1. Too slow to implement. 2. Not broad enough 3. Too expensive 4. 10 years in jail? Why? No one will ever serve this - it is presumably just to make up for point 1
At the weekend the govt was saying we are not looking at vaccine passports. Today they say we are looking at them. Id give it about a week before we are not again, within a month we will probably have u-turned a couple of times more. They are inevitable, we should be ahead of the curve and planning how to implement them sensibly and on time. Instead we will panic too late and come up with something ineffective.
The ten years in jail is for perjury when completing the arrival forms. Same idea as Chris Huhne and the speeding ticket.
Huhne served 2 months which was about right and would be fine in a quarantine perjury case. The culture of pretending jail terms are 10 years when they are actually a couple of months is bizarre to me. I guess no politician ever loses out by promising tougher sentences even when they know its nonsense.
The culture is rotten from top to bottom.
The problem is if the law says ten years, they get a nine month sentence, then released after three.
If the law said three months in the first place we all know nobody would serve three months, they likely would serve no time at all.
I'm curious if anyone has a clue how to fix that?
Set sensible sentences that reflect the time people spend in jail.
But if they set sensible sentences then people wouldn't serve the sensible sentence. It's a chicken and egg problem.
That's a bit misleading. Two of the British brigades are just groups of surplus and under resourced infantry regiments with no logistics, armour, artillery, comms or engineering support so you can't really do much with them apart from start fights in Aldershot town centre.
Also, the German "attack" subs aren't particularly muscular examples of the breed and don't really compare to an A boat (RN) or Rubis/Barracuda (La Royale). This is partly because of the dimensional constraints of the Nord Ostee Kanal (the U boats are based at Rostock on the Baltic) and partly due to budget constraints. The boats had to be cheap because they wanted (and got) lots of export sales.
I agree with Nick's post at the beginning of the thread. Things will have to get much worse and people will have to really notice before public opinion changes and we can begin to address seriously how to get out of the mess we have created. This is likely to take a while, partly because it will be hard to distinguish just now between covid and EU related problems, but the process is under way. It has gone further in NI than anywhere else but the rest of us will catch up in due course.
Meanwhile we will just have to cheer ourselves up with the cricket. I hope the punting PBers capitalised on the widely touted odds against England. I wouldn't put it past them to repeat the success in the 2nd Test, but much will depend on the toss.
Moen will come in for Bess, Foakes for Buttler and possibly Broad for Archer. That would actually be a stronger side than the one that has just won. Not sure India have any obvious improvements they can make. The 5/2 against England which is widely available now will become evens if they win the toss so it is worth chancing. As usual the draw should be layed with entushiasm. It's 4/1. Not expecting rain in Chennai, are we?
Have a nice day everyone. I have a funeral to attend. It's a Jewish one, so should be fun.
Leavers voted for Brexit for reasons that make sense to them, but it wasn't to make life worse for people than it needs to be. You can't limit damage unless you accept the damage is there.
Except many leavers now say the reasons they voted Leave were bollocks, lies fed to them by BoZo and lapped up by unwitting idiots
1. Too slow to implement. 2. Not broad enough 3. Too expensive 4. 10 years in jail? Why? No one will ever serve this - it is presumably just to make up for point 1
At the weekend the govt was saying we are not looking at vaccine passports. Today they say we are looking at them. Id give it about a week before we are not again, within a month we will probably have u-turned a couple of times more. They are inevitable, we should be ahead of the curve and planning how to implement them sensibly and on time. Instead we will panic too late and come up with something ineffective.
The ten years in jail is for perjury when completing the arrival forms. Same idea as Chris Huhne and the speeding ticket.
Huhne served 2 months which was about right and would be fine in a quarantine perjury case. The culture of pretending jail terms are 10 years when they are actually a couple of months is bizarre to me. I guess no politician ever loses out by promising tougher sentences even when they know its nonsense.
The culture is rotten from top to bottom.
The problem is if the law says ten years, they get a nine month sentence, then released after three.
If the law said three months in the first place we all know nobody would serve three months, they likely would serve no time at all.
I'm curious if anyone has a clue how to fix that?
Set sensible sentences that reflect the time people spend in jail.
Truth in sentencing is another thing I have long advocated.
IIRC no-one in the UK sentenced to 1 year in prison has spent 1 year in prison, going back decades.
The sentence pronounced by the Judge should be the irreducible minimum, with the maximum for bad behaviour etc either implicit or (better) expressed as part of the sentencing.
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
1. Too slow to implement. 2. Not broad enough 3. Too expensive 4. 10 years in jail? Why? No one will ever serve this - it is presumably just to make up for point 1
At the weekend the govt was saying we are not looking at vaccine passports. Today they say we are looking at them. Id give it about a week before we are not again, within a month we will probably have u-turned a couple of times more. They are inevitable, we should be ahead of the curve and planning how to implement them sensibly and on time. Instead we will panic too late and come up with something ineffective.
The ten years in jail is for perjury when completing the arrival forms. Same idea as Chris Huhne and the speeding ticket.
Huhne served 2 months which was about right and would be fine in a quarantine perjury case. The culture of pretending jail terms are 10 years when they are actually a couple of months is bizarre to me. I guess no politician ever loses out by promising tougher sentences even when they know its nonsense.
The culture is rotten from top to bottom.
The problem is if the law says ten years, they get a nine month sentence, then released after three.
If the law said three months in the first place we all know nobody would serve three months, they likely would serve no time at all.
I'm curious if anyone has a clue how to fix that?
Isn't the ten years a maximum, to allow judges to sentence more serious/repeat offenders for longer if they need to? I don't really have a problem with Huhne spending only a few months in jail; he was hardly a danger to the public and the damage to his career and reputation only really required him to spend five minutes in jail. From a "punishment fitting the crime" perspective, a few months felt OK.
My only bone of contention is that friendly relations work both ways. Some of the rhetoric coming out of the EU towards the UK has been reckless and appalling, including, insulting the AZN vaccine, sledging the UK, unilaterally triggering Article 16, insecure and thinly-veiled threats, and putting us in the same category as Russia (only weeks after doing a craven deal with China).
There's a quid pro quo for it. And it starts with respect, and ending their obsession with trying to stiff the UK.
The situation we want to get to is one where there is mutual respect. The part that is under our control is showing respect.
Insisting that they show us the requisite respect first would not be a good start.
They've treated us with none, and like dirt under their shoe, because of their own insecurities at being shown up with our vaccine success. They see us as a bigger threat than Russia or China to their "Project".
That should tell all of us - Leavers and Remainers - that the EU is far from the omnipotent superpower some seem to think it is, and is actually weak and rather fragile. It suffers from its own creation myths and delusions of grandeur.
And new round of negotiations needs to keep that in mind - it will be a negotiation of equals, and the UK will not be a supplicant.
"Weak and fragile". And yet you didn't even think we could hold our own with it while a member and hence bottled it by leaving.
I don't just think that, David Cameron demonstrated it.
His failed renegotiation was one of the factors that pushed me over the edge, it showed the EU was incapable of serious reform. His suggested reforms were excellent but what he came back with was a plaster not real reform.
Had the EU taken Cameron seriously then we wouldn't have left.
We are certainly not going to go over Dave's Deal again now suffice to say it was an excellent one which maintained our separate status and opt outs while allowing us to benefit from EU membership.
