I also grew a lockdown beard. Tend to go beard when events happening in my life - on paternity leave, got fired, lockdown. As always realised it doesn't suit me and shaved. The revelation of lockdown was shaving my arms and legs...
Russia's excess deaths are about three times the COVID-19 deaths. So say you really had 1,500 deaths per day from COVID-19, the real infection number would be more like 150,000 to 300,000 per day.
You aren't suggesting they are possibly fudging their numbers are you?
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
True.
So it seems to be: 1) yes you can fish in our territorial waters on condition that 2) we get a percentage of the value of the spoils.
Does that sum it up?
As long as we have the option - just the option - to turn off 1) when we like, then I think Johnson will get away with this (re: squaring it with leave voters and his MPs).
It does raise a question though: how do we monitor the value of their catch?
I think like a lot of people I started out as Covid WFH = holiday. No shaving, shorts and a t-shirt, not really paying attention to work as much as I should have been, etc.
That lasted about two weeks. After that the novelty wore off plus I realised my head was in a sub-optimal place for work. Now I shave every day, properly dressed every day, not a suit, but put on a shirt, always use video on my zooms/teams/webex calls. Feel much better for it.
If you're retired, however, (large PB contingent) then no idea how it would work.
That's the way it should be. Hats off. Literally, because with your hair sorted you don't have to wear one.
I get the hair thing but I'm not 100% sure you should be wearing any kind of head covering in London after age 28yrs.
Hats are making a comeback! Not much of one, but I see more people than just myself wearing hats in the last few years.
Type of hat is pretty vital though.
Abso-bloody-lutely.
A Panama is acceptable in the summer.
I don't think it is
Autres pays, autres moeurs. Probably best avoided in parts of England which are North of Gretna.
There are always issues over defining things in terms of days as you can mean several things. 28 days can mean 28 x 24 hour periods (ending 3rd December in this case) or can mean ending at the start of the 28th day (2nd December in this case). "Clear days", on the other hand would mean 4th December as 12.01am is technically one minute into 5th November, so you'd start counting from 6th. There are various quite dull legal cases about it. But in any event they've opted for 2nd, which is one possible way to define it so fair enough.
The current Lockdown did begin on Thursday 5th November. If it ends at midnight on Tuesday 1st December , it will have lasted 27 days.
This is among PB's most boring debates (I know, I know).
I mean, who cares?
This sums up my feelings about the discussion of male headwear.
Russia's excess deaths are about three times the COVID-19 deaths. So say you really had 1,500 deaths per day from COVID-19, the real infection number would be more like 150,000 to 300,000 per day.
You aren't suggesting they are possibly fudging their numbers are you?
Not necessarily fudging, it could just be down to problems with testing and health care. But if it isn't COVID-19 something else has killed a lot more Russians than would normally be expected.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
It's not really one sided. Afaicr the UK exports c.50% of its catch to the EU, hence a more frequent No deal sceptic tone from fishing leaders, even the east coast 'British fish for British boats' lads.
But we also end up "importing" a lot of fish caught in our waters at the moment. That is not in our interests. And I seriously doubt that a modest tariff (in the event of a no deal) would significantly impact on our shellfish, for example. They are a high value, high demand product.
Sitting in an excrement strewn lorry park in Kent for 2 days might significantly impact on our shellfish.
It might if that happens although most will be frozen.
I remember vividly enjoying BBQ seafood in Portugal in the Algarve only to discover that it came from the Western Isles! Its apparently much cleaner and tastier than the equivalent from the Med. It was certainly excellent.
I think an increasing amount of shellfish is transported live and that's where the real premium lies. Yep, the Iberians really appreciate our products, every medium to big Spanish city I've been to has had fantastic markets with some of the shellfish actually labelled Escocés. The fish counter at Morrisons doesn't really cut it (Dave may disagree).
It is a move in the right direction, it can be reviewed at a later stage, same with LPF, that seems to be where we are heading, Cummings going and Cain going and replaced by an Osborne aide confirms it
Being in charge of 18% of our own fish is not something to be sneered at - and yet many will.
Some will sneer at anything less than bricking up the Channel Tunnel, there will always be diehards
No. There's no pleasing the Redwoods and the Cashs and the Bones. They want to live in a world and a Britain that has long gone. The big question for me is how many of those voted Conservative in the election also want to live in that world. If it's a large number I think the party - your party - has a structural problem and that victory could be of the Pyrrhic variety. Which I've just googled and realize is not quite right before people jump all over me with the weight of ancient learning.
So what, Starmer is also losing Corbynites to the Greens just as some diehard anti No Dealers and anti lockdown voters are going to Farage.
However Boris has a majority of 80 so can afford to ignore the diehards and will still get the Deal through
Yes I know he'll get the deal through. There's no doubt about that. You can't go winning a Get Brexit Done election and then not get the eponymous article done. It would make an absolute nonsense of the 12th Dec vote and the thumping majority it returned. I was just raising my gaze a little and postulating that the reason the Cons won big in the last election - people living in the past - is the very same reason they will struggle in future elections, starting with the next one. It's good to postulate that sort of thing. I imagine you are doing just the same, whilst not wanting to commit it to paper, which I totally understand for a person in your position.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
It's not really one sided. Afaicr the UK exports c.50% of its catch to the EU, hence a more frequent No deal sceptic tone from fishing leaders, even the east coast 'British fish for British boats' lads.
But we also end up "importing" a lot of fish caught in our waters at the moment. That is not in our interests. And I seriously doubt that a modest tariff (in the event of a no deal) would significantly impact on our shellfish, for example. They are a high value, high demand product.
Sitting in an excrement strewn lorry park in Kent for 2 days might significantly impact on our shellfish.
It might if that happens although most will be frozen.
I remember vividly enjoying BBQ seafood in Portugal in the Algarve only to discover that it came from the Western Isles! Its apparently much cleaner and tastier than the equivalent from the Med. It was certainly excellent.
I think an increasing amount of shellfish is transported live and that's where the real premium lies. Yep, the Iberians really appreciate our products, every medium to big Spanish city I've been to have had fantastic markets with some of the shellfish actually labelled Escocés. The fish counter at Morrisons doesn't really cut it (Dave may disagree).
It would be great if we got the Ferry from Rosyth back. That was a superb way to get to the continent.
I think like a lot of people I started out as Covid WFH = holiday. No shaving, shorts and a t-shirt, not really paying attention to work as much as I should have been, etc.
That lasted about two weeks. After that the novelty wore off plus I realised my head was in a sub-optimal place for work. Now I shave every day, properly dressed every day, not a suit, but put on a shirt, always use video on my zooms/teams/webex calls. Feel much better for it.
If you're retired, however, (large PB contingent) then no idea how it would work.
That's the way it should be. Hats off. Literally, because with your hair sorted you don't have to wear one.
I get the hair thing but I'm not 100% sure you should be wearing any kind of head covering in London after age 28yrs.
