History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
Of course. But against that, the NYT is considerably more objective than (say) the Guardian.
The NYT has quite a well known anti-Brexit anti-UK anti-Johnson agenda.
Well, perhaps that is because objectively Brexit is a bad idea and, objectively Johnson isn´t a very good PM... Having opinions per se doesn´t make them wrong... the problem is when opinions are not supported by any objective facts... which does happen quite a lot at the moment.
I'm curious how the "geniuses" here think that we can go from 1% of PPE being manufactured in the UK to 70% being manufactured in the UK in a swift and timely fashion without new businesses entering the market stepping up to fill the gap.
If you go from 1% to 70% that's going to involve some considerable changes.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
Of course. But against that, the NYT is considerably more objective than (say) the Guardian.
The NYT has quite a well known anti-Brexit anti-UK anti-Johnson agenda.
Well, perhaps that is because objectively Brexit is a bad idea and, objectively Johnson isn´t a very good PM... Having opinions per se doesn´t make them wrong... the problem is when opinions are not supported by any objective facts... which does happen quite a lot at the moment.
I think you need to learn what the word objectively means.
Biden's Defense pick is an interesting choice. Certainly not continuity Obama.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/16/lloyd-austin-isnt-who-you-think-he-is/ ...What’s crucial is what Austin did in the aftermath of these failures, particularly after the Saudi intervention in Yemen. “Lloyd was enraged by the Saudi intervention,” a senior officer who worked with Austin at Centcom said, “because we [the Americans] were quietly supporting the Houthi fight against AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] at the time.” Austin was so angered by the Saudi move, this now-retired officer said, that he considered formally requesting that the Obama administration denounce the intervention. “We waved him off of that,” the officer with whom I spoke at the time said. But Austin also predicted the troubles the Saudis would face and made his views known to senior civilians at the Pentagon. “He thought the Saudis would lose in Yemen and that, before it was all over, we would have to bail them out,” this same officer noted. Austin was right on both counts: The Saudis found themselves mired in Yemen and dependent on U.S. intelligence assets in their fight...
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
Is there any large corporation that couldn't be categorised as history of controversy if one chooses to? Google, Facebook, Apple, extremely easy to say yes, but we probably would have been better off making more use of say Deepminds (owned by google).
Excellent article, Alistair, and thanks for the name check.
If I had backed Trump with Betfair, I wouldn't hope for the result to be overturned or the market reopened. That would be too ambitious. I would however ask for a refund of all bets placed between 7th November, by which time the Networks had unanimously projected the Electoral Votes in favour of Biden, and the 14th December when Betfair rather arbitrarily decided to settle the market on the basis of actual ECVs.
I think I'd have a case.
Except the terms were the "official" projections and those were only settled on the 14th. Until the 14th the official projections could change, on the 14th the official projections were 'locked' and finalised.
There's nothing arbitrary about that. I know that you disagree but the simple matter of law is that there was nothing legally official about the networks 'declaration' on the 7th November. The official declaration was 14 December.
You seem to have confused the word projection with confirmation.
From 7th November there were projections that Biden had won. On 14th December when the Electoral Votes were actually cast that projection was confirmed.
BetVictor didn't pay out to 14th December but their market was suspended from the 4th onwards, Betfair should have done the same and that wording could possibly cost them an awful lot of money (and it should do on duty of care reasons alone).
I'm not confused, you're confused. Projections can change. It has happened before.
In Florida 2000 with the same Terms and Conditions as 2020 the "projection" initially was that Gore won. In the end Bush won it. Did Betfair pay out on Gore as a winner because that was the first projection? Of course not.
Or go further back and there was a newspaper that famously projected that Dewey beat Truman. Did that mean that bookies around with the same Ts and Cs then would have paid out on Dewey? Of course not.
The terms do say projection but they don't say which projection they go off. Is it the first projection? Or the final projection? In the past they have paid on the final projection not the first projection quite rightly and waiting for the official results waits to see if the projection changes.
It just said projection - which to me means once you have any projection you need to suspend the market.
I do suspect a law firm is going to make a big issue out of this as there is plenty of money involved.
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
I think it kind of underlines the incomprehension and increasing cold fury in Scotland at the utterly disorganized shit show that the Brexit "deal"/no deal fiasco has become.
Business cannot function without clarity and the abject incompetence of the current Cabinet is utterly contemptible. As a former President of an International Chamber of Commerce myself I have to say I think Boris has certainly succeeded in at least one of his agenda points, he has managed to "F&/k Business" pretty well. Personally I think a lot of business people, on both sides of the border, and across Europe would be very keen to return the favour.
@OldKingCole I can't even imagine a world without maternity leave. Mad.
I can recall a world where women talked of having to leave their jobs because they'd married. Mother-in-law for one. My mother ran her own pharmacy so the issue didn't arise!
Yes. My father in law also remembers having a round of redundancies where the married women were targeted specifically because it was thought that their income wasn't necessary for their households.
NHS miss out on 4.4 million cancer scans since outbreak started, I’ve had eight in Spain 2 mri 6 ct most as an outpatient.
I'm not sure one anecdote is a meaningful comparison to statistics. Or are you arguing there has been zero impact on routine procedures in the Spanish health care system due to Covid-19?
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massively ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
Agreed. However, the suggestion that we should all just 'move on', as though the consequences of Brexit are now some sort of apolitical and uncontroversial matter, is equally otiose.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something went seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something when seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
There was a government portal but after no response, they rang the offices of government ministers, including Matt Hancock, their response? Please use the portal.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something when seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
There was a government portal but after no response, they rang the offices of government ministers, including Matt Hancock, their response? Please use the portal.
I wonder if McLaren F1 CPAP contract comes under no prior experience?
They and their partners had prior experience.
Very easy to argue not if you were so inclined, especially if you don't look carefully. To casual observer who sticks them into google, you see F1 car company, and stick them in the no prior experience in health box....like thinking fireworks in London in early November are for Biden.
There has clearly been lots of poor spending choices and some very dodgy looking deals, but we have seen this time and time again with the likes of the Guardian producing reports saying 99% of Tory donors have contacts with the evil big banking sector...and when you look there interpretations of what means is very wide to say the least.
@OldKingCole I can't even imagine a world without maternity leave. Mad.
I can recall a world where women talked of having to leave their jobs because they'd married. Mother-in-law for one. My mother ran her own pharmacy so the issue didn't arise!
Yes. My father in law also remembers having a round of redundancies where the married women were targeted specifically because it was thought that their income wasn't necessary for their households.
I can remember in the early 80s some Labour controlled authorities announcing that they weren't going to offer jobs to any married women if their husbands were working as it was unfair to have two income households when so many were unemployed. They fell foul of Equal Opportunity legislation and had to reverse the policy.
NHS miss out on 4.4 million cancer scans since outbreak started, I’ve had eight in Spain 2 mri 6 ct most as an outpatient.
I'm not sure one anecdote is a meaningful comparison to statistics. Or are you arguing there has been zero impact on routine procedures in the Spanish health care system due to Covid-19?
Very regional I would suggest with Madrid and Barcelona hit quite hard whereas many othe hospitals have carried on as normal only shutting down routine when overloaded with covid patients. I believe, but not sure, that the UK hospitals cleared the decks and waited for the virus to hit. Or maybe I’m the lucky one. I’ve heard of no one being told no elective surgery and new hips etc going out on a three month waiting time.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something when seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
There was a government portal but after no response, they rang the offices of government ministers, including Matt Hancock, their response? Please use the portal.
Sounds like cock-up rather than conspiracy to me.
Yet friends of the Tory party who had no prior experience could get through to Matt Hancock and win contracts even if they had no experience in producing PPE.
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
I think that for the next umpteen decades we will continue to make lots of little arrangement with the EU on every topic under the sun (customs, standards, travel, etc) to make life easier for both sides each time creeping millimetre by millimetre back to where we started (although not formally).
