Not quite that bad on my patch, but management expect it to get worse next week. The first weeks of Jan are usually the most busy, but add in covid patients occupying 30%+ of the beds and its not a happy place.
Fun fact @Philip_Thompson, there hasn't been a 0-0 Newcastle Liverpool match since 1974, the year before the UK joined the EU.
Man U can go top by beating Villa 10-0 on Friday. Just saying.
Earlier that day, the mighty EFC can pull within a point of the top from the same number of games, by beating West Ham at home. We've 4 wins on the trot and coming off a huge 6 days rest. It's turning into a fascinating season at the top.
Tottenham, Liverpool, Leicester, Southampton, Everton, Chelsea and Arsenal have all been top this season already.
What's the highest number of teams that have topped the table during a season, I wonder?
BTW Cyclefree an excellent header. You are always a good writer, sometimes very good, but often you lapse into prolixity.
This is pointed, witty, clever, and just the right length. Appreciated
Thank you.
In terms of word length it is in fact a bit longer than other recent ones. But style can also make something seem longer or shorter - perhaps crisper is the better word.
But thanks. I enjoyed writing it.
Writing has been one of my few highlights this year.
You're often an excellent writer. Of all the header-writers on PB I would say you and Mr Meeks (much as I often disagree with you both) are the ones who at first glance, could make a go of it professionally. But, yes, crispness really is a virtue.
Always remember the words of Blaise Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Happy New Year! x
Wise advice.
Trying to earn money from my writing is my ambition for next year. Thank you for your encouragement. You have no idea how much it means to me.
BTW Cyclefree an excellent header. You are always a good writer, sometimes very good, but often you lapse into prolixity.
This is pointed, witty, clever, and just the right length. Appreciated
Thank you.
In terms of word length it is in fact a bit longer than other recent ones. But style can also make something seem longer or shorter - perhaps crisper is the better word.
But thanks. I enjoyed writing it.
Writing has been one of my few highlights this year.
You're often an excellent writer. Of all the header-writers on PB I would say you and Mr Meeks (much as I often disagree with you both) are the ones who at first glance, could make a go of it professionally. But, yes, crispness really is a virtue.
Always remember the words of Blaise Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Happy New Year! x
Wise advice.
Trying to earn money from my writing is my ambition for next year. Thank you for your encouragement. You have no idea how much it means to me.
- changed the tier restrictions - changed the timetable for many primary and all secondary pupils and university students resuming classes - changed the vaccine rollout plans and timetable
There is a lot of truth in those assertions but there are also some misconceptions.
I would certainly agree that the biggest problem that the UK has had in the negotiations is that we had no clear idea of where we intended to finish. Powell is wrong to say that we spent out first 2 years negotiating with ourselves, in many ways we are still doing it today. Its like the US and the Vietnam war or the American war of independence where there was considerable disagreement in this country about whether we were doing the right thing. As an American President once said, a house divided amongst itself cannot stand. Nor can a negotiating team.
The lack of a consensus of where we wanted to finish undermined our negotiating stance. This was most painfully the case in the Remainer Parliament where there were no shortage of willing fools who were all too keen to defeat our PM and undermine our stance. It happened repeatedly. I am not sure that I would focus particularly on the commencement of the Article 50 process: it was and remains a problem to this day.
I would agree with Powell that a lot of this arose from the narrow win in the referendum itself and the weaknesses of a referendum campaign where neither side is the government responsible for implementing what they had promised. Referendums are not a good idea.
I would not agree that the relative size of the EU and the UK is particularly material. The default assumption that the EU would get its way because it is bigger has no basis in fact but it seems to have influenced the thinking of too many of our civil servants throughout the process.
At the end of the day the EU continues to sell us £80bn a year more goods than we sell them. Frictionless trade is to their advantage, not ours. Agreeing a FTA for goods alone is undoubtedly a significant failure for the UK. It is not in our interests, it is in theirs. We should not have agreed a deal that did not include services. We have failed to protect our own interests. And I do agree that we need to learn from that.
BTW Cyclefree an excellent header. You are always a good writer, sometimes very good, but often you lapse into prolixity.
This is pointed, witty, clever, and just the right length. Appreciated
Thank you.
In terms of word length it is in fact a bit longer than other recent ones. But style can also make something seem longer or shorter - perhaps crisper is the better word.
But thanks. I enjoyed writing it.
Writing has been one of my few highlights this year.
You're often an excellent writer. Of all the header-writers on PB I would say you and Mr Meeks (much as I often disagree with you both) are the ones who at first glance, could make a go of it professionally. But, yes, crispness really is a virtue.
Always remember the words of Blaise Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Happy New Year! x
Wise advice.
Trying to earn money from my writing is my ambition for next year. Thank you for your encouragement. You have no idea how much it means to me.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
Margaret Thatcher may have been showing the ‘first signs of dementia’ during her final year as prime minister, Ken Clarke has claimed.
The Tory grandee, who served in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, said the prime minister’s personality ‘rapidly changed’ towards the end of her tenure, leading him to develop the ‘theory’ that she was displaying early symptoms of the condition.
Given Clarke vehemently opposed Thatcher on some questions it is hardly surprising he seeks to claim her views were based on illness. It is however thoroughly ungentlemanly of him.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
Margaret Thatcher may have been showing the ‘first signs of dementia’ during her final year as prime minister, Ken Clarke has claimed.
The Tory grandee, who served in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, said the prime minister’s personality ‘rapidly changed’ towards the end of her tenure, leading him to develop the ‘theory’ that she was displaying early symptoms of the condition.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later. If onl Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
This is Maggie in 1988, talking about Europe:
"Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate [end p10] freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community."