Hats are making a comeback! Not much of one, but I see more people than just myself wearing hats in the last few years.
Type of hat is pretty vital though.
Abso-bloody-lutely.
A Panama is acceptable in the summer.
I don't think it is
And what is, in your view ?
In Britain?
A kippah, turban, or other religious headware are the only acceptable male "hats" in the summer.
In the winter you can get away with a bobble hat of course.
I will wear a hat to keep the sun off my bald patch: I don’t fancy sunburn there.
Some of us can't cope with any sun at all! Tilley or Akubra in the summer for me, when it's sunny. Or Irish tweed fisherman's hat in the rain.
Pith helmet for me. Important to maintain standards!
Whatever deal with the EU is eventually made it is nailed on guaranteed that that the die in the ditchers on both sides will be dying in their ditches again as they rage against the machine - evreyone else will quietly shrug and move on.
Will you be quietly shrugging and moving on then, Felix?
It had less than 30% turnout, South had almost 50% turnout, the loss of a key marginal seat by the SNP to a Unionist Party on a high turnout is far more significant than them holding a safe seat on a low turnout
Meh, its a bit of six of one and half a dozen of the other to me. There is already a Tory minority administration in Perth which gets a fair bit of support from the Lib Dems so the SNP down 1 and the Lib Dems up one won't make much difference.
The impact is not to do with local government the key is again as in Clackmannanshire last week in getting more Unionist tactical or preferential voting to beat the SNP
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
Do you happen, please, to know if tthe departing councillor was first elected on the slate?> (If not, then vote change is harder to interpret, an d so on, of course.)
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
Only half of Tory vote transferring to LibDems. Weird not to use your second and further preferences. Is that on principle or do people just not understand the system?
Notice even Remainers like Vivienne Stern say "Now, even we think that doesn’t look fair, and we’ve been saying to our European counterparts."
Vivienne Stern spent 2 years bleating that No Deal would be hugely damaging -- and now she has her deal, she has discovered she does not like it. Her European friends are not ... errr ... really friends.
It is a hugely exploitative deal.
In my opinion, it is way better for UK science not to accept this deal, but to use the money to support .... err .... science in the UK.
I'm a UK scientist and I've been involved in several FP7 projects - now working in a slightly different field and mostly UK (in fact UK charity, rather than government) funded, so I don't directly have an interest.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
It is a move in the right direction, it can be reviewed at a later stage, same with LPF, that seems to be where we are heading, Cummings going and Cain going and replaced by an Osborne aide confirms it
Being in charge of 18% of our own fish is not something to be sneered at - and yet many will.
Some will sneer at anything less than bricking up the Channel Tunnel, there will always be diehards
No. There's no pleasing the Redwoods and the Cashs and the Bones. They want to live in a world and a Britain that has long gone. The big question for me is how many of those voted Conservative in the election also want to live in that world. If it's a large number I think the party - your party - has a structural problem and that victory could be of the Pyrrhic variety. Which I've just googled and realize is not quite right before people jump all over me with the weight of ancient learning.
So what, Starmer is also losing Corbynites to the Greens just as some diehard anti No Dealers and anti lockdown voters are going to Farage.
However Boris has a majority of 80 so can afford to ignore the diehards and will still get the Deal through
Yes I know he'll get the deal through. There's no doubt about that. You can't go winning a Get Brexit Done election and then not get the eponymous article done. It would make an absolute nonsense of the 12th Dec vote and the thumping majority it returned. I was just raising my gaze a little and postulating that the reason the Cons won big in the last election - people living in the past - is the very same reason they will struggle in future elections, starting with the next one. It's good to postulate that sort of thing. I imagine you are doing just the same, whilst not wanting to commit it to paper, which I totally understand for a person in your position.
The Conservatives won last December with a majority of 80 to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, we left the EU in January all that remains is the terms of how we leave.
The Tories have been in power now for 10 years, only 3 parties in government since WW2 have been in power for as long as that, the Tories from 1951-1964 and 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 and 2/3 of those then failed to win the subsequent election, Major's election win in 1992 the exception, so any Tory victory next time against Starmer will just be a bonus
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
The slightly surprising thing about that is that 93 Tories apparently had the SNP as a second/third/fourth preference. That's about 92 more than I would have expected.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
I suspect the issue is that the EU decision makers (the Commission and the countries) have different priorities. A few countries care very deeply about UK fishing rights - the majority (and probably the Commission) wish it would go away. The Commission cares very deeply about LPF, while (as long as they, individually are not disadvantaged (and can carry on supporting favourite industry) many countries are not much fussed. This latest 15-18% "offer" does not fill me with much optimism.
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
Only half of Tory vote transferring to LibDems. Weird not to use your second and further preferences. Is that on principle or do people just not understand the system?
On principle? MY impression is that people have to be reassured they don't need to list all the candidates in order of precedence. Perhaps the LD wasn't wearing a poppy or something.
It's what he would have wanted. The Lib Tears Latte is particularly delicious I've heard. Perhaps Sebastian Gorka can perform the opening if Orban isn't available?
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
The slightly surprising thing about that is that 93 Tories apparently had the SNP as a second/third/fourth preference. That's about 92 more than I would have expected.
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
The slightly surprising thing about that is that 93 Tories apparently had the SNP as a second/third/fourth preference. That's about 92 more than I would have expected.
Are you really surprised? The SNP are pretty much a middle of the road party and if one is worried about Brexit ... we do have people like Peter de Vink and Malcy to represent the pro-independence right wing.
It had less than 30% turnout, South had almost 50% turnout, the loss of a key marginal seat by the SNP to a Unionist Party on a high turnout is far more significant than them holding a safe seat on a low turnout
SCON successful candidate in 2017 Council elections resigned after pleading guilty to possession of indecent imagesvote - in the by-election the SCON vote was reduced, so it's a reversion to the norm, not a sign of recovery.
Whatever deal with the EU is eventually made it is nailed on guaranteed that that the die in the ditchers on both sides will be dying in their ditches again as they rage against the machine - evreyone else will quietly shrug and move on.
Will you be quietly shrugging and moving on then, Felix?
Already have - got my TIE - building a new house, enjoying our first rain day in around 3 months, railing against unfair lockdowns and useless governments. The grass over here tends to be brown rather than green but in most respects the people and the debates are much the same.
I think like a lot of people I started out as Covid WFH = holiday. No shaving, shorts and a t-shirt, not really paying attention to work as much as I should have been, etc.
That lasted about two weeks. After that the novelty wore off plus I realised my head was in a sub-optimal place for work. Now I shave every day, properly dressed every day, not a suit, but put on a shirt, always use video on my zooms/teams/webex calls. Feel much better for it.
If you're retired, however, (large PB contingent) then no idea how it would work.
That's the way it should be. Hats off. Literally, because with your hair sorted you don't have to wear one.
I get the hair thing but I'm not 100% sure you should be wearing any kind of head covering in London after age 28yrs.
Hats are making a comeback! Not much of one, but I see more people than just myself wearing hats in the last few years.