Excellent article, Alistair, and thanks for the name check.
If I had backed Trump with Betfair, I wouldn't hope for the result to be overturned or the market reopened. That would be too ambitious. I would however ask for a refund of all bets placed between 7th November, by which time the Networks had unanimously projected the Electoral Votes in favour of Biden, and the 14th December when Betfair rather arbitrarily decided to settle the market on the basis of actual ECVs.
I think I'd have a case.
Except the terms were the "official" projections and those were only settled on the 14th. Until the 14th the official projections could change, on the 14th the official projections were 'locked' and finalised.
There's nothing arbitrary about that. I know that you disagree but the simple matter of law is that there was nothing legally official about the networks 'declaration' on the 7th November. The official declaration was 14 December.
You seem to have confused the word projection with confirmation.
From 7th November there were projections that Biden had won. On 14th December when the Electoral Votes were actually cast that projection was confirmed.
BetVictor didn't pay out to 14th December but their market was suspended from the 4th onwards, Betfair should have done the same and that wording could possibly cost them an awful lot of money (and it should do on duty of care reasons alone).
I'm not confused, you're confused. Projections can change. It has happened before.
In Florida 2000 with the same Terms and Conditions as 2020 the "projection" initially was that Gore won. In the end Bush won it. Did Betfair pay out on Gore as a winner because that was the first projection? Of course not.
Or go further back and there was a newspaper that famously projected that Dewey beat Truman. Did that mean that bookies around with the same Ts and Cs then would have paid out on Dewey? Of course not.
The terms do say projection but they don't say which projection they go off. Is it the first projection? Or the final projection? In the past they have paid on the final projection not the first projection quite rightly and waiting for the official results waits to see if the projection changes.
It just said projection - which to me means once you have any projection you need to suspend the market.
I do suspect a law firm is going to make a big issue out of this as there is plenty of money involved.
Why do you have to suspend when there is a projection? Does it say that it will?
Did they suspend Florida when that was called for Gore in 2000? Should they suspend Arizona when Fox called it but CNN didn't in 2020?
The terms LITERALLY said if there was doubt they reserve the right to wait for official results. There was doubt (ludicrous absurd doubt but that's not their job to determine) so they waited for the official results. As they said in advance they would.
NHS miss out on 4.4 million cancer scans since outbreak started, I’ve had eight in Spain 2 mri 6 ct most as an outpatient.
I'm not sure one anecdote is a meaningful comparison to statistics. Or are you arguing there has been zero impact on routine procedures in the Spanish health care system due to Covid-19?
Very regional I would suggest with Madrid and Barcelona hit quite hard whereas many othe hospitals have carried on as normal only shutting down routine when overloaded with covid patients. I believe, but not sure, that the UK hospitals cleared the decks and waited for the virus to hit. Or maybe I’m the lucky one. I’ve heard of no one being told no elective surgery and new hips etc going out on a three month waiting time.
Sounds similar to the UK. The BBC article showed a graph demonstrating that scans were continuing, just at a reduced rate.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something when seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
There was a government portal but after no response, they rang the offices of government ministers, including Matt Hancock, their response? Please use the portal.
Sounds like cock-up rather than conspiracy to me.
Yet friends of the Tory party who had no prior experience could get through to Matt Hancock and win contracts even if they had no experience in producing PPE.
If it was a giant conspiracy to only get friends of politicians to produce PPE, the NYTimes report would have shown a much higher fraction of contracts going to companies with political contacts. What I imagine happened was that there was such an almighty rush to get PPE that they accepted any offer that looked half credible, immediately discarding those that didn't via some automated check.
Sounds like the criticism of ignoring established and proven PPE providers is well-founded, though the line about other firms with no expertise may be rather less clear cut.
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
Its undeniable that Boris has hung tough and shown great chutzpah and iron resolution (in your words not mine).
Contrast how Boris and Frost have negotiated with the inane way May and Robbins did. Or Cameron or Blair did before them too.
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
I think that for the next umpteen decades we will continue to make lots of little arrangement with the EU on every topic under the sun (customs, standards, travel, etc) to make life easier for both sides each time creeping millimetre by millimetre back to where we started (although not formally).
Could well be, yes. Not the worst outcome if so. I certainly don't like the look of the alternative fork which has now become a possibility. "We're not really a European nation. We're England!". That one.
NHS miss out on 4.4 million cancer scans since outbreak started, I’ve had eight in Spain 2 mri 6 ct most as an outpatient.
I'm not sure one anecdote is a meaningful comparison to statistics. Or are you arguing there has been zero impact on routine procedures in the Spanish health care system due to Covid-19?
Very regional I would suggest with Madrid and Barcelona hit quite hard whereas many othe hospitals have carried on as normal only shutting down routine when overloaded with covid patients. I believe, but not sure, that the UK hospitals cleared the decks and waited for the virus to hit. Or maybe I’m the lucky one. I’ve heard of no one being told no elective surgery and new hips etc going out on a three month waiting time.
Sounds similar to the UK. The BBC article showed a graph demonstrating that scans were continuing, just at a reduced rate.
I’m quite buoyant at the moment last scan indicated I could have a chemo/bio therapy holiday till 14/1 when they will look at more proactive interventions, I d9 feel lucky to have been where I was (here) when this was diagnosed at the end of Feb
Excellent article, Alistair, and thanks for the name check.
If I had backed Trump with Betfair, I wouldn't hope for the result to be overturned or the market reopened. That would be too ambitious. I would however ask for a refund of all bets placed between 7th November, by which time the Networks had unanimously projected the Electoral Votes in favour of Biden, and the 14th December when Betfair rather arbitrarily decided to settle the market on the basis of actual ECVs.
I think I'd have a case.
Except the terms were the "official" projections and those were only settled on the 14th. Until the 14th the official projections could change, on the 14th the official projections were 'locked' and finalised.
There's nothing arbitrary about that. I know that you disagree but the simple matter of law is that there was nothing legally official about the networks 'declaration' on the 7th November. The official declaration was 14 December.
You seem to have confused the word projection with confirmation.
From 7th November there were projections that Biden had won. On 14th December when the Electoral Votes were actually cast that projection was confirmed.
BetVictor didn't pay out to 14th December but their market was suspended from the 4th onwards, Betfair should have done the same and that wording could possibly cost them an awful lot of money (and it should do on duty of care reasons alone).
I'm not confused, you're confused. Projections can change. It has happened before.
In Florida 2000 with the same Terms and Conditions as 2020 the "projection" initially was that Gore won. In the end Bush won it. Did Betfair pay out on Gore as a winner because that was the first projection? Of course not.
Or go further back and there was a newspaper that famously projected that Dewey beat Truman. Did that mean that bookies around with the same Ts and Cs then would have paid out on Dewey? Of course not.
The terms do say projection but they don't say which projection they go off. Is it the first projection? Or the final projection? In the past they have paid on the final projection not the first projection quite rightly and waiting for the official results waits to see if the projection changes.
It just said projection - which to me means once you have any projection you need to suspend the market.
I do suspect a law firm is going to make a big issue out of this as there is plenty of money involved.
Why do you have to suspend when there is a projection? Does it say that it will?
Did they suspend Florida when that was called for Gore in 2000? Should they suspend Arizona when Fox called it but CNN didn't in 2020?
The terms LITERALLY said if there was doubt they reserve the right to wait for official results. There was doubt (ludicrous absurd doubt but that's not their job to determine) so they waited for the official results. As they said in advance they would.
They literally followed the letter of the rules.
Do you have the actual rules for that market - as as far as I'm aware we don't have them since it's been taken down.
The issue is one of duty of care and given the money involved I really do believe a law firm will look at the money spent and go (hmm we could get £ms here without any real effort, may as well give it a go).
