Honestly, this is just a whole load of rambling nonsense. You've basically used a whole load of words to say "we don't know how this ends". The point is fair, though I think you've failed to address the wider point of EU trade losing value for the UK resulting in the UK diluting the existing trade deal even further.
You've got to move on from brexit, you're a broken record and you can keep banging on about it until you're blue in the face, it's not going to change anything and ultimately brexit has already happened. Make peace with it.
Err, Brexit hasn't fully happened. You obviously haven't been following the news properly. The UK is trying to renegotiate the two agreements, including the one it signed just a few weeks ago. Well, I say 'renegotiate', but Lord Frost's approach can scarcely be called negotiation, it's more a combination of insults and reneging, which certainly isn't going to end well as an approach.
As for making peace on it, I've already written a pair of pieces for PB where I proposed a constructive way forward which would fully respect the referendum result (indeed, more fully than what we're getting). Of course, it's true that before that can happen, we'd need a sane government, and I'm afraid there's no chance of that in the foreseeable future. So, yes, we are stuck with the damage. It will take many years, perhaps a couple of decades, to recover the lost ground.
You have an extreme bias towards the 2016 status quo and see any deviation from it in any direction as insane by definition.
It is remarkable that the government has managed to contrive a Brexit that benefits EU exporters to the UK while harming UK exporters to the EU and making those who hold only a UK passport second class citizens in their own country. .
Curfews for men is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Christ.
Why?
Because it doesn't solve anything and it's the opposite of liberty. I haven't ever committed violence towards women so why should I be punished by being forced to stay inside my house?
The fact that Mike asks the question beggars belief tbh.
@rkrkrk, you make an interesting point, if I understand your header correctly. Johnson has made a decision to cut aid for populist reasons without thinking things through, and this is now coming back to bite him. This is regardless of whether the cut makes sense in its own terms.
The Johnson government has no strategy, acts very ad-hoc, at times despotic. This shows up as consequences, which we are also seeing today in the truly awful January trade figures.
A big issue, as I understand, with the aid cut is that the UK is committed to multilateral programmes for a large part of its aid budget. The only way it can get to 0.5% of GDP (one third cut) is to decimate its own programmes. If you decided 0.5% is the appropriate amount, you would sensibly reduce the actual amount gradually, to allow you to unwind your multilateral commitments and reduce your own programmes in a managed way.
It is remarkable that the government has managed to contrive a Brexit that benefits EU exporters to the UK while harming UK exporters to the EU and making those who hold only a UK passport second class citizens in their own country. .
Not only was it predictable, it was in fact predicted...
So wife can go for an evening stroll but husband has to stay at home. Seriously?
At least the Green Peer this morning on Sky had the sense to say that she wasn't actually serious about her suggestion and it was in response to comments in the Lords yesterday that women could best protect themselves by staying at home. She said she made the remark to highlight how one sided the whole argument was and to stimulate proper debate.
Actually suggesting it might be done is shear lunacy and I suspect would be opposed by just as many women as men.
Outlandish statements and suggestions get lots of publicity and attention, shock. This is why people do them.
The trouble is they then start to get legs, as subtleties are taken literally by both sides, and that's where it starts to polarise/radicalise people.
Words matter.
Something the Met Police could perhaps of considered when they were advising women not to go out alone in London.
I've just watched the H&M interview in full. I think where I have sympathy with them is how the Palace responded (or, rather, didn't respond) to coverage of Meghan in the press. It wouldn't have taken much to put out a statement at an appropriate moment to say that they were appalled by what appeared to be racist coverage of Meghan.
One thing that my sister pointed out to me is that there appears to be an inconsistency on the skin colour comment. Meghan was talking about it as though it was made when she was pregnant with Archie. But Harry seemed to suggest that it happened early on in their relationship. Not sure if there is any significance in that - people's memories can be unreliable - but thought it was interesting.
If the allegation is true, why didn't they go all the way and NAME the alleged Royal Racist, rather than smearing the whole family (Liz and Phil aside)?