And:
"Today's conference is not just a one-off event. That is why we have set ourselves a target of ensuring that over 90%; of British firms are aware of the 1992 commitment by the end of this year. It must be the start of a sustained national effort to ensure that everyone in business, in industry, in the service [end p19] sector, is aware of the challenge.
And not just in business and industry. We are putting the European Community to work for ordinary people: for cheaper air fares, for more and better services, for consumer choice and product safety."
And she was entirely right. If only the EU had stayed where it was about then: 1990-1995. Single Market minus the Maastricht political bits. We Brits would be happy members of the Single Market and we would all be likely thriving.
But most Brits (and I include Thatcher in this) badly underestimated the genuine desire, of the European elite, to Federalise and unify: "Ever Closer Union" was not boilerplate to them, it was a proper goal. It is what they wanted and what they want. The euro was a means, however dangerous and foolish, to accelerate that process. Once a nation is in the euro it can basically never leave, even if it so desires, the process is too damaging. See: Greece.
We should have had a referendum on Maastricht, the Constitution or Lisbon. We would have said No. The EU would have accommodated us, and we would have remained inside but on the periphery, but with say over EU law. As it is, the europhiles overplayed their hand, insulted democracy too many times, and in the end it came to a polarising In/Out vote and Out won, because the europhiles had lied too much, too often.
It is a tragedy. It need not have happened. Ah well.
We still could have had the single market and none iof the Maastricht bits. That was available - it was our choice to leave the EEA as well as the EU.
Something I argued for continuously but was told again and again by the Europhiles wasn't possible.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
Sure. The poll tax was the inspiration of a colossus at the height of her powers.
Philosophically it was logical, coherent and defensible (local government provides services and charges a flat fee while redistribution should be a matter for national government).
Politically it was... foolish
Yes, I can see why you would want to pay the same as your cleaner.
Hard to see why the cleaner objected isn't it?
Which is why it was politically foolish
However I would argue that someone collecting the rubbish costs the same per household and therefore should cost the beneficiaries the same.
Redistribution is better handled through income and other taxes designed for that purpose than by randomly increasing other taxes
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
This is Maggie in 1988, talking about Europe:
"Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate [end p10] freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community."
And:
"Today's conference is not just a one-off event. That is why we have set ourselves a target of ensuring that over 90%; of British firms are aware of the 1992 commitment by the end of this year. It must be the start of a sustained national effort to ensure that everyone in business, in industry, in the service [end p19] sector, is aware of the challenge.
And not just in business and industry. We are putting the European Community to work for ordinary people: for cheaper air fares, for more and better services, for consumer choice and product safety."
Shame the free market in services never happened then
Most services - whether inside the EU or not - are completely free from tariffs or regulation. PR, application development, virtual assistants, call centres, etc., all happily get sold around the world without supranational bodies getting involved.
Where there is regulation that restricts cross border trade it tends to be in specific professional services, particularly law.
But then again, we don't really have a single market in lawyers in the UK either, as - AFIUI, and I could be wrong - Scottish Advocates and English Barristers are not able perform each others' roles.
the insurance people I speak to find it easier to expand in the US than in Europe
Just popped up on my Facebook page: 'Britain has won nothing but has lost a continent,' - Ursula van der Leyen. Anyone know the source?
No hits on google, so more twitter bollocks.
It sounds intuitively BS.
Sort of thing a Remainer would invent, not diplomatic enough for UvDL (even if she thought it she wouldn't say it).
It’s true though we no longer have frictionless trade with the continent we once had.
It isn't true. We no longer have frictionless trade but it is not true at all to say we have "won nothing".
LOL. What are you saying we won? We went backwards in frictionless trade, what did we win in return to account for making our economy, government and households poorer?
Freedom to control our own laws. Freedom to control our own economy. Freedom to negotiate better trade deals with fewer red lines. Freedom to make our own economy, government and households richer. Oh and some fish.
like all brexiteers, you haven’t a clue what freedom is.
Freedom is in the pocket. When you are poor you are closer to being a slave, when you are wealthier you come closer to be being free. And Brexit will make the country poorer, year on year. As every good economist knows.
like all brexiteers, you haven’t a clue what sovereignty is.
It’s a currency. You put it to work for you and your citizens. Just sitting on it, it’s useless. You spend it In all your trade deals. In your all your security deals, like NATO. In your dealings with the UN. We know how every pro European party leader from Thatcher to Cameron used the currency of sovereignty for the good of their citizens, and how this current government have ripped up the deal previous conservative governments built and nurtured for the current and future citizens.
like all brexiteers you don’t understand what Democracy is.
The whole point of the democracy isn’t so that 52% ever trumps 48%, actual democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a big society going forwards, not just as fairest, but to minimise ongoing conflict. So a Brexit not just for the 52% (many of which actually did not vote for hard brexit), but also the views of the 48% too, and the many millions too baffled by the campaigning to appreciate the difference. Direct democracy relies so much on the quality of the debate. Did the 2016 campaign inform the voters or confuse or mislead them? When people voted were they sure what they would be getting? Were all the risks with both options fully appreciated? representative democracy is far stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them. If you don’t agree with me on that then you don’t actually agree with parliamentary democracy. Democracy is really about what do you do when you disagree. And the time and skills to scrutinise and debate to a strong conclusion.
Democracy, sovereignty, freedom. Today the U.K. has gone backwards in everyone.