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something when seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
There was a government portal but after no response, they rang the offices of government ministers, including Matt Hancock, their response? Please use the portal.
Sounds like cock-up rather than conspiracy to me.
Yet friends of the Tory party who had no prior experience could get through to Matt Hancock and win contracts even if they had no experience in producing PPE.
If it was a giant conspiracy to only get friends of politicians to produce PPE, the NYTimes report would have shown a much higher fraction of contracts going to companies with political contacts. What I imagine happened was that there was such an almighty rush to get PPE that they accepted any offer that looked half credible, immediately discarding those that didn't via some automated check.
But the government set up a special VIP route to bypass the normal procurement process, that is already known.
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
Agreed. However, the suggestion that we should all just 'move on', as though the consequences of Brexit are now some sort of apolitical and uncontroversial matter, is equally otiose.
Mmm. "We should move on" is often the call of convenience. I tend to roll it out when I've had a row with my wife over something that was my fault.
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
Its undeniable that Boris has hung tough and shown great chutzpah and iron resolution (in your words not mine).
Contrast how Boris and Frost have negotiated with the inane way May and Robbins did. Or Cameron or Blair did before them too.
Not playing in the nursery today. I'm in adult mode.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something when seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
There was a government portal but after no response, they rang the offices of government ministers, including Matt Hancock, their response? Please use the portal.
Sounds like cock-up rather than conspiracy to me.
Yet friends of the Tory party who had no prior experience could get through to Matt Hancock and win contracts even if they had no experience in producing PPE.
If it was a giant conspiracy to only get friends of politicians to produce PPE, the NYTimes report would have shown a much higher fraction of contracts going to companies with political contacts. What I imagine happened was that there was such an almighty rush to get PPE that they accepted any offer that looked half credible, immediately discarding those that didn't via some automated check.
But the government set up a special VIP route to bypass the normal procurement process, that is already known.
Yeah, in hindsight it would have been better to only accept recommendations through the portal. But it was quite a desperate period to get supplies in.
Yeah, in hindsight it would have been better to only accept recommendations through the portal. But it was quite a desperate period to get supplies in.
But if they were desperate why were they ignoring firms they already knew about and had approved?
Mersey company forced to lay off staff as PPE contracts go to Tory connected firms buying from abroad
"Only last year we were picked out by the government as one of four model successful factory firms - yet we weren’t model enough to even quote for a contract"
Yeah, in hindsight it would have been better to only accept recommendations through the portal. But it was quite a desperate period to get supplies in.
But if they were desperate why were they ignoring firms they already knew about and had approved?
Mersey company forced to lay off staff as PPE contracts go to Tory connected firms buying from abroad
"Only last year we were picked out by the government as one of four model successful factory firms - yet we weren’t model enough to even quote for a contract"
I also believe the NAO found 184 million items of PPE were not fit for purpose.
That's actually a pretty low number, though I'd be demanding replacement items from those suppliers.
That's only the first tranche of things delivered, when you factor in the next few tranches, and the actual non delivery, we're probably look at a number a lot more than 184 million.
The government really does overpromise and underdeliver.
Excellent article, Alistair, and thanks for the name check.
If I had backed Trump with Betfair, I wouldn't hope for the result to be overturned or the market reopened. That would be too ambitious. I would however ask for a refund of all bets placed between 7th November, by which time the Networks had unanimously projected the Electoral Votes in favour of Biden, and the 14th December when Betfair rather arbitrarily decided to settle the market on the basis of actual ECVs.
I think I'd have a case.
Except the terms were the "official" projections and those were only settled on the 14th. Until the 14th the official projections could change, on the 14th the official projections were 'locked' and finalised.
There's nothing arbitrary about that. I know that you disagree but the simple matter of law is that there was nothing legally official about the networks 'declaration' on the 7th November. The official declaration was 14 December.
You seem to have confused the word projection with confirmation.
From 7th November there were projections that Biden had won. On 14th December when the Electoral Votes were actually cast that projection was confirmed.
BetVictor didn't pay out to 14th December but their market was suspended from the 4th onwards, Betfair should have done the same and that wording could possibly cost them an awful lot of money (and it should do on duty of care reasons alone).
I'm not confused, you're confused. Projections can change. It has happened before.
In Florida 2000 with the same Terms and Conditions as 2020 the "projection" initially was that Gore won. In the end Bush won it. Did Betfair pay out on Gore as a winner because that was the first projection? Of course not.
Or go further back and there was a newspaper that famously projected that Dewey beat Truman. Did that mean that bookies around with the same Ts and Cs then would have paid out on Dewey? Of course not.
The terms do say projection but they don't say which projection they go off. Is it the first projection? Or the final projection? In the past they have paid on the final projection not the first projection quite rightly and waiting for the official results waits to see if the projection changes.
It just said projection - which to me means once you have any projection you need to suspend the market.
I do suspect a law firm is going to make a big issue out of this as there is plenty of money involved.
Why do you have to suspend when there is a projection? Does it say that it will?
Did they suspend Florida when that was called for Gore in 2000? Should they suspend Arizona when Fox called it but CNN didn't in 2020?
The terms LITERALLY said if there was doubt they reserve the right to wait for official results. There was doubt (ludicrous absurd doubt but that's not their job to determine) so they waited for the official results. As they said in advance they would.
They literally followed the letter of the rules.
Do you have the actual rules for that market - as as far as I'm aware we don't have them since it's been taken down.
The issue is one of duty of care and given the money involved I really do believe a law firm will look at the money spent and go (hmm we could get £ms here without any real effort, may as well give it a go).
See this post from TSE in September. The bold is from TSE's own emphasis.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ...
..If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
This was there in black and white and TSE highlighted it in September. Betfair waiting for "further official announcements before the market is settled" really out to have been pretty obvious back in September and not a horrifying unforeseen shock in November.
Yeah, in hindsight it would have been better to only accept recommendations through the portal. But it was quite a desperate period to get supplies in.
But if they were desperate why were they ignoring firms they already knew about and had approved?
Mersey company forced to lay off staff as PPE contracts go to Tory connected firms buying from abroad
"Only last year we were picked out by the government as one of four model successful factory firms - yet we weren’t model enough to even quote for a contract"
But it's self-evidently daft. Our languages are European, amalgams of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and, via French, Latin. Our primary religions are either Protestant (in common with the rest of northern Europe) or Roman Catholic (the Europeanness of which ought not to require explanation). Our legal system is a mixture of Germanic-influenced common law and the Roman traditions (via Justinian). Our historic aristocracy was effectively French until the 14th century. In the 17th century we replaced our monarch with a Dutch one, and in the 18th with Germans (the famous Blackadder riposte to Captain Darling's claim to be "as British as Queen Victoria!" was "So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German?").
The British system of constitutional monarchy is broadly similar to that of the Netherlands (for obvious historical reasons) as well as that of Sweden and Denmark. The British Empire finds its most obvious historical relation with the Spanish, and as a trading nation the British have traditionally been most comparable with the Dutch, though the British empire's (or, to be more precise, the British East India Company's) gradual eclipse of the Dutch equivalent somewhat obscures the history.
Like it or not, our closest peers in the modern world are the European nations, with whom we share considerably history. We are, of course, closely bound to the former empire and colonies, and as these are larger in size than most European colonies, this forms a larger part of our understanding of the world.
I am really not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by saying that Britain is not a European country. It's not as though all European countries are alike! Hungary is cited as an example of a European country, but it is rare in that its language is not Indo-European at all! Greece falls on the opposing side of a 1700-year-old schism between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, and a near-thousand-year-old schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, never mind having spent considerable time under Ottoman rule, but is apparently considered to be just as European as France. Why would these countries be European and Britain not?