But I also agree that the level of denial is such that it suits people such as yourself to say it was a "bad deal" because that makes it easier to dismiss it and feel ok about it.
Saying it was a bad deal is illogical and you are many things, Philip, but illogical is not one of them.
"Maintained our separate status and opt outs while allowing us to benefit from EU membership"? That was the status quo.
We already had all of that before Cameron started talking! If you're seeking reform then coming back and saying "we have achieved reform: we have maintained everything as it was" is not reform!
Reform is actually changing thing. Changes with teeth and legally enforceable not warm words. None of the changes I was looking for, like the UK being protected from being outvoted QMV by the Eurozone acting as a bloc, ever arrived.
Under his deal we could have deemed anything we didn't like "ever closer union" and gone on our way untroubled by it all. Best of both worlds. Selling to the US? Tonga? The Pitcairn Islands? All could have happened.
Bollocks. That's ridiculous.
What teeth were there to enforce us being able to do that? And who would judge and enforce that?
We just wouldn't have done it. cf The Fiscal Compact.
You (and others on here) seem more scared/worried/critical of our own (democratically-elected) leaders than the EU.
We couldn't do it. There was nothing legally enforceable in the deal and the ECJ remained the supreme arbiter. The reforms failed.
Anything that was QMV post Lisbon remained QMV post Dave's deal. Nothing was changed.
Blimey Phil such little confidence in the UK. I mean we just left the whole organisation and you're saying we would have been forced to do something we didn't want to do? Can't see it.
We didn't sign the Fiscal Compact. And for very good reasons. What was the comeback on that?
The Fiscal Compact wasn't able to be passed by QMV. Post Lisbon almost anything else could be.
Name one thing passable by QMV post Lisbon that Cameron's reforms actually changed please.
You're an intelligent guy, why do you take such pleasure in feigning ignorance. You must know it won't convince anyone.
Hence Dave's Deal. We would have termed a post-Lisbon Fiscal Compact "ever closer union" and, as Dave's deal said: "“…the references to ever closer union do not apply to the UK”.
No we could not since the references to ever closer union were a meaningless preamble. No laws were ever passed by that preamble in the first place anyway so changing that changed precisely nothing. Any laws passable by QMV pre deal were still passable by QMV post deal.
QMV laws were the real meat of the issue. That is where the power lies.
Cameron spoke in 2014 about protection for Euro Ins and Euro Outs, as the Eurozone nations would inevitably integrate further and caucus further. Under QMV the Eurozone caucus could unilaterally pass any laws it wanted to and veto any laws it wanted to, the UK was powerless under QMV.
Hence talk of eg a double majority QMV. If a Eurozone QMV only was reached then it would apply to the Eurozone only, to apply to non Eurozone members would require a QMV of non Eurozone members too.
That would have been a serious and meaningful reform. It was rejected.
A lot of waffle to cover up the fact that in Dave's Deal we had an ever closer union opt out which we could and would have used.
It suits your argument to ignore this of course it does, but it was there in the agreement. How enforceable was the agreement? I think we are seeing now how literally the EU takes its agreements and if they had tried to go back on it? Guess what - we'd have left.
An ever closer union opt out changes nothing. Literally nothing. It is meaningless, irrelevant fluff.
Laws aren't passed by "ever closer union" they are passed by QMV or unanimity voting. If the voting powers aren't changed then quite literally nothing has changed.
I would be very interested in hearing a defence of how the ECU opt-out would have functioned in practice. I remember seeing it and instinctively coming to the same conclusion as Mr Thompson, and then the realisation that I was going to have to vote Leave, as Cameron had let me down. I wasn't on this site at the time, but could probably still be convinced that it was more than a figleaf.
Sadly it was indeed just a figleaf and the EU have history on this with regard to the UK. The same happened with Major and his opt out from the Social Chapter. Indeed he wrote a whining letter to the Commission President about how he had been misled but of course it came to nothing.
Zeshan, a Labour Party activist from Manchester, asks what is the government doing to ensure the vaccine is safe for everyone - especially among BAME communities.
I presume this attitude is widespread among some demographics and why the low uptake. The "its not safe" for our kind of people rhetoric.
I find the moral agency issue... interesting.
For the majority.....
- If I do something wrong/stupid, it is my responsibility. - If I do something right/sensible, it is my responsibility.
What some people are trying to fashion, for some groups....
- If I do something wrong/stupid, it is the fault of someone else - If I do something right/sensible, it is my responsibility.
The words paternalism & condescension come to mind
Agree. There is no real choice in a grown up world about how to approach it for each individual: We are all under the same obligation to get informed, educate ourselves and decide for ourselves and then take responsibility for our decisions. (Obvs there are legal exceptions about mental capacity and so on, but in all those cases a legal system provides for a decision making process). To apply this removal of individual obligation to whole groups, selected by ethnicity, colour, religion or anything else is absurd and dangerous.
it is noticeable and striking that no-one ever stands up and says: "I need this special, patronising treatment for me personally". It's all about othering the others.
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
Zeshan, a Labour Party activist from Manchester, asks what is the government doing to ensure the vaccine is safe for everyone - especially among BAME communities.
I presume this attitude is widespread among some demographics and why the low uptake. The "its not safe" for our kind of people rhetoric.
I find the moral agency issue... interesting.
For the majority.....
- If I do something wrong/stupid, it is my responsibility. - If I do something right/sensible, it is my responsibility.
What some people are trying to fashion, for some groups....
- If I do something wrong/stupid, it is the fault of someone else - If I do something right/sensible, it is my responsibility.
The words paternalism & condescension come to mind
Agree. There is no real choice in a grown up world about how to approach it for each individual: We are all under the same obligation to get informed, educate ourselves and decide for ourselves and then take responsibility for our decisions. (Obvs there are legal exceptions about mental capacity and so on, but in all those cases a legal system provides for a decision making process). To apply this removal of individual obligation to whole groups, selected by ethnicity, colour, religion or anything else is absurd and dangerous.
it is noticeable and striking that no-one ever stands up and says: "I need this special, patronising treatment for me personally". It's all about othering the others.
It's not always about othering *others*. Though there is quite a lot of that.
Some want a "It's my culture" opt out on personal responsibility.
Others want a "history of oppression" opt out on personal responsibility.
Those who think Dave's EU Renegotiation was just fine seem to have forgotten that it was deemed so toxic, the Remain campaign itself demanded it be airbrushed from history. No mention of it was to be allowed.
I think Remain were concerned about it not standing up to scrutiny during the campaign. But I also think that what worried them is it not living up to expectations in the event that Remain won. I suspect Osborne would have been smart enough to see the problems that would have been caused by any suggestion that the EU had reneged on any of Dave's deal.
Fair points, but I don't see Dave's deal defusing antipathy to the EU, them playing silly buggers or not. Not talking about it in the campaign was an admission it did not do the job required to put the issue of our membership to bed.
Before the usual suspects hiss, if progress is to be made, it is necessary to understand the other side's perspective.
Yes, but given how often it was reported that the EU side was 'baffled' by UK requests/demands, as often as it was reported the UK didn't understand what it wanted or what rules were or were not flexible, I really don't think either side has any interest whatsoever in understanding the other side's perspective.
As recent events have shown it is far too useful for both sides to return to talking past one another and making incoherent demands to stir up Brexit wars than to understand perspectives.