One of the things I didn't touch upon is it may be quite difficult to get down to 0.5% given what Boris Johnson has said about giving away excess vaccines. The value of those could be in the billions and they will count to ODA.
Another factor is COP26 in November. I think it's likely the govt will want to make some big pledges on climate change given they are hosting in Glasgow. Also a good opportunity to make Boris Johnson look generous vs. Nicola Sturgeon.
It's worth pointing out that the increase to 0.7% from 0.5% took place over four years. Cutting to get back to 0.5% in a single year might not be politically possible given all the ODA the govt wants to spend.
My understanding was that the reason why some of the cuts are so high is because the commitments to the EU/UN are fixed on a multi year basis.
So that would be a natural way to move in that you wind them down over time.
On the legislation point wouldn’t this be covered by the budget? I thought that was legislation.
Yes - cuts are particularly high on bilateral aid program because of the multiyear funding commitments made. We could break our commitments to GAVI/GFund/World Bank/UN instead. The immediate problem is the speed of the change and that's why I am sceptical it will be possible.
On the legislation point - I am not a lawyer... but my understanding is the budget & Finance Bill legislate for tax changes - they don't technically cover spending (although chancellors often announce things at that opportunity). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00813/#_ftn5
Off topic, I'm working with lots of northerners currently on the Transpennine upgrade programme at the moment, and it's *way* more fun than down in London.
They are more relaxed, informal, conversational and have a far better sense of humour. They don't police language. They don't grandstand. They don't have massive egos. And they're not up their own arseholes either, they will give you the benefit of the doubt in both your style and your work. I always feel I'm perpetually treading on eggshells Up in Town.
So refreshing. And fun.
Is the "plan" still to have ruddy great holes in the knitting which will be resolved by bimode / batteries?
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
Sure, I care about them, but there are so many other rhetorical brick walls to bash my ahead against in argument on here.
And, in any case, if the public as a whole have a toss about trade figures we would not have voted for Brexit, and if they were concerned about Johnson lying to them, they would have turned against him by now.
It is remarkable that the government has managed to contrive a Brexit that benefits EU exporters to the UK while harming UK exporters to the EU and making those who hold only a UK passport second class citizens in their own country. .
Imports are good, ie you want trade to go both ways for prosperity because that's how you add value.
The January trade figures are grim, however you cut it. Yes, it's a one month snapshot and we can expect them to pull back a bit in February and so on. But they are really bad - much worse than I was expecting, and I'm not Brexit's greatest fan.
The most aggravating thing is the government doesn't care. Their only concerns are no lorry queues on the M20 and no empty shelves in supermarkets. Otherwise you are on your own, or more succinctly, you are stuffed. The government could do some things to improve the situation a bit, even now. But it won't.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
The whole of the continent was in virtual lockdown in January, covid restrictions applied to cross channel movement and of course a lot of stockpiling will have taken place
My own observation is that one months figures, especially January this year, is just a nonsense and let us see how the position looks after 6 months
And in any respect, there is no going back now and of course the EU have handed a huge boost to leaving with the vaccine debacle and consequent unrest in member states
@rkrkrk, you make an interesting point, if I understand your header correctly. Johnson has made a decision to cut aid for populist reasons without thinking things through, and this is now coming back to bite him. This is regardless of whether the cut makes sense in its own terms.
The Johnson government has no strategy, acts very ad-hoc, at times despotic. This shows up as consequences, which we are also seeing today in the truly awful January trade figures.
A big issue, as I understand, with the aid cut is that the UK is committed to multilateral programmes for a large part of its aid budget. The only way it can get to 0.5% of GDP (one third cut) is to decimate its own programmes. If you decided 0.5% is the appropriate amount, you would sensibly reduce the actual amount gradually, to allow you to unwind your multilateral commitments and reduce your own programmes in a managed way.
But this was entirely about creating a headline.