But it's self-evidently daft. Our languages are European, amalgams of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and, via French, Latin. Our primary religions are either Protestant (in common with the rest of northern Europe) or Roman Catholic (the Europeanness of which ought not to require explanation). Our legal system is a mixture of Germanic-influenced common law and the Roman traditions (via Justinian). Our historic aristocracy was effectively French until the 14th century. In the 17th century we replaced our monarch with a Dutch one, and in the 18th with Germans (the famous Blackadder riposte to Captain Darling's claim to be "as British as Queen Victoria!" was "So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German?").
The British system of constitutional monarchy is broadly similar to that of the Netherlands (for obvious historical reasons) as well as that of Sweden and Denmark. The British Empire finds its most obvious historical relation with the Spanish, and as a trading nation the British have traditionally been most comparable with the Dutch, though the British empire's (or, to be more precise, the British East India Company's) gradual eclipse of the Dutch equivalent somewhat obscures the history.
Like it or not, our closest peers in the modern world are the European nations, with whom we share considerably history. We are, of course, closely bound to the former empire and colonies, and as these are larger in size than most European colonies, this forms a larger part of our understanding of the world.
I am really not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by saying that Britain is not a European country. It's not as though all European countries are alike! Hungary is cited as an example of a European country, but it is rare in that its language is not Indo-European at all! Greece falls on the opposing side of a 1700-year-old schism between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, and a near-thousand-year-old schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, never mind having spent considerable time under Ottoman rule, but is apparently considered to be just as European as France. Why would these countries be European and Britain not?
Did you read the piece? Many of your 'points' mirror facts mentioned by the author.
But you're wrong about our "closest peers in the modern world" unless you mean closest geographically which isn't really relevant.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something when seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
There was a government portal but after no response, they rang the offices of government ministers, including Matt Hancock, their response? Please use the portal.
Sounds like cock-up rather than conspiracy to me.
Yet friends of the Tory party who had no prior experience could get through to Matt Hancock and win contracts even if they had no experience in producing PPE.
I'm curious how the "geniuses" here think that we can go from 1% of PPE being manufactured in the UK to 70% being manufactured in the UK in a swift and timely fashion without new businesses entering the market stepping up to fill the gap.
If you go from 1% to 70% that's going to involve some considerable changes.
The "no prior experience" complaint is particularly stupid, if there were vast numbers of existing British manufacturers of PPE and so on, then we would not have needed to issue emergency contracts to new manufacturers. Instead we could have solved the problem by simply doing what some other countries did and ordered the existing companies to stop and divert their exports.
Were some people saying peak Indy/SNP had passed a few days ago?
Cough.
An outlier. 17th outlier in a row, but still an outlier.
Some unknowable but significant part of that 58% must be down to Johnson's snaggle-toothed and flabby presence in No.10. The SNP have to act while here is still there.
To delay action is the same as death, as Father Lenin said.
I know it. Still have pm Gove as a saver tho’.
Boris vs Nicola, in the immediate aftermath of Covid, Brexit and wall-to-wall coverage of the First Minister is obviously optimal for Indy. Which is why there will not be a referendum. Simples.
It may be uncomfortable for Boris to veto a referendum if SNP sweep the polls in May, but it would be a lot more uncomfortable to preside over a referendum which breaks up the UK.
Didn’t you get the brief from Philip ? We no longer have to face the arguments which have torn us asunder....
Brexit not Sindy.
We will move on from arguments about Europe primarily to other arguments and Sindyref II is going to be up there near the top.
I for one will be cheering on from the sidelines the Yes campaign in the inevitable second Sindyref. Only once Scotland becomes a sovereign country can and will it start to move on from every issue being a battle with London.
There will be no legal SindyrefII allowed by this Tory government.
The SNP would of course blame London for any problems with Scexit exactly as London will blame Brussels for any problems with Brexit plus of course once we leave the SM and CU in January Scexit would mean tariffs on all Scottish exports to England and vice versa
I also believe the NAO found 184 million items of PPE were not fit for purpose.
The weird thing here is that we ought have had enormous stockpiles of PPE, of the kind that would make panic buying unnecessary. The UK was rated as #1 in the world for pandemic preparedness precisely because we were supposed to have these stockpiles. Watch about a minute of this to see what this was meant to look like as of 2018, it's quite spooky: https://youtu.be/RmGiDUczhqQ?t=295
But, when the need came, where was the stockpile? Apparently some of it was sold off, some as late as January 2020! Other parts had expired, going beyond safe use-by dates. I can't entirely blame the government for panic-buying if there was truly no other option, but the fact that there was no other option is a scandal in and of itself.
There's other articles breaking down the leadership favourability questions (summary, Sturgeon is untouchable unless you are a moron, alas the SNP is full of morons)
Apply all the DKs to "No" and you have 52-48. 😱
Only 40% back a referendum in the next 2 years in the same poll
Very easy to argue not if you were so inclined, especially if you don't look carefully. To casual observer who sticks them into google, you see F1 car company, and stick them in the no prior experience in health box....like thinking fireworks in London in early November are for Biden.
An all-time classic example of truly clueless reporting.
History of controversy and politically connected are likely highly subjective categorisations.
So the £4.5 billion to firms with no prior experience is fine?
Whilst firms with experience but no political connections were ignored is also fine?
If they didn't deliver then the government should sue for its money back. Not that I am arguing there was no corruption or crap deals, just that the categorisation by the NY Times is likely very subjective. And who gives a crap if a company has a "history of controversy" if they delivered?
I know of one business who does PPE and had the potential to massive ramp up production in March/April.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
Something when seriously wrong if they were flat out ignored. Didn't they even have a special hotline where you could call if you were able to produce the goods that were in demand? The latter link doesn't surprise me; of course offers received would be acted upon.
There was a government portal but after no response, they rang the offices of government ministers, including Matt Hancock, their response? Please use the portal.
Sounds like cock-up rather than conspiracy to me.
Yet friends of the Tory party who had no prior experience could get through to Matt Hancock and win contracts even if they had no experience in producing PPE.
Nothing to see here, move on...
Presumably these people with no prior experience will include Mercedes in respect of the ventilator contract? Several businesses turned their hand to things they had never done before to meet the need and, by and large, they should be commended for that.
It is also highly unlikely that anyone involved in a large number of public service contracts will not have had "controversy" from time to time.
Didn’t you get the brief from Philip ? We no longer have to face the arguments which have torn us asunder....
Brexit not Sindy.
We will move on from arguments about Europe primarily to other arguments and Sindyref II is going to be up there near the top.
I for one will be cheering on from the sidelines the Yes campaign in the inevitable second Sindyref. Only once Scotland becomes a sovereign country can and will it start to move on from every issue being a battle with London.
There will be no legal SindyrefII allowed by this Tory government.
The SNP would of course blame London for any problems with Scexit exactly as London will blame Brussels for any problems with Brexit plus of course once we leave the SM and CU in January Scexit would mean tariffs on all Scottish exports to England and vice versa
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
I think that for the next umpteen decades we will continue to make lots of little arrangement with the EU on every topic under the sun (customs, standards, travel, etc) to make life easier for both sides each time creeping millimetre by millimetre back to where we started (although not formally).
Could well be, yes. Not the worst outcome if so. I certainly don't like the look of the alternative fork which has now become a possibility. "We're not really a European nation. We're England!". That one.
The logic of geography and mass culture makes it inevitable.
When it comes down to it, England is more European than everything else.
Roman underpinnings. Christian, or more accurately post-Christian. Smallish countries, many with an experience of gaining and losing an empire. A political discourse where social democracy is way more important than in the USA. Cities and rugged wilderness, not wide open spaces. And before that, the simple physical geography. Same time zone, climate, seasons. A couple of hours by plane from anywhere to anywhere. This stuff matters, and no amount of wishing is going to make it go away.