"The government is also considering legislating to bring in new environmental and social reporting rules for companies, according to the person." Hah !
& the general additional brexit administration too
An interesting trend - the EU is considering adding environmental tariffs to Australian imports.
I do wonder when the lightbulb will go off on the left about *social* tariffs on imports - proven chain of ingredients/materials etc. So if your tat is made with slave labour, stick 50% on it etc...
How does this work with current attempts to export coalmines for the coking coal needed for steel production?
Do they want their steel to be made by slaves as well?
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
A mad idea. It'll never catch on.
That’s the sort of thing Labour should run with. Big evil insurance companies taking advantage of the old, the poor, those without internet connections etc.
1. Too slow to implement. 2. Not broad enough 3. Too expensive 4. 10 years in jail? Why? No one will ever serve this - it is presumably just to make up for point 1
At the weekend the govt was saying we are not looking at vaccine passports. Today they say we are looking at them. Id give it about a week before we are not again, within a month we will probably have u-turned a couple of times more. They are inevitable, we should be ahead of the curve and planning how to implement them sensibly and on time. Instead we will panic too late and come up with something ineffective.
The ten years in jail is for perjury when completing the arrival forms. Same idea as Chris Huhne and the speeding ticket.
Huhne served 2 months which was about right and would be fine in a quarantine perjury case. The culture of pretending jail terms are 10 years when they are actually a couple of months is bizarre to me. I guess no politician ever loses out by promising tougher sentences even when they know its nonsense.
Yes, The actual sentence is of course at the discretion of the sentencing judge.
There will be a range of offences from someone miscounting 13 or 14 days, to those blantantly ignoring the rules by going from SA to Morocco to France, then taking a one-way into the U.K. and saying they’d been to France for a few days. The most egregious example would probably be someone chartering a plane from a banned country, with a stop in a ‘good’ country en-route, then denying they were ever where they shouldn’t have been.
The 10 year prison sentence is the maximum deterrence strategy. Which works very well, if you really mean it. Consider the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking in Singapore. They actually apply it. Now they have almost zero problems with drugs. The sentence says Just Don’t Do It.
A few still do it, and they ARE executed.
Given the downsides of a horrible new variant in the UK, I reckon this tariff is justified. But it needs to be actually applied, when major miscreants are caught, if it is to work.
Case in point: shellfish harvesters. It looks like the UK government could have negotiated access, but would have to commit to EU rules, something the UK government was not prepared to do.
But they won't go to shellfish harvesters and say, "on principle we will not be ruletaker from the EU, even though we don't care what the rules are and the EU rules are just as good as any we might come up with. So that means you lose your livelihoods. Sorry, but the principle is more important." Instead they get very aggressive towards the EU and blame them.
The dishonesty makes me mad. This is not a principle I subscribe to, but that's fine. People have different values. But what's the point of a principle you are not prepared to defend, or even admit to the consequences of ?
Those who think Dave's EU Renegotiation was just fine seem to have forgotten that it was deemed so toxic, the Remain campaign itself demanded it be airbrushed from history. No mention of it was to be allowed.
I think Remain were concerned about it not standing up to scrutiny during the campaign. But I also think that what worried them is it not living up to expectations in the event that Remain won. I suspect Osborne would have been smart enough to see the problems that would have been caused by any suggestion that the EU had reneged on any of Dave's deal.
Fair points, but I don't see Dave's deal defusing antipathy to the EU, them playing silly buggers or not. Not talking about it in the campaign was an admission it did not do the job required to put the issue of our membership to bed.
There was no concession at all on FoM. This played badly with two groups, old fashioned liberals who wanted (and still want) a level playing field for anyone from anywhere who wishes to work/reside in the UK - so that Paraguayans, Romanians, Indians and Australians all had equality of opportunity and no-one had automatic prior rights simply by virtue of nationality.
And of course it played badly with those who simply wanted to exclude Johnny Foreigner from the UK.
"The government is also considering legislating to bring in new environmental and social reporting rules for companies, according to the person." Hah !
& the general additional brexit administration too
An interesting trend - the EU is considering adding environmental tariffs to Australian imports.
I do wonder when the lightbulb will go off on the left about *social* tariffs on imports - proven chain of ingredients/materials etc. So if your tat is made with slave labour, stick 50% on it etc...
How does this work with current attempts to export coalmines for the coking coal needed for steel production?
Do they want their steel to be made by slaves as well?
That's because they haven't woken up on the issue yet.
Think of it as an environmental/social policy for Starmer... tariffs on excess CO2 emissions implicit in products, tariffs on slave labour.
1. Too slow to implement. 2. Not broad enough 3. Too expensive 4. 10 years in jail? Why? No one will ever serve this - it is presumably just to make up for point 1
At the weekend the govt was saying we are not looking at vaccine passports. Today they say we are looking at them. Id give it about a week before we are not again, within a month we will probably have u-turned a couple of times more. They are inevitable, we should be ahead of the curve and planning how to implement them sensibly and on time. Instead we will panic too late and come up with something ineffective.
The ten years in jail is for perjury when completing the arrival forms. Same idea as Chris Huhne and the speeding ticket.
Huhne served 2 months which was about right and would be fine in a quarantine perjury case. The culture of pretending jail terms are 10 years when they are actually a couple of months is bizarre to me. I guess no politician ever loses out by promising tougher sentences even when they know its nonsense.
The culture is rotten from top to bottom.
The problem is if the law says ten years, they get a nine month sentence, then released after three.
If the law said three months in the first place we all know nobody would serve three months, they likely would serve no time at all.
I'm curious if anyone has a clue how to fix that?
Isn't the ten years a maximum, to allow judges to sentence more serious/repeat offenders for longer if they need to? I don't really have a problem with Huhne spending only a few months in jail; he was hardly a danger to the public and the damage to his career and reputation only really required him to spend five minutes in jail. From a "punishment fitting the crime" perspective, a few months felt OK.
If somebody was so determined to have a holiday/business trip that they lied about their travel itinerary, and were then found by tracing to be the Patient Zero that brought a new virulent strain into the country that killed 1,000 people - I think they might be looking at 10 years.
No wonder Elton didn't get the Covid ad gig: "The more people in society who get vaccinated, the more chance there is of eradicating the national Covid pandemic."
Still over 42% of the total! It’s been in the 42-43% range for about a month, if that continues the U.K. will be on 100m (everyone, twice over!) when the EU is still giving first does to over 50s.
Good luck to them in finding a rabbit up their sleeve, but it does genuinely look as if the delivery order is pretty much set in stone. It’s going to be an issue for the U.K. in the summer, to have a mostly unvaccinated population nearby.
Yes we do, but if that is what he said he's a moron or he's really grasping for justifications.
We want a good working relationship, but it will no longer be ‘close’. The EU is like a neighbour now, whereas before we shared a house (somewhat unhappily). You want to get on with your neighbour, so they can collect parcels when you are out, and you can warn them when their car is about to be ticketed. But you generally don’t have them round for dinner. And they’re definitely not family.
The English speaking world is our family.
Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
Leavers voted for Brexit for reasons that make sense to them, but it wasn't to make life worse for people than it needs to be. You can't limit damage unless you accept the damage is there.