Yes - that's it. If you wanted to cut to 0.5%, you could do so in a much more strategic way by doing it gradually. It's not only multilateral programmes - DFID will have signed multi-year contracts with NGOs/universities/consultancies.
The way they have announced it essentially means they cannot prioritize on what is better/worse aid spending, it will instead just be to cut everything that is politically/legally possible and start as few new things as they can.
@rkrkrk, you make an interesting point, if I understand your header correctly. Johnson has made a decision to cut aid for populist reasons without thinking things through, and this is now coming back to bite him. This is regardless of whether the cut makes sense in its own terms.
The Johnson government has no strategy, acts very ad-hoc, at times despotic. This shows up as consequences, which we are also seeing today in the truly awful January trade figures.
A big issue, as I understand, with the aid cut is that the UK is committed to multilateral programmes for a large part of its aid budget. The only way it can get to 0.5% of GDP (one third cut) is to decimate its own programmes. If you decided 0.5% is the appropriate amount, you would sensibly reduce the actual amount gradually, to allow you to unwind your multilateral commitments and reduce your own programmes in a managed way.
But this was entirely about creating a headline.
The other issue is Cameron’s idiocy in setting it as a % of GDP. GDP has fallen a lot - at a time when we should be supporting bilateral aid
Bit sad that aid for the world's poorest has been identified as a wedge issue in the war on woke but I think the author is right - it has. 0.7% was a manifesto commitment and it's utter bullshit that we now can't afford it because of the pandemic. The reason for the cut is pure politics and of the most poisonous type. They think Red Wall voters - as in generic term for working class Leavers who used to vote Labour - will see this and go, "Yeah, too right. Charity begins at home innit. Good on yer, Boris." I hope they're wrong. I hope this reductive patronizing pandering view of their voter base comes back and bites them in their fat cynical arses. So there.
If it can be afforded then perhaps you can say which other countries are providing it? Is Macron? Von der Leyen? Biden? Anybody at all?
Indeed who else is even matching us at 0.5%? Do you know? Do you even care?
Here's the list. UK was up to now pretty good, but is opting to fall back below Germany.
Not that it makes a material difference to the rankings or the points at hand but the US figure is substantially wrong. In 2019/20 the US figure was just a shade under $40 billion rather than the $34 billion listed. It does make me wonder about the other countries figures as well.
"The FY 2019 President’s Budget for the State Department and USAID is $39.3 billion, which includes $16.8 billion in assistance that USAID fully or partially manages through the Economic Support and Development Fund, Global Health Programs, Transition Initiatives, International Disaster Assistance, and USAID operational accounts. The USAID programs funded through these accounts will help developing countries make progress on their path to self-reliance and prosperity."
Right - but some of that won't count as ODA because State Department spends money on lots of other things, e.g. consular services, embassy construction & maintenance, military aid which is not eligible etc.
Ah okay. Didn't realise that. Is that the norm for most countries or just a US peculiarity?
For all countries ODA =/= diplomacy budget. But the US may well be particularly high spending on some of that stuff. A lot of US embassies abroad are essentially ludicrous fortresses and so I guess that's pretty expensive!
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Off topic, I'm working with lots of northerners currently on the Transpennine upgrade programme at the moment, and it's *way* more fun than down in London.
They are more relaxed, informal, conversational and have a far better sense of humour. They don't police language. They don't grandstand. They don't have massive egos. And they're not up their own arseholes either, they will give you the benefit of the doubt in both your style and your work. I always feel I'm perpetually treading on eggshells Up in Town.
So refreshing. And fun.
Some of my best work friends are either Northerners or Southern Europeans (Italian, mostly) as they've got no PC filter.
Here's the thing: there hasn't been any unPC chat. It's just they don't judge you and mark your card if you don't use the right phrase at the right time for everything. Because they recognise that's not important.
Also, they laugh and smile a lot, enjoy their work and make it fun. I've had conversations about Oasis, Ian Brown, and cracked jokes about Vikings and working in Sainsbury's if we get this wrong, this morning.
They know that humour is what makes life bearable, and they're absolutely fine with it.