Type of hat is pretty vital though.
Abso-bloody-lutely.
A Panama is acceptable in the summer.
I don't think it is
And what is, in your view ?
In Britain?
A kippah, turban, or other religious headware are the only acceptable male "hats" in the summer.
In the winter you can get away with a bobble hat of course.
I refuse to carry a parasol.
Personally I find a bush hat fine for summer or my tricorn if its raining
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
Only half of Tory vote transferring to LibDems. Weird not to use your second and further preferences. Is that on principle or do people just not understand the system?
A shitload of them seem to have gone Green which is also a little weird.
Edit: sorry, misread the colours, some things are too weird to countenance!
It is a move in the right direction, it can be reviewed at a later stage, same with LPF, that seems to be where we are heading, Cummings going and Cain going and replaced by an Osborne aide confirms it
Being in charge of 18% of our own fish is not something to be sneered at - and yet many will.
Some will sneer at anything less than bricking up the Channel Tunnel, there will always be diehards
No. There's no pleasing the Redwoods and the Cashs and the Bones. They want to live in a world and a Britain that has long gone. The big question for me is how many of those voted Conservative in the election also want to live in that world. If it's a large number I think the party - your party - has a structural problem and that victory could be of the Pyrrhic variety. Which I've just googled and realize is not quite right before people jump all over me with the weight of ancient learning.
So what, Starmer is also losing Corbynites to the Greens just as some diehard anti No Dealers and anti lockdown voters are going to Farage.
However Boris has a majority of 80 so can afford to ignore the diehards and will still get the Deal through
Yes I know he'll get the deal through. There's no doubt about that. You can't go winning a Get Brexit Done election and then not get the eponymous article done. It would make an absolute nonsense of the 12th Dec vote and the thumping majority it returned. I was just raising my gaze a little and postulating that the reason the Cons won big in the last election - people living in the past - is the very same reason they will struggle in future elections, starting with the next one. It's good to postulate that sort of thing. I imagine you are doing just the same, whilst not wanting to commit it to paper, which I totally understand for a person in your position.
The Conservatives won last December with a majority of 80 to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, we left the EU in January all that remains is the terms of how we leave.
The Tories have been in power now for 10 years, only 3 parties in government since WW2 have been in power for as long as that, the Tories from 1951-1964 and 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 and 2/3 of those then failed to win the subsequent election, Major's election win in 1992 the exception, so any Tory victory next time against Starmer will just be a bonus
But for only 3 of those 10 years has there been a Tory majority. For the other 7 years the Tories were dependent on other parties - 'in office rather than in power.'
It is a move in the right direction, it can be reviewed at a later stage, same with LPF, that seems to be where we are heading, Cummings going and Cain going and replaced by an Osborne aide confirms it
Being in charge of 18% of our own fish is not something to be sneered at - and yet many will.
Some will sneer at anything less than bricking up the Channel Tunnel, there will always be diehards
No. There's no pleasing the Redwoods and the Cashs and the Bones. They want to live in a world and a Britain that has long gone. The big question for me is how many of those voted Conservative in the election also want to live in that world. If it's a large number I think the party - your party - has a structural problem and that victory could be of the Pyrrhic variety. Which I've just googled and realize is not quite right before people jump all over me with the weight of ancient learning.
So what, Starmer is also losing Corbynites to the Greens just as some diehard anti No Dealers and anti lockdown voters are going to Farage.
However Boris has a majority of 80 so can afford to ignore the diehards and will still get the Deal through
Yes I know he'll get the deal through. There's no doubt about that. You can't go winning a Get Brexit Done election and then not get the eponymous article done. It would make an absolute nonsense of the 12th Dec vote and the thumping majority it returned. I was just raising my gaze a little and postulating that the reason the Cons won big in the last election - people living in the past - is the very same reason they will struggle in future elections, starting with the next one. It's good to postulate that sort of thing. I imagine you are doing just the same, whilst not wanting to commit it to paper, which I totally understand for a person in your position.
The Conservatives won last December with a majority of 80 to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, we left the EU in January all that remains is the terms of how we leave.
The Tories have been in power now for 10 years, only 3 parties in government since WW2 have been in power for as long as that, the Tories from 1951-1964 and 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 and 2/3 of those then failed to win the subsequent election, Major's election win in 1992 the exception, so any Tory victory next time against Starmer will just be a bonus
Is this fatalism creeping in? Or is it rolling the pitch to declare defeat next time as victory? I sense the latter, which is clever messaging.
It is a move in the right direction, it can be reviewed at a later stage, same with LPF, that seems to be where we are heading, Cummings going and Cain going and replaced by an Osborne aide confirms it
Being in charge of 18% of our own fish is not something to be sneered at - and yet many will.
Some will sneer at anything less than bricking up the Channel Tunnel, there will always be diehards
No. There's no pleasing the Redwoods and the Cashs and the Bones. They want to live in a world and a Britain that has long gone. The big question for me is how many of those voted Conservative in the election also want to live in that world. If it's a large number I think the party - your party - has a structural problem and that victory could be of the Pyrrhic variety. Which I've just googled and realize is not quite right before people jump all over me with the weight of ancient learning.
So what, Starmer is also losing Corbynites to the Greens just as some diehard anti No Dealers and anti lockdown voters are going to Farage.
However Boris has a majority of 80 so can afford to ignore the diehards and will still get the Deal through
Yes I know he'll get the deal through. There's no doubt about that. You can't go winning a Get Brexit Done election and then not get the eponymous article done. It would make an absolute nonsense of the 12th Dec vote and the thumping majority it returned. I was just raising my gaze a little and postulating that the reason the Cons won big in the last election - people living in the past - is the very same reason they will struggle in future elections, starting with the next one. It's good to postulate that sort of thing. I imagine you are doing just the same, whilst not wanting to commit it to paper, which I totally understand for a person in your position.
The Conservatives won last December with a majority of 80 to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, we left the EU in January all that remains is the terms of how we leave.
The Tories have been in power now for 10 years, only 3 parties in government since WW2 have been in power for as long as that, the Tories from 1951-1964 and 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 and 2/3 of those then failed to win the subsequent election, Major's election win in 1992 the exception, so any Tory victory next time against Starmer will just be a bonus
But for only 3 of those 10 years has there been a Tory majority. For the other 7 years the Tories were dependent on other parties - 'in office rather than in power.'
Not really when the LDs were so compliant. Ask any student.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
It's not really one sided. Afaicr the UK exports c.50% of its catch to the EU, hence a more frequent No deal sceptic tone from fishing leaders, even the east coast 'British fish for British boats' lads.
We mostly export the species we don't eat (herring, mackeral, shellfish and crustaceans) and import the ones we do (cod, haddock)
You know, the effect of pubs in all this will probably be quite demonstrable after the new tiers.
We now know level 3 reliably brought numbers of cases down prior to lockdown. We know the new tier 2 has tier 3 type pub restrictions. If tier 2 starts reliably bringing numbers down and keeps them falling (returns then to talking after Xmas is over), then QED.