Except many leavers now say the reasons they voted Leave were bollocks, lies fed to them by BoZo and lapped up by unwitting idiots
They are keenly aware of the damage
I am not seeing a lot of evidence of Leavers deciding they shot themselves in the foot with Brexit. Some, but not many. Ultimately Richard is right. The way out of the mess is damage limitation. I have been saying this since 2016, but I voted Remain. Leavers need to drive this.
My only bone of contention is that friendly relations work both ways. Some of the rhetoric coming out of the EU towards the UK has been reckless and appalling, including, insulting the AZN vaccine, sledging the UK, unilaterally triggering Article 16, insecure and thinly-veiled threats, and putting us in the same category as Russia (only weeks after doing a craven deal with China).
There's a quid pro quo for it. And it starts with respect, and ending their obsession with trying to stiff the UK.
The situation we want to get to is one where there is mutual respect. The part that is under our control is showing respect.
Insisting that they show us the requisite respect first would not be a good start.
They've treated us with none, and like dirt under their shoe, because of their own insecurities at being shown up with our vaccine success. They see us as a bigger threat than Russia or China to their "Project".
That should tell all of us - Leavers and Remainers - that the EU is far from the omnipotent superpower some seem to think it is, and is actually weak and rather fragile. It suffers from its own creation myths and delusions of grandeur.
And new round of negotiations needs to keep that in mind - it will be a negotiation of equals, and the UK will not be a supplicant.
"Weak and fragile". And yet you didn't even think we could hold our own with it while a member and hence bottled it by leaving.
I don't just think that, David Cameron demonstrated it.
His failed renegotiation was one of the factors that pushed me over the edge, it showed the EU was incapable of serious reform. His suggested reforms were excellent but what he came back with was a plaster not real reform.
Had the EU taken Cameron seriously then we wouldn't have left.
We are certainly not going to go over Dave's Deal again now suffice to say it was an excellent one which maintained our separate status and opt outs while allowing us to benefit from EU membership.
But I also agree that the level of denial is such that it suits people such as yourself to say it was a "bad deal" because that makes it easier to dismiss it and feel ok about it.
Saying it was a bad deal is illogical and you are many things, Philip, but illogical is not one of them.
"Maintained our separate status and opt outs while allowing us to benefit from EU membership"? That was the status quo.
We already had all of that before Cameron started talking! If you're seeking reform then coming back and saying "we have achieved reform: we have maintained everything as it was" is not reform!
Reform is actually changing thing. Changes with teeth and legally enforceable not warm words. None of the changes I was looking for, like the UK being protected from being outvoted QMV by the Eurozone acting as a bloc, ever arrived.
Under his deal we could have deemed anything we didn't like "ever closer union" and gone on our way untroubled by it all. Best of both worlds. Selling to the US? Tonga? The Pitcairn Islands? All could have happened.
Bollocks. That's ridiculous.
What teeth were there to enforce us being able to do that? And who would judge and enforce that?
We just wouldn't have done it. cf The Fiscal Compact.
You (and others on here) seem more scared/worried/critical of our own (democratically-elected) leaders than the EU.
We couldn't do it. There was nothing legally enforceable in the deal and the ECJ remained the supreme arbiter. The reforms failed.
Anything that was QMV post Lisbon remained QMV post Dave's deal. Nothing was changed.
Blimey Phil such little confidence in the UK. I mean we just left the whole organisation and you're saying we would have been forced to do something we didn't want to do? Can't see it.
We didn't sign the Fiscal Compact. And for very good reasons. What was the comeback on that?
The Fiscal Compact wasn't able to be passed by QMV. Post Lisbon almost anything else could be.
Name one thing passable by QMV post Lisbon that Cameron's reforms actually changed please.
You're an intelligent guy, why do you take such pleasure in feigning ignorance. You must know it won't convince anyone.
Hence Dave's Deal. We would have termed a post-Lisbon Fiscal Compact "ever closer union" and, as Dave's deal said: "“…the references to ever closer union do not apply to the UK”.
No we could not since the references to ever closer union were a meaningless preamble. No laws were ever passed by that preamble in the first place anyway so changing that changed precisely nothing. Any laws passable by QMV pre deal were still passable by QMV post deal.
QMV laws were the real meat of the issue. That is where the power lies.
Cameron spoke in 2014 about protection for Euro Ins and Euro Outs, as the Eurozone nations would inevitably integrate further and caucus further. Under QMV the Eurozone caucus could unilaterally pass any laws it wanted to and veto any laws it wanted to, the UK was powerless under QMV.
Hence talk of eg a double majority QMV. If a Eurozone QMV only was reached then it would apply to the Eurozone only, to apply to non Eurozone members would require a QMV of non Eurozone members too.
That would have been a serious and meaningful reform. It was rejected.
A lot of waffle to cover up the fact that in Dave's Deal we had an ever closer union opt out which we could and would have used.
It suits your argument to ignore this of course it does, but it was there in the agreement. How enforceable was the agreement? I think we are seeing now how literally the EU takes its agreements and if they had tried to go back on it? Guess what - we'd have left.
An ever closer union opt out changes nothing. Literally nothing. It is meaningless, irrelevant fluff.
Laws aren't passed by "ever closer union" they are passed by QMV or unanimity voting. If the voting powers aren't changed then quite literally nothing has changed.
I would be very interested in hearing a defence of how the ECU opt-out would have functioned in practice. I remember seeing it and instinctively coming to the same conclusion as Mr Thompson, and then the realisation that I was going to have to vote Leave, as Cameron had let me down. I wasn't on this site at the time, but could probably still be convinced that it was more than a figleaf.
Sadly it was indeed just a figleaf and the EU have history on this with regard to the UK. The same happened with Major and his opt out from the Social Chapter. Indeed he wrote a whining letter to the Commission President about how he had been misled but of course it came to nothing.
Of course the Commissioner responsible for Health Stella Kyriakides has responsibility for both shell fish and vaccines - I suspect she has a lot on her plate at the moment, and may not be best disposed towards the UK, who keep showing her up, daily.
"The government is also considering legislating to bring in new environmental and social reporting rules for companies, according to the person." Hah !
& the general additional brexit administration too
An interesting trend - the EU is considering adding environmental tariffs to Australian imports.
I do wonder when the lightbulb will go off on the left about *social* tariffs on imports - proven chain of ingredients/materials etc. So if your tat is made with slave labour, stick 50% on it etc...
How does this work with current attempts to export coalmines for the coking coal needed for steel production?
Do they want their steel to be made by slaves as well?
That's because they haven't woken up on the issue yet.
Think of it as an environmental/social policy for Starmer... tariffs on excess CO2 emissions implicit in products, tariffs on slave labour.
But surely Starmer already has a zero corbyn policy
Yes we do, but if that is what he said he's a moron or he's really grasping for justifications.
We want a good working relationship, but it will no longer be ‘close’. The EU is like a neighbour now, whereas before we shared a house (somewhat unhappily). You want to get on with your neighbour, so they can collect parcels when you are out, and you can warn them when their car is about to be ticketed. But you generally don’t have them round for dinner. And they’re definitely not family.
The English speaking world is our family.
Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
Which is why the CP-TPP agreement is going to be such an important deal for the next decade. Doubly so if we can convince Biden to join the USA to it.
The US are famously wary of the compromises involved in trade deals, but the EU getting closer to China might help change American minds.
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
A mad idea. It'll never catch on.
That’s the sort of thing Labour should run with. Big evil insurance companies taking advantage of the old, the poor, those without internet connections etc.