Makes me want to move house.
Is that kind of talk not normal everywhere?
Possibly one reason I'm not bothered by woke is that the idea of what you describe as woke seems like alien nonsense only read about on Twitter and here whereas what you've just said is normal life.
@rkrkrk, you make an interesting point, if I understand your header correctly. Johnson has made a decision to cut aid for populist reasons without thinking things through, and this is now coming back to bite him. This is regardless of whether the cut makes sense in its own terms.
The Johnson government has no strategy, acts very ad-hoc, at times despotic. This shows up as consequences, which we are also seeing today in the truly awful January trade figures.
A big issue, as I understand, with the aid cut is that the UK is committed to multilateral programmes for a large part of its aid budget. The only way it can get to 0.5% of GDP (one third cut) is to decimate its own programmes. If you decided 0.5% is the appropriate amount, you would sensibly reduce the actual amount gradually, to allow you to unwind your multilateral commitments and reduce your own programmes in a managed way.
But this was entirely about creating a headline.
Yes - that's it. If you wanted to cut to 0.5%, you could do so in a much more strategic way by doing it gradually. It's not only multilateral programmes - DFID will have signed multi-year contracts with NGOs/universities/consultancies.
The way they have announced it essentially means they cannot prioritize on what is better/worse aid spending, it will instead just be to cut everything that is politically/legally possible and start as few new things as they can.
As I noted upthread, UK Research & Innovation is shuttering the majority of its projects that involve aid funding. That is just poor policy, whatever you think of the aid issue.
https://foster.house.gov/media/press-releases/foster-highlights-president-obama-s-contribution-to-rapid-vaccine-development Jul 31, 2020 Washington, DC – Today, at a hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) highlighted the work done and investments made during the Obama administration that are directly responsible for the successes of current vaccines in development. Specifically, Foster pointed to President Obama’s decision to invest in mRNA vaccine research, which is one platform being used to develop potential vaccines in record time.
Foster said, “Heeding the advice of his scientific panel, in 2013 the Obama Administration invested $25 million through DARPA for research into the mRNA platform for pandemic response. This was followed by a $125 million investment by BARDA in 2015, so that by the end of the Obama administration, mRNA vaccines and therapeutics were being tested in both animals and humans...
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
Curfews for men is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Christ.
Why?
Because they make up half the population. Because it would do more than Covid to destroy the night time economy. Because it is irrational and unjust. Because it punishes the innocent. Because it is unenforceable. Because men have to get to work.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Honestly, this is just a whole load of rambling nonsense. You've basically used a whole load of words to say "we don't know how this ends". The point is fair, though I think you've failed to address the wider point of EU trade losing value for the UK resulting in the UK diluting the existing trade deal even further.
You've got to move on from brexit, you're a broken record and you can keep banging on about it until you're blue in the face, it's not going to change anything and ultimately brexit has already happened. Make peace with it.
Err, Brexit hasn't fully happened. You obviously haven't been following the news properly. The UK is trying to renegotiate the two agreements, including the one it signed just a few weeks ago. Well, I say 'renegotiate', but Lord Frost's approach can scarcely be called negotiation, it's more a combination of insults and reneging, which certainly isn't going to end well as an approach.
As for making peace on it, I've already written a pair of pieces for PB where I proposed a constructive way forward which would fully respect the referendum result (indeed, more fully than what we're getting). Of course, it's true that before that can happen, we'd need a sane government, and I'm afraid there's no chance of that in the foreseeable future. So, yes, we are stuck with the damage. It will take many years, perhaps a couple of decades, to recover the lost ground.
You have an extreme bias towards the 2016 status quo and see any deviation from it in any direction as insane by definition.
Well, it's true that the 2016 status quo was the best we'd be able to get: it gave us all the advantages of being in the EU with only some of the disadvantages, and those mostly minor.