Utter bollocks from start to finish.
Happily Brexit is now settled so we will never have to have such debates. And with our relationship with the EU now absolutely settled for life we can move on.
I mean, imagine if we'd signed a deal where we have the right to diverge from the EU but only by volunteering to impose tariffs and quotas. That would be a special kind of stupid.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
Margaret Thatcher may have been showing the ‘first signs of dementia’ during her final year as prime minister, Ken Clarke has claimed.
The Tory grandee, who served in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, said the prime minister’s personality ‘rapidly changed’ towards the end of her tenure, leading him to develop the ‘theory’ that she was displaying early symptoms of the condition.
Given Clarke vehemently opposed Thatcher on some questions it is hardly surprising he seeks to claim her views were based on illness. It is however thoroughly ungentlemanly of him.
No worse than tons of the comments made here about Biden.
From an academic paper written by David Owen and a US psychiatrist:
After her third General Election victory in 1987, she tried to impose the unpopular poll tax. She saw German reunification in 1989 in cataclysmic terms as a potential Fourth Reich and told George Bush Sr ‘if we are not careful the Germans will get in peace what Hitler couldn’t get in the war’ (Bush and Scowcroft, 1998). She also began to refer to herself in the third person ‘We have become a grandmother’. By 1990 her own party’s MPs forced her to resign after displaying raw hubris in her handling of the European Union and bawling in the House of Commons, ‘No, no, no’ (Young, 1998).
Separately, and further: Sir John Major says he thinks Margaret Thatcher’s dementia was behind her fierce criticism of him while he was PM. ‘She was ill and bored and out of government’ and it wasn’t ‘the Thatcher I knew‘
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later. If onl Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
This is Maggie in 1988, talking about Europe:
"Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate [end p10] freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community."
And:
"Today's conference is not just a one-off event. That is why we have set ourselves a target of ensuring that over 90%; of British firms are aware of the 1992 commitment by the end of this year. It must be the start of a sustained national effort to ensure that everyone in business, in industry, in the service [end p19] sector, is aware of the challenge.
And not just in business and industry. We are putting the European Community to work for ordinary people: for cheaper air fares, for more and better services, for consumer choice and product safety."
And she was entirely right. If only the EU had stayed where it was about then: 1990-1995. Single Market minus the Maastricht political bits. We Brits would be happy members of the Single Market and we would all be likely thriving.
But most Brits (and I include Thatcher in this) badly underestimated the genuine desire, of the European elite, to Federalise and unify: "Ever Closer Union" was not boilerplate to them, it was a proper goal. It is what they wanted and what they want. The euro was a means, however dangerous and foolish, to accelerate that process. Once a nation is in the euro it can basically never leave, even if it so desires, the process is too damaging. See: Greece.
We should have had a referendum on Maastricht, the Constitution or Lisbon. We would have said No. The EU would have accommodated us, and we would have remained inside but on the periphery, but with say over EU law. As it is, the europhiles overplayed their hand, insulted democracy too many times, and in the end it came to a polarising In/Out vote and Out won, because the europhiles had lied too much, too often.
It is a tragedy. It need not have happened. Ah well.
We still could have had the single market and none iof the Maastricht bits. That was available - it was our choice to leave the EEA as well as the EU.
Something I argued for continuously but was told again and again by the Europhiles wasn't possible.
And they were right, it wasn't.
Indeed Brexit seems to be causing Norway to break up the EEA. Soon it will consist of countries with a smaller population than an English county.
At the end of the day the EU continues to sell us £80bn a year more goods than we sell them. Frictionless trade is to their advantage, not ours.
So trade only benefits the seller?
If the trade is profitable then it benefits the seller. The purchaser gets what they want but from a UK plc basis money leaves our system to the benefit of the seller's country. The counterbalance is a capital credit in this country which gives the seller a right to some of our assets. Those assets generate a rental income going forward which risks increasing the deficit.
Friction in trade encourages import substitution and domestic production. That benefits UK plc even if it is not as convenient for the individual purchaser.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later. If onl Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
This is Maggie in 1988, talking about Europe:
"Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate [end p10] freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community."
And:
"Today's conference is not just a one-off event. That is why we have set ourselves a target of ensuring that over 90%; of British firms are aware of the 1992 commitment by the end of this year. It must be the start of a sustained national effort to ensure that everyone in business, in industry, in the service [end p19] sector, is aware of the challenge.
And not just in business and industry. We are putting the European Community to work for ordinary people: for cheaper air fares, for more and better services, for consumer choice and product safety."
And she was entirely right. If only the EU had stayed where it was about then: 1990-1995. Single Market minus the Maastricht political bits. We Brits would be happy members of the Single Market and we would all be likely thriving.
But most Brits (and I include Thatcher in this) badly underestimated the genuine desire, of the European elite, to Federalise and unify: "Ever Closer Union" was not boilerplate to them, it was a proper goal. It is what they wanted and what they want. The euro was a means, however dangerous and foolish, to accelerate that process. Once a nation is in the euro it can basically never leave, even if it so desires, the process is too damaging. See: Greece.
We should have had a referendum on Maastricht, the Constitution or Lisbon. We would have said No. The EU would have accommodated us, and we would have remained inside but on the periphery, but with say over EU law. As it is, the europhiles overplayed their hand, insulted democracy too many times, and in the end it came to a polarising In/Out vote and Out won, because the europhiles had lied too much, too often.
It is a tragedy. It need not have happened. Ah well.
We still could have had the single market and none iof the Maastricht bits. That was available - it was our choice to leave the EEA as well as the EU.