It's interesting that neither Miliband nor Corbyn ever tried that play, actually. Lots of noise around utility companies and broadband providers, where any gains would be pretty marginal, but no attempt to set up a state sponsored insurer (or a series of regional ones, reinsured into a UK-wide pool) for ordinary home, motor, travel etc. The goal would be to offer simple vanilla policies at cheap prices, direct to the public with limited intermediary costs.
I have spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this, but it doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea.
1. Too slow to implement. 2. Not broad enough 3. Too expensive 4. 10 years in jail? Why? No one will ever serve this - it is presumably just to make up for point 1
At the weekend the govt was saying we are not looking at vaccine passports. Today they say we are looking at them. Id give it about a week before we are not again, within a month we will probably have u-turned a couple of times more. They are inevitable, we should be ahead of the curve and planning how to implement them sensibly and on time. Instead we will panic too late and come up with something ineffective.
The ten years in jail is for perjury when completing the arrival forms. Same idea as Chris Huhne and the speeding ticket.
Huhne served 2 months which was about right and would be fine in a quarantine perjury case. The culture of pretending jail terms are 10 years when they are actually a couple of months is bizarre to me. I guess no politician ever loses out by promising tougher sentences even when they know its nonsense.
The culture is rotten from top to bottom.
The problem is if the law says ten years, they get a nine month sentence, then released after three.
If the law said three months in the first place we all know nobody would serve three months, they likely would serve no time at all.
I'm curious if anyone has a clue how to fix that?
Set sensible sentences that reflect the time people spend in jail.
Truth in sentencing is another thing I have long advocated.
IIRC no-one in the UK sentenced to 1 year in prison has spent 1 year in prison, going back decades.
The sentence pronounced by the Judge should be the irreducible minimum, with the maximum for bad behaviour etc either implicit or (better) expressed as part of the sentencing.
I can see the sense in what you are saying, but human psychology is strange. I think it's been shown that giving a sentence of 2 years, but offering time off for good behaviour, is more likely to result in good behaviour than a sentence of 1 year and threatening to extend it for bad behaviour.
If the former ends up with better outcomes then maybe we should stick with it, despite the apparent contradictions.
Still over 42% of the total! It’s been in the 42-43% range for about a month, if that continues the U.K. will be on 100m (everyone, twice over!) when the EU is still giving first does to over 50s.
Good luck to them in finding a rabbit up their sleeve, but it does genuinely look as if the delivery order is pretty much set in stone. It’s going to be an issue for the U.K. in the summer, to have a mostly unvaccinated population nearby.
Isn't that precisely the target?
The UK is proposing to vaccinate all over 50s by end of April and while nothing official the leaks are to have everyone vaccinated by the end of summer.
The EU are targeting I believe 70% of over 50s vaccinated by the end of Summer. So the EU want to go into Autumn at 70% of where we'll be by the end of April. That's their target.
We should be ambitious to have finished vaccinating everyone before schools return in the autumn. Then if need be new variant boosters over the winter.
If the EU have 30% of over 50s and all non healthcare under 50s still unvaccinated when schools return in the autum they're going to be at a real risk of a third wave.
They really want a war. Their behaviour since Brexit has been boorish and stupid. And sometimes absolutely dangerous. Brexit is like ending a marriage and seeing your spouse with objective eyes, for the first time - and realising that your ex is a boring, vacuous prig
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
A mad idea. It'll never catch on.
That’s the sort of thing Labour should run with. Big evil insurance companies taking advantage of the old, the poor, those without internet connections etc.
It's interesting that neither Miliband nor Corbyn ever tried that play, actually. Lots of noise around utility companies and broadband providers, where any gains would be pretty marginal, but no attempt to set up a state sponsored insurer (or a series of regional ones, reinsured into a UK-wide pool) for ordinary home, motor, travel etc. The goal would be to offer simple vanilla policies at cheap prices, direct to the public with limited intermediary costs.
I have spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this, but it doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea.
The local authority energy companies such as Robin Hood have worked out so well...
Nice sensible header Richard, but I forget, why did you leave the Tory party on 23RD JULY 2019!!!
it sounds really dramatic, but I confess I forget why that date is pivotal
I've checked the historical record, and the biggest headline of the day seems to have been 'Love Island villa explodes as Jordan cracks on with India before telling Anna'.
Labour MSP Jackie Baillie, who sits on the inquiry, said: “If the court allows The Spectator to publish the material then the Committee should have an emergency meeting to review whether it publishes too.
“In that eventuality, it makes no sense for the Committee to tie its own hands behind its back by refusing to make use of the submission and have the chance to question Mr Salmond.
“The Committee is duty bound to do all it can to get to the reasons why the Scottish Government’s procedures were so badly flawed and why the women involved were so badly failed – to do so, we must have all the evidence available and the chance to question Mr Salmond.
“The credibility of the Committee and its work hangs in the balance. If The Spectator’s legal challenge is successful, then the Committee must seize the opportunity to question Mr Salmond.”
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
Nice sensible header Richard, but I forget, why did you leave the Tory party on 23RD JULY 2019!!!
it sounds really dramatic, but I confess I forget why that date is pivotal
I believe that was the date Boris became leader and he could not bare to support the party any longer given it was now full of all the oiks and working class Leave voters who produced the landslide Tory victory in December of that year
Nice sensible header Richard, but I forget, why did you leave the Tory party on 23RD JULY 2019!!!
it sounds really dramatic, but I confess I forget why that date is pivotal
I've checked the historical record, and the biggest headline of the day seems to have been 'Love Island villa explodes as Jordan cracks on with India before telling Anna'.
That must have been it.
To be fair that was quite the drama. A classic Love Island moment.
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
A mad idea. It'll never catch on.
That’s the sort of thing Labour should run with. Big evil insurance companies taking advantage of the old, the poor, those without internet connections etc.
It's interesting that neither Miliband nor Corbyn ever tried that play, actually. Lots of noise around utility companies and broadband providers, where any gains would be pretty marginal, but no attempt to set up a state sponsored insurer (or a series of regional ones, reinsured into a UK-wide pool) for ordinary home, motor, travel etc. The goal would be to offer simple vanilla policies at cheap prices, direct to the public with limited intermediary costs.
I have spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this, but it doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea.
The local authority energy companies such as Robin Hood have worked out so well...
What you are suggesting is that a state provided system goes into direct competition with a large well established and competitive private sector. Good luck with that one.
Nice sensible header Richard, but I forget, why did you leave the Tory party on 23RD JULY 2019!!!
it sounds really dramatic, but I confess I forget why that date is pivotal
I believe that was the date Boris became leader and he could not bare to support the party any longer given it was now full of all the oiks and working class Leave voters who produced the landslide Tory victory in December of that year
Which part of his anatomy did Mr Nabavi refuse to bare in support of the newly oikish Tories?
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
A mad idea. It'll never catch on.
That’s the sort of thing Labour should run with. Big evil insurance companies taking advantage of the old, the poor, those without internet connections etc.
It's interesting that neither Miliband nor Corbyn ever tried that play, actually. Lots of noise around utility companies and broadband providers, where any gains would be pretty marginal, but no attempt to set up a state sponsored insurer (or a series of regional ones, reinsured into a UK-wide pool) for ordinary home, motor, travel etc. The goal would be to offer simple vanilla policies at cheap prices, direct to the public with limited intermediary costs.