But if we were going to leave, we didn't have to do it as spectacularly incompetently as Boris has managed. I mean, at the very least we could have written some computer systems to be ready on time, couldn't we? Or published the detailed regulations six months in advance, not broad-brush and useless generalisations of the regulations a few days before they applied. Or thought about NI. Or trained up the customs agents.
Indeed. It is still a source of incomprehension and great sadness to me that Mr Cameron failed to ensure contingency plans were in place.
@rkrkrk, you make an interesting point, if I understand your header correctly. Johnson has made a decision to cut aid for populist reasons without thinking things through, and this is now coming back to bite him. This is regardless of whether the cut makes sense in its own terms.
The Johnson government has no strategy, acts very ad-hoc, at times despotic. This shows up as consequences, which we are also seeing today in the truly awful January trade figures.
A big issue, as I understand, with the aid cut is that the UK is committed to multilateral programmes for a large part of its aid budget. The only way it can get to 0.5% of GDP (one third cut) is to decimate its own programmes. If you decided 0.5% is the appropriate amount, you would sensibly reduce the actual amount gradually, to allow you to unwind your multilateral commitments and reduce your own programmes in a managed way.
But this was entirely about creating a headline.
Yes - that's it. If you wanted to cut to 0.5%, you could do so in a much more strategic way by doing it gradually. It's not only multilateral programmes - DFID will have signed multi-year contracts with NGOs/universities/consultancies.
The way they have announced it essentially means they cannot prioritize on what is better/worse aid spending, it will instead just be to cut everything that is politically/legally possible and start as few new things as they can.
As I noted upthread, UK Research & Innovation is shuttering the majority of its projects that involve aid funding. That is just poor policy, whatever you think of the aid issue.
Agreed. Many universities/consortia have direct contracts with FCDO for research, my assumption is those cannot easily be scrapped (although perhaps can be slowed) so cuts will have to fall more deeply elsewhere.
It is remarkable that the government has managed to contrive a Brexit that benefits EU exporters to the UK while harming UK exporters to the EU and making those who hold only a UK passport second class citizens in their own country. .
But the headlines and poll leads make it worthwhile for our PM.
Of course what you don't mention is the last episode of the Mash Report was watched by only 700,000 people. It didn't do huge numbers on catch up either. Given it rarely hit even the 1m mark in a good 10pm slot, and was met with lukewarm to poor reviews you've got to wonder how it lasted 4 series.
If you think that voters - especially Tory voters - have the slightest concern about a small cut in the aid budget at a time when we're whacking up taxes to fill a giant fiscal hole, then you're frankly out of your mind. You're lucky we're not cutting aid to zero for the next several years until we get back on our feet.
While in the TEN-T Network, the UK was part of the North Sea – Mediterranean corridor. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK will not participate in the future CEF funding programme.
The UK financial contribution was in the region of €447m annually. This is calculated as a percentage of the UK’s contribution to the EU budget for 2014-2020. Despite this level of funding, UK transport schemes only received around €48m annually from the CEF-Transport budget.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
The whole of the continent was in virtual lockdown in January, covid restrictions applied to cross channel movement and of course a lot of stockpiling will have taken place
My own observation is that one months figures, especially January this year, is just a nonsense and let us see how the position looks after 6 months
And in any respect, there is no going back now and of course the EU have handed a huge boost to leaving with the vaccine debacle and consequent unrest in member states
These figures are utterly grim and also corroborated with other sources even if they are likely to pull back a bit the following month. This means people losing their livelihoods, which I don't think we should be casual about. The government is casual about this and no doubt would like people to think, "nothing to see here". If we wait six months before pronouncing the bad situation acceptable, we pass up the opportunities that could help ameliorate the situation a bit.
Incidentally there isn't a huge amount of unrest in EU member states. much as people on here would like there to be. In any case that has nothing to with us. We're out.
Curfews for men is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Christ.
Why?
Because it doesn't solve anything and it's the opposite of liberty. I haven't ever committed violence towards women so why should I be punished by being forced to stay inside my house?
FFS I've just seen this - Mike is allegedly a liberal.
