@dura_ace Changing subject. We were discussing yesterday whether or not the general belgrano and/or its escorts ought to have detected conqueror. Any views?
One of the reasons that the casualties were so high was that she had no idea S48 was in the vicinity. If they did they would have been at Action Stations/General Quarters and closed the torpedo bulkheads.
CWB had quite a cruise in '82. After he sank the Belgrano he sailed north to the Baltic and severed, for later recovery, the towed sonar array of a Soviet intelligence gathering ship disguised as a trawler.
Seems odd not to be in Condition Zulu given that I thought that Mrs T made quite a public show of sending the nuke boats to scare the Argies? Or was that the previous panic over the Falklands?
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
That would be Wonga, founded in October 2006, with a full market launch in July 2008. Are you high?
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
Payday loan companies used to sponsor LP conferences.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
I think a few moments of quiet reflection... You know that we know that you know that the government has just blown itself up, so why keep fighting to die in the ditch? The deal is damaging enough, but the No deal will blow up the Johnson government, the Tory Party and quite probably the UK... We know you know that, so why bother any more?
We will see in May, as I posted earlier I do not think the results will be as bad for the Tories as some make out even after No Deal, in fact I think the Tories will make gains in Wales in the Senedd even if they lose seats in England in London and the county elections
If there’s no deal I expect the EU will be disappointed but won’t go into UK bashing mode and won’t inflame the situation .
Quite the reverse will happen on the UK side where I expect playing the victim and bashing the EU will be the way to go for months .
The EU anyway have had a very successful summit , agreed the budget , recovery fund and rule of law mechanism and emission targets and are probably now even less bothered about getting a deal .
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
I would be content to remain in the single market and customs union and I think it is quite likely that will be the eventual landing zone.
However, I am astonished at how tone deaf the EU are over their 12 month fishing offer. It is extraordinary as is either arrogant, ignorant or just plain provocative and something no UK PM could accept
It does look as if Ireland is being thrown to the wolves by a French dominated EU and as far as I am concerned it is a plague on all your houses. Furthermore I doubt the EU are much better prepared.
However, it is very unseemly to suggest this but covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe in the first few months of 2021 and it is possible that immediate effects of a no deal will not be obvious. I assume talks will continue into 2021 as for all the EU bluster I do not expect many EU countries will want to see a complete fracture in relationship with the UK
"covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe...possible that immediate effects of no deal will not be obvious".
Have to disagree with that. Covid has been a major issue for 9, maybe 10, months now but there have not been any long lasting shortages in the supermarkets - toilet paper notwithstanding - nor any proce rises of note. If there are supermarket shortages then people will point to the only new variable - No Deal.
Neither will talks continue until 2021. Johnson's only option will be to double down. To skulk back, head bowed, to the negotiating table after No Deal will result in his immediate defenstration by the ERG. He's painted himself into a corner.
As for Ireland, for obvious and understandable reasons the national psychology is to blame the Brits whatever. It's baked in. If Ireland, England and Hades were in the same group at the World Cup, and Ireland needed England to beat Satan's XI to progress to the next round, the red flags with pitchforks on them would still be waiving in bars accross Ireland. If the UK put a resurrected Elvis backed by the Angelic Choir into Eurovision they would still give us Nul Points.
The EU anyway have had a very successful summit , agreed the budget , recovery fund and rule of law mechanism and emission targets and are probably now even less bothered about getting a deal .
Exactly what I said- in fact better. No point in panic buying, some temporary disruption in short-life fresh foods, and that will only be for a month or two - before back to normal.
"The chairman of Britain’s biggest supermarket warned that the end of the transition period could trigger temporary disruption of food imports and lead to gaps on supermarket shelves, although he urged shoppers not to panic-buy.
“We may see some shortages of fresh foods, particularly short-life fresh foods. I think that will only be for a limited period, perhaps a month or two, before we get back to normal,” Allan said."
Only months of shortages of fresh foods, eh! Well, that’s all right then.
What do you think that will do to those businesses that rely on fresh food to provide a service?
My point wasn't that everything will be "all right" my point was that there was no point in stockpiling.
I'm not arguing for a No Deal here. I'm trying to give constructive advice.
If people want to ignore it or attack it because of my or their position on Brexit well, that's up to them. Others might find it useful.
———————————-
Blockquotes messed up. The following is in response to @Casino_Royale.
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
I would be content to remain in the single market and customs union and I think it is quite likely that will be the eventual landing zone.
However, I am astonished at how tone deaf the EU are over their 12 month fishing offer. It is extraordinary as is either arrogant, ignorant or just plain provocative and something no UK PM could accept
It does look as if Ireland is being thrown to the wolves by a French dominated EU and as far as I am concerned it is a plague on all your houses. Furthermore I doubt the EU are much better prepared.
However, it is very unseemly to suggest this but covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe in the first few months of 2021 and it is possible that immediate effects of a no deal will not be obvious. I assume talks will continue into 2021 as for all the EU bluster I do not expect many EU countries will want to see a complete fracture in relationship with the UK
"covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe...possible that immediate effects of no deal will not be obvious".
Have to disagree with that. Covid has been a major issue for 9, maybe 10, months now but there have not been any long lasting shortages in the supermarkets - toilet paper notwithstanding - nor any proce rises of note. If there are supermarket shortages then people will point to the only new variable - No Deal.
Neither will talks continue until 2021. Johnson's only option will be to double down. To skulk back, head bowed, to the negotiating table after No Deal will result in his immediate defenstration by the ERG. He's painted himself into a corner.
As for Ireland, for obvious and understandable reasons the national psychology is to blame the Brits whatever. It's baked in. If Ireland, England and Hades were in the same group at the World Cup, and Ireland needed England to beat Satan's XI to progress to the next round, the red flags with pitchforks on them would still be waiving in bars accross Ireland. If the UK put a resurrected Elvis backed by the Angelic Choir into Eurovision they would still give us Nul Points.
On Eurovision Ireland and Malta are the two most likely countries to vote for the UK. Not really relevant to your wider point but this is pedanticbetting.com after all.
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Yes, it makes sense to stockpile even if the risk of disruption is relatively small. It's a straightforward cost/benefit thing.
Stockpile and all is well: You've gone to little unnecessary trouble, but no major harm done.
Perhaps Casino is right. Perhaps the entire grocery industry is wrong. It all depends on what happens. I do keep making this point that there are 3 outcomes: 1. A continuity deal. No checks. No customs. Stuff keeps flowing freely. In which case the post-Brexit price rise won't be dramatically more than the existing price inflation we already have 2. A deal with checks and customs. Stuff stops flowing very quickly. In which case the price rises will be rather more significant 3. No Deal. Same as point 2 but with added tariff goodness. What fresh products are on sale will be pricey
I don't need to argue the toss with dreamers like Casino who believe in Tinkerbell.
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
As I said in a later post, it made its first loan in late 2007, and was not peoprly launched until 2008. You said that "under Blair and Brown's tenure payday loands went from unheard of". At the start of Blair's tenure Wonga was unheard of, and it was still unheard of at the end of his premiership. Wonga only really took off when BoJo allowed it to sponsor free travel on the London Underground on NYE 2010. It's heyday was during Cameron's austerity - it received a third round of funding worth £73m in 2011.
Exactly what I said- in fact better. No point in panic buying, some temporary disruption in short-life fresh foods, and that will only be for a month or two - before back to normal.
"The chairman of Britain’s biggest supermarket warned that the end of the transition period could trigger temporary disruption of food imports and lead to gaps on supermarket shelves, although he urged shoppers not to panic-buy.
“We may see some shortages of fresh foods, particularly short-life fresh foods. I think that will only be for a limited period, perhaps a month or two, before we get back to normal,” Allan said."
Only months of shortages of fresh foods, eh! Well, that’s all right then.
What do you think that will do to those businesses that rely on fresh food to provide a service?