I have spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this, but it doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea.
The local authority energy companies such as Robin Hood have worked out so well...
What you are suggesting is that a state provided system goes into direct competition with a large well established and competitive private sector. Good luck with that one.
No, I'm pointing out that the last attempt to do such a thing was a grade A disaster for everyone involved and doing the same for home insurance would be a similar disaster.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
"Chuka Umunna, the former Labour MP and City banker who fought against "reckless" banker pay after the 2008 financial crash, has been hired by JP Morgan, America's biggest bank. "
(Telegraph)
Cue Corbynista outrage filling Twitter for next few hours.
It is interesting that Scottish politics has become in practice an internal discussion/row within the SNP with no-one else being of any interest, and English politics has become an internal discussion within the Tory party with no-one else being of any interest. is that circumstances or the personalities involved. How can the various oppositions be so monumentally dull?
1 - that they are using different units to the NATO targets. 2 - that the measure is inputs not outputs. 3 - that no account is taken of quality of forces / equipment, or ability to deliver on the ground.
"Chuka Umunna, the former Labour MP and City banker who fought against "reckless" banker pay after the 2008 financial crash, has been hired by JP Morgan, America's biggest bank. "
(Telegraph)
Cue Corbynista outrage filling Twitter for next few hours.
For those who know... is the red tape required for exporting to the EU just the same as you would expect to export to anywhere else? Eh Australia, the USA, Burkina Faso? Or does the EU somehow do things differently?
Broadly the same for a country that the EU doesn't have a close trading relationship with.
The issue for the UK is that the EU internal market is very efficient. A UK company will now have extra costs and delays when exporting to, say, France compared with a German competitor, which it will have to eat if its margin allows it to do so. The UK has to get its stuff from somewhere so additional import costs can be passed onto the customer. The Gerrman company can still profitably export to the UK.
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
A mad idea. It'll never catch on.
That’s the sort of thing Labour should run with. Big evil insurance companies taking advantage of the old, the poor, those without internet connections etc.
It's interesting that neither Miliband nor Corbyn ever tried that play, actually. Lots of noise around utility companies and broadband providers, where any gains would be pretty marginal, but no attempt to set up a state sponsored insurer (or a series of regional ones, reinsured into a UK-wide pool) for ordinary home, motor, travel etc. The goal would be to offer simple vanilla policies at cheap prices, direct to the public with limited intermediary costs.
I have spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this, but it doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea.
The local authority energy companies such as Robin Hood have worked out so well...
What you are suggesting is that a state provided system goes into direct competition with a large well established and competitive private sector. Good luck with that one.
No, I'm pointing out that the last attempt to do such a thing was a grade A disaster for everyone involved and doing the same for home insurance would be a similar disaster.
Sorry, it was Endillion's point I was responding to. I think we share the same doubts!
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
The so-called "loyalty penalty" (or "shoppers reward", as a talk I went to last year put it).
The FCA has been looking at this for retail insurance for some time now. There aren't really any obvious solutions - it's just the case that (like in many areas) it's in the interests of the insurers to allow time-poor/uninformed/plain lazy customers to subsidise those of us who have the time, knowledge and inclination to shop around.
The current proposal is to force providers to charge renewal prices equivalent to what a new customer would be charged (ie, ban new customer discounts). The consultation period finished in January and we're waiting to hear the outcome. It's expected to lower prices on average, although those who used to shop around will likely end up paying more. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-proposals-tackle-concerns-about-general-insurance-pricing
On a side note, insurance isn't really (or at least shouldn't be) a commoditisable product; firms should be able to distinguish themselves via customer service, additional product features etc. The fact that the FCA seems so heavily focused on price as the sole means of customer decision making is, in my opinion, not healthy.
The idea is that the price of insurance should be based on the risk profile and the product offered, irrespective of the name on the policy document.
A mad idea. It'll never catch on.
That’s the sort of thing Labour should run with. Big evil insurance companies taking advantage of the old, the poor, those without internet connections etc.
It's interesting that neither Miliband nor Corbyn ever tried that play, actually. Lots of noise around utility companies and broadband providers, where any gains would be pretty marginal, but no attempt to set up a state sponsored insurer (or a series of regional ones, reinsured into a UK-wide pool) for ordinary home, motor, travel etc. The goal would be to offer simple vanilla policies at cheap prices, direct to the public with limited intermediary costs.
I have spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this, but it doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea.
The local authority energy companies such as Robin Hood have worked out so well...
What you are suggesting is that a state provided system goes into direct competition with a large well established and competitive private sector. Good luck with that one.
Well, as it happens, certain parts of the private sector market are utterly dysfunctional, and far too much customer money ends up in the hands of third parties (price comparison websites being the chief offenders). And, as discussed upthread, a lot of less savvy people or those who don't have time to spend do tend to pay more than they should. So the idea is to try and shortcut those particular market failures.
But I'm not arguing that it's a particularly good policy. Just that it sounds like the sort of thing Labour could and should be advocating, and it's a bit odd they never (read: in the last ten years or so) have.
I suspect the tremendous success of the vaccine rollout has kind of rendered the whole thing a bit null and void at the moment. Easier for Captain Hindsight to criticise things when they're going wrong, not going right.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
I suspect the tremendous success of the vaccine rollout has kind of rendered the whole thing a bit null and void at the moment. Easier for Captain Hindsight to criticise things when they're going wrong, not going right.
I forgot PMQs even exists. Seems a total waste of time at the mo.
It is interesting that Scottish politics has become in practice an internal discussion/row within the SNP with no-one else being of any interest, and English politics has become an internal discussion within the Tory party with no-one else being of any interest.
That's what happens when you elect Petty Nationalists
"Chuka Umunna, the former Labour MP and City banker who fought against "reckless" banker pay after the 2008 financial crash, has been hired by JP Morgan, America's biggest bank. "
(Telegraph)
Cue Corbynista outrage filling Twitter for next few hours.
I'm sure he doesn't give a F
Not sure I do either (as one of those Corbynistas of whom you speak). He's a perfectly pleasant guy, but IMO his heart was never in even centrist Labour politics. I think he'll be happier in that role and is more suited to it.
Leavers voted for Brexit for reasons that make sense to them, but it wasn't to make life worse for people than it needs to be. You can't limit damage unless you accept the damage is there.
Except many leavers now say the reasons they voted Leave were bollocks, lies fed to them by BoZo and lapped up by unwitting idiots
They are keenly aware of the damage
I am not seeing a lot of evidence of Leavers deciding they shot themselves in the foot with Brexit. Some, but not many. Ultimately Richard is right. The way out of the mess is damage limitation. I have been saying this since 2016, but I voted Remain. Leavers need to drive this.
Sadly, coming from the other side of the debate but agreeing with you, I don't think those making policy are listening. The most obvious and best destination for the UK after leaving was EFTA, with or without EEA membership. But May and Johnson between them destroyed any chance of that. Since then there have bene a whole series of possible end points, all of which have been closed down by the policy makers for reasons ranging from 'purity' to incompetence, to laziness and ignorance.
You are of course wrong about us having shot ourselves in the foot with Brexit. Even what we have now is better than remaining. But it could have been far better, far sooner, with some adults in charge.