What I'm wondering is when we are going to get round to criticising - you know - the actual criminal that murdered the poor woman?
Bit sad that aid for the world's poorest has been identified as a wedge issue in the war on woke but I think the author is right - it has. 0.7% was a manifesto commitment and it's utter bullshit that we now can't afford it because of the pandemic. The reason for the cut is pure politics and of the most poisonous type. They think Red Wall voters - as in generic term for working class Leavers who used to vote Labour - will see this and go, "Yeah, too right. Charity begins at home innit. Good on yer, Boris." I hope they're wrong. I hope this reductive patronizing pandering view of their voter base comes back and bites them in their fat cynical arses. So there.
If it can be afforded then perhaps you can say which other countries are providing it? Is Macron? Von der Leyen? Biden? Anybody at all?
Indeed who else is even matching us at 0.5%? Do you know? Do you even care?
You make a point but I'd prefer us to continue as world leaders in this area. I also see political benefit in it. Outside of the EU now, many fear that 'Global Britain' is code for "Britain First', and a future of insularity and dwindling soft power. Retaining the 0.7% despite fiscal stress at home would be a resounding raspberry to such doomsayers.
It is remarkable that the government has managed to contrive a Brexit that benefits EU exporters to the UK while harming UK exporters to the EU and making those who hold only a UK passport second class citizens in their own country. .
It's a reminder of the biggest failure in UK politics for decades: that the UK population were placed in a position where what they wanted politically and what they wanted economically were so completely at odds that a choice had to be made without the option of a middle course. 45 years of democratic deficit, cover up, fudge and strategic failure.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Ridiculous! How rude and dismissive.
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
Off topic, I'm working with lots of northerners currently on the Transpennine upgrade programme at the moment, and it's *way* more fun than down in London.
They are more relaxed, informal, conversational and have a far better sense of humour. They don't police language. They don't grandstand. They don't have massive egos. And they're not up their own arseholes either, they will give you the benefit of the doubt in both your style and your work. I always feel I'm perpetually treading on eggshells Up in Town.
So refreshing. And fun.
Some of my best work friends are either Northerners or Southern Europeans (Italian, mostly) as they've got no PC filter.
Here's the thing: there hasn't been any unPC chat. It's just they don't judge you and mark your card if you don't use the right phrase at the right time for everything. Because they recognise that's not important.
Also, they laugh and smile a lot, enjoy their work and make it fun. I've had conversations about Oasis, Ian Brown, and cracked jokes about Vikings and working in Sainsbury's if we get this wrong, this morning.
They know that humour is what makes life bearable, and they're absolutely fine with it.
Makes me want to move house.
Is that kind of talk not normal everywhere?
Possibly one reason I'm not bothered by woke is that the idea of what you describe as woke seems like alien nonsense only read about on Twitter and here whereas what you've just said is normal life.
Pretty much. I do however think of an example of a committee I was involved in where the co-chair had an ability to get any discussion into complete nonsense and what-if scenarios. She had ongoing battles/vendettas against a number of members, such that I (co-chair) and the deputy-co chair concluded that it would be impossible to have a fair selection process for her successor if she was involved. We therefore pushed for all members to vote for successor (previously chosen by current co-/deputy co-chairs). She raised the objection that the mostly white membership would not vote for a non-white chair and that to ensure representation it was essential that chairs continued to select. We got our way, but only by waiting for her term to expire (there were fixed terms, thankfully) with no resolution, so that it then became our decision as co-chairs.
The subsequent vote, among a predominantly white and almost all female electorate, elected one man and one woman, both non-white.
(Re earlier discussion, this was in the north, but the villain of the piece was not a northerner! And just a difficult person, if t hadn't been 'wokery', it would have been something else.)
Off topic, I'm working with lots of northerners currently on the Transpennine upgrade programme at the moment, and it's *way* more fun than down in London.