My point wasn't that everything will be "all right" my point was that there was no point in stockpiling.
I'm not arguing for a No Deal here. I'm trying to give constructive advice.
If people want to ignore it or attack it because of my or their position on Brexit well, that's up to them. Others might find it useful.
———————————-
Blockquotes messed up. The following is in response to @Casino_Royale.
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Yes, but you need to distinguish between stockpiling because you fear everyone else will panic buy goods with no supply chain issues, leading to temporary shortages, and stockpiling on the fundamentals. Your yeast example is the former and due to Covid panicking.
My analysis is factual, well-sourced and rooted in reality. No-one has been able to pick it apart on this thread.
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Yes, it makes sense to stockpile even if the risk of disruption is relatively small. It's a straightforward cost/benefit thing.
Stockpile and all is well: You've gone to little unnecessary trouble, but no major harm done.
Don't stockpile and shortages occur: Oh, bugger!
That's the tragedy of the commons. If everyone stockpiles there absolutely will be shortages.
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
As I said in a later post, it made its first loan in late 2007, and was not peoprly launched until 2008. You said that "under Blair and Brown's tenure payday loands went from unheard of". At the start of Blair's tenure Wonga was unheard of, and it was still unheard of at the end of his premiership. Wonga only really took off when BoJo allowed it to sponsor free travel on the London Underground on NYE 2010. It's heyday was during Cameron's austerity - it received a third round of funding worth £73m in 2011.
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
I would be content to remain in the single market and customs union and I think it is quite likely that will be the eventual landing zone.
However, I am astonished at how tone deaf the EU are over their 12 month fishing offer. It is extraordinary as is either arrogant, ignorant or just plain provocative and something no UK PM could accept
It does look as if Ireland is being thrown to the wolves by a French dominated EU and as far as I am concerned it is a plague on all your houses. Furthermore I doubt the EU are much better prepared.
However, it is very unseemly to suggest this but covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe in the first few months of 2021 and it is possible that immediate effects of a no deal will not be obvious. I assume talks will continue into 2021 as for all the EU bluster I do not expect many EU countries will want to see a complete fracture in relationship with the UK
"covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe...possible that immediate effects of no deal will not be obvious".
Have to disagree with that. Covid has been a major issue for 9, maybe 10, months now but there have not been any long lasting shortages in the supermarkets - toilet paper notwithstanding - nor any proce rises of note. If there are supermarket shortages then people will point to the only new variable - No Deal.
Neither will talks continue until 2021. Johnson's only option will be to double down. To skulk back, head bowed, to the negotiating table after No Deal will result in his immediate defenstration by the ERG. He's painted himself into a corner.
As for Ireland, for obvious and understandable reasons the national psychology is to blame the Brits whatever. It's baked in. If Ireland, England and Hades were in the same group at the World Cup, and Ireland needed England to beat Satan's XI to progress to the next round, the red flags with pitchforks on them would still be waiving in bars accross Ireland. If the UK put a resurrected Elvis backed by the Angelic Choir into Eurovision they would still give us Nul Points.
On Eurovision Ireland and Malta are the two most likely countries to vote for the UK. Not really relevant to your wider point but this is pedanticbetting.com after all.
But the British Empire was a disaster for the human race and all our former colonies hate us.
Can someone explain what benefit we get for abandoning freedom of movement for Brits., much high insurance costs of visiting EU countries, higher food price in the UK among many negatives, UK motor manufacturing reduced etc
Simple we stop allowing in low value immigrants. I am entirely unphased by the number or nationality but its a simple fact that immigrants that are not net contributors to the treasury means that the public service pie has to stretch further without additional money. Explain to me why a minimum wage barista of any nationality is worth having as an immigrant
Wouldn't it be simpler to let the free market decide that?
Absolutely.
No Universal Credit or other wage related welfare for non-citizens and an annual NHS subscription fee. If they still want to come then welcome with open arms, if they only want to come for welfare then no thanks.
Nobody in their right mind would come here for welfare. Living on welfare in 2020 Britain is utter shite.
Only someone very entitled and sheltered from a global perspective could say that.
If you think life is so shite in Britain why not try moving to eg Romania and working a minimum wage job there with whatever welfare they'll supply you with and see how much your life improves by?
Only someone who does not have to live on welfare would argue with the notion that living on welfare is shite. It keeps you alive, but restricts your life and the choices you can make in any number of ways. The idea that people flock to the UK to take advantage of our welfare system is for the fairies - especially as EU immigration is falling as it rises from elsewhere.
In work welfare in this country is not at all shite from a global perspective. In some parts of the EU you can get a minimum wage of €1.95 per hour - whereas here you can get a minimum wage five times that and then get Universal Credit on top of your waves too.
Just because you wish things were better does not mean things are bad here.
Things are worse here than they used to be. For those who rely on welfare they are bad full stop. I wish fewer people had to rely on welfare. I think we can treat those who do a whole lot better. I don't know if you have ever had to rely on state handouts to look after yourself and your family. I have. It is not a pleasant experience. And the system was a lot less punitive than it is now when I had to.
I was involved with CAB and later Citizens Advice for over 40 years. I'm certain the situation is worse now, and more complex, and the attitude of many of the 'haves' seems to be hardening.
Yes, it is always comforting to blame the poor and vulnerable for being poor and vulnerable.
It's not just about blame though is it?
Do people screw up sometimes? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Do people sometimes get into need for reasons out of their control? Yes. Should they go hungry because of it? Should their kids go hungry because of it? No.
Offering a form of safety net doesn't mean being judgemental about why people get into need ... But it is important to understand why and that there is no easy fix to that.
At one point during Blair and Browns tenure every other advert on TV and Radio seemed to be for either payday or other forms of lenders, or ambulance chasing lawyers. So people were getting bombarded by messages to call Wonga if they were in difficulty but food banks weren't available.
The idea need didn't exist a decade ago is a lie.
It did, but the last-resort demand for foodbanks, the demand with no options or easy choices involved in it, was significantly less.
What evidence do you have for that?
Supply was less so people turned to Wonga etc instead. That is bad. What evidence do you have that need was less?
The Cameron/coalition government encouraged organisations such as foodbanks culturally from 2010. The explosion in foodbank demand, that everyone in the sector noticed, was in 2014-15, as the effects of the first welfare changes kicked in. A withering away of state support was explicitly what many Tory voters wanted.
No that is a rewriting of history.
Under Blair and Browns tenure payday loans like Wonga went from almost unheard of to a multi billion pound industry.
Cameron tackled this and quite right too. I would rather people go to a food bank than Wonga at exorbitant interest rates.
The safety net under Blair and Brown wasn't food banks or welfare. It was loan sharks. It was evil.
I don't know if I wholly agree.
At the time Wonga worked for me. If I had an unexpected bill six days before payday (and a couple of times I did) then I could borrow £200 and pay back £215 seven days later.
If I went over my overdraft limit with my bank they (at the time) hit me with a £30 penalty charge plus costs - so Wonga was cheaper.
I could otherwise have used a cash advance on my credit card but I didn't have one at the time.
Good post.
Difficulty is distinguishing between those making good use of a service to everyone's benefit and the loss to the supplier and customer if you remove it, and the harm it does to others who are just plain desperate and sink further into debt if you don't
Another element of this was the use of arrangement fees or the claim that the very high interest rates were exploitative. However in your case CR where you borrowed for a very short time the use of an arrangement fee or a high interest rate that covered that admin cost was not exploitative but fair. However for someone who gets sucked into a long term debt it is exploitative.
So the same product can be both filling a market need to the benefit of both parties or completely evil depending upon who the customer is.
Very difficult.