1. Too slow to implement. 2. Not broad enough 3. Too expensive 4. 10 years in jail? Why? No one will ever serve this - it is presumably just to make up for point 1
At the weekend the govt was saying we are not looking at vaccine passports. Today they say we are looking at them. Id give it about a week before we are not again, within a month we will probably have u-turned a couple of times more. They are inevitable, we should be ahead of the curve and planning how to implement them sensibly and on time. Instead we will panic too late and come up with something ineffective.
The ten years in jail is for perjury when completing the arrival forms. Same idea as Chris Huhne and the speeding ticket.
Huhne served 2 months which was about right and would be fine in a quarantine perjury case. The culture of pretending jail terms are 10 years when they are actually a couple of months is bizarre to me. I guess no politician ever loses out by promising tougher sentences even when they know its nonsense.
Yes, The actual sentence is of course at the discretion of the sentencing judge.
There will be a range of offences from someone miscounting 13 or 14 days, to those blantantly ignoring the rules by going from SA to Morocco to France, then taking a one-way into the U.K. and saying they’d been to France for a few days. The most egregious example would probably be someone chartering a plane from a banned country, with a stop in a ‘good’ country en-route, then denying they were ever where they shouldn’t have been.
The 10 year prison sentence is the maximum deterrence strategy. Which works very well, if you really mean it. Consider the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking in Singapore. They actually apply it. Now they have almost zero problems with drugs. The sentence says Just Don’t Do It.
A few still do it, and they ARE executed.
Given the downsides of a horrible new variant in the UK, I reckon this tariff is justified. But it needs to be actually applied, when major miscreants are caught, if it is to work.
I think one crucial difference is consistency and simplicity. As far as I know Singapore don't have heroin on and off their list of banned substances at short notice. With the UK quarantine system travellers can't have much confidence of what rules will apply to their return when they leave.
If you have a simpler set of rules then it feels fairer to have stronger penalties for evading them - and it's probably less likely that you have to do so.
We have to hope that the bolshie xenophobe nature of Cockney covid ensures that these johnny foreigner variants don't have an opportunity to take hold.
The skeleton trees are an interesting add on. Are they like those disguised mobile phone masts (aka Pinus telephonensis) and actually some kind of wideband receiver?
Who would get to build it? I would imagine some 'extra' contractors might be added if the Chinese don't build it themselves.
However, publication has been delayed because Matt Hancock, the health secretary, wants the first published evidence on the effectiveness of the NHS vaccination programme to include assessment of its impact on saving lives and keeping people out of hospital.
"Chuka Umunna, the former Labour MP and City banker who fought against "reckless" banker pay after the 2008 financial crash, has been hired by JP Morgan, America's biggest bank. "
(Telegraph)
Cue Corbynista outrage filling Twitter for next few hours.
I'm sure he doesn't give a F
Not sure I do either (as one of those Corbynistas of whom you speak). He's a perfectly pleasant guy, but IMO his heart was never in even centrist Labour politics. I think he'll be happier in that role and is more suited to it.
Macron of course worked as a banked for Rothschilds for a number of years, it did not do him much harm.
Umunna's politics are basically identical to Macron's.
If he decides to stand again for the LDs in 2024 in Cities of London and Westminster, now only 14th on the LD target list, experience of working in the City would also likely go down well with the mainly wealthy, financial sector, Remain voting electorate
Urgently restore friendly relations with the EU. This is a no-brainer. We absolutely have to cooperate with our EU friends, we depend on them for our food, they are crucial partners in our security, they are central to our economy in whatever arrangement we reach.
Err - it takes 2 to tango and all that
The EU have hardly shown themselves as acting in a "friendly" way with us have they?
"Chuka Umunna, the former Labour MP and City banker who fought against "reckless" banker pay after the 2008 financial crash, has been hired by JP Morgan, America's biggest bank. "
(Telegraph)
Cue Corbynista outrage filling Twitter for next few hours.
I'm sure he doesn't give a F
Not sure I do either (as one of those Corbynistas of whom you speak). He's a perfectly pleasant guy, but IMO his heart was never in even centrist Labour politics. I think he'll be happier in that role and is more suited to it.
I suspect the tremendous success of the vaccine rollout has kind of rendered the whole thing a bit null and void at the moment. Easier for Captain Hindsight to criticise things when they're going wrong, not going right.
I forgot PMQs even exists. Seems a total waste of time at the mo.
Overtaken by the journos/members of the public questioning the PM.
Mexico...lack of oxgyen tanks.. reminds of the footage from Brazil where the hospitals were just telling people, there is no room, queue for an oxgyen tank, and if they have any today, take it to your relative.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
1. Too slow to implement. 2. Not broad enough 3. Too expensive 4. 10 years in jail? Why? No one will ever serve this - it is presumably just to make up for point 1
At the weekend the govt was saying we are not looking at vaccine passports. Today they say we are looking at them. Id give it about a week before we are not again, within a month we will probably have u-turned a couple of times more. They are inevitable, we should be ahead of the curve and planning how to implement them sensibly and on time. Instead we will panic too late and come up with something ineffective.
The ten years in jail is for perjury when completing the arrival forms. Same idea as Chris Huhne and the speeding ticket.
Huhne served 2 months which was about right and would be fine in a quarantine perjury case. The culture of pretending jail terms are 10 years when they are actually a couple of months is bizarre to me. I guess no politician ever loses out by promising tougher sentences even when they know its nonsense.
The culture is rotten from top to bottom.
The problem is if the law says ten years, they get a nine month sentence, then released after three.
If the law said three months in the first place we all know nobody would serve three months, they likely would serve no time at all.
I'm curious if anyone has a clue how to fix that?
Set sensible sentences that reflect the time people spend in jail.
Truth in sentencing is another thing I have long advocated.
IIRC no-one in the UK sentenced to 1 year in prison has spent 1 year in prison, going back decades.
The sentence pronounced by the Judge should be the irreducible minimum, with the maximum for bad behaviour etc either implicit or (better) expressed as part of the sentencing.
I can see the sense in what you are saying, but human psychology is strange. I think it's been shown that giving a sentence of 2 years, but offering time off for good behaviour, is more likely to result in good behaviour than a sentence of 1 year and threatening to extend it for bad behaviour.
If the former ends up with better outcomes then maybe we should stick with it, despite the apparent contradictions.
We have to hope that the bolshie xenophobe nature of Cockney covid ensures that these johnny foreigner variants don't have an opportunity to take hold.
That graph is a bit useless, since it isn't scaled to population.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
What is clear re China is the message is clear, no matter what they do, steal IP, launch cyber attacks, put millions in detainment camps, forced slave labour, misleading the world on a deadly virus, most countries are happy to still do business with them.
So THAT'S why the EU really wanted our vaccines: they DO work.....
Unfortunately it’s just Pfizer, in the data, at the moment. However
‘SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea on Wednesday said it would grant its first approval for a coronavirus vaccine to AstraZeneca, and will allow use in people 65 years or older, despite advisory panels’ warning of a lack of data on its efficacy for the elderly’
If there’s one foreign country I really trust on Covid19, it’s South Korea. A smart, advanced nation that has handled a potentially horrific outbreak incredibly well, far better than anywhere in the West. So this is properly good news.
Comments
Also, the German "attack" subs aren't particularly muscular examples of the breed and don't really compare to an A boat (RN) or Rubis/Barracuda (La Royale). This is partly because of the dimensional constraints of the Nord Ostee Kanal (the U boats are based at Rostock on the Baltic) and partly due to budget constraints. The boats had to be cheap because they wanted (and got) lots of export sales.
