to do things quite well (France, Germany, most of Northern Europe) without people dying on the streets outside.
In a way, we have that worst case scenario with aspects of the current welfare system such as pensions (minimum level of NIC contributions etc).
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
IIUC it's basically the second one, spending more money.
Edit to add: One more option is to say everyone has to contribute, and if they don't, sign them up when they need care and try to bill them a bit retrospectively. This is what Japan does. But that's pretty close to "non-contributory, but with extra admin".
If this story takes off it could actually be the most damaging that Boris has ever faced. A key part of his attraction was always that he was a bit of a lad, a player, who shagged around, had a laugh and didn't give a stuff about the uptight conventions of a feminized society. If it transpires that he's under the thumb of his woman then his geezer appeal will be considerably diminished.
Mr. Ed, it's striking, bizarre, even, that pro-EU types didn't simply advocate a contributory benefits system (exemptions for long term legal residence or birth in the country to avoid catching Britons in it).
At a stroke it'd decrease the attraction of the UK to those wanting to milk the system *and* weaken the other side of argument.
But some things, like the NHS, seem to just be beyond contemplation.
Edited extra bit: oh, and glad you liked the blog.
I thought the blog was excellent @Morris_Dancer, I am going to go through your other posts!
Yes, I agree but they almost certainly recognise that such a move would fatally undercut support for the project amongst large parts of the population. Hence, best to have the allusion you can have the best of both worlds.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either or a British overseas territory but a British crown dependency
Guernsey doesn't need an independence vote: it is independent!
And it would be like the UK letting les francais fish in the coastal waters of, say, Australia just because Her Maj is also Head of State of Australia.
Anderson seems better in this than the previous snippets.
I've been reliably informed that Anderson is going to win all of the awards, apparently her portrayal is incredible and the studio are putting her forwards for basically every award going.
Hmm. I haven't watched a minute of The Crown, but I should like to see Gillian Anderson as Thatcher.
Do any connoisseurs have a view about whether it's feasible to start watching at this point?
You can jump in at any point, but I'd recommend watching from the start, you'll miss Claire Foy's and Matt Smith's brilliant portrayals.
Plus the very first episode has the best scene IMHO, when Churchill arrives at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth whilst 'I vow to thee my country' is being sung.
Thanks to everyone for their advice.
I had been looking for more longish-term pandemic viewing, so will put this near the top of my list.
I was impressed by Claire Foy as Little Dorrit and Anne Boleyn.
I do have the second season of "His Dark Materials" on my list.
If nothing else I am curious to know how they will adapt some of the spectacular set pieces.
Anderson seems better in this than the previous snippets.
I've been reliably informed that Anderson is going to win all of the awards, apparently her portrayal is incredible and the studio are putting her forwards for basically every award going.
Hmm. I haven't watched a minute of The Crown, but I should like to see Gillian Anderson as Thatcher.
Do any connoisseurs have a view about whether it's feasible to start watching at this point?
You probably can as the characters are largely based on real life so you can pick up most of the character development pretty easily if you know the story of the royals and post war political history (and if you post here then I expect you have a passing interest in the latter at least!).
It's an absolutely incredible series though and I can't recommend watching it from the start enough. Genuinely the best British TV series to be made in ages.
Agreed, the Crown got us through early lockdown. It's basically a very superior soap opera. Series 1 and 2 are the best so far anyway, Claire Foy is an incredible actress (as she was in Wolf Hall too), there's too much of Sophie from Peep Show in Olivia Colman's depiction of HMQ if you ask me. Although the Aberfan episode in series 3 was very moving. Can't wait for series 4.
Yes the chemistry between Foy and Smith is absolutely incredible. Agree about Coleman, she also suffers from doing the job just after Claire Foy who was better at it which is unfortunate for her. In isolation she does it well, in comparison to Foy she falls flat.
I also can't wait until Sunday for the next season, my mate to works for Sony Pictures has been hyping it up in our WhatsApp group for ages and he's usually pretty honest about their own shows.
@Chris, you can always do what we have just done - start watching from series 1, episode 1. It's all still available on NetFlix of course.
We started last week, thinking that all four series would last us through the winter. But it's very good and quite addictive - we're already on series 3.
They're finding the dead voters who cast ballots in the election, and by find I mean find 90+ year old widows who have used their husband's name to vote for years. Not a good look for team Trump
Why’s it not a good look to uncover voting fraud (because that’s what it is, no matter how sympathetic you might be to the individual)
I'm told by a very reliable source that Cummings will be back next year as head of the government backed/run UK DARPA.
First project he will have them work on a death ray, so he can wipe out all those who question his genius.
I'm sure I heard a story that the invention of radar was a by-product of an attempt to build a death-ray, so it might not be that bad an idea.
Perfectly true. The Air Ministry boffins were asked to read a crank letter or a report of German invention involving a death ray. The conclusion was that the power needed was totyally silly but one of them pointed ouit that you had to know where to point the beam in the first place - and that the detection stage didn't need nearly so much power and was useful in itseldf.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
Well, other countries seem to do things quite well (France, Germany, most of Northern Europe) without people dying on the streets outside.