Many years ago I met a guy with whom, and with his wife, my wife and I became friendly. As far as I knew he ran a small steel fabricating organisation..... contract repairs at refineries and so on. However one evening we were at his house and talking and, how I can't remember, he remarked that he also had a door to door money-lending business, and explained how it worked. Many of his clients were CR types..... borrowing fairly small sums and paying them off fairly quickly, although often the second loan was, effectively, to pay off the first! And so on. I knew the area where he operated, and knew, from other sources, that some at least of the people living there were often unable to get 'normal' forms of credit and a lot of the residents had short-term and/or low paid jobs. I found myself getting confused.
In other words, you mistakenly made friends with the local loan shark/gangster, made your excuses and legged it? Or are you now his trusted consigliere?
LOL. Neither, TBH! We became somewhat less friendly, slowly disengaging, then he developed something nasty and died. And we moved. Still exchange Christmas cards with his wife, though. No, she didn't take over either of his businesses.
Lending money is a cash business so he may well have had some third line of business for which the loan sharing was a money laundering opportunity. Not to speak ill of the dead!
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Yes, it makes sense to stockpile even if the risk of disruption is relatively small. It's a straightforward cost/benefit thing.
Stockpile and all is well: You've gone to little unnecessary trouble, but no major harm done.
Don't stockpile and shortages occur: Oh, bugger!
That's the tragedy of the commons. If everyone stockpiles there absolutely will be shortages.
I am not stockpiling or panicking.
I'm not worried.
On the contrary, those of us that have already stockpiled will be able to ease the pressure on supplies when the disruption kicks in by falling back on our stockpiles. We are doing everyone a favour by stockpiling.
Last-minute panic buying, on the other hand, does no-one any favours.
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
I would be content to remain in the single market and customs union and I think it is quite likely that will be the eventual landing zone.
However, I am astonished at how tone deaf the EU are over their 12 month fishing offer. It is extraordinary as is either arrogant, ignorant or just plain provocative and something no UK PM could accept
It does look as if Ireland is being thrown to the wolves by a French dominated EU and as far as I am concerned it is a plague on all your houses. Furthermore I doubt the EU are much better prepared.
However, it is very unseemly to suggest this but covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe in the first few months of 2021 and it is possible that immediate effects of a no deal will not be obvious. I assume talks will continue into 2021 as for all the EU bluster I do not expect many EU countries will want to see a complete fracture in relationship with the UK
"covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe...possible that immediate effects of no deal will not be obvious".
Have to disagree with that. Covid has been a major issue for 9, maybe 10, months now but there have not been any long lasting shortages in the supermarkets - toilet paper notwithstanding - nor any proce rises of note. If there are supermarket shortages then people will point to the only new variable - No Deal.
Neither will talks continue until 2021. Johnson's only option will be to double down. To skulk back, head bowed, to the negotiating table after No Deal will result in his immediate defenstration by the ERG. He's painted himself into a corner.
As for Ireland, for obvious and understandable reasons the national psychology is to blame the Brits whatever. It's baked in. If Ireland, England and Hades were in the same group at the World Cup, and Ireland needed England to beat Satan's XI to progress to the next round, the red flags with pitchforks on them would still be waiving in bars accross Ireland. If the UK put a resurrected Elvis backed by the Angelic Choir into Eurovision they would still give us Nul Points.
On Eurovision Ireland and Malta are the two most likely countries to vote for the UK. Not really relevant to your wider point but this is pedanticbetting.com after all.
But the British Empire was a disaster for the human race and all our former colonies hate us.
The Yanks are okay with us, and I had a good time in India when I lived there.
Perhaps Casino is right. Perhaps the entire grocery industry is wrong. It all depends on what happens. I do keep making this point that there are 3 outcomes: 1. A continuity deal. No checks. No customs. Stuff keeps flowing freely. In which case the post-Brexit price rise won't be dramatically more than the existing price inflation we already have 2. A deal with checks and customs. Stuff stops flowing very quickly. In which case the price rises will be rather more significant 3. No Deal. Same as point 2 but with added tariff goodness. What fresh products are on sale will be pricey
I don't need to argue the toss with dreamers like Casino who believe in Tinkerbell.
I am using information from your own industry. All I've had is personal attacks and insults and windy rhetoric - no-one has been able to refute any of what I said, including you.
You'll forgive me if I don't take the hyperventilating at face value from a man who said the Tories were evil and responsible for babies dying and mass suicides.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
Steve Hay, from Bournemouth, arrived in Lanzarote on Thursday evening for a seven-day break with his family.
They now face cutting it short to avoid a quarantine period that could potentially run until New Year's Eve - effectively cancelling their Christmas plans in the UK.
"How will we do our Christmas shopping?" Mr Hay said. "I think it's shocking and doesn't appear much thought has gone into it.
"Why is it being implemented so quick, this only gives us tomorrow to get back.
Some people are so self-centered! I don't think Mr Hay's Christmas shopping counts very much in a public health crisis, Mr Hay was an idiot for travelling in the first place when knew very well that this might happen, and the point of quarantine is not to allow people to rush back to beat it coming into force...
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
I would be content to remain in the single market and customs union and I think it is quite likely that will be the eventual landing zone.
However, I am astonished at how tone deaf the EU are over their 12 month fishing offer. It is extraordinary as is either arrogant, ignorant or just plain provocative and something no UK PM could accept
It does look as if Ireland is being thrown to the wolves by a French dominated EU and as far as I am concerned it is a plague on all your houses. Furthermore I doubt the EU are much better prepared.
However, it is very unseemly to suggest this but covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe in the first few months of 2021 and it is possible that immediate effects of a no deal will not be obvious. I assume talks will continue into 2021 as for all the EU bluster I do not expect many EU countries will want to see a complete fracture in relationship with the UK
"covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe...possible that immediate effects of no deal will not be obvious".
Have to disagree with that. Covid has been a major issue for 9, maybe 10, months now but there have not been any long lasting shortages in the supermarkets - toilet paper notwithstanding - nor any proce rises of note. If there are supermarket shortages then people will point to the only new variable - No Deal.
Neither will talks continue until 2021. Johnson's only option will be to double down. To skulk back, head bowed, to the negotiating table after No Deal will result in his immediate defenstration by the ERG. He's painted himself into a corner.
As for Ireland, for obvious and understandable reasons the national psychology is to blame the Brits whatever. It's baked in. If Ireland, England and Hades were in the same group at the World Cup, and Ireland needed England to beat Satan's XI to progress to the next round, the red flags with pitchforks on them would still be waiving in bars accross Ireland. If the UK put a resurrected Elvis backed by the Angelic Choir into Eurovision they would still give us Nul Points.
On Eurovision Ireland and Malta are the two most likely countries to vote for the UK. Not really relevant to your wider point but this is pedanticbetting.com after all.
But the British Empire was a disaster for the human race and all our former colonies hate us.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
If that was always the deal BoZo needs to explain why he doesn't like it
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Yes, it makes sense to stockpile even if the risk of disruption is relatively small. It's a straightforward cost/benefit thing.
Stockpile and all is well: You've gone to little unnecessary trouble, but no major harm done.
Don't stockpile and shortages occur: Oh, bugger!
That's the tragedy of the commons. If everyone stockpiles there absolutely will be shortages.
I am not stockpiling or panicking.
I'm not worried.
On the contrary, those of us that have already stockpiled will be able to ease the pressure on supplies when the disruption kicks in by falling back on our stockpiles. We are doing everyone a favour by stockpiling.
Last-minute panic buying, on the other hand, does no-one any favours.
Well, sort of, because that stockpiling now is causing congestion at the ports and airports today.
But yes, you're right. The thing is most people will try and do this between Christmas and New Year, or shortly after, so it will be last-minute panics by and large.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
If that was always the deal BoZo needs to explain why he doesn't like it
It wasn't*. It was dynamic alignment with unilateral lightning tariffs (hit the UK where it hurts the most) in response if they didn't follow, even in totally unrelated sectors.
This is different.