(And, as usual, remember how much Global Britain was and is an elite thing. In the days of Empire, I suspect most people never left their county of birth. Communications have improved, but not enough for intercontinental links to be as plausible for everyman as intracontinental ones.)
But it's self-evidently daft. Our languages are European, amalgams of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and, via French, Latin. Our primary religions are either Protestant (in common with the rest of northern Europe) or Roman Catholic (the Europeanness of which ought not to require explanation). Our legal system is a mixture of Germanic-influenced common law and the Roman traditions (via Justinian). Our historic aristocracy was effectively French until the 14th century. In the 17th century we replaced our monarch with a Dutch one, and in the 18th with Germans (the famous Blackadder riposte to Captain Darling's claim to be "as British as Queen Victoria!" was "So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German?").
The British system of constitutional monarchy is broadly similar to that of the Netherlands (for obvious historical reasons) as well as that of Sweden and Denmark. The British Empire finds its most obvious historical relation with the Spanish, and as a trading nation the British have traditionally been most comparable with the Dutch, though the British empire's (or, to be more precise, the British East India Company's) gradual eclipse of the Dutch equivalent somewhat obscures the history.
Like it or not, our closest peers in the modern world are the European nations, with whom we share considerably history. We are, of course, closely bound to the former empire and colonies, and as these are larger in size than most European colonies, this forms a larger part of our understanding of the world.
I am really not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by saying that Britain is not a European country. It's not as though all European countries are alike! Hungary is cited as an example of a European country, but it is rare in that its language is not Indo-European at all! Greece falls on the opposing side of a 1700-year-old schism between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, and a near-thousand-year-old schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, never mind having spent considerable time under Ottoman rule, but is apparently considered to be just as European as France. Why would these countries be European and Britain not?
Did you read the piece? Many of your 'points' mirror facts mentioned by the author.
But you're wrong about our "closest peers in the modern world" unless you mean closest geographically which isn't really relevant.
I don't disagree with the facts, but with the conclusion drawn from them.
If not the European nations, alike in linguistics, law, standard of living, religion, demographics, history, technological development, economic system, and even sporting preferences, who *are* our peers?
There's other articles breaking down the leadership favourability questions (summary, Sturgeon is untouchable unless you are a moron, alas the SNP is full of morons)
Apply all the DKs to "No" and you have 52-48. 😱
Only 40% back a referendum in the next 2 years in the same poll
The popularity of Indy is predicated on a belief that Scotland will be better off, or at least not worse off, on departure from UK. Polling indicates that pro-Indy supporters believe this.
If/when it dawns that the implications are actually increased taxes, reduced services etc. then the enthusiasm may abate somewhat.
Appreciate that this will be described as "Project Fear" but the GERS figures are unarguable. Last time round oil revenue was the answer, unclear what it will be next time, if there is a next time.
I also believe the NAO found 184 million items of PPE were not fit for purpose.
We bought 32 billion items in six months. If all of those 184 million items were from the same period it would mean that 0.6% were duff then, is that even any different from normal?
Excellent article, Alistair, and thanks for the name check.
If I had backed Trump with Betfair, I wouldn't hope for the result to be overturned or the market reopened. That would be too ambitious. I would however ask for a refund of all bets placed between 7th November, by which time the Networks had unanimously projected the Electoral Votes in favour of Biden, and the 14th December when Betfair rather arbitrarily decided to settle the market on the basis of actual ECVs.
I think I'd have a case.
Except the terms were the "official" projections and those were only settled on the 14th. Until the 14th the official projections could change, on the 14th the official projections were 'locked' and finalised.
There's nothing arbitrary about that. I know that you disagree but the simple matter of law is that there was nothing legally official about the networks 'declaration' on the 7th November. The official declaration was 14 December.
You seem to have confused the word projection with confirmation.
From 7th November there were projections that Biden had won. On 14th December when the Electoral Votes were actually cast that projection was confirmed.
BetVictor didn't pay out to 14th December but their market was suspended from the 4th onwards, Betfair should have done the same and that wording could possibly cost them an awful lot of money (and it should do on duty of care reasons alone).
I'm not confused, you're confused. Projections can change. It has happened before.
In Florida 2000 with the same Terms and Conditions as 2020 the "projection" initially was that Gore won. In the end Bush won it. Did Betfair pay out on Gore as a winner because that was the first projection? Of course not.
Or go further back and there was a newspaper that famously projected that Dewey beat Truman. Did that mean that bookies around with the same Ts and Cs then would have paid out on Dewey? Of course not.
The terms do say projection but they don't say which projection they go off. Is it the first projection? Or the final projection? In the past they have paid on the final projection not the first projection quite rightly and waiting for the official results waits to see if the projection changes.
It just said projection - which to me means once you have any projection you need to suspend the market.
I do suspect a law firm is going to make a big issue out of this as there is plenty of money involved.
Why do you have to suspend when there is a projection? Does it say that it will?
Did they suspend Florida when that was called for Gore in 2000? Should they suspend Arizona when Fox called it but CNN didn't in 2020?
The terms LITERALLY said if there was doubt they reserve the right to wait for official results. There was doubt (ludicrous absurd doubt but that's not their job to determine) so they waited for the official results. As they said in advance they would.
They literally followed the letter of the rules.
Do you have the actual rules for that market - as as far as I'm aware we don't have them since it's been taken down.
The issue is one of duty of care and given the money involved I really do believe a law firm will look at the money spent and go (hmm we could get £ms here without any real effort, may as well give it a go).
See this post from TSE in September. The bold is from TSE's own emphasis.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ...
..If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
This was there in black and white and TSE highlighted it in September. Betfair waiting for "further official announcements before the market is settled" really out to have been pretty obvious back in September and not a horrifying unforeseen shock in November.
That second sentence is interesting - "Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’" implies settlement should have been done before the Electoral College actually met rather than after it met (as it's explicitly stating that the issues that might occur within the College are not an issue for this bet).
But we are never going to agree here so I will leave it here and wait to see if someone brings up an appropriate court case as Betfair deserve it here.
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
I think that for the next umpteen decades we will continue to make lots of little arrangement with the EU on every topic under the sun (customs, standards, travel, etc) to make life easier for both sides each time creeping millimetre by millimetre back to where we started (although not formally).
Could well be, yes. Not the worst outcome if so. I certainly don't like the look of the alternative fork which has now become a possibility. "We're not really a European nation. We're England!". That one.
When it comes down to it, England is more European than everything else.
Then why is the British diaspora overwhelmingly in the anglophone world? There are more Brits in Australia alone than the entire EU. "Global Britain" as lived by ordinary monolingual Brits is anglophone - its the "elites" and commentariat who have enjoyed the advantages of second homes in Europe and European jobs.
quite tenuous... I prefer the analysis of 1. Blair's Iraq War - demolishing trust in politicians 2. Accession of the Eastern European nations to the EU will few limits on numbers (which I was generally in favour of BTW) 3. A recession in 2009 that saw UK public services and incomes squeezed to the limits 4. A lacklustre Remain campaign dominated by the Conservatice modernising wing which was not helped by piss poor Labour support.... maybe then I would buy into the Arab Spring having a part......(assisted by N Farage et al...)
no mention of Red Buses from me...
The most interesting part of it is the unstated assumption that Brexit isn't a positive development.
Some things don't need to be said.
When all is said and done I think it is, Brexit is going about as well as could have been hoped for. We have a trade deal about to be signed with Europe and we've rolled over trade deals with all our other major partners too - the only way is up from here.
The EU is a dysfunctional institution. Once we've gotten out of it then we can build steadily a new path rather than facing these old arguments that have torn us asunder for the past four decades.
LOL
Ah, the disdainful LOL of the Remainer.