In a way, we have that worst case scenario with aspects of the current welfare system such as pensions (minimum level of NIC contributions etc).
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either but a British crown dependency
So the UK is imposing its will on another country?
It's at least arguable that the Channel Islands are the last vestige of Normandy still ruled by the successors of William the Bastard. So putting them back under (effectively) French control but be the final ending of the European domination of this country which started in 1066
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either or a British overseas territory but a British crown dependency
Guernsey doesn't need an independence vote: it is independent!
Naah. Its bloody foreign innit. Even has Frog names for places. Bloody Europeans why don't they go back where they came from!
Its not just the Channel Islands that are fucked by this. Gibraltar will need airlifts Berlin-style if we don't end up continuing with continuity-EEA/CU. And did anyone read the article about British Anguilla? They are *fucked* https://mycountryeurope.com/politics/brexits-forgotten-border-anguilla/
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either but a British crown dependency
So the UK is imposing its will on another country?
A special committee to manage fisheries issues with the islands and to work out how international obligations will be managed will be provided, the government also acts on behalf of her Majesty in policy making and she is Head of State of Guernsey.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either or a British overseas territory but a British crown dependency
Guernsey doesn't need an independence vote: it is independent!
Naah. Its bloody foreign innit. Even has Frog names for places. Bloody Europeans why don't they go back where they came from!
Its not just the Channel Islands that are fucked by this. Gibraltar will need airlifts Berlin-style if we don't end up continuing with continuity-EEA/CU. And did anyone read the article about British Anguilla? They are *fucked* https://mycountryeurope.com/politics/brexits-forgotten-border-anguilla/
Anderson seems better in this than the previous snippets.
I've been reliably informed that Anderson is going to win all of the awards, apparently her portrayal is incredible and the studio are putting her forwards for basically every award going.
Hmm. I haven't watched a minute of The Crown, but I should like to see Gillian Anderson as Thatcher.
Do any connoisseurs have a view about whether it's feasible to start watching at this point?
You can jump in at any point, but I'd recommend watching from the start, you'll miss Claire Foy's and Matt Smith's brilliant portrayals.
Plus the very first episode has the best scene IMHO, when Churchill arrives at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth whilst 'I vow to thee my country' is being sung.
Thanks to everyone for their advice.
I had been looking for more longish-term pandemic viewing, so will put this near the top of my list.
I was impressed by Claire Foy as Little Dorrit and Anne Boleyn.
I do have the second season of "His Dark Materials" on my list.
If nothing else I am curious to know how they will adapt some of the spectacular set pieces.
The Authority = Donald Trump?
There's a scene in series 2 episode 1 where the Cardinal does a very good stand-in for Trump.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either but a British crown dependency
So the UK is imposing its will on another country?
A special committee to manage fisheries issues with the islands and to work out how international obligations will be managed will be provided, the government also acts on behalf of her majesty in policy making and she is Head of State of Guernsey.
Will it?
Scotland. Wales. NI. Gib. Now Anguilla too. Not a good tyrack record.
I wake up this morning to hear Cummings is leaving
I am so pleased that finally influential ladies in number 10 have delivered their coup de grace and seen off Cummings
I hope a deal with the EU is now more likely with a fazed transition
I expect Boris is likely to remain in post through 2021 as he attempts to turn things round and especially move to a strong climate change agenda working with Joe Biden and others culminating in the climate conference next year in Glasgow
And of course Trump will be over in January which is really good news
New PB rule, if you're going to use French words, you have to make sure you use the appropriate l'accent circonflexe et al.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
And people who react to support for a bigger female presence in government with a swift rebuttal majoring on 'evil women from history' need TWO lessons.
One in basic comprehension and the other in how to combat misogyny in oneself.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either or a British overseas territory but a British crown dependency
Guernsey doesn't need an independence vote: it is independent!
Naah. Its bloody foreign innit. Even has Frog names for places. Bloody Europeans why don't they go back where they came from!
Its not just the Channel Islands that are fucked by this. Gibraltar will need airlifts Berlin-style if we don't end up continuing with continuity-EEA/CU. And did anyone read the article about British Anguilla? They are *fucked* https://mycountryeurope.com/politics/brexits-forgotten-border-anguilla/
Oh my fur and whiskers. I did not know that.
Not just the Union but the bloody Empire as well.
Why would the remaining vestiges of Empire where Her Majesty's subjects remain loyally British be of any interest to the Conservative and Unionist Party?
I've commented many times on the macho, bullying culture around No. 10, and the absence of women in prominent positions - particularly relating to the Covid crisis. Well, the replacement of Cummings and Cain by Stratton and Symonds has turned that on its head, to the good I think. It leaves Priti Patel in an interesting position, because despite her gender I associate her more with the macho bullying culture. I'd put a small bet on her being next to go, especially if Philip Rutnam's bullying allegation against her is found to have substance.