(*unless all the articles I read in The Times, on Twitter from Connelly - all mild Remain supporting outfits with multiple sources - were wrong)
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
As I said in a later post, it made its first loan in late 2007, and was not peoprly launched until 2008. You said that "under Blair and Brown's tenure payday loands went from unheard of". At the start of Blair's tenure Wonga was unheard of, and it was still unheard of at the end of his premiership. Wonga only really took off when BoJo allowed it to sponsor free travel on the London Underground on NYE 2010. It's heyday was during Cameron's austerity - it received a third round of funding worth £73m in 2011.
Yes Blair left in 2007 but Brown continued until 2010. By then the sector had gone from negligible to billions.
Now will you actually answer the question? If someone is hit by a sudden shock, whether it be unexpected bills or bad gambling or anything else, would you rather they have the Trussel Trust to hand to help? Or Wonga to hand to "help"?
The demise of payday loans and the rise of food banks should be universally accepted as an undeniable good thing not a bad thing.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
Devil is in the details.
What was posted in the Times last night is absolutely unacceptable. VDL's spin is one thing at a press conference but it depends if that is backed up by a factual change in their offer rather than just spinning it differently.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Understood. So if he is so unsuitable as a trade advisor why have we hired him as a trade advisor?
One of two things is true: 1. He does know what he is talking about and you don't 2. He doesn't know what he is talking about and your beloved PM shouldn't have hired him.
Which is it?
I think you're confusing HYUFD with the admittedly very similar Philip_Thompson. I don't think HYUFD loves Johnson at all.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
Devil is in the details.
What was posted in the Times last night is absolutely unacceptable. VDL's spin is one thing at a press conference but it depends if that is backed up by a factual change in their offer rather than just spinning it differently.
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Yes, it makes sense to stockpile even if the risk of disruption is relatively small. It's a straightforward cost/benefit thing.
Stockpile and all is well: You've gone to little unnecessary trouble, but no major harm done.
Don't stockpile and shortages occur: Oh, bugger!
That's the tragedy of the commons. If everyone stockpiles there absolutely will be shortages.
I am not stockpiling or panicking.
I'm not worried.
My other half has done some serious stockpiling. Roughly six months of all the food we need. For the dog. Nothing for us.
I wonder if this is VDL being too "friendly" which apparently annoyed the French and sent Barnier back with the "unilateral lightning tariffs" extras last week?
LOL. Do you really expect an EU fanatic like Roberts - who believes the UK should be part of a Federal Europe - would say anything else?
I mean I think Boris is a buffoon and is incapable of leading a kids birthday party but posting comments like this from such fervent anti-Brexit loons is hardly contributing to the discussion.
I wonder if this is VDL being too "friendly" which apparently annoyed the French and sent Barnier back with the "unilateral lightning tariffs" extras last week?
She must have brokered and agreed this with Macron last night though at the EU27, right?
She's never been the problem. Part of me even quite likes VDL, despite being a federalist.
Isn’t it a statement of the obvious? The U.K. can do what it wants but there may well be consequences if, in response to what the U.K. does or does not do, the EU also chooses to take action.
And the EU is free to limit access to its markets if it wants to.
I don’t know whether the EU’s position is reasonable or not because no-one has been able to explain to me what it is yet.
But the British government seems to want (a) to be free to do whatever it wants but (b) also be free to do so without any consequences.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Understood. So if he is so unsuitable as a trade advisor why have we hired him as a trade advisor?
One of two things is true: 1. He does know what he is talking about and you don't 2. He doesn't know what he is talking about and your beloved PM shouldn't have hired him.
Which is it?
I think you're confusing HYUFD with the admittedly very similar Philip_Thompson. I don't think HYUFD loves Johnson at all.
I am nothing like HYUFD. He and I are two totally different types of Tories, he represents the branch of the Tory Party I can't stand (and I get the distinct impression the feeling is mutual).
You do realise that this has been the EU position all along, right?
No it hasn't. Do more research.
She is restating the principle of the ratchet clause, which was the EU's original proposition. You guys need to read up more on the ratchet clause - it's a real thing, not to be confused with Santa Claus (or a successful no deal Brexit).
There's a piece on the Spectator blog this morning by Patrick O'Flynn which argues that No Deal makes Starmer unelectable.
A lot of it rests on the supposition that, as I have mentioned on here before, if (it's a big conditional) No Deal is more of an inconvenience rather than an Apolcalypse then remainers expectation management will bite them. He rightly says that stuff like second holiday owners needing a visa to spend more than 90 days at it are the stuff of jokes rather than vote winners. That's right.
But he's holding himself a bit of a hostage to fortune that it won't be that bad and even if he's right he misses the point a bit. In a General Election voters tend to go for the party of competence. If Thatcher had lost the Falklands War having said she would win it the public wouldn't have gone "oh, good try Maggie, we don't blame you for losing British islands to a hostile power and then sacrificing numerous lives ina doomed attempt to retake them, it's the Argentinans fault for invading, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". They would have punished her for failing to defend the place and then failing to retake it.
Similarly if Johnson fails to prepare the public for No Deal psycholgically ("one in a million chance") or by putting in place the requisite preparations (I live in East Kent, a mile from the M20, there are no adequate preparations) they are unlikely to say "oh, good try Boris, we can forgive you for the economic disruption and humiliation, it's the EU's fault for agreeing to our terms, we don't blame you for having a jolly good try, here have a majority". The reputation for incompetence, on top of the less than stellar grades he's getting for Covid, will be the issue. This idea the country (or what is left of it) will rally round the flag is for the birds.
I think this is right. If no deal Brexit creates havoc and economic carnage then the Tories won't be forgiven before the next election. If it is a minor inconvenience then it will be a big boost for them. Personally I wouldn't want to be in the government’s shoes as I have little doubt that no deal will be terrible. I think the smarter people in the government (by which I mean Gove and Sunak and probably nobody else) are aware of what's coming and are doing their best to head off disaster/deflect the blame onto Johnson. The PM's bluster and self-confidence mean that he has convinced himself that it won't be that bad. I think he is wrong and will pay a big price for his hubris.
The car park for the lorries is not even half built. The extra customs officers aren't recruited. No business yet knows what it will or won't have to do in terms of paperwork and tariffs and checks now just two week's away. We're not capable of patrolling our waters against EU fishing boats. Even simple questions about travel and trade can't be answered. The Northern Ireland deal mostly buys more time because nothing is ready. Most of us are still taking the government at its word that it is trying for a last minute deal.
After four and a half years our lack of readiness is pitiful. Even those who mock the EU must see that even they are far more prepared.
I would be content to remain in the single market and customs union and I think it is quite likely that will be the eventual landing zone.
However, I am astonished at how tone deaf the EU are over their 12 month fishing offer. It is extraordinary as is either arrogant, ignorant or just plain provocative and something no UK PM could accept
It does look as if Ireland is being thrown to the wolves by a French dominated EU and as far as I am concerned it is a plague on all your houses. Furthermore I doubt the EU are much better prepared.
However, it is very unseemly to suggest this but covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe in the first few months of 2021 and it is possible that immediate effects of a no deal will not be obvious. I assume talks will continue into 2021 as for all the EU bluster I do not expect many EU countries will want to see a complete fracture in relationship with the UK
"covid is going to paralyse the UK and Europe...possible that immediate effects of no deal will not be obvious".
Have to disagree with that. Covid has been a major issue for 9, maybe 10, months now but there have not been any long lasting shortages in the supermarkets - toilet paper notwithstanding - nor any proce rises of note. If there are supermarket shortages then people will point to the only new variable - No Deal.
Neither will talks continue until 2021. Johnson's only option will be to double down. To skulk back, head bowed, to the negotiating table after No Deal will result in his immediate defenstration by the ERG. He's painted himself into a corner.
As for Ireland, for obvious and understandable reasons the national psychology is to blame the Brits whatever. It's baked in. If Ireland, England and Hades were in the same group at the World Cup, and Ireland needed England to beat Satan's XI to progress to the next round, the red flags with pitchforks on them would still be waiving in bars accross Ireland. If the UK put a resurrected Elvis backed by the Angelic Choir into Eurovision they would still give us Nul Points.