It is a move in the right direction, it can be reviewed at a later stage, same with LPF, that seems to be where we are heading, Cummings going and Cain going and replaced by an Osborne aide confirms it
Being in charge of 18% of our own fish is not something to be sneered at - and yet many will.
Some will sneer at anything less than bricking up the Channel Tunnel, there will always be diehards
No. There's no pleasing the Redwoods and the Cashs and the Bones. They want to live in a world and a Britain that has long gone. The big question for me is how many of those voted Conservative in the election also want to live in that world. If it's a large number I think the party - your party - has a structural problem and that victory could be of the Pyrrhic variety. Which I've just googled and realize is not quite right before people jump all over me with the weight of ancient learning.
So what, Starmer is also losing Corbynites to the Greens just as some diehard anti No Dealers and anti lockdown voters are going to Farage.
However Boris has a majority of 80 so can afford to ignore the diehards and will still get the Deal through
Yes I know he'll get the deal through. There's no doubt about that. You can't go winning a Get Brexit Done election and then not get the eponymous article done. It would make an absolute nonsense of the 12th Dec vote and the thumping majority it returned. I was just raising my gaze a little and postulating that the reason the Cons won big in the last election - people living in the past - is the very same reason they will struggle in future elections, starting with the next one. It's good to postulate that sort of thing. I imagine you are doing just the same, whilst not wanting to commit it to paper, which I totally understand for a person in your position.
The Conservatives won last December with a majority of 80 to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, we left the EU in January all that remains is the terms of how we leave.
The Tories have been in power now for 10 years, only 3 parties in government since WW2 have been in power for as long as that, the Tories from 1951-1964 and 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 and 2/3 of those then failed to win the subsequent election, Major's election win in 1992 the exception, so any Tory victory next time against Starmer will just be a bonus
Is this fatalism creeping in? Or is it rolling the pitch to declare defeat next time as victory? I sense the latter, which is clever messaging.
No, just reality.
Obviously I hope for the Tories to win a fifth consecutive term in power but the historical reality is only one PM has achieved an election victory for their party after ten years in power since universal suffrage in 1918, John Major in 1992 and of course we all then remember what happened 5 years later in 1997
Whatever deal with the EU is eventually made it is nailed on guaranteed that that the die in the ditchers on both sides will be dying in their ditches again as they rage against the machine - evreyone else will quietly shrug and move on.
Will you be quietly shrugging and moving on then, Felix?
Already have - got my TIE - building a new house, enjoying our first rain day in around 3 months, railing against unfair lockdowns and useless governments. The grass over here tends to be brown rather than green but in most respects the people and the debates are much the same.
As I have glad to be here in my current condition treatment unaffected, social services, although not needed call once a week, bars and restaurants open when I would need them first rain here for a long time. It does seem more civilized than the UK, even hip and knee replacements are going ahead, but I’m sure living on the coast is worlds apart from living in Madrid. The only downside at present is physical contact with the kids is impossible.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
It'll be interesting to see what we'll be offering in return.
I think the attention on fishing is something of a red herring. I doubt that it's something the EU is prepared to die in a ditch for, notwithstanding the protests of French and Spanish fishermen. No, they are using it primarily as a negotiating tool and, knowing how politically important it is for the British, to give Boris something he can use to declare victory at home.
Where they won't bend, though, is on governance and the level playing field. These are critical to the integrity of the EU. Unless the British accept these (using the fish as cover), there will be no deal.
But contrary to what 90%+ of the commentary says both the EU and UK are bending all the time.
It's a negotiation.
Indeed, the EU bend on fishing, 0.1% of our economy, we bend on the other 99.9%. This was always the most likely deal politically. The other political "win" for the Tories will be a review/renegotiation in late 2024 which will allow him to frame that election as get Brexit done as well. Those who hope the topic will drift away after these talks should prepare to be disappointed.
I'm afraid that isn't true either. The EU have bended on a role for the ECJ, following their state aid regime, how state aid is applied and having no change to the fishing quotas. They've also moved on things like data sharing and energy.
I've said this about eighteen times - the UK and EU have negotiating advantage in the ratio of 35:65 on average with some issues higher and some lower - it's not 0/100 and nor is it 100/0.
It had less than 30% turnout, South had almost 50% turnout, the loss of a key marginal seat by the SNP to a Unionist Party on a high turnout is far more significant than them holding a safe seat on a low turnout
SCON successful candidate in 2017 Council elections resigned after pleading guilty to possession of indecent imagesvote - in the by-election the SCON vote was reduced, so it's a reversion to the norm, not a sign of recovery.
It is a gain for a Unionist party from the SNP, that is the key
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
The Slds can always rely on the Scons to do the right thing when push come to shove.
Bit surprised the Tory vote held up in a middle-class urban/suburban ward like Perth South partic with a strong LibDem campaign going on. . I'd expect them to perform better, trend-wise, in the more rural parts of Perthshire which are older and more Brexity.
Time to seal Wales off like the leper colony it is.
Send in 7 Armoured Brigade to patrol the border.
.. and, er, you do know it doesn't have CR2s any more??
We've still got the MLRS trucks haven't we?
Not organic to what is now a mere infantry brigade, I should think.
I was about to write some smart arse comment (unlike me, I know) about the 7th Armoured Brigade being, an armoured and therefore a cavalry brigade but thank the lord of PB I googled it first.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
It's not really one sided. Afaicr the UK exports c.50% of its catch to the EU, hence a more frequent No deal sceptic tone from fishing leaders, even the east coast 'British fish for British boats' lads.
We mostly export the species we don't eat (herring, mackeral, shellfish and crustaceans) and import the ones we do (cod, haddock)
I love herring, mackerel, and pretty much all shellfish other than crab. I really don't understand why we don't eat more of these domestically.
It is a move in the right direction, it can be reviewed at a later stage, same with LPF, that seems to be where we are heading, Cummings going and Cain going and replaced by an Osborne aide confirms it
Being in charge of 18% of our own fish is not something to be sneered at - and yet many will.
Some will sneer at anything less than bricking up the Channel Tunnel, there will always be diehards
No. There's no pleasing the Redwoods and the Cashs and the Bones. They want to live in a world and a Britain that has long gone. The big question for me is how many of those voted Conservative in the election also want to live in that world. If it's a large number I think the party - your party - has a structural problem and that victory could be of the Pyrrhic variety. Which I've just googled and realize is not quite right before people jump all over me with the weight of ancient learning.
So what, Starmer is also losing Corbynites to the Greens just as some diehard anti No Dealers and anti lockdown voters are going to Farage.
However Boris has a majority of 80 so can afford to ignore the diehards and will still get the Deal through
Yes I know he'll get the deal through. There's no doubt about that. You can't go winning a Get Brexit Done election and then not get the eponymous article done. It would make an absolute nonsense of the 12th Dec vote and the thumping majority it returned. I was just raising my gaze a little and postulating that the reason the Cons won big in the last election - people living in the past - is the very same reason they will struggle in future elections, starting with the next one. It's good to postulate that sort of thing. I imagine you are doing just the same, whilst not wanting to commit it to paper, which I totally understand for a person in your position.