Interesting times. For what it's worth, I suspect that Boris secretly regrets the whole Brexit project. With Covid on top, it's just too much for him. There will be a rubbish deal, lots of caving to the EU, and having dispensed with his right flank within No. 10 Boris will then have problems with his right flank in the Conservative Party, including with a significant rump of MPs. I can't see him emerging from this unscathed.
Yep. The single biggest thing that would improve the quality of government in this country and every other country is to have more women running things.
Really? Bizarrely enough, women come in all different shapes and guises, with a range of different attitudes and opinions. Priti Patel and Caroline Lucas may be both women but they have fundamental different approaches (although Caroline has a bit of an authoritarian streak in her as well, I would imagine).
For all his faults, Dominic Cummings was right that many of the existing systems are failing and a large part of that is due to the narrow mindset of the civil service establishment that runs the UK. I don't think having two posh women in the form of Carrie Symonds and Allegra Stratton is really progress - quite the opposite.
Anyone and everyone knows that many of the existing systems are failing and that the mindset of the civil service is very narrow.
Not many of us thought the answer was to narrow it down even further from Oxbridge public school types down to solely Oxbridge public school types who are both either friends of Johnson or Gove and believe in Brexit, and put them all together in a giant war room.
I still don’t get argument over fishing. Put me right here. How can it be so important to our independence, surely we have to pool sovereignty into fishing agreement for the sake of the fish? please put me right if the following are incorrect.
Coordinated action by the EU helped to prevent over fishing and improve fish stocks?
Fish don’t recognise national borders. EU law prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water?
Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK comes from EU and Brexit doesn’t change that, because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to?
In the bad old days without joining in coordinated action, times we could return to, there was over fishing, no good to anyone, also fish harvested in UK waters, by UK and EU fleets thanks to EU regulation could get fished earlier a long way from UK waters when they much smaller. So if I’m right, its easy for EU to give way on this, as even a UK win doesn’t amount to much in a practical sense, because we actually got a fair deal out of being part of EU regulation on this one at least?
Any Cod that stay in EU waters and don;t swim to ours are TRAITORS!!!
Why would they want to be anywhere other than Cod's Own Country?
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either or a British overseas territory but a British crown dependency
Guernsey doesn't need an independence vote: it is independent!
Naah. Its bloody foreign innit. Even has Frog names for places. Bloody Europeans why don't they go back where they came from!
Its not just the Channel Islands that are fucked by this. Gibraltar will need airlifts Berlin-style if we don't end up continuing with continuity-EEA/CU. And did anyone read the article about British Anguilla? They are *fucked* https://mycountryeurope.com/politics/brexits-forgotten-border-anguilla/
Oh my fur and whiskers. I did not know that.
Not just the Union but the bloody Empire as well.
Why would the remaining vestiges of Empire where Her Majesty's subjects remain loyally British be of any interest to the Conservative and Unionist Party?
Brexit continues the destruction of the UK and its influence.
I wake up this morning to hear Cummings is leaving
I am so pleased that finally influential ladies in number 10 have delivered their coup de grace and seen off Cummings
I hope a deal with the EU is now more likely with a fazed transition
I expect Boris is likely to remain in post through 2021 as he attempts to turn things round and especially move to a strong climate change agenda working with Joe Biden and others culminating in the climate conference next year in Glasgow
And of course Trump will be over in January which is really good news
New PB rule, if you're going to use French words, you have to make sure you use the appropriate l'accent circonflexe et al.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either but a British crown dependency
So the UK is imposing its will on another country?
A special committee to manage fisheries issues with the islands and to work out how international obligations will be managed will be provided, the government also acts on behalf of her majesty in policy making and she is Head of State of Guernsey.
Will it?
Scotland. Wales. NI. Gib. Now Anguilla too. Not a good tyrack record.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either but a British crown dependency
So the UK is imposing its will on another country?
A special committee to manage fisheries issues with the islands and to work out how international obligations will be managed will be provided, the government also acts on behalf of her majesty in policy making and she is Head of State of Guernsey.
Will it?
Scotland. Wales. NI. Gib. Now Anguilla too. Not a good tyrack record.
None of them are England...
They don't care about most of England either. Bloody troublemaking northern yobs. We saw what happened when the North needed cash. The government said no, and newly elected Tory MPs told their constituents they should make do and mend with what they had as the country couldn't afford more. The following week? Shutting down London so out comes the money tree.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
IIUC it's basically the second one, spending more money.
Edit to add: One more option is to say everyone has to contribute, and if they don't, sign them up when they need care and try to bill them a bit retrospectively. This is what Japan does. But that's pretty close to "non-contributory, but with extra admin".
The Germans deny healthcare to citizens who have too few contributions. It happened to a friend's brother (now dead; shes lived in the UK since 1966).
He had to either 1 pay the full cost, which he could do by withdrawing 50% of his life savings or 2 go through a shitty means-testing process, maybe rather like Universal Credit, to prove that he was sufficiently near to destitute.
I still don’t get argument over fishing. Put me right here. How can it be so important to our independence, surely we have to pool sovereignty into fishing agreement for the sake of the fish? please put me right if the following are incorrect.