On Eurovision Ireland and Malta are the two most likely countries to vote for the UK. Not really relevant to your wider point but this is pedanticbetting.com after all.
But the British Empire was a disaster for the human race and all our former colonies hate us.
If they hate us so much why are most of our former colonies still in the Commonwealth?
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
I think a few moments of quiet reflection... You know that we know that you know that the government has just blown itself up, so why keep fighting to die in the ditch? The deal is damaging enough, but the No deal will blow up the Johnson government, the Tory Party and quite probably the UK... We know you know that, so why bother any more?
We will see in May, as I posted earlier I do not think the results will be as bad for the Tories as some make out even after No Deal, in fact I think the Tories will make gains in Wales in the Senedd even if they lose seats in England in London and the county elections
Howdja think they'll do in Scotland, Skip?
The Tories got 22% at Holyrood 2016, the Tories got 25% in Scotland last year so at worst treading water, maybe even make a few gains.
Ironically I think the Tories will see their biggest losses in England in 2021 because they are starting from a much higher base than in Scotland and Wales
LOL. Do you really expect an EU fanatic like Roberts - who believes the UK should be part of a Federal Europe - would say anything else?
I mean I think Boris is a buffoon and is incapable of leading a kids birthday party but posting comments like this from such fervent anti-Brexit loons is hardly contributing to the discussion.
Despite its tone, all it really means is he disagrees about what is good for the wellbeing of the nation. That's not that surprising especially on a divisive issue like this, despite his effort to make it seem surprising.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Understood. So if he is so unsuitable as a trade advisor why have we hired him as a trade advisor?
One of two things is true: 1. He does know what he is talking about and you don't 2. He doesn't know what he is talking about and your beloved PM shouldn't have hired him.
Which is it?
3. We haven't hired him. We hired Abbott not Turnbull - not sure if this is a "all look the same" thing to you but they're very different people.
BBC not discipling BBC broadcasters who speak out on political issues despite saying they would do so is peak BBC
Hmm.
I don't think Perkins actually works for the BBC. She is occasionally on programmes that they have commissioned but then she does as much for Sky and other TV channels as she does for the BBC. Nor is she involved in current affairs, she is a comedienne. As such I would suggest it would be grossly unfair and probably unlawful for the BBC to attempt to control what she writes either on Twitter or anywhere else.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
As we're outside the Customs Union, I think we'd just have to ensure that US chicken isn't re-exported to the EU (including Northern Ireland).
5% average rise in food prices obviously not good - but doesn't sound that bad to be honest (this may be famous last words).
I'm more worried about medicine shortages or lots of people losing their jobs in car manufacturing, financial services. I'm also concerned that Ireland are going to get hit really hard by this - perhaps worse than the UK.
Isn’t it a statement of the obvious? The U.K. can do what it wants but there may well be consequences if, in response to what the U.K. does or does not do, the EU also chooses to take action.
And the EU is free to limit access to its markets if it wants to.
I don’t know whether the EU’s position is reasonable or not because no-one has been able to explain to me what it is yet.
But the British government seems to want (a) to be free to do whatever it wants but (b) also be free to do so without any consequences.
(A) may be reasonable but (B) isn’t.
Perhaps someone could explain.
Back later maybe.
Have work to do.
Yes, it is. It was unilateral (EU side) beforehand, with no reciprocation right by the UK, if the EU did the same.
Also the EU could apply disproportionate and punitive lightning tariffs to enforce compliance by the UK.
This is fair, measured and balanced.
"Mr Barnier said the EU wanted powers to impose punitive tariffs on British exports if Britain diverged from EU environmental and labour laws. He is also understood to have demanded an opt-out for the European Commission on state aid rules, which would allow Brussels to support industries across the bloc as part of its Covid recovery plan. This could put Britain at a disadvantage to France, Spain or Italy, countries that are expected to benefit from the lion’s share of the EU fund."
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
It has, it's just that (like many Remainers, sadly) you are incapable of seeing any flaw or inconsistency in their approach.
I can see both of both sides. I impress myself with how objective I am, actually.
The EU position hasn’t changed . Bozo was lying about it to build up the problem and then declare victory when he dupes the public into thinking its a climbdown from the EU .
The EU though don’t care how he sells any deal, if he wants to call it a huge win for the UK fine , they understand he needs to play to the gallery .
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
As I said in a later post, it made its first loan in late 2007, and was not peoprly launched until 2008. You said that "under Blair and Brown's tenure payday loands went from unheard of". At the start of Blair's tenure Wonga was unheard of, and it was still unheard of at the end of his premiership. Wonga only really took off when BoJo allowed it to sponsor free travel on the London Underground on NYE 2010. It's heyday was during Cameron's austerity - it received a third round of funding worth £73m in 2011.
Yes Blair left in 2007 but Brown continued until 2010. By then the sector had gone from negligible to billions.
Now will you actually answer the question? If someone is hit by a sudden shock, whether it be unexpected bills or bad gambling or anything else, would you rather they have the Trussel Trust to hand to help? Or Wonga to hand to "help"?
The demise of payday loans and the rise of food banks should be universally accepted as an undeniable good thing not a bad thing.
No, because I don't answer your logical fallacies. Yours is false dilemma, a false dichtonomy, a black and white fallacy or, if you are being fancy, a bi-furcation fallacy. I think payday loans are evil and the necessity for foodbanks to be a symptom of evil. They are both, therefore, a "bad thing". There are many many far better options than both ranging from universal basic income upwards.
BBC not discipling BBC broadcasters who speak out on political issues despite saying they would do so is peak BBC
Hmm.
I don't think Perkins actually works for the BBC. She is occasionally on programmes that they have commissioned but then she does as much for Sky and other TV channels as she does for the BBC. Nor is she involved in current affairs, she is a comedienne. As such I would suggest it would be grossly unfair and probably unlawful for the BBC to attempt to control what she writes either on Twitter or anywhere else.
She's on the BBC all the time. She's a typical metro liberal-leftie luvvie.
If you work for the BBC (via any route) you stay out of controversial political issues.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
Yes it was for unilateral "lightning" measures.
Also non-reciprocity too so eg the UK post COVID giving State Aid for recovery post pandemic could be considered unlawful but the EU doing so with €750 billion would not.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
You do realise that this has been the EU position all along, right?
No it hasn't. Do more research.
She is restating the principle of the ratchet clause, which was the EU's original proposition. You guys need to read up more on the ratchet clause - it's a real thing, not to be confused with Santa Claus (or a successful no deal Brexit).
No. You've demonstrated you simply don't understand the issues at play here.
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Yes, it makes sense to stockpile even if the risk of disruption is relatively small. It's a straightforward cost/benefit thing.
Stockpile and all is well: You've gone to little unnecessary trouble, but no major harm done.
Don't stockpile and shortages occur: Oh, bugger!
That's the tragedy of the commons. If everyone stockpiles there absolutely will be shortages.
I am not stockpiling or panicking.
I'm not worried.
On the contrary, those of us that have already stockpiled will be able to ease the pressure on supplies when the disruption kicks in by falling back on our stockpiles. We are doing everyone a favour by stockpiling.
Last-minute panic buying, on the other hand, does no-one any favours.
Absolutely. Stockpiling while stocks are high long life goods is reasonable.
Panic buying and clearing shelves so you can get a stockpile during the surge is not.
BBC not discipling BBC broadcasters who speak out on political issues despite saying they would do so is peak BBC
Hmm.
I don't think Perkins actually works for the BBC. She is occasionally on programmes that they have commissioned but then she does as much for Sky and other TV channels as she does for the BBC. Nor is she involved in current affairs, she is a comedienne. As such I would suggest it would be grossly unfair and probably unlawful for the BBC to attempt to control what she writes either on Twitter or anywhere else.