The Conservatives won last December with a majority of 80 to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, we left the EU in January all that remains is the terms of how we leave.
The Tories have been in power now for 10 years, only 3 parties in government since WW2 have been in power for as long as that, the Tories from 1951-1964 and 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 and 2/3 of those then failed to win the subsequent election, Major's election win in 1992 the exception, so any Tory victory next time against Starmer will just be a bonus
Is this fatalism creeping in? Or is it rolling the pitch to declare defeat next time as victory? I sense the latter, which is clever messaging.
No, just reality.
Obviously I hope for the Tories to win a fifth consecutive term in power but the historical reality is only one PM has achieved an election victory for their party after ten years in power since universal suffrage in 1918, John Major in 1992 and of course we all then remember what happened 5 years later in 1997
Yes. A defeat so bad it took the party the best part of 20 years to get another majority. A majority, furthermore, that they had to concede an EU referendum to their Right flank in order to achieve. And now here they are, reliant on a very strained coalition of interests indeed. A coalition that cannot be held together without going to some uncomfortable places. It must be causing you some sleepless nights.
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
The slightly surprising thing about that is that 93 Tories apparently had the SNP as a second/third/fourth preference. That's about 92 more than I would have expected.
Are you really surprised? The SNP are pretty much a middle of the road party and if one is worried about Brexit ... we do have people like Peter de Vink and Malcy to represent the pro-independence right wing.
I confess I am. The defining feature of the conservative and UNIONIST party since 2014 has been the Union and it baffles me that people who give them their first preferences would vote SNP. Maybe they had a particularly good candidate or something and people took the view that it was for local government.
AS if the Tories would ever propose a fair share, they can keep THEIR debt, unless they pony up the share of the UK assets to go with it, which will never happen.
I think like a lot of people I started out as Covid WFH = holiday. No shaving, shorts and a t-shirt, not really paying attention to work as much as I should have been, etc.
That lasted about two weeks. After that the novelty wore off plus I realised my head was in a sub-optimal place for work. Now I shave every day, properly dressed every day, not a suit, but put on a shirt, always use video on my zooms/teams/webex calls. Feel much better for it.
If you're retired, however, (large PB contingent) then no idea how it would work.
That's the way it should be. Hats off. Literally, because with your hair sorted you don't have to wear one.
It is a move in the right direction, it can be reviewed at a later stage, same with LPF, that seems to be where we are heading, Cummings going and Cain going and replaced by an Osborne aide confirms it
Being in charge of 18% of our own fish is not something to be sneered at - and yet many will.
Some will sneer at anything less than bricking up the Channel Tunnel, there will always be diehards
No. There's no pleasing the Redwoods and the Cashs and the Bones. They want to live in a world and a Britain that has long gone. The big question for me is how many of those voted Conservative in the election also want to live in that world. If it's a large number I think the party - your party - has a structural problem and that victory could be of the Pyrrhic variety. Which I've just googled and realize is not quite right before people jump all over me with the weight of ancient learning.
So what, Starmer is also losing Corbynites to the Greens just as some diehard anti No Dealers and anti lockdown voters are going to Farage.
However Boris has a majority of 80 so can afford to ignore the diehards and will still get the Deal through
Yes I know he'll get the deal through. There's no doubt about that. You can't go winning a Get Brexit Done election and then not get the eponymous article done. It would make an absolute nonsense of the 12th Dec vote and the thumping majority it returned. I was just raising my gaze a little and postulating that the reason the Cons won big in the last election - people living in the past - is the very same reason they will struggle in future elections, starting with the next one. It's good to postulate that sort of thing. I imagine you are doing just the same, whilst not wanting to commit it to paper, which I totally understand for a person in your position.
The Conservatives won last December with a majority of 80 to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, we left the EU in January all that remains is the terms of how we leave.
The Tories have been in power now for 10 years, only 3 parties in government since WW2 have been in power for as long as that, the Tories from 1951-1964 and 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 and 2/3 of those then failed to win the subsequent election, Major's election win in 1992 the exception, so any Tory victory next time against Starmer will just be a bonus
Is this fatalism creeping in? Or is it rolling the pitch to declare defeat next time as victory? I sense the latter, which is clever messaging.
No, just reality.
Obviously I hope for the Tories to win a fifth consecutive term in power but the historical reality is only one PM has achieved an election victory for their party after ten years in power since universal suffrage in 1918, John Major in 1992 and of course we all then remember what happened 5 years later in 1997
Yes. A defeat so bad it took the party the best part of 20 years to get another majority. A majority, furthermore, that they had to concede an EU referendum to their Right flank in order to achieve. And now here they are, reliant on a very strained coalition of interests indeed. A coalition that cannot be held together without going to some uncomfortable places. It must be causing you some sleepless nights.
Not at all, the crushing defeat of Corbyn Labour last year for a historic 4th term in power was the main thing and Opinium last weekend showed most Tory voters would accept a basic EU trade deal or No Deal, they just would not accept a SM and CU BINO which Boris will not do anyway.
As long as we do that we will still be in far better shape than 1997 even if we do not win a majority again next time
I think like a lot of people I started out as Covid WFH = holiday. No shaving, shorts and a t-shirt, not really paying attention to work as much as I should have been, etc.
That lasted about two weeks. After that the novelty wore off plus I realised my head was in a sub-optimal place for work. Now I shave every day, properly dressed every day, not a suit, but put on a shirt, always use video on my zooms/teams/webex calls. Feel much better for it.
If you're retired, however, (large PB contingent) then no idea how it would work.
That's the way it should be. Hats off. Literally, because with your hair sorted you don't have to wear one.
Not that I'd mind people liking SIndy so much they counterintuitively decide not to vote for Sindy candidates, but it feels like it'd be a hard sell to most.
Wishart does not want independence, he wants to retain the big cash and the high life at Westminster, the bellend has gone native.
More Unionist tactical voting as last week in Clackmannanshire (though this time on later preferences), Scottish Conservatives voting LD on second preferences enabled the LDs to take the seat from the SNP
WE will see when it comes to a real election and not just a diddy councillor.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
It'll be interesting to see what we'll be offering in return.
I think the attention on fishing is something of a red herring. I doubt that it's something the EU is prepared to die in a ditch for, notwithstanding the protests of French and Spanish fishermen. No, they are using it primarily as a negotiating tool and, knowing how politically important it is for the British, to give Boris something he can use to declare victory at home.
Where they won't bend, though, is on governance and the level playing field. These are critical to the integrity of the EU. Unless the British accept these (using the fish as cover), there will be no deal.
But contrary to what 90%+ of the commentary says both the EU and UK are bending all the time.
It's a negotiation.