Coordinated action by the EU helped to prevent over fishing and improve fish stocks?
Fish don’t recognise national borders. EU law prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water?
Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK comes from EU and Brexit doesn’t change that, because although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to?
In the bad old days without joining in coordinated action, times we could return to, there was over fishing, no good to anyone, also fish harvested in UK waters, by UK and EU fleets thanks to EU regulation could get fished earlier a long way from UK waters when they much smaller. So if I’m right, its easy for EU to give way on this, as even a UK win doesn’t amount to much in a practical sense, because we actually got a fair deal out of being part of EU regulation on this one at least?
Any Cod that stay in EU waters and don;t swim to ours are TRAITORS!!!
Why would they want to be anywhere other than Cod's Own Country?
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
Something Gove and Cummings pushed for years ago....it is the single biggest thing that could be done to level the playing field.
Just hope no-one mucks about with it for 2021 entry. Younger Grandson is wrestling with his options at the moment. Three of his choices are well away from home, which in my experience was a Good Idea.
If this story takes off it could actually be the most damaging that Boris has ever faced. A key part of his attraction was always that he was a bit of a lad, a player, who shagged around, had a laugh and didn't give a stuff about the uptight conventions of a feminized society. If it transpires that he's under the thumb of his woman then his geezer appeal will be considerably diminished.
Perhaps letting her run the country was the price he paid for his music interest?
They're finding the dead voters who cast ballots in the election, and by find I mean find 90+ year old widows who have used their husband's name to vote for years. Not a good look for team Trump
Why’s it not a good look to uncover voting fraud (because that’s what it is, no matter how sympathetic you might be to the individual)
Because if it's on that level what they're doing is so bloody pointless, and deeply damaging.
I've commented many times on the macho, bullying culture around No. 10, and the absence of women in prominent positions - particularly relating to the Covid crisis. Well, the replacement of Cummings and Cain by Stratton and Symonds has turned that on its head, to the good I think. It leaves Priti Patel in an interesting position, because despite her gender I associate her more with the macho bullying culture. I'd put a small bet on her being next to go, especially if Philip Rutnam's bullying allegation against her is found to have substance.
Interesting times. For what it's worth, I suspect that Boris secretly regrets the whole Brexit project. With Covid on top, it's just too much for him. There will be a rubbish deal, lots of caving to the EU, and having dispensed with his right flank within No. 10 Boris will then have problems with his right flank in the Conservative Party, including with a significant rump of MPs. I can't see him emerging from this unscathed.
Yep. The single biggest thing that would improve the quality of government in this country and every other country is to have more women running things.
Dido of Carnage?
I'm obviously not saying that incompetent and/or corrupt women do not exist.
But there are certain toxic traits in political leadership and organization that cause much of the havoc and grief in the world and these are disproportionately present in men. Therefore more women and less men in powerful positions would be a benign development.
Donna Trump? Roberta Mugabe? Borissa Johnson? I don't think so.
Something Gove and Cummings pushed for years ago....it is the single biggest thing that could be done to level the playing field.
Just hope no-one mucks about with it for 2021 entry. Younger Grandson is wrestling with his options at the moment. Three of his choices are well away from home, which in my experience was a Good Idea.
I was very concerned to read @ydoethur's comments this morning that the removal of Cummings increased the chances of exams being cancelled once again this year and replaced with externally marked coursework. In my view that would be very unfortunate.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
We could, but it's a simple fact that the Swiss pay far more money per capita for their healthcare than we do. So it follows that most people would be paying much more in health insurance contributions than they currently do in tax if we had the Swiss system.
They're finding the dead voters who cast ballots in the election, and by find I mean find 90+ year old widows who have used their husband's name to vote for years. Not a good look for team Trump
Why’s it not a good look to uncover voting fraud (because that’s what it is, no matter how sympathetic you might be to the individual)
Because if it's on that level what they're doing is so bloody pointless, and deeply damaging.
Something Gove and Cummings pushed for years ago....it is the single biggest thing that could be done to level the playing field.
Just hope no-one mucks about with it for 2021 entry. Younger Grandson is wrestling with his options at the moment. Three of his choices are well away from home, which in my experience was a Good Idea.
I remember (many moons ago) a friend going through her Uni options - when one came up Mother opines "that's a good one - we'll be able to visit at weekends!" - off the list it came!
Liverpool's mass testing programme reached 90,000 people in its first week, the city's mayor has told BBC Breakfast. That equates to 18% of the population of just under half a million being tested since last Friday, when Liverpool began offering tests to everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms.
That seems a very low amount....too low to really work.
If this story takes off it could actually be the most damaging that Boris has ever faced. A key part of his attraction was always that he was a bit of a lad, a player, who shagged around, had a laugh and didn't give a stuff about the uptight conventions of a feminized society. If it transpires that he's under the thumb of his woman then his geezer appeal will be considerably diminished.
Perhaps letting her run the country was the price he paid for his music interest?