They are more relaxed, informal, conversational and have a far better sense of humour. They don't police language. They don't grandstand. They don't have massive egos. And they're not up their own arseholes either, they will give you the benefit of the doubt in both your style and your work. I always feel I'm perpetually treading on eggshells Up in Town.
Bit sad that aid for the world's poorest has been identified as a wedge issue in the war on woke but I think the author is right - it has. 0.7% was a manifesto commitment and it's utter bullshit that we now can't afford it because of the pandemic. The reason for the cut is pure politics and of the most poisonous type. They think Red Wall voters - as in generic term for working class Leavers who used to vote Labour - will see this and go, "Yeah, too right. Charity begins at home innit. Good on yer, Boris." I hope they're wrong. I hope this reductive patronizing pandering view of their voter base comes back and bites them in their fat cynical arses. So there.
If it can be afforded then perhaps you can say which other countries are providing it? Is Macron? Von der Leyen? Biden? Anybody at all?
Indeed who else is even matching us at 0.5%? Do you know? Do you even care?
You make a point but I'd prefer us to continue as world leaders in this area. I also see political benefit in it. Outside of the EU now, many fear that 'Global Britain' is code for "Britain First', and a future of insularity and dwindling soft power. Retaining the 0.7% despite fiscal stress at home would be a resounding raspberry to such doomsayers.
I prefer my raspberry's to have a purpose.
Like the UK funding Oxford's research helping to develop a vaccine that works, then being founding members and one of the largest proportional donors to Covax - thus helping vaccinate the globe against a pandemic.
That's a pretty impressive raspberry - and it has a purpose. 0.7% is a number not a purpose.
Aid projects that are worthy should be funding because they're worthy not because we're doing this to hit an arbitrary number.
Aid projects that are worthy should be funded because they're worthy not rejected because we've already hit the arbitrary number elsewhere so better luck next time.
O/T, who did PBers reckon will be the next cartoon / children's character to be cancelled? My money is on Bagpuss - old, pale, stale male and figure of the Patriarchy, with slightly dubious intentions towards Emily.
If you think that voters - especially Tory voters - have the slightest concern about a small cut in the aid budget at a time when we're whacking up taxes to fill a giant fiscal hole, then you're frankly out of your mind. You're lucky we're not cutting aid to zero for the next several years until we get back on our feet.
Andrew Mitchell, Theresa May and even David Davis say hi!
If you think that voters - especially Tory voters - have the slightest concern about a small cut in the aid budget at a time when we're whacking up taxes to fill a giant fiscal hole, then you're frankly out of your mind. You're lucky we're not cutting aid to zero for the next several years until we get back on our feet.
Andrew Mitchell, Theresa May and even David Davis say hi!
Sounds like a who's who of MPs that should be replaced at the next election.
Speaking as a proper northerner, I'd just like to express my gratitude to all those on here who express their fondness for our down to earth, salt of the earth, earthy sense of humour and so on. As a homogenous group, us northerners are proud of our roots, whether they be from Wigan, Richmond, Didsbury, Harrogate, Sunderland, Headingly, Sheffield......
What nonsense some folk write. Us northerners are just as varied as you southerners. All I'd grant you is that we're a bit less posh and up ourselves, as a generalisation.
Curfews for men is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Christ.
Why?
Because it doesn't solve anything and it's the opposite of liberty. I haven't ever committed violence towards women so why should I be punished by being forced to stay inside my house?
FFS I've just seen this - Mike is allegedly a liberal.
What I'm wondering is when we are going to get round to criticising - you know - the actual criminal that murdered the poor woman?
'Lighted' and 'lit' are both perfectly acceptable, and have been in common usage for centuries.
It probably be "misled" in this context. Gaslighting for things you can see with your own eyes or are perfectly obvious. Unless you work in an export industry, it isn't.
I mean, I've said this a thousand times on here. I'm just trying to help you people.
Um. The tariffs are suspended for four months while Airbus/EU/Boeing/USA sort out their issues, if they do. The UK is a party to the dispute as long as it wants to keep Airbus wing manufacture in the UK, but UKGov doesn't have agency. The decisions will be made in Toulouse, Brussels, Chicago and Washington.