She's on the BBC all the time. She's a typical metro liberal-leftie luvvie.
If you work for the BBC (via any route) you stay out of controversial political issues.
That should be the deal.
Someone else who was regularly on the BBC as a typical metro luvvie? Boris Johnson. Wish he had stayed out of politics, but he had every right to comment despite working for the BBC.
There is little point consumers stockpiling. The UK is currently drowning in food as it is the week before Christmas. Pox restrictions mean more of it than ever will be chucked away - the Turkey growers have been pleading for people to buy the huge Turkeys they have regardless of how many people are allowed to come for dinner. Last few years supermarkets have literally been giving the stuff away on Boxing Day. So we're awash - for now. None of it will keep.
So it doesn't have enough life on it to be stockpiled, and there's no warehouse space to put it even if it did. So why bother?
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
As I said in a later post, it made its first loan in late 2007, and was not peoprly launched until 2008. You said that "under Blair and Brown's tenure payday loands went from unheard of". At the start of Blair's tenure Wonga was unheard of, and it was still unheard of at the end of his premiership. Wonga only really took off when BoJo allowed it to sponsor free travel on the London Underground on NYE 2010. It's heyday was during Cameron's austerity - it received a third round of funding worth £73m in 2011.
Yes Blair left in 2007 but Brown continued until 2010. By then the sector had gone from negligible to billions.
Now will you actually answer the question? If someone is hit by a sudden shock, whether it be unexpected bills or bad gambling or anything else, would you rather they have the Trussel Trust to hand to help? Or Wonga to hand to "help"?
The demise of payday loans and the rise of food banks should be universally accepted as an undeniable good thing not a bad thing.
No, because I don't answer your logical fallacies. Yours is false dilemma, a false dichtonomy, a black and white fallacy or, if you are being fancy, a bi-furcation fallacy. I think payday loans are evil and the necessity for foodbanks to be a symptom of evil. They are both, therefore, a "bad thing". There are many many far better options than both ranging from universal basic income upwards.
No there are no better options since even if you have a universal basic income then people will still run into unforeseen circumstances.
Food banks are a safety net to deal with unforeseen circumstances that a universal basic income or even a full time well paid job can't always mean you avoid.
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
As I said in a later post, it made its first loan in late 2007, and was not peoprly launched until 2008. You said that "under Blair and Brown's tenure payday loands went from unheard of". At the start of Blair's tenure Wonga was unheard of, and it was still unheard of at the end of his premiership. Wonga only really took off when BoJo allowed it to sponsor free travel on the London Underground on NYE 2010. It's heyday was during Cameron's austerity - it received a third round of funding worth £73m in 2011.
Yes Blair left in 2007 but Brown continued until 2010. By then the sector had gone from negligible to billions.
Now will you actually answer the question? If someone is hit by a sudden shock, whether it be unexpected bills or bad gambling or anything else, would you rather they have the Trussel Trust to hand to help? Or Wonga to hand to "help"?
The demise of payday loans and the rise of food banks should be universally accepted as an undeniable good thing not a bad thing.
No, because I don't answer your logical fallacies. Yours is false dilemma, a false dichtonomy, a black and white fallacy or, if you are being fancy, a bi-furcation fallacy. I think payday loans are evil and the necessity for foodbanks to be a symptom of evil. They are both, therefore, a "bad thing". There are many many far better options than both ranging from universal basic income upwards.
Hmm, I mentioned the other day that the discussion of foodbanks had prompted me to make a donation to one of muy local ones, and PT 'liked' that. Kind of him, but I'm not quite sure how to take that now - especially as I think the need for the rise of food banks an evil thing just as you say, and dfirectly due to UK government policy in general and in particular (e.g. on how claimants are treated).
You do realise that this has been the EU position all along, right?
No it hasn't. Do more research.
She is restating the principle of the ratchet clause, which was the EU's original proposition. You guys need to read up more on the ratchet clause - it's a real thing, not to be confused with Santa Claus (or a successful no deal Brexit).
No. You've demonstrated you simply don't understand the issues at play here.
BBC not discipling BBC broadcasters who speak out on political issues despite saying they would do so is peak BBC
Hmm.
I don't think Perkins actually works for the BBC. She is occasionally on programmes that they have commissioned but then she does as much for Sky and other TV channels as she does for the BBC. Nor is she involved in current affairs, she is a comedienne. As such I would suggest it would be grossly unfair and probably unlawful for the BBC to attempt to control what she writes either on Twitter or anywhere else.
She's on the BBC all the time. She's a typical metro liberal-leftie luvvie.
If you work for the BBC (via any route) you stay out of controversial political issues.
That should be the deal.
Nah I can't agree with this at all. With the exception of those who are supposed to be providing balanced and objective news and current affairs, it should not be the job of the BBC to censor what people say, particularly those who do not work for them.
I mean, I don't agree with her at all but there is a world of difference between telling someone you think their opinions are wrong and telling them they are not allowed to articulate those opinions.
Besides it is completely unworkable. For a very large amount of their entertainment the BBC commission programmes from external companies. It would be impossible for them to police the political activities of those who do not even work for them. Nor should they even try.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Understood. So if he is so unsuitable as a trade advisor why have we hired him as a trade advisor?
One of two things is true: 1. He does know what he is talking about and you don't 2. He doesn't know what he is talking about and your beloved PM shouldn't have hired him.
Which is it?
I think you're confusing HYUFD with the admittedly very similar Philip_Thompson. I don't think HYUFD loves Johnson at all.
I am nothing like HYUFD. He and I are two totally different types of Tories, he represents the branch of the Tory Party I can't stand (and I get the distinct impression the feeling is mutual).
Precisely. 2006, before the financial crisis even, who was Prime Minister and who was Chancellor when that happened?
By the end of the decade the industry had gone from negligible to £2 billion per annum.
Would you rather someone who unexpectedly runs out of money goes to Wonga or the Trussel Trust?
As I said in a later post, it made its first loan in late 2007, and was not peoprly launched until 2008. You said that "under Blair and Brown's tenure payday loands went from unheard of". At the start of Blair's tenure Wonga was unheard of, and it was still unheard of at the end of his premiership. Wonga only really took off when BoJo allowed it to sponsor free travel on the London Underground on NYE 2010. It's heyday was during Cameron's austerity - it received a third round of funding worth £73m in 2011.
Yes Blair left in 2007 but Brown continued until 2010. By then the sector had gone from negligible to billions.
Now will you actually answer the question? If someone is hit by a sudden shock, whether it be unexpected bills or bad gambling or anything else, would you rather they have the Trussel Trust to hand to help? Or Wonga to hand to "help"?
The demise of payday loans and the rise of food banks should be universally accepted as an undeniable good thing not a bad thing.
No, because I don't answer your logical fallacies. Yours is false dilemma, a false dichtonomy, a black and white fallacy or, if you are being fancy, a bi-furcation fallacy. I think payday loans are evil and the necessity for foodbanks to be a symptom of evil. They are both, therefore, a "bad thing". There are many many far better options than both ranging from universal basic income upwards.
Hmm, I mentioned the other day that the discussion of foodbanks had prompted me to make a donation to one of muy local ones, and PT 'liked' that. Kind of him, but I'm not quite sure how to take that now - especially as I think the need for the rise of food banks an evil thing just as you say, and dfirectly due to UK government policy in general and in particular (e.g. on how claimants are treated).
I liked it because I think food banks and other charities are a good thing. Nothing sinister in that.
People get nasty and horrible shocks in their lives whether it be a job loss, or a car breakdown, or a broken window, or a broken boiler or a bad binge gambling or . . . the list is indefinite.
If someone is needy and a charity is able to help them out so they don't either go without or go to loan sharks getting themselves into a nasty debt spiral then that is a good thing.
Unalloyed, undeniably good thing, there is nothing to criticise there. I view charity as good not evil I don't understand why anyone views charity as anything other than good.