Empress Carrie the Great certainly has a ring to it.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
We could, but it's a simple fact that the Swiss pay far more money per capita for their healthcare than we do. So it follows that most people would be paying much more in health insurance contributions than they currently do in tax if we had the Swiss system.
UK spending per capita per year (2017): £2,989 Swiss spending per capita per year (2017): £5,417 (ppp)
I actually have no problem with that, but also don't forget that Switzerland has almost the GDP per capita as the UK so proportionally the spend isn't that different.
I've commented many times on the macho, bullying culture around No. 10, and the absence of women in prominent positions - particularly relating to the Covid crisis. Well, the replacement of Cummings and Cain by Stratton and Symonds has turned that on its head, to the good I think. It leaves Priti Patel in an interesting position, because despite her gender I associate her more with the macho bullying culture. I'd put a small bet on her being next to go, especially if Philip Rutnam's bullying allegation against her is found to have substance.
Interesting times. For what it's worth, I suspect that Boris secretly regrets the whole Brexit project. With Covid on top, it's just too much for him. There will be a rubbish deal, lots of caving to the EU, and having dispensed with his right flank within No. 10 Boris will then have problems with his right flank in the Conservative Party, including with a significant rump of MPs. I can't see him emerging from this unscathed.
Yep. The single biggest thing that would improve the quality of government in this country and every other country is to have more women running things.
Dido of Carnage?
I'm obviously not saying that incompetent and/or corrupt women do not exist.
But there are certain toxic traits in political leadership and organization that cause much of the havoc and grief in the world and these are disproportionately present in men. Therefore more women and less men in powerful positions would be a benign development.
Donna Trump? Roberta Mugabe? Borissa Johnson? I don't think so.
Winnie Mandela? You are so doing the mirror image of what you think other people should not be doing.
And this too. All sounds very, very familiar to any Scot.
What will become interesting is if Guernsey & Jersey refuse to pass the relevant legislation in their States of Deliberation - what does the UK do then? Since neither are part of the UK unclear how the Supreme Court could become involved.
More to the point, perhaps, what do G and J do? They don't even have a figleaf called the Sewell Convention, it would seem.
The ball remains in the UK court, until J&G pass the relevant legislation locally it does not apply in their territorial waters. What does the UK do?
Override. Impose. Threaten to close down the local institutions. That's what it does elsewhere. Why not here? Is there a Guernsey Tory and Unionist Party chorusing to close down the CI assemblies [using neutral term, not sure what the correct one is - Parlement?]
"Give us what we want or we will take it anyway!" ?
At this rate we'll have a poster on PB threatening to send the gunboats (or at least the ones that haven't beern flogged to Bahrain, I think DuraAce explained to us).l
Or perhaps HYFUD will want to nuke them from orbit? Just to be sure....
Guernsey does not have a leader threatening to hold another independence referendum just 6 years after a once in a generation vote, so a different scenario.
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either but a British crown dependency
So the UK is imposing its will on another country?
Nah.
We'll just ignore it and break an international treaty "in specific and limited ways" - it's quite the thing these days!
Liverpool's mass testing programme reached 90,000 people in its first week, the city's mayor has told BBC Breakfast. That equates to 18% of the population of just under half a million being tested since last Friday, when Liverpool began offering tests to everyone regardless of whether they had symptoms.
That seems a very low amount....too low to really work.
It needs door knocking to work. The tests have to go to the people, not the other way around.
Whatever else you can say about Johnson he does, to use the phrase beloved of the SWP, go "where the politics is."
He can see that the nationalist-populist spasm has run its course and, probably with prompting from the Yoko Ono of Brexit, is effortlessly pivoting back to being a centrist who can convincingly fake enthusiasm for green issues.
The fucking off of Cummo and Caino is clear indication that we're not going to get the 2b2t Brexit which they so clearly cherished. Watch the pb tories also tack to the new moderate course without shame or self-examination.
They're finding the dead voters who cast ballots in the election, and by find I mean find 90+ year old widows who have used their husband's name to vote for years. Not a good look for team Trump
Why’s it not a good look to uncover voting fraud (because that’s what it is, no matter how sympathetic you might be to the individual)
Because if it's on that level what they're doing is so bloody pointless, and deeply damaging.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
Well of course not. The difference between funding by compulsory health insurance automatically deducted from your wages and funding from general taxation isn't really that great.
The German system actually has a few problems, but the biggest difference in how health works is that it is much more decentralised here, eg with responsibility lying with the health ministries of the Bundesländer,and local Amts. It's also a bit better funded - which is the other big difference.
Totally changing the funding method is just pointless disruption.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
The poor won't pay much under any system because they can't afford to. It's the middle class who will pay more, because right now they are getting subsidised by the wealthy owing to the combination of a skewed income distribution, progressive income taxation and funding the NHS out of general taxation. Shifting that tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class is the goal here.
How decisive is it to offer someone a job, then rescind the offer?
Reactive, never proactive....that sums up Boris premiership. Reactive on COVID, reactive on school meals issue, now reacting to fall out of this bust up.