Some of us are going to knuckle down to make sure that new path is a reality. Underpinned by the knowledge that the democratic process has been greatly enhanced: both by getting out from under an EU that has a deep distrust of democracy - because those pesky voters use it to thwart their Project - and proving that the voters DO have a voice to which politicans must listen.
Not my problem that such things mean so little to you.
Not my problem that you appear to believe you can read minds, and consistently demonstrate you can't.
The LOL was at the notion that somehow all political argument over this would cease.
Of course it won't but what would be nice - given neither the announcement of a deal nor its broad substance will be at all surprising - is if debate could be focused on the substance of it. What does it mean for us? What is the likely path from here?
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
I think that for the next umpteen decades we will continue to make lots of little arrangement with the EU on every topic under the sun (customs, standards, travel, etc) to make life easier for both sides each time creeping millimetre by millimetre back to where we started (although not formally).
Could well be, yes. Not the worst outcome if so. I certainly don't like the look of the alternative fork which has now become a possibility. "We're not really a European nation. We're England!". That one.
I hope and believe that the country will not be run by Little Englanders.
Didn’t you get the brief from Philip ? We no longer have to face the arguments which have torn us asunder....
Brexit not Sindy.
We will move on from arguments about Europe primarily to other arguments and Sindyref II is going to be up there near the top.
I for one will be cheering on from the sidelines the Yes campaign in the inevitable second Sindyref. Only once Scotland becomes a sovereign country can and will it start to move on from every issue being a battle with London.
There will be no legal SindyrefII allowed by this Tory government.
The SNP would of course blame London for any problems with Scexit exactly as London will blame Brussels for any problems with Brexit plus of course once we leave the SM and CU in January Scexit would mean tariffs on all Scottish exports to England and vice versa
If there's no legal SindyrefII after the Scottish voters vote for it then you are signing the death warrant for the union. Is that what you really want?
Almost every Tory here recognises that, for good reason.
Given we're on the brink of getting a trade deal with the EU I'm curious why you think Scexit would mean tariffs rather than a trade deal - whether that be a bilateral England/Scotland deal or Scotland joining the EU and seeing the EU's tariff free trade deal applying to them automatically.
I also believe the NAO found 184 million items of PPE were not fit for purpose.
The weird thing here is that we ought have had enormous stockpiles of PPE, of the kind that would make panic buying unnecessary. The UK was rated as #1 in the world for pandemic preparedness precisely because we were supposed to have these stockpiles. Watch about a minute of this to see what this was meant to look like as of 2018, it's quite spooky: https://youtu.be/RmGiDUczhqQ?t=295
But, when the need came, where was the stockpile? Apparently some of it was sold off, some as late as January 2020! Other parts had expired, going beyond safe use-by dates. I can't entirely blame the government for panic-buying if there was truly no other option, but the fact that there was no other option is a scandal in and of itself.
That pandemic preparedness rating was for flu. That's what we and many other countries were focused on.
But it's self-evidently daft. Our languages are European, amalgams of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and, via French, Latin. Our primary religions are either Protestant (in common with the rest of northern Europe) or Roman Catholic (the Europeanness of which ought not to require explanation). Our legal system is a mixture of Germanic-influenced common law and the Roman traditions (via Justinian). Our historic aristocracy was effectively French until the 14th century. In the 17th century we replaced our monarch with a Dutch one, and in the 18th with Germans (the famous Blackadder riposte to Captain Darling's claim to be "as British as Queen Victoria!" was "So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German?").
The British system of constitutional monarchy is broadly similar to that of the Netherlands (for obvious historical reasons) as well as that of Sweden and Denmark. The British Empire finds its most obvious historical relation with the Spanish, and as a trading nation the British have traditionally been most comparable with the Dutch, though the British empire's (or, to be more precise, the British East India Company's) gradual eclipse of the Dutch equivalent somewhat obscures the history.
Like it or not, our closest peers in the modern world are the European nations, with whom we share considerably history. We are, of course, closely bound to the former empire and colonies, and as these are larger in size than most European colonies, this forms a larger part of our understanding of the world.
I am really not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by saying that Britain is not a European country. It's not as though all European countries are alike! Hungary is cited as an example of a European country, but it is rare in that its language is not Indo-European at all! Greece falls on the opposing side of a 1700-year-old schism between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, and a near-thousand-year-old schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, never mind having spent considerable time under Ottoman rule, but is apparently considered to be just as European as France. Why would these countries be European and Britain not?
Did you read the piece? Many of your 'points' mirror facts mentioned by the author.
But you're wrong about our "closest peers in the modern world" unless you mean closest geographically which isn't really relevant.
I don't disagree with the facts, but with the conclusion drawn from them.
If not the European nations, alike in linguistics, law, standard of living, religion, demographics, history, technological development, economic system, and even sporting preferences, who *are* our peers?
We're much closer as peers with Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Which is why there are 2.5x more British emigrants living across the Anglosphere than the EU.
I also believe the NAO found 184 million items of PPE were not fit for purpose.
The weird thing here is that we ought have had enormous stockpiles of PPE, of the kind that would make panic buying unnecessary. The UK was rated as #1 in the world for pandemic preparedness precisely because we were supposed to have these stockpiles. Watch about a minute of this to see what this was meant to look like as of 2018, it's quite spooky: https://youtu.be/RmGiDUczhqQ?t=295
But, when the need came, where was the stockpile? Apparently some of it was sold off, some as late as January 2020! Other parts had expired, going beyond safe use-by dates. I can't entirely blame the government for panic-buying if there was truly no other option, but the fact that there was no other option is a scandal in and of itself.
That pandemic preparedness rating was for flu. That's what we and many other countries were focused on.
The PPE was, broadly speaking, just the same whether for flu or Ebola or whatever. As would the consequences of bad stock control.
I also believe the NAO found 184 million items of PPE were not fit for purpose.
The weird thing here is that we ought have had enormous stockpiles of PPE, of the kind that would make panic buying unnecessary. The UK was rated as #1 in the world for pandemic preparedness precisely because we were supposed to have these stockpiles. Watch about a minute of this to see what this was meant to look like as of 2018, it's quite spooky: https://youtu.be/RmGiDUczhqQ?t=295
But, when the need came, where was the stockpile? Apparently some of it was sold off, some as late as January 2020! Other parts had expired, going beyond safe use-by dates. I can't entirely blame the government for panic-buying if there was truly no other option, but the fact that there was no other option is a scandal in and of itself.
That pandemic preparedness rating was for flu. That's what we and many other countries were focused on.
Excellent article, Alistair, and thanks for the name check.
If I had backed Trump with Betfair, I wouldn't hope for the result to be overturned or the market reopened. That would be too ambitious. I would however ask for a refund of all bets placed between 7th November, by which time the Networks had unanimously projected the Electoral Votes in favour of Biden, and the 14th December when Betfair rather arbitrarily decided to settle the market on the basis of actual ECVs.
I think I'd have a case.
Except the terms were the "official" projections and those were only settled on the 14th. Until the 14th the official projections could change, on the 14th the official projections were 'locked' and finalised.
There's nothing arbitrary about that. I know that you disagree but the simple matter of law is that there was nothing legally official about the networks 'declaration' on the 7th November. The official declaration was 14 December.
You seem to have confused the word projection with confirmation.
From 7th November there were projections that Biden had won. On 14th December when the Electoral Votes were actually cast that projection was confirmed.
BetVictor didn't pay out to 14th December but their market was suspended from the 4th onwards, Betfair should have done the same and that wording could possibly cost them an awful lot of money (and it should do on duty of care reasons alone).
I'm not confused, you're confused. Projections can change. It has happened before.
In Florida 2000 with the same Terms and Conditions as 2020 the "projection" initially was that Gore won. In the end Bush won it. Did Betfair pay out on Gore as a winner because that was the first projection? Of course not.