Little chance of it happening though, latest poll for the Senedd has Plaid falling from 12 seats in 2016 to just 11 (though to be fair Wales has not had a once in a generation referendum unlike Scotland just 6 years ago).
LOL. Do you really expect an EU fanatic like Roberts - who believes the UK should be part of a Federal Europe - would say anything else? I mean I think Boris is a buffoon and is incapable of leading a kids birthday party but posting comments like this from such fervent anti-Brexit loons is hardly contributing to the discussion.
Except that Roberts did not mention Brexit in the clip we have here. I think you are getting a bit carried away by that particular obsession of yours.
My key objection to Johnson and his government is that he is undermining all the institutions and processes that we have built up in this country over the centuries. Buffoonery and incompetence are just part of the Johnson brand - that goes without saying - so you are quite right there Mr Tyndall.
But if people feel that they can no longer trust the established processes to work properly and fairly, then we are coming to an end of government by consent. Short-term gain for the Conservatives - who have managed to get themselves an 80 seat majority in the Commons, remember..... But long-term destruction of our nation. Roger Roberts is quite right.
There we go. We've signed continuity deals with various other countries. Lets do a continuity deal with the EU.
I agree that if the UK throws back this concession in the EU's face (albeit I'm not close to the detail and don't know if they're sincere) then I will switch my criticism to the EU.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
She seemed to imply it would be a two-way thing. To me that would be acceptable especially as across the board UK standards at least meet and often exceed EU standards atm. But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
The proposal has never been for unilateral measures! If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
Yes it was for unilateral "lightning" measures.
Also non-reciprocity too so eg the UK post COVID giving State Aid for recovery post pandemic could be considered unlawful but the EU doing so with €750 billion would not.
The lightning measures were the EU's second proposal when the UK rejected the original ratchet clause proposals. We can also impose tariffs in the same way so it's totally symmetrical. It is any country's sovereign right to protect themselves from what they see as unfair competition. The EU has sovereignty concerns too. The proposal to exclude EU money from state aid rules is trying it on, I agree. I would expect that to go during negotiations.
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Understood. So if he is so unsuitable as a trade advisor why have we hired him as a trade advisor?
One of two things is true: 1. He does know what he is talking about and you don't 2. He doesn't know what he is talking about and your beloved PM shouldn't have hired him.
Which is it?
I think you're confusing HYUFD with the admittedly very similar Philip_Thompson. I don't think HYUFD loves Johnson at all.
I am nothing like HYUFD. He and I are two totally different types of Tories, he represents the branch of the Tory Party I can't stand (and I get the distinct impression the feeling is mutual).
It is mutual, I have more in common with Justin on the Union and the Church and the monarchy than you for example despite the fact he is a Labour supporter, the only thing we vaguely agree on is economics and respecting the Brexit vote, though you are more pro No Deal than me
So none of the usual suspects want to comment on the fact that the Australia-style deal they are trumpeting is shit according to former Aussie PM turned UK trade adviser Malcolm Turnbull?
Can't think why not...
Malcolm Turnbull is a liberal not a conservative who was toppled by his own party as leader twice, once by Tony Abbott and the second time when he was replaced by current PM Scott Morrison, both Abbott in 2013 and Morrison in 2019 won big majorities for their party unlike Turnbull in 2016 who scraped back into office despite significant Coalition losses to Labour and both are also far more pro Brexit than Turnbull is.
Turnbull is intelligent but basically an Australian Heseltine or Ken Clarke
Understood. So if he is so unsuitable as a trade advisor why have we hired him as a trade advisor?
One of two things is true: 1. He does know what he is talking about and you don't 2. He doesn't know what he is talking about and your beloved PM shouldn't have hired him.
Which is it?
I think you're confusing HYUFD with the admittedly very similar Philip_Thompson. I don't think HYUFD loves Johnson at all.
I am nothing like HYUFD. He and I are two totally different types of Tories, he represents the branch of the Tory Party I can't stand (and I get the distinct impression the feeling is mutual).
you are perfect mirrors for each other
Yes I agree. We are opposite reflections. He is my Tory opposite on almost any dividing line we couldn't be further apart while still being in the same party.
LOL. Do you really expect an EU fanatic like Roberts - who believes the UK should be part of a Federal Europe - would say anything else? I mean I think Boris is a buffoon and is incapable of leading a kids birthday party but posting comments like this from such fervent anti-Brexit loons is hardly contributing to the discussion.
Except that Roberts did not mention Brexit in the clip we have here. I think you are getting a bit carried away by that particular obsession of yours.
My key objection to Johnson and his government is that he is undermining all the institutions and processes that we have built up in this country over the centuries. Buffoonery and incompetence are just part of the Johnson brand - that goes without saying - so you are quite right there Mr Tyndall.
But if people feel that they can no longer trust the established processes to work properly and fairly, then we are coming to an end of government by consent. Short-term gain for the Conservatives - who have managed to get themselves an 80 seat majority in the Commons, remember..... But long-term destruction of our nation. Roger Roberts is quite right.
Do look again please. The tweet is actually hashtagged #Brexitreality. So yes it is overtly about Brexit.
BBC not discipling BBC broadcasters who speak out on political issues despite saying they would do so is peak BBC
Hmm.
I don't think Perkins actually works for the BBC. She is occasionally on programmes that they have commissioned but then she does as much for Sky and other TV channels as she does for the BBC. Nor is she involved in current affairs, she is a comedienne. As such I would suggest it would be grossly unfair and probably unlawful for the BBC to attempt to control what she writes either on Twitter or anywhere else.
She's on the BBC all the time. She's a typical metro liberal-leftie luvvie.
If you work for the BBC (via any route) you stay out of controversial political issues.
That should be the deal.
Nah I can't agree with this at all. With the exception of those who are supposed to be providing balanced and objective news and current affairs, it should not be the job of the BBC to censor what people say, particularly those who do not work for them.
I mean, I don't agree with her at all but there is a world of difference between telling someone you think their opinions are wrong and telling them they are not allowed to articulate those opinions.
Besides it is completely unworkable. For a very large amount of their entertainment the BBC commission programmes from external companies. It would be impossible for them to police the political activities of those who do not even work for them. Nor should they even try.
Sorry, I disagree. They provide services to the BBC and bring it into disrepute.
There is nothing controversial here. You have to sign up to T&Cs to work for all sorts of clients and employers, and not broadcast your political opinions if they have due concerns about them - which the BBC does.
Comments
Quite the reverse will happen on the UK side where I expect playing the victim and bashing the EU will be the way to go for months .
The EU anyway have had a very successful summit , agreed the budget , recovery fund and rule of law mechanism and emission targets and are probably now even less bothered about getting a deal .
Have to disagree with that. Covid has been a major issue for 9, maybe 10, months now but there have not been any long lasting shortages in the supermarkets - toilet paper notwithstanding - nor any proce rises of note. If there are supermarket shortages then people will point to the only new variable - No Deal.
Neither will talks continue until 2021. Johnson's only option will be to double down. To skulk back, head bowed, to the negotiating table after No Deal will result in his immediate defenstration by the ERG. He's painted himself into a corner.
As for Ireland, for obvious and understandable reasons the national psychology is to blame the Brits whatever. It's baked in. If Ireland, England and Hades were in the same group at the World Cup, and Ireland needed England to beat Satan's XI to progress to the next round, the red flags with pitchforks on them would still be waiving in bars accross Ireland. If the UK put a resurrected Elvis backed by the Angelic Choir into Eurovision they would still give us Nul Points.
Brexit remains a Tory Party Little Englander psychodrama for the EU
It will need forensic scrutiny in any statement from Mr Johnson, Mr Gove, etc.
Only months of shortages of fresh foods, eh! Well, that’s all right then.
What do you think that will do to those businesses that rely on fresh food to provide a service?
My point wasn't that everything will be "all right" my point was that there was no point in stockpiling.