Whatever else you can say about Johnson he does, to use the phrase beloved of the SWP, go "where the politics is."
He can see that the nationalist-populist spasm has run its course and, probably with prompting from the Yoko Ono of Brexit, is effortlessly pivoting back to being a centrist who can convincingly fake enthusiasm for green issues.
The fucking off of Cummo and Caino is clear indication that we're not going to get the 2b2t Brexit which they so clearly cherished. Watch the pb tories also tack to the new moderate course without shame or self-examination.
I totally agree, how poor of the political journalism in this country to say this weeks heat has been personality driven, when it’s clearly been a brexit bust up.
Unlike many on here I have a lot of time for Cummings. He is an iconoclast, and lordy do we need some of them. The smug, self-satisfied blob that runs our institutions, government and society seriously need a good kicking. And then some more kicking.
But a government cannot run as a permanent revolution. Eventually a modus operandi needs to be reached with the establishment and some compromises need to be made. I think Cummings saw this himself in his January blog. And he was right. As usual.
You’re not the only one, even if it’s an unpopular opinion here and elsewhere - where people benefit from the status quo.
The results of the Labour NEC results have been delayed until later this afternoon. The reason given is that voting has to be checked as some members voted after resigning from the party in the last month or so, and their votes need to be voided. An e-mail was sent out to candidates yesterday to this effect.
It is all too predictable that even this entirely reasonable and indeed commendable move is being presented as a party heirarchy "stitch up" by far left headbangers on Twitter. Yes, it's probably going to swing the balance by a handful of votes by eliminating some whose resignation was probably prompted by Corbyn's suspension, but so what? It's their choice to resign and the idea that after resigning they should still be entitled to participate in internal elections is factional b*****cks.
I wouldn't read too much into the delay, since the action being taken is perfectly proper. Members who voted and then resigned before the deadline will have their vote counted, which hardly smacks of manipulation in favour of candidates supportive of the leadership. Some might take this to imply that the vote is close for the final place in the CLP section of the NEC elections, but with 9 members being elected by eliminating ballot that would almost inevitably be the case anyway. Personally I wouldn't imply anything, because unlike extreme Corbynites and Trumpton Republicans I don't believe in conspiracy theories at least when applied to votes being counted under independent procedures.
Whatever else you can say about Johnson he does, to use the phrase beloved of the SWP, go "where the politics is."
He can see that the nationalist-populist spasm has run its course and, probably with prompting from the Yoko Ono of Brexit, is effortlessly pivoting back to being a centrist who can convincingly fake enthusiasm for green issues.
The fucking off of Cummo and Caino is clear indication that we're not going to get the 2b2t Brexit which they so clearly cherished. Watch the pb tories also tack to the new moderate course without shame or self-examination.
I totally agree, how poor of the political journalism in this country to say this weeks heat has been personality driven, when it’s clearly been a brexit bust up.
Except that pazrt of the root of it is Mr Johnson's personal life. But you have a good point to consider.
Unlike many on here I have a lot of time for Cummings. He is an iconoclast, and lordy do we need some of them. The smug, self-satisfied blob that runs our institutions, government and society seriously need a good kicking. And then some more kicking.
But a government cannot run as a permanent revolution. Eventually a modus operandi needs to be reached with the establishment and some compromises need to be made. I think Cummings saw this himself in his January blog. And he was right. As usual.
You’re not the only one, even if it’s an unpopular opinion here and elsewhere - where people benefit from the status quo.
The problem with Cummings is he does seem to correctly identify problems e.g. the lack of proper data science people in and around government, but his mode of operation is one that means he never achieves the change required. Yes the "blob" will fight against any sort of change, but you then need to consider a more subtle and cunning battle plan. Cummings approach is always blow the bloody doors off.
In comparison, Cameron's nudge team, they actually got quite a few things done, totally under the radar. Most of the public won't even know they existed.
I've commented many times on the macho, bullying culture around No. 10, and the absence of women in prominent positions - particularly relating to the Covid crisis. Well, the replacement of Cummings and Cain by Stratton and Symonds has turned that on its head, to the good I think. It leaves Priti Patel in an interesting position, because despite her gender I associate her more with the macho bullying culture. I'd put a small bet on her being next to go, especially if Philip Rutnam's bullying allegation against her is found to have substance.
Interesting times. For what it's worth, I suspect that Boris secretly regrets the whole Brexit project. With Covid on top, it's just too much for him. There will be a rubbish deal, lots of caving to the EU, and having dispensed with his right flank within No. 10 Boris will then have problems with his right flank in the Conservative Party, including with a significant rump of MPs. I can't see him emerging from this unscathed.
Yep. The single biggest thing that would improve the quality of government in this country and every other country is to have more women running things.
Really? Bizarrely enough, women come in all different shapes and guises, with a range of different attitudes and opinions. Priti Patel and Caroline Lucas may be both women but they have fundamental different approaches (although Caroline has a bit of an authoritarian streak in her as well, I would imagine).