Something I argued for continuously but was told again and again by the Europhiles wasn't possible.
And they were right, it wasn't.
Indeed Brexit seems to be causing Norway to break up the EEA. Soon it will consist of countries with a smaller population than an English county.
Yes it was. It required us to rejoin EFTA when we left the EU but it was entirely possible and would have suited you far better. But people like you were so busy arguing against the whole concept of Brexit that you were unwilling to even consider reasonable alternatives.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
Sure. The poll tax was the inspiration of a colossus at the height of her powers.
Philosophically it was logical, coherent and defensible (local government provides services and charges a flat fee while redistribution should be a matter for national government).
Politically it was... foolish
Yes, I can see why you would want to pay the same as your cleaner.
Hard to see why the cleaner objected isn't it?
Which is why it was politically foolish
However I would argue that someone collecting the rubbish costs the same per household and therefore should cost the beneficiaries the same.
Redistribution is better handled through income and other taxes designed for that purpose than by randomly increasing other taxes
I fully understand why people with multi million pound properties want to pay the same as a cleaner in a council flat.
I also see why the cleaners didn't like it, and brought about the defenestration of Thatcher.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
Margaret Thatcher may have been showing the ‘first signs of dementia’ during her final year as prime minister, Ken Clarke has claimed.
The Tory grandee, who served in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, said the prime minister’s personality ‘rapidly changed’ towards the end of her tenure, leading him to develop the ‘theory’ that she was displaying early symptoms of the condition.
Given Clarke vehemently opposed Thatcher on some questions it is hardly surprising he seeks to claim her views were based on illness. It is however thoroughly ungentlemanly of him.
No worse than tons of the comments made here about Biden.
From an academic paper written by David Owen and a US psychiatrist:
After her third General Election victory in 1987, she tried to impose the unpopular poll tax. She saw German reunification in 1989 in cataclysmic terms as a potential Fourth Reich and told George Bush Sr ‘if we are not careful the Germans will get in peace what Hitler couldn’t get in the war’ (Bush and Scowcroft, 1998). She also began to refer to herself in the third person ‘We have become a grandmother’. By 1990 her own party’s MPs forced her to resign after displaying raw hubris in her handling of the European Union and bawling in the House of Commons, ‘No, no, no’ (Young, 1998).
And those comments about Biden are poor as well.
As for the Owen paper, nothing mentioned there is unreasonable except the third person reference which she had been doing since long before 1987.
At the end of the day the EU continues to sell us £80bn a year more goods than we sell them. Frictionless trade is to their advantage, not ours.
So trade only benefits the seller?
If the trade is profitable then it benefits the seller. The purchaser gets what they want but from a UK plc basis money leaves our system to the benefit of the seller's country. The counterbalance is a capital credit in this country which gives the seller a right to some of our assets. Those assets generate a rental income going forward which risks increasing the deficit.
Friction in trade encourages import substitution and domestic production. That benefits UK plc even if it is not as convenient for the individual purchaser.
Presumably these arguments would apply to trade friction between Scotland and England?
Series 2, Mandalorian - last 3 episodes coming up......
Is it worth getting Disney+? Serious question. I foresee many weeks indoors coming up
Depends what your DVD collection is like. A lot of people will own many Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars movies, so unless you want to binge watch the Simpsons I didn't think it worth it. Plus they make you pay higher than cinema prices to get the movies they release on there instead of the cinema on top of the subscription.
Surely after the massive clusterfuck that was his 'saving xmas' policy you would have thought he would learn.
Why should he? Johnson gets the initial positive headline and can overcome the disappointment of failing with another future positive headline. The thing is we believe him every time.
It will be over by (delete as appropriate) September (2020) /Christmas (2020) /Spring (2021)/ Summer (2021)/Christmas (2021).
At the end of the day the EU continues to sell us £80bn a year more goods than we sell them. Frictionless trade is to their advantage, not ours.
So trade only benefits the seller?
If the trade is profitable then it benefits the seller. The purchaser gets what they want but from a UK plc basis money leaves our system to the benefit of the seller's country. The counterbalance is a capital credit in this country which gives the seller a right to some of our assets. Those assets generate a rental income going forward which risks increasing the deficit.
Friction in trade encourages import substitution and domestic production. That benefits UK plc even if it is not as convenient for the individual purchaser.
Presumably these arguments would apply to trade friction between Scotland and England?
One of the really major problems Scotland would have as an independent country is a serious trade deficit. Obviously that would not have been the case over most of the last 30 years thanks to oil but it is a real issue now. Most of the focus is on the public sector deficit shown by GERS but if anything our trade deficit would be more of an issue undermining any currency we choose to have.
Whilst within the UK these problems are offset by the fiscal transfers of central government. If that should cease to be the case it will be a problem, yes. Whether Scotland would benefit from friction in trade really would depend on its capacity to increase and substitute production.
At the moment, I don't think they can. There is supposed to be a computerized system for logging things, but it has been rather problematic and also doses can be filled on pretty much spur of the moment i.e. somebody doesn't turn up or as they have found bottles have been overfilled and they find there is an extra 1-2 doses in there...so then some extra NHS staff get a jab at the end of the day.
So, the e-mailed letters have been coming in from the various childrens'schools and clubs.
College: letter tomorrow - looks like plan A, a week later Secondary: (before Gavin) mocks definitely going ahead w/c 4/1 Primary: after Gavin - start as planned Dance Studios and Gym Classes: Tier 3, happy days, let your kids mix from Saturday (in a COVID secure manner), wahey.