Indeed, the EU bend on fishing, 0.1% of our economy, we bend on the other 99.9%. This was always the most likely deal politically. The other political "win" for the Tories will be a review/renegotiation in late 2024 which will allow him to frame that election as get Brexit done as well. Those who hope the topic will drift away after these talks should prepare to be disappointed.
I'm afraid that isn't true either. The EU have bended on a role for the ECJ, following their state aid regime, how state aid is applied and having no change to the fishing quotas. They've also moved on things like data sharing and energy.
I've said this about eighteen times - the UK and EU have negotiating advantage in the ratio of 35:65 on average with some issues higher and some lower - it's not 0/100 and nor is it 100/0.
Don't take anyone who says otherwise seriously.
Sure of course my post is exaggerating. But because Brexit is primarily a political exercise in the UK and primarily an economic one for the EU, we are going to get small political wins like fishing, and they get the big economic wins. The long term outcome will not be good for us, but we have little choice but to do the deal now and see what can be improved in the future.
Wales reintroducing restrictions with a whole week's notice. On a Friday. Inviting everyone to head to the pubs and "indoor entertainment venues" for the weekend. Painfully incompetent. Increased restrictions ought to be decided on a Monday and implemented by Friday.
It's not something to be bothered about. As we know, the EU putting flags on everything they funded made very little difference to opinion.
Who knows, it may have done in Scotland. I know correlation does not imply causation, but the EU still seems quite popular here, or at least to not inspire the same virulent hatred abroad in some parts south of Gretna.
Unlike the storm caused by the arses trying to put the butchers apron on everything Scottish.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
It's not really one sided. Afaicr the UK exports c.50% of its catch to the EU, hence a more frequent No deal sceptic tone from fishing leaders, even the east coast 'British fish for British boats' lads.
We mostly export the species we don't eat (herring, mackeral, shellfish and crustaceans) and import the ones we do (cod, haddock)
I love herring, mackerel, and pretty much all shellfish other than crab. I really don't understand why we don't eat more of these domestically.
Shellfish look too much like something that should be living for many UK tastes. We don't like our food to remind us that we killed it.
Whatever deal with the EU is eventually made it is nailed on guaranteed that that the die in the ditchers on both sides will be dying in their ditches again as they rage against the machine - evreyone else will quietly shrug and move on.
Will you be quietly shrugging and moving on then, Felix?
Already have - got my TIE - building a new house, enjoying our first rain day in around 3 months, railing against unfair lockdowns and useless governments. The grass over here tends to be brown rather than green but in most respects the people and the debates are much the same.
Fair enough. Although I think perhaps this government is the type that looks worse from close up. I'm not a big fan of it, I have to say. I actively search for the pluses but it's not often I locate one. I do think their initial lockdown messaging in March was effective. I think they handled that quite well.
Its minor news in the scheme of things, but the call I've just had from my mortgage broker confirming our mortgage deal was bliss. Considering that I am newly self employed (albeit with a chunky contract paying chunky money), getting anything agreed and quickly is good going at the moment. Just need to get confirmation that our buyer has also got his mortgage agreed and Scotland here we come!
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
It's not really one sided. Afaicr the UK exports c.50% of its catch to the EU, hence a more frequent No deal sceptic tone from fishing leaders, even the east coast 'British fish for British boats' lads.
We mostly export the species we don't eat (herring, mackeral, shellfish and crustaceans) and import the ones we do (cod, haddock)
I love herring, mackerel, and pretty much all shellfish other than crab. I really don't understand why we don't eat more of these domestically.
Mackerel is probably my favourite fish but it has to be really, REALLY fresh, preferably freshly line caught in Bayble Bay. The cling filmed supermarket boys in plastic trays in a slick of their own bloody oil don't really appeal.
neck and neck through four rounds, SCON transfers tipping the final result:
Do you happen, please, to know if tthe departing councillor was first elected on the slate?> (If not, then vote change is harder to interpret, an d so on, of course.)
He was elected third in a four member ward in the full council elections of 2017, after the seventh count following the election of two SCON candidates in count 1 (34.7 and 25.2% respectively) then elimination of two independents, SGreen and SLab candidates in subsequent counts. He got 14.9% of first preference votes (3rd), compared to his (also successful) SNP colleague who got 10.8%
A subsequent by-election in the ward forced by the almost immediate resignation of the second SCON councillor, after his pleading guilty to possession of indecent images, was significantly different - 32% SNP/31% SCON/29% LibDem With the SCON candidate winning after the 6th count.
Its minor news in the scheme of things, but the call I've just had from my mortgage broker confirming our mortgage deal was bliss. Considering that I am newly self employed (albeit with a chunky contract paying chunky money), getting anything agreed and quickly is good going at the moment. Just need to get confirmation that our buyer has also got his mortgage agreed and Scotland here we come!
Make sure you inform the Scottish Border Service agent Mr Blackford of your move, otherwise he'll be waiting at the border to turn you away.
Wales reintroducing restrictions with a whole week's notice. On a Friday. Inviting everyone to head to the pubs and "indoor entertainment venues" for the weekend. Painfully incompetent. Increased restrictions ought to be decided on a Monday and implemented by Friday.
Beer and other items with a best before date need to be drunk or written off. Given that the Government never thought about purchasing unusable beer the best option is to let it be drunk.
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
It's not really one sided. Afaicr the UK exports c.50% of its catch to the EU, hence a more frequent No deal sceptic tone from fishing leaders, even the east coast 'British fish for British boats' lads.
We mostly export the species we don't eat (herring, mackeral, shellfish and crustaceans) and import the ones we do (cod, haddock)
I love herring, mackerel, and pretty much all shellfish other than crab. I really don't understand why we don't eat more of these domestically.
Mackerel is probably my favourite fish but it has to be really, REALLY fresh, preferably freshly line caught in Bayble Bay. The cling filmed supermarket boys in plastic trays in a slick of their own bloody oil don't really appeal.
We had kippers the other day. First time for years. Great with a poached egg on top. Stank kitchen out though.
It had less than 30% turnout, South had almost 50% turnout, the loss of a key marginal seat by the SNP to a Unionist Party on a high turnout is far more significant than them holding a safe seat on a low turnout
SCON successful candidate in 2017 Council elections resigned after pleading guilty to possession of indecent imagesvote - in the by-election the SCON vote was reduced, so it's a reversion to the norm, not a sign of recovery.
It is a gain for a Unionist party from the SNP, that is the key
Inevitable in our Scottish local election voting system there the usual vote share split 60% to 25% in favour of SCON
Notice even Remainers like Vivienne Stern say "Now, even we think that doesn’t look fair, and we’ve been saying to our European counterparts."
Vivienne Stern spent 2 years bleating that No Deal would be hugely damaging -- and now she has her deal, she has discovered she does not like it. Her European friends are not ... errr ... really friends.
It is a hugely exploitative deal.
In my opinion, it is way better for UK science not to accept this deal, but to use the money to support .... err .... science in the UK.