I agree with Nick's post at the beginning of the thread. Things will have to get much worse and people will have to really notice before public opinion changes and we can begin to address seriously how to get out of the mess we have created. This is likely to take a while, partly because it will be hard to distinguish just now between covid and EU related problems, but the process is under way. It has gone further in NI than anywhere else but the rest of us will catch up in due course.
Meanwhile we will just have to cheer ourselves up with the cricket. I hope the punting PBers capitalised on the widely touted odds against England. I wouldn't put it past them to repeat the success in the 2nd Test, but much will depend on the toss.
Moen will come in for Bess, Foakes for Buttler and possibly Broad for Archer. That would actually be a stronger side than the one that has just won. Not sure India have any obvious improvements they can make. The 5/2 against England which is widely available now will become evens if they win the toss so it is worth chancing. As usual the draw should be layed with entushiasm. It's 4/1. Not expecting rain in Chennai, are we?
Have a nice day everyone. I have a funeral to attend. It's a Jewish one, so should be fun.
They are keenly aware of the damage
IIRC no-one in the UK sentenced to 1 year in prison has spent 1 year in prison, going back decades.
The sentence pronounced by the Judge should be the irreducible minimum, with the maximum for bad behaviour etc either implicit or (better) expressed as part of the sentencing.
http://www.johnmajorarchive.org.uk/1990-1997/government-statement-of-european-court-of-justice-ruling-12-november-1996/
it is noticeable and striking that no-one ever stands up and says: "I need this special, patronising treatment for me personally". It's all about othering the others.
Some want a "It's my culture" opt out on personal responsibility.
Others want a "history of oppression" opt out on personal responsibility.
As recent events have shown it is far too useful for both sides to return to talking past one another and making incoherent demands to stir up Brexit wars than to understand perspectives.
It's easier.
Do they want their steel to be made by slaves as well?
A few still do it, and they ARE executed.
Given the downsides of a horrible new variant in the UK, I reckon this tariff is justified. But it needs to be actually applied, when major miscreants are caught, if it is to work.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
But they won't go to shellfish harvesters and say, "on principle we will not be ruletaker from the EU, even though we don't care what the rules are and the EU rules are just as good as any we might come up with. So that means you lose your livelihoods. Sorry, but the principle is more important." Instead they get very aggressive towards the EU and blame them.
The dishonesty makes me mad. This is not a principle I subscribe to, but that's fine. People have different values. But what's the point of a principle you are not prepared to defend, or even admit to the consequences of ?
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1359250844416438282
And of course it played badly with those who simply wanted to exclude Johnny Foreigner from the UK.
Together it was fatal.
Think of it as an environmental/social policy for Starmer... tariffs on excess CO2 emissions implicit in products, tariffs on slave labour.
National pandemic?
His Caine impression wasn't bad though
Good luck to them in finding a rabbit up their sleeve, but it does genuinely look as if the delivery order is pretty much set in stone. It’s going to be an issue for the U.K. in the summer, to have a mostly unvaccinated population nearby.
The English speaking world is our family.
Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
https://www.ft.com/content/ed2d9c00-c8df-4efc-a1ad-63bc8e97bd25
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
https://twitter.com/EPPGroup/status/1359420127989673984?s=20
it sounds really dramatic, but I confess I forget why that date is pivotal
The US are famously wary of the compromises involved in trade deals, but the EU getting closer to China might help change American minds.
I have spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this, but it doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea.
If the former ends up with better outcomes then maybe we should stick with it, despite the apparent contradictions.
The UK is proposing to vaccinate all over 50s by end of April and while nothing official the leaks are to have everyone vaccinated by the end of summer.
The EU are targeting I believe 70% of over 50s vaccinated by the end of Summer. So the EU want to go into Autumn at 70% of where we'll be by the end of April. That's their target.
We should be ambitious to have finished vaccinating everyone before schools return in the autumn. Then if need be new variant boosters over the winter.
If the EU have 30% of over 50s and all non healthcare under 50s still unvaccinated when schools return in the autum they're going to be at a real risk of a third wave.
That must have been it.
https://twitter.com/Steveplustax/status/1359268619864137734?s=20
“In that eventuality, it makes no sense for the Committee to tie its own hands behind its back by refusing to make use of the submission and have the chance to question Mr Salmond.
“The Committee is duty bound to do all it can to get to the reasons why the Scottish Government’s procedures were so badly flawed and why the women involved were so badly failed – to do so, we must have all the evidence available and the chance to question Mr Salmond.
“The credibility of the Committee and its work hangs in the balance. If The Spectator’s legal challenge is successful, then the Committee must seize the opportunity to question Mr Salmond.”
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
They’d have to take it off the front page and set their lawyers on Twitter - or they can simply hope the archive drives subscriptions.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/Foreign-Trade/_node.html
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
(Telegraph)
Cue Corbynista outrage filling Twitter for next few hours.
1 - that they are using different units to the NATO targets.
2 - that the measure is inputs not outputs.
3 - that no account is taken of quality of forces / equipment, or ability to deliver on the ground.
The issue for the UK is that the EU internal market is very efficient. A UK company will now have extra costs and delays when exporting to, say, France compared with a German competitor, which it will have to eat if its margin allows it to do so. The UK has to get its stuff from somewhere so additional import costs can be passed onto the customer. The Gerrman company can still profitably export to the UK.
But I'm not arguing that it's a particularly good policy. Just that it sounds like the sort of thing Labour could and should be advocating, and it's a bit odd they never (read: in the last ten years or so) have.
I suspect the tremendous success of the vaccine rollout has kind of rendered the whole thing a bit null and void at the moment. Easier for Captain Hindsight to criticise things when they're going wrong, not going right.
Edit. Is there a missing drawbridge in that image? How do they get in and out?
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1359476248871915523?s=21
You are of course wrong about us having shot ourselves in the foot with Brexit. Even what we have now is better than remaining. But it could have been far better, far sooner, with some adults in charge.
If you have a simpler set of rules then it feels fairer to have stronger penalties for evading them - and it's probably less likely that you have to do so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56009251
Sorry, not really sorry, it was still the correct approach.
Who would get to build it? I would imagine some 'extra' contractors might be added if the Chinese don't build it themselves.
So somebody leaked it....
Umunna's politics are basically identical to Macron's.
If he decides to stand again for the LDs in 2024 in Cities of London and Westminster, now only 14th on the LD target list, experience of working in the City would also likely go down well with the mainly wealthy, financial sector, Remain voting electorate
Err - it takes 2 to tango and all that
The EU have hardly shown themselves as acting in a "friendly" way with us have they?
https://twitter.com/NuvoConsulting/status/997459405410127877
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1359459624852852736?s=19
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
I'm curious if Mr Nabavi recognises that himself?
IF that is correct.... sounds like a single source for this and the other stories on it...
‘SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea on Wednesday said it would grant its first approval for a coronavirus vaccine to AstraZeneca, and will allow use in people 65 years or older, despite advisory panels’ warning of a lack of data on its efficacy for the elderly’
If there’s one foreign country I really trust on Covid19, it’s South Korea. A smart, advanced nation that has handled a potentially horrific outbreak incredibly well, far better than anywhere in the West. So this is properly good news.