In their position, of course that's what I'd do, but with schools held back it just feels like the pubs all over again.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
Sure. The poll tax was the inspiration of a colossus at the height of her powers.
Philosophically it was logical, coherent and defensible (local government provides services and charges a flat fee while redistribution should be a matter for national government).
Politically it was... foolish
Yes, I can see why you would want to pay the same as your cleaner.
Hard to see why the cleaner objected isn't it?
Which is why it was politically foolish
However I would argue that someone collecting the rubbish costs the same per household and therefore should cost the beneficiaries the same.
Redistribution is better handled through income and other taxes designed for that purpose than by randomly increasing other taxes
I fully understand why people with multi million pound properties want to pay the same as a cleaner in a council flat.
I also see why the cleaners didn't like it, and brought about the defenestration of Thatcher.
Charles is a man of strict principles, prominent amongst which is the long term preservation of capital. Nothing wrong with that, but it does colour his judgments.
Congratulations to Sir Roger Deakins, sometime Dartmouth resident (well, Kingswear on the other side of the river actually) and remarkable cinematographer.
Congratulations to Sir Roger Deakins, sometime Dartmouth resident (well, Kingswear on the other side of the river actually) and remarkable cinematographer.
Fantastic. His work with both the Coen brothers and Denis Villeneuve has been just fabulous. Some films you can watch just to see his amazing cinematography.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
Sure. The poll tax was the inspiration of a colossus at the height of her powers.
Philosophically it was logical, coherent and defensible (local government provides services and charges a flat fee while redistribution should be a matter for national government).
Politically it was... foolish
Yes, I can see why you would want to pay the same as your cleaner.
Hard to see why the cleaner objected isn't it?
Which is why it was politically foolish
However I would argue that someone collecting the rubbish costs the same per household and therefore should cost the beneficiaries the same.
Redistribution is better handled through income and other taxes designed for that purpose than by randomly increasing other taxes
I fully understand why people with multi million pound properties want to pay the same as a cleaner in a council flat.
I also see why the cleaners didn't like it, and brought about the defenestration of Thatcher.
Charles is a man of strict principles, prominent amongst which is the long term preservation of capital. Nothing wrong with that, but it does colour his judgments.
As mainly a charge for services it is clearly defensible to base it on standard services used, as are supplementary charges for supplementary services if thought appropriate ... such as special collections for household whitegoods, or gardening dustbins for people who have gardens.
Whether house prices circa 1991 are a suitable comparator is open to a lot of question.
I think we perhaps need a local income tax. Whether the Lib Dems will divert enough from examining their own entrails to notice the opportunity at a time it may be up for debate is another interesting question.
I would argue for full VAT on all energy bills, on environmental grounds and to encourage energy efficiency (and saving the planet), but would equally argue for a rebalancing of the benefits system to compensate.
At the moment, I don't think they can. There is supposed to be a computerized system for logging things, but it has been rather problematic and also doses can be filled on pretty much spur of the moment i.e. somebody doesn't turn up or as they have found bottles have been overfilled and they find there is an extra 1-2 doses in there...so then some extra NHS staff get a jab at the end of the day.
I think it is probably wise not to do that yet. Perhaps avoid setting off a daily Chimpanzee's Tea Party in the media.
Congratulations to Sir Roger Deakins, sometime Dartmouth resident (well, Kingswear on the other side of the river actually) and remarkable cinematographer.
Fantastic. His work with both the Coen brothers and Denis Villeneuve has been just fabulous. Some films you can watch just to see his amazing cinematography.
Nominated for 15 Oscars - that tells you his work is solidly wonderful. The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, A Beautiful Mind, Skyfall, Sicario, Blade Runner 2049, and 1917 - that's a hell of a body of work right there.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later. If onl Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
This is Maggie in 1988, talking about Europe:
"Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate [end p10] freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community."
And:
"Today's conference is not just a one-off event. That is why we have set ourselves a target of ensuring that over 90%; of British firms are aware of the 1992 commitment by the end of this year. It must be the start of a sustained national effort to ensure that everyone in business, in industry, in the service [end p19] sector, is aware of the challenge.
And not just in business and industry. We are putting the European Community to work for ordinary people: for cheaper air fares, for more and better services, for consumer choice and product safety."
And she was entirely right. If only the EU had stayed where it was about then: 1990-1995. Single Market minus the Maastricht political bits. We Brits would be happy members of the Single Market and we would all be likely thriving.
But most Brits (and I include Thatcher in this) badly underestimated the genuine desire, of the European elite, to Federalise and unify: "Ever Closer Union" was not boilerplate to them, it was a proper goal. It is what they wanted and what they want. The euro was a means, however dangerous and foolish, to accelerate that process. Once a nation is in the euro it can basically never leave, even if it so desires, the process is too damaging. See: Greece.
We should have had a referendum on Maastricht, the Constitution or Lisbon. We would have said No. The EU would have accommodated us, and we would have remained inside but on the periphery, but with say over EU law. As it is, the europhiles overplayed their hand, insulted democracy too many times, and in the end it came to a polarising In/Out vote and Out won, because the europhiles had lied too much, too often.
It is a tragedy. It need not have happened. Ah well.
We still could have had the single market and none iof the Maastricht bits. That was available - it was our choice to leave the EEA as well as the EU.
Something I argued for continuously but was told again and again by the Europhiles wasn't possible.
And they were right, it wasn't.
Indeed Brexit seems to be causing Norway to break up the EEA. Soon it will consist of countries with a smaller population than an English county.