I'm a UK scientist and I've been involved in several FP7 projects - now working in a slightly different field and mostly UK (in fact UK charity, rather than government) funded, so I don't directly have an interest.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
I am a UK Scientist and I have also had plenty of money off the EU in my time.
However, I am extremely critical of EU science policy, which has largely destroyed the scientific institutes of the former Eastern Bloc countries. It has given to those countries that are strong in science (primarily the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands), and ruthlessly taken away from those that had little. One could have imagined a policy in which the scientific strengths of Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary had been protected and strengthened. That was very far from the effect of the EU's science policy.
Horizon 2020 is extremely wasteful, when the proportion of funding that goes to science versus that going to administration of the schemes is considered. Just compare the money spent on administration to national schemes in the UK or the US. (Although, at a personal level, I found that advising the EU on a matter of science policy is always highly profitable -- in the end I stopped doing it as it made me feel unclean).
The strongest Universities in Europe are not in the the EU. They are in the UK & Switzerland. ETH Zurich is the highest ranked University on the European mainland when it comes to the sciences. The UK (and also Switrzerland) are being shafted by these deals. If we agree to them, it will lead to less science done in the Uk, and less scientists employed in the UK.
The deal (which is not worth taking) shows a complete lack of confidence in UK science by those ostensibly in charge. The top of UK science is filled with normally uncritical admirers of the EU & they have been completely shafted by "their friends".
We all need to learn rcs's famous mantra. "Countries do not have friends, they have interests."
This science deal is in the interests of Germany, the Netherlands and France, who will be the principal beneficiaries.
Of course BJ didn't mean Devolution was a disaster, what he was trying to say was that it was an act of foolish, constitutional vandalism that has made all of the UK suffer.
Wales reintroducing restrictions with a whole week's notice. On a Friday. Inviting everyone to head to the pubs and "indoor entertainment venues" for the weekend. Painfully incompetent. Increased restrictions ought to be decided on a Monday and implemented by Friday.
Even worse, announcing restrictions without knowing what those restrictions will be and with 7 days notice.
More Unionist tactical voting as last week in Clackmannanshire (though this time on later preferences), Scottish Conservatives voting LD on second preferences enabled the LDs to take the seat from the SNP
WE will see when it comes to a real election and not just a diddy councillor.
A nuclear scientist dubbed 'father of the Iranian bomb' has been injured in an assassination attempt, state-run media reports.
Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi - a professor of physics and former officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - was the target of a 'terrorist operation' near Tehran, sources told state-controlled news agency IRIB.
A nuclear scientist dubbed 'father of the Iranian bomb' has been injured in an assassination attempt, state-run media reports.
Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi - a professor of physics and former officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - was the target of a 'terrorist operation' near Tehran, sources told state-controlled news agency IRIB.
Its minor news in the scheme of things, but the call I've just had from my mortgage broker confirming our mortgage deal was bliss. Considering that I am newly self employed (albeit with a chunky contract paying chunky money), getting anything agreed and quickly is good going at the moment. Just need to get confirmation that our buyer has also got his mortgage agreed and Scotland here we come!
Make sure you inform the Scottish Border Service agent Mr Blackford of your move, otherwise he'll be waiting at the border to turn you away.
There will be bunting and pipers playing to welcome our new Scottish family.
Notice even Remainers like Vivienne Stern say "Now, even we think that doesn’t look fair, and we’ve been saying to our European counterparts."
Vivienne Stern spent 2 years bleating that No Deal would be hugely damaging -- and now she has her deal, she has discovered she does not like it. Her European friends are not ... errr ... really friends.
It is a hugely exploitative deal.
In my opinion, it is way better for UK science not to accept this deal, but to use the money to support .... err .... science in the UK.
I'm a UK scientist and I've been involved in several FP7 projects - now working in a slightly different field and mostly UK (in fact UK charity, rather than government) funded, so I don't directly have an interest.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
I am a UK Scientist and I have also had plenty of money off the EU in my time.
However, I am extremely critical of EU science policy, which has largely destroyed the scientific institutes of the former Eastern Bloc countries. It has given to those countries that are strong in science (primarily the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands), and ruthlessly taken away from those that had little. One could have imagined a policy in which the scientific strengths of Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary had been protected and strengthened. That was very far from the effect of the EU's science policy.
Horizon 2020 is extremely wasteful, when the proportion of funding that goes to science versus that going to administration of the schemes is considered. Just compare the money spent on administration to national schemes in the UK or the US. (Although, at a personal level, I found that advising the EU on a matter of science policy is always highly profitable -- in the end I stopped doing it as it made me feel unclean).
The strongest Universities in Europe are not in the the EU. They are in the UK & Switzerland. ETH Zurich is the highest ranked University on the European mainland when it comes to the sciences. The UK (and also Switrzerland) are being shafted by these deals. If we agree to them, it will lead to less science done in the Uk, and less scientists employed in the UK.
The deal (which is not worth taking) shows a complete lack of confidence in UK science by those ostensibly in charge. The top of UK science is filled with normally uncritical admirers of the EU & they have been completely shafted by "their friends".
We all need to learn rcs's famous mantra. "Countries do not have friends, they have interests."
This science deal is in the interests of Germany, the Netherlands and France, who will be the principal beneficiaries.
Why are you surprised that the EU is looking after its own interests?
More Unionist tactical voting as last week in Clackmannanshire (though this time on later preferences), Scottish Conservatives voting LD on second preferences enabled the LDs to take the seat from the SNP
WE will see when it comes to a real election and not just a diddy councillor.
Not due til 2024, Malc. Quite a wait.
Unsurprising that a SCon thinks a general election to the Scottish parliament isn't a real election. You need to have a word with your leader as he seems to think voting for your lot in that election is the only way of stopping indy ref II.
I think like a lot of people I started out as Covid WFH = holiday. No shaving, shorts and a t-shirt, not really paying attention to work as much as I should have been, etc.
That lasted about two weeks. After that the novelty wore off plus I realised my head was in a sub-optimal place for work. Now I shave every day, properly dressed every day, not a suit, but put on a shirt, always use video on my zooms/teams/webex calls. Feel much better for it.
If you're retired, however, (large PB contingent) then no idea how it would work.
That's the way it should be. Hats off. Literally, because with your hair sorted you don't have to wear one.
need some hair first
You looking for a ban again Malcolm?
Oops living dangerously there, luckily I was talking about myself just so it cannot be misconstrued
Looks like the EU has blinked though. And "controlling" our waters is not incompatible with letting other people fish in them.
#bringonthedeal
This will have publicly leaked for a reason. And my guess is anchoring.
The EU will want to settle in the 25-30 range rather than the 35-40 range.
Having said that not all fishing grounds are created equal - it be the UK is more generous to the French in the Channel in exchange for a massive increase in quotas of catches off the east coast of Scotland.
That would accord with the political objectives of both.