For all his faults, Dominic Cummings was right that many of the existing systems are failing and a large part of that is due to the narrow mindset of the civil service establishment that runs the UK. I don't think having two posh women in the form of Carrie Symonds and Allegra Stratton is really progress - quite the opposite.
I'm not commenting specifically on Symonds and Stratton vs Cummings and Cain. And of course (!) women are not some homogenous bloc. Nothing "bizarre" about pointing that out. It's obvious. But so what? State school educated people come in all different shapes and sizes too. Does this in itself mean that redressing their relative scarcity in positions of power would not have a beneficial impact? No it clearly does not.
They're finding the dead voters who cast ballots in the election, and by find I mean find 90+ year old widows who have used their husband's name to vote for years. Not a good look for team Trump
Why’s it not a good look to uncover voting fraud (because that’s what it is, no matter how sympathetic you might be to the individual)
Because if it's on that level what they're doing is so bloody pointless, and deeply damaging.
Did all the dead break heavily for Biden too?
Probably - unless they died in a lunatic asylum.
"WASHINGTON — Hours after President Trump repeated a baseless report that a voting machine system “deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide,” he was directly contradicted by a group of federal, state and local election officials, who issued a statement on Thursday declaring flatly that the election “was the most secure in American history” and that “there is no evidence” any voting systems were compromised."
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
The poor won't pay much under any system because they can't afford to. It's the middle class who will pay more, because right now they are getting subsidised by the wealthy owing to the combination of a skewed income distribution, progressive income taxation and funding the NHS out of general taxation. Shifting that tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class is the goal here.
No, the issue is that they're being subsidised by no one and we have a crap health service because of that. Basically everyone I know has got Babylon, Exeter and BUPA/Vitality either privately or through their workplace because the NHS is slow and unable to provide even the most basic services now.
I want a health service that works as well for everyone, rather than for the few people who have got private cover because they have the means. If that means higher taxes then so be it, nothing in life is free.
I agree. While my preference was Leave, if we had ended up remaining I would rather have the full-fat version with the Euro, Schengen, the works. Better than the half-baked membership we have limped along with for so long.
If we did that, then the other thing we would have to do - and should probably do - is reform the current social security / health system from a free at the point use system to one based on the insurance principle (and, no, I don't think the current sham NICs count as a true contributory system).
A contributory system always sounds nice but the problem is that either you do what it says on the tin and deny access to people who can't or won't contribute, in which case you're leaving people to die outside the hospital for lack of healthcare, or you don't, in which case you've created a load of administration to no purpose.
You can of course provide *better* services to people who have contributed, and only a bare minimum to the deadbeats, but public services generally aren't funded to have a lot of fat left to cut, so that implies that you're spending a load of extra money on contributors, and the whole thing's going to cost more in total.
How do the Germans do it? I assume they don't have people dying in the street outside their hospitals?
By spending lots of money. The share of your pay packet that goes on health insurance is listed on your payslip, and it's a substantial proportion for average earners. When I was self-employed in Germany, my health insurance contributions were eye-wateringly high, and far more than I'd have paid in taxes in the UK.
That's because in the UK the NHS is paid for out of general taxation and so the wealthy pay a disproportionate share. With a hypothecated tax/insurance model normal taxpayers end up paying more.
The way they do it in Switzerland is a sliding scale of government subsidies, the lower paid pay very little as they receive a high level of subsidy and that subsidy is reduced as income goes up. No reason why we couldn't have a system like that.
We could, but it's a simple fact that the Swiss pay far more money per capita for their healthcare than we do. So it follows that most people would be paying much more in health insurance contributions than they currently do in tax if we had the Swiss system.
If this story takes off it could actually be the most damaging that Boris has ever faced. A key part of his attraction was always that he was a bit of a lad, a player, who shagged around, had a laugh and didn't give a stuff about the uptight conventions of a feminized society. If it transpires that he's under the thumb of his woman then his geezer appeal will be considerably diminished.
So Starmer should lead PMQs with "Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that he is in fact a simp?"
Comments
Guernsey is also not part of the UK either or a British overseas territory but a British crown dependency
Google Translate is rubbish with Thai, that I do know! I'm not sure it's all that good with Welsh, either.
I had been looking for more longish-term pandemic viewing, so will put this near the top of my list.
I was impressed by Claire Foy as Little Dorrit and Anne Boleyn.
I also can't wait until Sunday for the next season, my mate to works for Sony Pictures has been hyping it up in our WhatsApp group for ages and he's usually pretty honest about their own shows.
This is why it is time to be honest. The Queen is nothing but a figurehead. We need to stop pretending she has any influence at all and just be honest about where power lies and who exercises it.
If Cummings was clearing up guff like this and streamlining the absurd formalities of the the system, then he might achieve something worthwhile.
At a stroke it'd decrease the attraction of the UK to those wanting to milk the system *and* weaken the other side of argument.
But some things, like the NHS, seem to just be beyond contemplation.
Edited extra bit: oh, and glad you liked the blog.
In a way, we have that worst case scenario with aspects of the current welfare system such as pensions (minimum level of NIC contributions etc).