Are you arguing that Norway seeing us negotiate a better deal and wanting something better for themselves is a bad thing?
At the moment, I don't think they can. There is supposed to be a computerized system for logging things, but it has been rather problematic and also doses can be filled on pretty much spur of the moment i.e. somebody doesn't turn up or as they have found bottles have been overfilled and they find there is an extra 1-2 doses in there...so then some extra NHS staff get a jab at the end of the day.
I think it is probably wise not to do that yet. Perhaps avoid setting off a daily Chimpanzee's Tea Party in the media.
They have chosen not to record vaccination data in case the media reports it? More likely, as was suggested weeks ago on pb, there is not a proper system in place, and probably there never can be.
At the moment, I don't think they can. There is supposed to be a computerized system for logging things, but it has been rather problematic and also doses can be filled on pretty much spur of the moment i.e. somebody doesn't turn up or as they have found bottles have been overfilled and they find there is an extra 1-2 doses in there...so then some extra NHS staff get a jab at the end of the day.
I think it is probably wise not to do that yet. Perhaps avoid setting off a daily Chimpanzee's Tea Party in the media.
They have chosen not to record vaccination data in case the media reports it? More likely, as was suggested weeks ago on pb, there is not a proper system in place, and probably there never can be.
But yet they can compile weekly stats, so there is some system in place.
At the moment, I don't think they can. There is supposed to be a computerized system for logging things, but it has been rather problematic and also doses can be filled on pretty much spur of the moment i.e. somebody doesn't turn up or as they have found bottles have been overfilled and they find there is an extra 1-2 doses in there...so then some extra NHS staff get a jab at the end of the day.
I think it is probably wise not to do that yet. Perhaps avoid setting off a daily Chimpanzee's Tea Party in the media.
They have chosen not to record vaccination data in case the media reports it? More likely, as was suggested weeks ago on pb, there is not a proper system in place, and probably there never can be.
But yet they can compile weekly stats, so there is some system in place.
Knowing how many you've jabbed is simple enough. Even if you'd not counted arms you could work it out from the number of doses used. Knowing who and with what is more complicated, both logistically and for privacy and related reasons.
Yes of course, one of the prime movers of the Single Market would be delighted we have fucked business, blown up our FDI chances and erected customs barriers.
Recently released papers make it clear Thatcher was becoming seriously eurosceptic as early as the late 80s. She was, for instance, absolutely bang on about the euro, and how it was a madcap idea which would do grave damage.
Those of us around at the time also recall the deterioration in her mental state at the same time
This is simultaneously mendacious, insulting and borderline libellous (if one could libel the dead). Margaret Thatcher in the late 80s was in her prime. She might have let the power go to her head occasionally ("we are a grandmother") but there was absolutely no sign of her later, melancholy decline into dementia. That came a full decade later.
Be a gent. Desist and retract. It's a truly nasty thing to impute.
This is Maggie in 1988, talking about Europe:
"Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate [end p10] freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community."
And:
"Today's conference is not just a one-off event. That is why we have set ourselves a target of ensuring that over 90%; of British firms are aware of the 1992 commitment by the end of this year. It must be the start of a sustained national effort to ensure that everyone in business, in industry, in the service [end p19] sector, is aware of the challenge.
And not just in business and industry. We are putting the European Community to work for ordinary people: for cheaper air fares, for more and better services, for consumer choice and product safety."
Shame the free market in services never happened then
Most services - whether inside the EU or not - are completely free from tariffs or regulation. PR, application development, virtual assistants, call centres, etc., all happily get sold around the world without supranational bodies getting involved.
Where there is regulation that restricts cross border trade it tends to be in specific professional services, particularly law.
But then again, we don't really have a single market in lawyers in the UK either, as - AFIUI, and I could be wrong - Scottish Advocates and English Barristers are not able perform each others' roles.
There isn't a free market in gaming.
Betting?
A Frenchman can bet with Ladbrokes in the UK, no?
Actually probably not, I know poker stars has many eu sites for instance for belgium there is a lot of problems for their plays such as this
At the moment, I don't think they can. There is supposed to be a computerized system for logging things, but it has been rather problematic and also doses can be filled on pretty much spur of the moment i.e. somebody doesn't turn up or as they have found bottles have been overfilled and they find there is an extra 1-2 doses in there...so then some extra NHS staff get a jab at the end of the day.
I think it is probably wise not to do that yet. Perhaps avoid setting off a daily Chimpanzee's Tea Party in the media.
They have chosen not to record vaccination data in case the media reports it? More likely, as was suggested weeks ago on pb, there is not a proper system in place, and probably there never can be.
But yet they can compile weekly stats, so there is some system in place.
Knowing how many you've jabbed is simple enough. Even if you'd not counted arms you could work it out from the number of doses used. Knowing who and with what is more complicated, both logistically and for privacy and related reasons.
I find it very hard to believe they don't know who has had the jab. After all, they come in pairs.
Another new Georgia poll has Jon Ossoff well ahead: leading by +8. It also has Warnock ahead by +9. I'm suspicious of this polling to be frank, much as I would like it to be true. The sample size is small.
I know it's a "how long is a piece of string" kind of query, but roughly what percentage of Georgia votes has already been cast? What's left to fight for?
At the moment, I don't think they can. There is supposed to be a computerized system for logging things, but it has been rather problematic and also doses can be filled on pretty much spur of the moment i.e. somebody doesn't turn up or as they have found bottles have been overfilled and they find there is an extra 1-2 doses in there...so then some extra NHS staff get a jab at the end of the day.