Or go further back and there was a newspaper that famously projected that Dewey beat Truman. Did that mean that bookies around with the same Ts and Cs then would have paid out on Dewey? Of course not.
The terms do say projection but they don't say which projection they go off. Is it the first projection? Or the final projection? In the past they have paid on the final projection not the first projection quite rightly and waiting for the official results waits to see if the projection changes.
It just said projection - which to me means once you have any projection you need to suspend the market.
I do suspect a law firm is going to make a big issue out of this as there is plenty of money involved.
Why do you have to suspend when there is a projection? Does it say that it will?
Did they suspend Florida when that was called for Gore in 2000? Should they suspend Arizona when Fox called it but CNN didn't in 2020?
The terms LITERALLY said if there was doubt they reserve the right to wait for official results. There was doubt (ludicrous absurd doubt but that's not their job to determine) so they waited for the official results. As they said in advance they would.
They literally followed the letter of the rules.
Do you have the actual rules for that market - as as far as I'm aware we don't have them since it's been taken down.
The issue is one of duty of care and given the money involved I really do believe a law firm will look at the money spent and go (hmm we could get £ms here without any real effort, may as well give it a go).
See this post from TSE in September. The bold is from TSE's own emphasis.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ...
..If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
This was there in black and white and TSE highlighted it in September. Betfair waiting for "further official announcements before the market is settled" really out to have been pretty obvious back in September and not a horrifying unforeseen shock in November.
That second sentence is interesting - "Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’" implies settlement should have been done before the Electoral College actually met rather than after it met (as it's explicitly stating that the issues that might occur within the College are not an issue for this bet).
But we are never going to agree here so I will leave it here and wait to see if someone brings up an appropriate court case as Betfair deserve it here.
The point of the Electoral College having met is that the projected Electors are finalised and official at that point and at that point alone.
Had the projected Electors changed prior to Monday (as happened in 2000 for instance and on other instances too) then the original projection would have been wrong not a winner.
Didn’t you get the brief from Philip ? We no longer have to face the arguments which have torn us asunder....
Brexit not Sindy.
We will move on from arguments about Europe primarily to other arguments and Sindyref II is going to be up there near the top.
I for one will be cheering on from the sidelines the Yes campaign in the inevitable second Sindyref. Only once Scotland becomes a sovereign country can and will it start to move on from every issue being a battle with London.
There will be no legal SindyrefII allowed by this Tory government.
The SNP would of course blame London for any problems with Scexit exactly as London will blame Brussels for any problems with Brexit plus of course once we leave the SM and CU in January Scexit would mean tariffs on all Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Er, not if there is an Anglo-Scottish FTA.
That would only be possible if Scotland decided not to rejoin the EU and even so some tariffs would be likely as there will still be minimal tariffs for goods from the EU to the UK even with a UK and EU FTA and more limited access for UK services to the EU
But it's self-evidently daft. Our languages are European, amalgams of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and, via French, Latin. Our primary religions are either Protestant (in common with the rest of northern Europe) or Roman Catholic (the Europeanness of which ought not to require explanation). Our legal system is a mixture of Germanic-influenced common law and the Roman traditions (via Justinian). Our historic aristocracy was effectively French until the 14th century. In the 17th century we replaced our monarch with a Dutch one, and in the 18th with Germans (the famous Blackadder riposte to Captain Darling's claim to be "as British as Queen Victoria!" was "So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German?").
The British system of constitutional monarchy is broadly similar to that of the Netherlands (for obvious historical reasons) as well as that of Sweden and Denmark. The British Empire finds its most obvious historical relation with the Spanish, and as a trading nation the British have traditionally been most comparable with the Dutch, though the British empire's (or, to be more precise, the British East India Company's) gradual eclipse of the Dutch equivalent somewhat obscures the history.
Like it or not, our closest peers in the modern world are the European nations, with whom we share considerably history. We are, of course, closely bound to the former empire and colonies, and as these are larger in size than most European colonies, this forms a larger part of our understanding of the world.
I am really not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by saying that Britain is not a European country. It's not as though all European countries are alike! Hungary is cited as an example of a European country, but it is rare in that its language is not Indo-European at all! Greece falls on the opposing side of a 1700-year-old schism between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, and a near-thousand-year-old schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, never mind having spent considerable time under Ottoman rule, but is apparently considered to be just as European as France. Why would these countries be European and Britain not?
Did you read the piece? Many of your 'points' mirror facts mentioned by the author.
But you're wrong about our "closest peers in the modern world" unless you mean closest geographically which isn't really relevant.
I don't disagree with the facts, but with the conclusion drawn from them.
If not the European nations, alike in linguistics, law, standard of living, religion, demographics, history, technological development, economic system, and even sporting preferences, who *are* our peers?
We're much closer as peers with Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Which is why there are 2.5x more British emigrants living across the Anglosphere than the EU.
That's not what the word "peers" means. That's like saying my kids are my peers because we spend so much time together. They're not. Other middle-aged men, whom I may or may not know, are my peers.
There's other articles breaking down the leadership favourability questions (summary, Sturgeon is untouchable unless you are a moron, alas the SNP is full of morons)
Apply all the DKs to "No" and you have 52-48. 😱
Only 40% back a referendum in the next 2 years in the same poll
The popularity of Indy is predicated on a belief that Scotland will be better off, or at least not worse off, on departure from UK. Polling indicates that pro-Indy supporters believe this.
If/when it dawns that the implications are actually increased taxes, reduced services etc. then the enthusiasm may abate somewhat.
Appreciate that this will be described as "Project Fear" but the GERS figures are unarguable. Last time round oil revenue was the answer, unclear what it will be next time, if there is a next time.
But it's self-evidently daft. Our languages are European, amalgams of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and, via French, Latin. Our primary religions are either Protestant (in common with the rest of northern Europe) or Roman Catholic (the Europeanness of which ought not to require explanation). Our legal system is a mixture of Germanic-influenced common law and the Roman traditions (via Justinian). Our historic aristocracy was effectively French until the 14th century. In the 17th century we replaced our monarch with a Dutch one, and in the 18th with Germans (the famous Blackadder riposte to Captain Darling's claim to be "as British as Queen Victoria!" was "So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German?").
The British system of constitutional monarchy is broadly similar to that of the Netherlands (for obvious historical reasons) as well as that of Sweden and Denmark. The British Empire finds its most obvious historical relation with the Spanish, and as a trading nation the British have traditionally been most comparable with the Dutch, though the British empire's (or, to be more precise, the British East India Company's) gradual eclipse of the Dutch equivalent somewhat obscures the history.
Like it or not, our closest peers in the modern world are the European nations, with whom we share considerably history. We are, of course, closely bound to the former empire and colonies, and as these are larger in size than most European colonies, this forms a larger part of our understanding of the world.
I am really not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by saying that Britain is not a European country. It's not as though all European countries are alike! Hungary is cited as an example of a European country, but it is rare in that its language is not Indo-European at all! Greece falls on the opposing side of a 1700-year-old schism between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, and a near-thousand-year-old schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, never mind having spent considerable time under Ottoman rule, but is apparently considered to be just as European as France. Why would these countries be European and Britain not?
Did you read the piece? Many of your 'points' mirror facts mentioned by the author.
But you're wrong about our "closest peers in the modern world" unless you mean closest geographically which isn't really relevant.
I don't disagree with the facts, but with the conclusion drawn from them.
If not the European nations, alike in linguistics, law, standard of living, religion, demographics, history, technological development, economic system, and even sporting preferences, who *are* our peers?
We're much closer as peers with Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Which is why there are 2.5x more British emigrants living across the Anglosphere than the EU.
That's not what the word "peers" means. That's like saying my kids are my peers because we spend so much time together. They're not. Other middle-aged men, who I may or may not know, are my peers.
Australians, Canadians etc are not our children they are our 'cousins'. Our peers.