I'm not arguing for a No Deal here. I'm trying to give constructive advice.
If people want to ignore it or attack it because of my or their position on Brexit well, that's up to them. Others might find it useful.
———————————-
Blockquotes messed up. The following is in response to @Casino_Royale.
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Stockpile and all is well: You've gone to little unnecessary trouble, but no major harm done.
Don't stockpile and shortages occur: Oh, bugger!
1. A continuity deal. No checks. No customs. Stuff keeps flowing freely. In which case the post-Brexit price rise won't be dramatically more than the existing price inflation we already have
2. A deal with checks and customs. Stuff stops flowing very quickly. In which case the price rises will be rather more significant
3. No Deal. Same as point 2 but with added tariff goodness. What fresh products are on sale will be pricey
I don't need to argue the toss with dreamers like Casino who believe in Tinkerbell.
I'm not arguing for a No Deal here. I'm trying to give constructive advice.
If people want to ignore it or attack it because of my or their position on Brexit well, that's up to them. Others might find it useful.
———————————-
Blockquotes messed up. The following is in response to @Casino_Royale.
There is every point and those hospitality businesses that are open round here are already stockpiling the essentials they need.
I find this information rather more useful than those seeking to downplay such concerns. I also remember what it was like earlier in the year when yeast was unobtainable and I had to raid my own personal reserves of the stuff to allow my daughter to carry on doing takeaway pizzas during the first lockdown.
People may find this information useful.
Yes, but you need to distinguish between stockpiling because you fear everyone else will panic buy goods with no supply chain issues, leading to temporary shortages, and stockpiling on the fundamentals. Your yeast example is the former and due to Covid panicking.
My analysis is factual, well-sourced and rooted in reality. No-one has been able to pick it apart on this thread.
I am not stockpiling or panicking.
I'm not worried.
That's a major EU concession.
Last-minute panic buying, on the other hand, does no-one any favours.
You'll forgive me if I don't take the hyperventilating at face value from a man who said the Tories were evil and responsible for babies dying and mass suicides.
I think what they're saying is mutual targeted adjustment of tariffs on an impact-analysis basis is one side decide to raise the LPF and do something different.
That seems totally fair to me.
--AS
But yes, you're right. The thing is most people will try and do this between Christmas and New Year, or shortly after, so it will be last-minute panics by and large.
This is different.
(*unless all the articles I read in The Times, on Twitter from Connelly - all mild Remain supporting outfits with multiple sources - were wrong)
Now will you actually answer the question? If someone is hit by a sudden shock, whether it be unexpected bills or bad gambling or anything else, would you rather they have the Trussel Trust to hand to help? Or Wonga to hand to "help"?
The demise of payday loans and the rise of food banks should be universally accepted as an undeniable good thing not a bad thing.
Summat on fish too please, and we're there.
What was posted in the Times last night is absolutely unacceptable. VDL's spin is one thing at a press conference but it depends if that is backed up by a factual change in their offer rather than just spinning it differently.
Nothing for us.
CAPITULATION!!
SURRENDER!!!!
I mean I think Boris is a buffoon and is incapable of leading a kids birthday party but posting comments like this from such fervent anti-Brexit loons is hardly contributing to the discussion.
She's never been the problem. Part of me even quite likes VDL, despite being a federalist.
Isn’t it a statement of the obvious? The U.K. can do what it wants but there may well be consequences if, in response to what the U.K. does or does not do, the EU also chooses to take action.
And the EU is free to limit access to its markets if it wants to.
I don’t know whether the EU’s position is reasonable or not because no-one has been able to explain to me what it is yet.
But the British government seems to want (a) to be free to do whatever it wants but (b) also be free to do so without any consequences.
(A) may be reasonable but (B) isn’t.
Perhaps someone could explain.
Back later maybe.
Have work to do.
But could a problem arise, e.g. with the unlikely US FTA wherein we accept chlorinated chicken which is not allowed in the EU? Then EU standards might prevent such an FTA coming into being.
Ironically I think the Tories will see their biggest losses in England in 2021 because they are starting from a much higher base than in Scotland and Wales
The status before then varied between colony, constituent component and experimental testing ground for English Holodomor techniques.
I don't think Perkins actually works for the BBC. She is occasionally on programmes that they have commissioned but then she does as much for Sky and other TV channels as she does for the BBC. Nor is she involved in current affairs, she is a comedienne. As such I would suggest it would be grossly unfair and probably unlawful for the BBC to attempt to control what she writes either on Twitter or anywhere else.
If you guys need to pretend that the EU has changed its position so that you can process the UK agreeing to it without suffering an aneurysm then go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to go along with your weird mental coping mechanism.
I'm more worried about medicine shortages or lots of people losing their jobs in car manufacturing, financial services. I'm also concerned that Ireland are going to get hit really hard by this - perhaps worse than the UK.
Also the EU could apply disproportionate and punitive lightning tariffs to enforce compliance by the UK.
This is fair, measured and balanced.
"Mr Barnier said the EU wanted powers to impose punitive tariffs on British exports if Britain diverged from EU environmental and labour laws. He is also understood to have demanded an opt-out for the European Commission on state aid rules, which would allow Brussels to support industries across the bloc as part of its Covid recovery plan. This could put Britain at a disadvantage to France, Spain or Italy, countries that are expected to benefit from the lion’s share of the EU fund."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/france-derails-brexit-talks-with-last-minute-demands-2g2pzxpmn
I can see both of both sides. I impress myself with how objective I am, actually.
The EU though don’t care how he sells any deal, if he wants to call it a huge win for the UK fine , they understand he needs to play to the gallery .
If you work for the BBC (via any route) you stay out of controversial political issues.
That should be the deal.
Also non-reciprocity too so eg the UK post COVID giving State Aid for recovery post pandemic could be considered unlawful but the EU doing so with €750 billion would not.
You need to do more reading and thinking.
Panic buying and clearing shelves so you can get a stockpile during the surge is not.
It breaks their world-view in two, so it's much easier to take the cognitive dissonance route.
Hey ho, people are funny.
So it doesn't have enough life on it to be stockpiled, and there's no warehouse space to put it even if it did. So why bother?
Food banks are a safety net to deal with unforeseen circumstances that a universal basic income or even a full time well paid job can't always mean you avoid.
I mean, I don't agree with her at all but there is a world of difference between telling someone you think their opinions are wrong and telling them they are not allowed to articulate those opinions.
Besides it is completely unworkable. For a very large amount of their entertainment the BBC commission programmes from external companies. It would be impossible for them to police the political activities of those who do not even work for them. Nor should they even try.
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1337355446898860033?s=20
People get nasty and horrible shocks in their lives whether it be a job loss, or a car breakdown, or a broken window, or a broken boiler or a bad binge gambling or . . . the list is indefinite.
If someone is needy and a charity is able to help them out so they don't either go without or go to loan sharks getting themselves into a nasty debt spiral then that is a good thing.
Unalloyed, undeniably good thing, there is nothing to criticise there. I view charity as good not evil I don't understand why anyone views charity as anything other than good.
https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2020/11/03/the-new-welsh-political-barometer-poll-7/
My key objection to Johnson and his government is that he is undermining all the institutions and processes that we have built up in this country over the centuries. Buffoonery and incompetence are just part of the Johnson brand - that goes without saying - so you are quite right there Mr Tyndall.
But if people feel that they can no longer trust the established processes to work properly and fairly, then we are coming to an end of government by consent. Short-term gain for the Conservatives - who have managed to get themselves an 80 seat majority in the Commons, remember..... But long-term destruction of our nation. Roger Roberts is quite right.
The proposal to exclude EU money from state aid rules is trying it on, I agree. I would expect that to go during negotiations.
There is nothing controversial here. You have to sign up to T&Cs to work for all sorts of clients and employers, and not broadcast your political opinions if they have due concerns about them - which the BBC does.
This is no different.