I think it is probably wise not to do that yet. Perhaps avoid setting off a daily Chimpanzee's Tea Party in the media.
They have chosen not to record vaccination data in case the media reports it? More likely, as was suggested weeks ago on pb, there is not a proper system in place, and probably there never can be.
But yet they can compile weekly stats, so there is some system in place.
Knowing how many you've jabbed is simple enough. Even if you'd not counted arms you could work it out from the number of doses used. Knowing who and with what is more complicated, both logistically and for privacy and related reasons.
I find it very hard to believe they don't know who has had the jab. After all, they come in pairs.
They certainly know who’s had it locally, the issue will be the collation of the numbers and breakdown of groups nationally - which takes management time and effort better directed at the rollout itself.
I know it's a "how long is a piece of string" kind of query, but roughly what percentage of Georgia votes has already been cast? What's left to fight for?
Another new Georgia poll has Jon Ossoff well ahead: leading by +8. It also has Warnock ahead by +9. I'm suspicious of this polling to be frank, much as I would like it to be true. The sample size is small.
So they do have 4 million doses ready, it's just they haven't been verified.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that AstraZeneca "have bottled four million doses but have not gone through the safety checks for all the batches", adding: "The nuance is they do have four million ready to go, but without knowing the exact conditions the MHRA have set I don't think it is feasible to check four million doses in one go."
And another 15 million ready to be bottled
Mr Johnson promised that "tens of millions" of doses would be available by the end of March, and The Telegraph understands that AstraZeneca already has 15 million doses waiting to be put into vials as soon as required. That could be done in a matter of days at specialist factories in the UK and Europe.
I know it's a "how long is a piece of string" kind of query, but roughly what percentage of Georgia votes has already been cast? What's left to fight for?
And on top of that, Nige is someone who's never sought the limielight, never sought to grandstand ; always stuck to his principles, and never beein involved in the financial chicanery of all those top politicians. Just got on with it quietly and honourably, like one of Britain's quiet heroes.
So they do have 4 million doses ready, it's just they haven't been verified.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that AstraZeneca "have bottled four million doses but have not gone through the safety checks for all the batches", adding: "The nuance is they do have four million ready to go, but without knowing the exact conditions the MHRA have set I don't think it is feasible to check four million doses in one go."
And another 15 million ready to be bottled
Mr Johnson promised that "tens of millions" of doses would be available by the end of March, and The Telegraph understands that AstraZeneca already has 15 million doses waiting to be put into vials as soon as required. That could be done in a matter of days at specialist factories in the UK and Europe.
I know it's a "how long is a piece of string" kind of query, but roughly what percentage of Georgia votes has already been cast? What's left to fight for?
Disagree with Cyclefree on Suella Braverman, who never had a reputation and was specifically appointed to provide legal cover to Boris Johnson. The fact that the PM did make Braverman Attorney-General tells you everything that you need to know about his commitment to the rule of law. We'll see this even more clearly next year.
So they do have 4 million doses ready, it's just they haven't been verified.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that AstraZeneca "have bottled four million doses but have not gone through the safety checks for all the batches", adding: "The nuance is they do have four million ready to go, but without knowing the exact conditions the MHRA have set I don't think it is feasible to check four million doses in one go."
And another 15 million ready to be bottled
Mr Johnson promised that "tens of millions" of doses would be available by the end of March, and The Telegraph understands that AstraZeneca already has 15 million doses waiting to be put into vials as soon as required. That could be done in a matter of days at specialist factories in the UK and Europe.
And on top of that, Nige is someone who's never sought the limielight, never sought to grandstand ; always stuck to his principles, and never beein involved in the financial chicanery of all those top politicians. Just got on with it quietly and honourably, like one of Britain's quiet heroes.
So they do have 4 million doses ready, it's just they haven't been verified.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that AstraZeneca "have bottled four million doses but have not gone through the safety checks for all the batches", adding: "The nuance is they do have four million ready to go, but without knowing the exact conditions the MHRA have set I don't think it is feasible to check four million doses in one go."
And another 15 million ready to be bottled
Mr Johnson promised that "tens of millions" of doses would be available by the end of March, and The Telegraph understands that AstraZeneca already has 15 million doses waiting to be put into vials as soon as required. That could be done in a matter of days at specialist factories in the UK and Europe.
Comments
What's the highest number of teams that have topped the table during a season, I wonder?
Trying to earn money from my writing is my ambition for next year. Thank you for your encouragement. You have no idea how much it means to me.
Happy New Year to you too! X
- changed the tier restrictions
- changed the timetable for many primary and all secondary pupils and university students resuming classes
- changed the vaccine rollout plans and timetable
Not bad for a single day.
I would certainly agree that the biggest problem that the UK has had in the negotiations is that we had no clear idea of where we intended to finish. Powell is wrong to say that we spent out first 2 years negotiating with ourselves, in many ways we are still doing it today. Its like the US and the Vietnam war or the American war of independence where there was considerable disagreement in this country about whether we were doing the right thing. As an American President once said, a house divided amongst itself cannot stand. Nor can a negotiating team.
The lack of a consensus of where we wanted to finish undermined our negotiating stance. This was most painfully the case in the Remainer Parliament where there were no shortage of willing fools who were all too keen to defeat our PM and undermine our stance. It happened repeatedly. I am not sure that I would focus particularly on the commencement of the Article 50 process: it was and remains a problem to this day.