My guess is that he has been putting pressure on the Fishing Ministers to compromise to get a deal and needs to ramp that pressure up a bit. But its always good tactics to make it clear how hard you are having to work to get your client to go even this far and to anchor expectations in that way.
The problem for Barnier is that this is the one area where we literally do have all the cards. We can ban all EU fishing in our waters if we want and there is nothing they can do about it. That would be the consequence of no deal.
The question is what price we are willing to accept for not doing that. Of course the balance of power is very much the other way around in other areas, hence the trade offs. I just wish they would stop mucking about and cut a deal.
It's not really one sided. Afaicr the UK exports c.50% of its catch to the EU, hence a more frequent No deal sceptic tone from fishing leaders, even the east coast 'British fish for British boats' lads.
But we also end up "importing" a lot of fish caught in our waters at the moment. That is not in our interests. And I seriously doubt that a modest tariff (in the event of a no deal) would significantly impact on our shellfish, for example. They are a high value, high demand product.
Sitting in an excrement strewn lorry park in Kent for 2 days might significantly impact on our shellfish.
It might if that happens although most will be frozen.
I remember vividly enjoying BBQ seafood in Portugal in the Algarve only to discover that it came from the Western Isles! Its apparently much cleaner and tastier than the equivalent from the Med. It was certainly excellent.
Would be surprised if people in Portugal are doing much fishing in the Med!
Comments
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1332316869148221440
Send in 7 Armoured Brigade to patrol the border.
Yep, the Iberians really appreciate our products, every medium to big Spanish city I've been to has had fantastic markets with some of the shellfish actually labelled Escocés. The fish counter at Morrisons doesn't really cut it (Dave may disagree).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/manchester-united-will-be-forced-to-pay-millions-after-crippling-cyberattack-3r63xwr85
Almost half the Tories and nearly as many Labour.
The main selling point of FP7, H2020 etc funding compared to domestic funding was that it made it easy to put together a research team with the best people across a wide number of countries. That was why other countries were willing to be net contributors because it gave their academics the chance to be part of projects that they simply didn't have the expertise or capacity to undertake themselves. A nice side effect was that the UK used to get more than it contributed, particularly because other countries' academics wanted UK-based people in their research collaborations because they were often at the top of the field (UK-based, not necessarily UK nationals) so UK-based researchers got onto a disproportionate number of successful bids.
Simply replacing the lost money is not the same - it will keep academics in work, but it will be more complicated to bring together the best expertise into a research project. That would require either being able to use the UK funding to fund collaborators in the EU (in which case we'll become net contributors anyway) or for those other countries to be able to raise their own funds for a project at the same time - effectively two funding bids, one on the UK side and one on the EU side, both of which have to come off (funders also think about risk, so that's not ideal, in itself).
There may be some positives, building up UK centres of excellence - possibly poaching some of the leading researchers to come to the UK - rather than just collaborating with the best team in Germany, France, wherever, but the research return for x amount spent may be lower. Poaching the best to come over here will be expensive, although if there is a local boost in capacity it may have long term benefits.
There are also many other funding streams of course, many international, which won't be directly affected. There is also of course a point at which Horizon Europe becomes too expensive and not worth it. That may be at the proposed level, but it's hard to precisely assess the costs and benefits of being in or out. One thing is sure, it looks like the position will be worse post-transition than before (either we'll be paying more or we won't be involved).
The Tories have been in power now for 10 years, only 3 parties in government since WW2 have been in power for as long as that, the Tories from 1951-1964 and 1979 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010 and 2/3 of those then failed to win the subsequent election, Major's election win in 1992 the exception, so any Tory victory next time against Starmer will just be a bonus
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8992927/Brazils-President-Bolsonaro-says-REFUSE-Covid-19-vaccine.html
Perhaps Sebastian Gorka can perform the opening if Orban isn't available?
https://twitter.com/matraszek/status/1332069769571409925?s=20
Edit: sorry, misread the colours, some things are too weird to countenance!
The two burial sites in Jutland are highly controversial - one is near a bathing lake and the other not far from a source of drinking water.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55101058
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1332205090497769472?s=20
We now know level 3 reliably brought numbers of cases down prior to lockdown. We know the new tier 2 has tier 3 type pub restrictions. If tier 2 starts reliably bringing numbers down and keeps them falling (returns then to talking after Xmas is over), then QED.
Obviously I hope for the Tories to win a fifth consecutive term in power but the historical reality is only one PM has achieved an election victory for their party after ten years in power since universal suffrage in 1918, John Major in 1992 and of course we all then remember what happened 5 years later in 1997
The only downside at present is physical contact with the kids is impossible.
I've said this about eighteen times - the UK and EU have negotiating advantage in the ratio of 35:65 on average with some issues higher and some lower - it's not 0/100 and nor is it 100/0.
Don't take anyone who says otherwise seriously.
It is indeed now an infantry brigade.
And I've never seen an MLRS if that helps.
As long as we do that we will still be in far better shape than 1997 even if we do not win a majority again next time
The article is about Europe in general and the Champs-Élysées is correctly identified in the article.
A subsequent by-election in the ward forced by the almost immediate resignation of the second SCON councillor, after his pleading guilty to possession of indecent images, was significantly different - 32% SNP/31% SCON/29% LibDem With the SCON candidate winning after the 6th count.
However, I am extremely critical of EU science policy, which has largely destroyed the scientific institutes of the former Eastern Bloc countries. It has given to those countries that are strong in science (primarily the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands), and ruthlessly taken away from those that had little. One could have imagined a policy in which the scientific strengths of Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary had been protected and strengthened. That was very far from the effect of the EU's science policy.
Horizon 2020 is extremely wasteful, when the proportion of funding that goes to science versus that going to administration of the schemes is considered. Just compare the money spent on administration to national schemes in the UK or the US. (Although, at a personal level, I found that advising the EU on a matter of science policy is always highly profitable -- in the end I stopped doing it as it made me feel unclean).
The strongest Universities in Europe are not in the the EU. They are in the UK & Switzerland. ETH Zurich is the highest ranked University on the European mainland when it comes to the sciences. The UK (and also Switrzerland) are being shafted by these deals. If we agree to them, it will lead to less science done in the Uk, and less scientists employed in the UK.
The deal (which is not worth taking) shows a complete lack of confidence in UK science by those ostensibly in charge. The top of UK science is filled with normally uncritical admirers of the EU & they have been completely shafted by "their friends".
We all need to learn rcs's famous mantra. "Countries do not have friends, they have interests."
This science deal is in the interests of Germany, the Netherlands and France, who will be the principal beneficiaries.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1332329145129447424?s=20
Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi - a professor of physics and former officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - was the target of a 'terrorist operation' near Tehran, sources told state-controlled news agency IRIB.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8993605/Iranian-nuclear-scientist-assassinated-near-Tehran-reports-Iran-claim.html
Anyhoo it is normally £7.99 but for Black Friday it is now £1 a month for 12 months, absolute bargain.
http://theathletic.com/blackfriday
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1332041592732049409?s=20