Comments
If you go from 1% to 70% that's going to involve some considerable changes.
Certainly not continuity Obama.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/16/lloyd-austin-isnt-who-you-think-he-is/
...What’s crucial is what Austin did in the aftermath of these failures, particularly after the Saudi intervention in Yemen. “Lloyd was enraged by the Saudi intervention,” a senior officer who worked with Austin at Centcom said, “because we [the Americans] were quietly supporting the Houthi fight against AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] at the time.” Austin was so angered by the Saudi move, this now-retired officer said, that he considered formally requesting that the Obama administration denounce the intervention. “We waved him off of that,” the officer with whom I spoke at the time said. But Austin also predicted the troubles the Saudis would face and made his views known to senior civilians at the Pentagon. “He thought the Saudis would lose in Yemen and that, before it was all over, we would have to bail them out,” this same officer noted. Austin was right on both counts: The Saudis found themselves mired in Yemen and dependent on U.S. intelligence assets in their fight...
I do suspect a law firm is going to make a big issue out of this as there is plenty of money involved.
But I predict a load of puerile card game tosh along the lines of "blinking" or "capitulating" or - and this would be the absolute pits - "Boris hung tough and got us a great deal through his chutzpah and iron resolution".
I have quite a robust constitution but I'm not sure I can bear too much of that.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/18949630.indyref2-inevitable-says-scots-entrepreneur-brexit-talks-drag/?ref=fbshr&fbclid=IwAR0XjSe0fpKoUmcJ6KlB5OBCu4eJ2D6FcvoWI_ndTn_lWyS-ST2sZVLWa8o
I think it kind of underlines the incomprehension and increasing cold fury in Scotland at the utterly disorganized shit show that the Brexit "deal"/no deal fiasco has become.
Business cannot function without clarity and the abject incompetence of the current Cabinet is utterly contemptible. As a former President of an International Chamber of Commerce myself I have to say I think Boris has certainly succeeded in at least one of his agenda points, he has managed to "F&/k Business" pretty well. Personally I think a lot of business people, on both sides of the border, and across Europe would be very keen to return the favour.
They contacted the NHS, their local MP offering their services, showing their history of producing high quality PPE, not a response back from anyone.
You can imagine their reaction when they learned of several multi million contracts awarded to companies that have never made PPE. They heard anecdotally that plenty of this PPE was not fit for purpose, but thanks to government secrecy this stuff doesn't get publicised much.
They were greatly 'amused' that the time government was scouring for PPE all over the world, the company sold millions of pounds worth of PPE to several EU nations.
But who needs the New York Times, read what the NAO says.
Companies recommended by MPs, peers and ministers' offices were given priority as the government raced to obtain Personal Protective Equipment, the National Audit Office found.
Over half of the £18bn spent on pandemic-related contracts was awarded without competitive tender, it said.
The spending watchdog said the government was not transparent about suppliers and services.
It also found there was inadequate explanation of key spending decisions.
The findings are part of an NAO investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54978460
However, the suggestion that we should all just 'move on', as though the consequences of Brexit are now some sort of apolitical and uncontroversial matter, is equally otiose.
https://twitter.com/louise_sigfrid/status/1339488201736679425
There has clearly been lots of poor spending choices and some very dodgy looking deals, but we have seen this time and time again with the likes of the Guardian producing reports saying 99% of Tory donors have contacts with the evil big banking sector...and when you look there interpretations of what means is very wide to say the least.
Did they suspend Florida when that was called for Gore in 2000? Should they suspend Arizona when Fox called it but CNN didn't in 2020?
The terms LITERALLY said if there was doubt they reserve the right to wait for official results. There was doubt (ludicrous absurd doubt but that's not their job to determine) so they waited for the official results. As they said in advance they would.
They literally followed the letter of the rules.
Contrast how Boris and Frost have negotiated with the inane way May and Robbins did. Or Cameron or Blair did before them too.
The issue is one of duty of care and given the money involved I really do believe a law firm will look at the money spent and go (hmm we could get £ms here without any real effort, may as well give it a go).
Mersey company forced to lay off staff as PPE contracts go to Tory connected firms buying from abroad
"Only last year we were picked out by the government as one of four model successful factory firms - yet we weren’t model enough to even quote for a contract"
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mersey-company-forced-lay-staff-19311174
The government really does overpromise and underdeliver.
The British system of constitutional monarchy is broadly similar to that of the Netherlands (for obvious historical reasons) as well as that of Sweden and Denmark. The British Empire finds its most obvious historical relation with the Spanish, and as a trading nation the British have traditionally been most comparable with the Dutch, though the British empire's (or, to be more precise, the British East India Company's) gradual eclipse of the Dutch equivalent somewhat obscures the history.
Like it or not, our closest peers in the modern world are the European nations, with whom we share considerably history. We are, of course, closely bound to the former empire and colonies, and as these are larger in size than most European colonies, this forms a larger part of our understanding of the world.
I am really not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by saying that Britain is not a European country. It's not as though all European countries are alike! Hungary is cited as an example of a European country, but it is rare in that its language is not Indo-European at all! Greece falls on the opposing side of a 1700-year-old schism between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, and a near-thousand-year-old schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, never mind having spent considerable time under Ottoman rule, but is apparently considered to be just as European as France. Why would these countries be European and Britain not?
But you're wrong about our "closest peers in the modern world" unless you mean closest geographically which isn't really relevant.
It may be uncomfortable for Boris to veto a referendum if SNP sweep the polls in May, but it would be a lot more uncomfortable to preside over a referendum which breaks up the UK.
Next.
The SNP would of course blame London for any problems with Scexit exactly as London will blame Brussels for any problems with Brexit plus of course once we leave the SM and CU in January Scexit would mean tariffs on all Scottish exports to England and vice versa
But, when the need came, where was the stockpile? Apparently some of it was sold off, some as late as January 2020! Other parts had expired, going beyond safe use-by dates. I can't entirely blame the government for panic-buying if there was truly no other option, but the fact that there was no other option is a scandal in and of itself.
It is also highly unlikely that anyone involved in a large number of public service contracts will not have had "controversy" from time to time.
When it comes down to it, England is more European than everything else.
Roman underpinnings. Christian, or more accurately post-Christian. Smallish countries, many with an experience of gaining and losing an empire. A political discourse where social democracy is way more important than in the USA. Cities and rugged wilderness, not wide open spaces.
And before that, the simple physical geography. Same time zone, climate, seasons. A couple of hours by plane from anywhere to anywhere.
This stuff matters, and no amount of wishing is going to make it go away.
(And, as usual, remember how much Global Britain was and is an elite thing. In the days of Empire, I suspect most people never left their county of birth. Communications have improved, but not enough for intercontinental links to be as plausible for everyman as intracontinental ones.)
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1339498739074011136?s=20
If not the European nations, alike in linguistics, law, standard of living, religion, demographics, history, technological development, economic system, and even sporting preferences, who *are* our peers?
If/when it dawns that the implications are actually increased taxes, reduced services etc. then the enthusiasm may abate somewhat.
Appreciate that this will be described as "Project Fear" but the GERS figures are unarguable. Last time round oil revenue was the answer, unclear what it will be next time, if there is a next time.
But we are never going to agree here so I will leave it here and wait to see if someone brings up an appropriate court case as Betfair deserve it here.
Almost every Tory here recognises that, for good reason.
Given we're on the brink of getting a trade deal with the EU I'm curious why you think Scexit would mean tariffs rather than a trade deal - whether that be a bilateral England/Scotland deal or Scotland joining the EU and seeing the EU's tariff free trade deal applying to them automatically.
Had the projected Electors changed prior to Monday (as happened in 2000 for instance and on other instances too) then the original projection would have been wrong not a winner.
Keith abstained
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-most-scots-would-reject-independence-after-considering-issues-2976093