Edit to add: One more option is to say everyone has to contribute, and if they don't, sign them up when they need care and try to bill them a bit retrospectively. This is what Japan does. But that's pretty close to "non-contributory, but with extra admin".
Yes, I agree but they almost certainly recognise that such a move would fatally undercut support for the project amongst large parts of the population. Hence, best to have the allusion you can have the best of both worlds.
If nothing else I am curious to know how they will adapt some of the spectacular set pieces.
The Authority = Donald Trump?
We started last week, thinking that all four series would last us through the winter. But it's very good and quite addictive - we're already on series 3.
So putting them back under (effectively) French control but be the final ending of the European domination of this country which started in 1066
Its not just the Channel Islands that are fucked by this. Gibraltar will need airlifts Berlin-style if we don't end up continuing with continuity-EEA/CU. And did anyone read the article about British Anguilla? They are *fucked* https://mycountryeurope.com/politics/brexits-forgotten-border-anguilla/
Not just the Union but the bloody Empire as well.
Scotland. Wales. NI. Gib. Now Anguilla too. Not a good tyrack record.
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/the-uk-spends-less-on-capital-in-health-care-than-other-comp?gclid=Cj0KCQiA-rj9BRCAARIsANB_4AD_CzB4kdXgbTZH3RRXGDZerpIXOLxDHbF6JDHy7myEwiI4YGSfBIgaAgiOEALw_wcB
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29#:~:text=The UK spent £197,per person (Figure 1).
One in basic comprehension and the other in how to combat misogyny in oneself.
Which one would you like to do first?
Not many of us thought the answer was to narrow it down even further from Oxbridge public school types down to solely Oxbridge public school types who are both either friends of Johnson or Gove and believe in Brexit, and put them all together in a giant war room.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8945387/Coronavirus-Europe-Christmas-cancelled-amid-soaring-cases.html
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1327137891454218245?s=20
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-54908150
Something Gove and Cummings pushed for years ago....it is the single biggest thing that could be done to level the playing field.
He had to either
1 pay the full cost, which he could do by withdrawing 50% of his life savings
or
2 go through a shitty means-testing process, maybe rather like Universal Credit, to prove that he was sufficiently near to destitute.
He wouldn't have passed process 2, so he chose 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kwWeuTq5E
Mind you James Forsyth (Political Editor Spectator) won't have far to go for his scoops - he'll just have to ask his missus, Allegra Forsyth
She was always more interested in it anyway
But there are certain toxic traits in political leadership and organization that cause much of the havoc and grief in the world and these are disproportionately present in men. Therefore more women and less men in powerful positions would be a benign development.
Donna Trump? Roberta Mugabe? Borissa Johnson? I don't think so.
See, for example https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29#:~:text=The UK spent £197,per person (Figure 1).
UK spending per capita per year (2017): £2,989
Swiss spending per capita per year (2017): £5,417 (ppp)
That seems a very low amount....too low to really work.
A ring through Boris's nose?
We'll just ignore it and break an international treaty "in specific and limited ways" - it's quite the thing these days!
He can see that the nationalist-populist spasm has run its course and, probably with prompting from the Yoko Ono of Brexit, is effortlessly pivoting back to being a centrist who can convincingly fake enthusiasm for green issues.
The fucking off of Cummo and Caino is clear indication that we're not going to get the 2b2t Brexit which they so clearly cherished. Watch the pb tories also tack to the new moderate course without shame or self-examination.
Adonio blocked me because I disagreed with him about something on Twitter
The German system actually has a few problems, but the biggest difference in how health works is that it is much more decentralised here, eg with responsibility lying with the health ministries of the Bundesländer,and local Amts. It's also a bit better funded - which is the other big difference.
Totally changing the funding method is just pointless disruption.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1327213740140453889?s=20
How decisive is it to offer someone a job, then rescind the offer?
It is all too predictable that even this entirely reasonable and indeed commendable move is being presented as a party heirarchy "stitch up" by far left headbangers on Twitter. Yes, it's probably going to swing the balance by a handful of votes by eliminating some whose resignation was probably prompted by Corbyn's suspension, but so what? It's their choice to resign and the idea that after resigning they should still be entitled to participate in internal elections is factional b*****cks.
I wouldn't read too much into the delay, since the action being taken is perfectly proper. Members who voted and then resigned before the deadline will have their vote counted, which hardly smacks of manipulation in favour of candidates supportive of the leadership. Some might take this to imply that the vote is close for the final place in the CLP section of the NEC elections, but with 9 members being elected by eliminating ballot that would almost inevitably be the case anyway. Personally I wouldn't imply anything, because unlike extreme Corbynites and Trumpton Republicans I don't believe in conspiracy theories at least when applied to votes being counted under independent procedures.
Tony McCarroll and Scott McCloud
In comparison, Cameron's nudge team, they actually got quite a few things done, totally under the radar. Most of the public won't even know they existed.
NYTimes
I want a health service that works as well for everyone, rather than for the few people who have got private cover because they have the means. If that means higher taxes then so be it, nothing in life is free.