I would agree with Powell that a lot of this arose from the narrow win in the referendum itself and the weaknesses of a referendum campaign where neither side is the government responsible for implementing what they had promised. Referendums are not a good idea.
I would not agree that the relative size of the EU and the UK is particularly material. The default assumption that the EU would get its way because it is bigger has no basis in fact but it seems to have influenced the thinking of too many of our civil servants throughout the process.
At the end of the day the EU continues to sell us £80bn a year more goods than we sell them. Frictionless trade is to their advantage, not ours. Agreeing a FTA for goods alone is undoubtedly a significant failure for the UK. It is not in our interests, it is in theirs. We should not have agreed a deal that did not include services. We have failed to protect our own interests. And I do agree that we need to learn from that.
😁
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lSIdJlSHQQ
Not much evidence of mental deterioration, in my view.
With 194 done today:
https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker
Don't they come in boxes of 975 ?
However I would argue that someone collecting the rubbish costs the same per household and therefore should cost the beneficiaries the same.
Redistribution is better handled through income and other taxes designed for that purpose than by randomly increasing other taxes
From an academic paper written by David Owen and a US psychiatrist:
After her third General Election victory in 1987, she tried to impose the unpopular poll tax. She saw German reunification in 1989 in cataclysmic terms as a potential Fourth Reich and told George Bush Sr ‘if we are not careful the Germans will get in peace what Hitler couldn’t get in the war’ (Bush and Scowcroft, 1998). She also began to refer to herself in the third person ‘We have become a grandmother’. By 1990 her own party’s MPs forced her to resign after displaying raw hubris in her handling of the European Union and bawling in the House of Commons, ‘No, no, no’ (Young, 1998).
Separately, and further: Sir John Major says he thinks Margaret Thatcher’s dementia was behind her fierce criticism of him while he was PM. ‘She was ill and bored and out of government’ and it wasn’t ‘the Thatcher I knew‘
Indeed Brexit seems to be causing Norway to break up the EEA. Soon it will consist of countries with a smaller population than an English county.
Friction in trade encourages import substitution and domestic production. That benefits UK plc even if it is not as convenient for the individual purchaser.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
But its only being updated weekly.
I also see why the cleaners didn't like it, and brought about the defenestration of Thatcher.
As for the Owen paper, nothing mentioned there is unreasonable except the third person reference which she had been doing since long before 1987.
#nodealnicola
https://twitter.com/trapdoorcat/status/1344422060815249412?s=21
It will be over by (delete as appropriate) September (2020) /Christmas (2020) /Spring (2021)/ Summer (2021)/Christmas (2021).
Whilst within the UK these problems are offset by the fiscal transfers of central government. If that should cease to be the case it will be a problem, yes. Whether Scotland would benefit from friction in trade really would depend on its capacity to increase and substitute production.
College: letter tomorrow - looks like plan A, a week later
Secondary: (before Gavin) mocks definitely going ahead w/c 4/1
Primary: after Gavin - start as planned
Dance Studios and Gym Classes: Tier 3, happy days, let your kids mix from Saturday (in a COVID secure manner), wahey.
In their position, of course that's what I'd do, but with schools held back it just feels like the pubs all over again.
Easy, man. Shlowly does it.
Edit: More stereotypes available.
I blame Brexit. I wasn't like this before...
Everyone knows the PM doesn't recognise really world beating.
Nothing wrong with that, but it does colour his judgments.
Whether house prices circa 1991 are a suitable comparator is open to a lot of question.
I think we perhaps need a local income tax. Whether the Lib Dems will divert enough from examining their own entrails to notice the opportunity at a time it may be up for debate is another interesting question.
I would argue for full VAT on all energy bills, on environmental grounds and to encourage energy efficiency (and saving the planet), but would equally argue for a rebalancing of the benefits system to compensate.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1344418384918798339?s=20
https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1343975505381511168?s=20
It's over.
https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1344405102258479105
"I live in a Barratt House..."
https://youtu.be/0JSahEDRjvw?t=15
https://twitter.com/isabeloakeshott/status/1344418384918798339?s=21
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1344438691524182019?s=21
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1344427113059856387
https://www.cardschat.com/f10/belgium-getting-biggest-f-ck-you-451012/
https://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Georgia-Senate-Runoff-Executive-Summary.pdf
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/georgia-senate-polls/?cid=rrpromo
Polling in the US seems to be encountering problems at the moment.
If he does get elected I could see him becoming a leading Democrat.
But then we heard all that in the December 2019 UK election. Remember the 'youthquake'?
I'm not even sure my 3/1 next week will come off.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/us/politics/georgia-senate-early-voting.html
That’s just over a third of registered voters (7.2 million) but about half of the 59% overall turnout in November.
And as before, it’s the Dems who are voting early. Turnout is down in Trump strongholds. However, that may correct itself on the day.
The Dems are the value, but the the Republicans are the likelier winners.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that AstraZeneca "have bottled four million doses but have not gone through the safety checks for all the batches", adding: "The nuance is they do have four million ready to go, but without knowing the exact conditions the MHRA have set I don't think it is feasible to check four million doses in one go."
And another 15 million ready to be bottled
Mr Johnson promised that "tens of millions" of doses would be available by the end of March, and The Telegraph understands that AstraZeneca already has 15 million doses waiting to be put into vials as soon as required. That could be done in a matter of days at specialist factories in the UK and Europe.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/30/britain-races-roll-covid-vaccines-bid-avoid-third-lockdown/
May Biden's special Phoenix talisman see him through!
Getting to 2m vaccinations a week by mid-Feb is challenging, but achievable.