Assume this means that the Covid vax bounce for Unionist parties theory can be put to bed in that case?
There is a Unionist bounce and the SNP are down, so in reality the SNP are getting no bounce at all for the vaccination programme, in fact when it comes to voting intention they are significantly down
If you think that voters - especially Tory voters - have the slightest concern about a small cut in the aid budget at a time when we're whacking up taxes to fill a giant fiscal hole, then you're frankly out of your mind. You're lucky we're not cutting aid to zero for the next several years until we get back on our feet.
Andrew Mitchell, Theresa May and even David Davis say hi!
And with a little luck soon they'll be saying goodbye. No one wants their stupidity any more.
And while I'm here, nobody is seriously suggesting a curfew on men, not even Drakeford. Don't rely on The Sun. Although it seems to have really triggered some of the snowflake men on here.
It's an old debate brought up, rightly, by feminists over the last 50 years. The idea of a male curfew, never to be taken literally, is a response to those who suggest that if women want to be safe they should stay at home, or not go out alone, or avoid x, y, z. Why should women stay at home to protect themselves from men?
I asked the staff at the vaccine centre about whether numbers would be increasing - they are doing 50% more daily going forward than they were doing before
Curfews for men is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Christ.
Why?
Because it doesn't solve anything and it's the opposite of liberty. I haven't ever committed violence towards women so why should I be punished by being forced to stay inside my house?
FFS I've just seen this - Mike is allegedly a liberal.
What I'm wondering is when we are going to get round to criticising - you know - the actual criminal that murdered the poor woman?
I'm sure Mike was simply just seeking a reaction; he can't possibly have been serious.
That fact that supposedly serious politicians can suggest this without fear of ridicule is profoundly depressing.
Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of the confluence of number of factors: the demonization of men (white, middle aged in particular) as the cause of all societies ills; the imposition and normalization of lockdowns as government policy; the aggressive pursuit of the woke agenda by those in positions of influence ... all fueled by the need for attention on social media and to fill 24 hour news cycles.
Who speaks for the sensible, decent, ordinary people of this country that would shoot this illiberal, authoritarian nonsense down in a second?
Bit sad that aid for the world's poorest has been identified as a wedge issue in the war on woke but I think the author is right - it has. 0.7% was a manifesto commitment and it's utter bullshit that we now can't afford it because of the pandemic. The reason for the cut is pure politics and of the most poisonous type. They think Red Wall voters - as in generic term for working class Leavers who used to vote Labour - will see this and go, "Yeah, too right. Charity begins at home innit. Good on yer, Boris." I hope they're wrong. I hope this reductive patronizing pandering view of their voter base comes back and bites them in their fat cynical arses. So there.
Ok, but we can test the grandstanding here with the counter-argument: if cutting from 0.7% to 0.5% costs "hundreds of thousands" of lives then it stands to reason that having it at 0.7% rather than 1% also costs "hundreds of thousands" of lives, and we should spend more.
So, if you're concerned about saving lives above all else then you should be arguing for an increase on the basis that the current level of spending is a tragedy. Otherwise you are innately conceding an affordability argument that you don't really want to engage in.
I don't see much of that so I'm forced to conclude it's just grandstanding.
I can argue for higher quite compellingly but all that would do is trigger a whole bunch of "If you're so concerned about it why don't YOU give all your money to Oxfam? Total hypocrite if you don't" type grief from the likes of anotherrichard and pagan and the general band of reactionary reductives. Then I'd get frustrated and tetchy and start having spats with people. Not appropriate for a Friday.
More seriously, on a pure "spend where the need is greatest" rationale every rich country would be allocating an order of magnitude more to overseas aid than they do at the moment. And every single one of them could afford it. But one has to be realistic and recognize that the limits of domestic political acceptability are in the current range of nought point something of GDP.
Speaking as a proper northerner, I'd just like to express my gratitude to all those on here who express their fondness for our down to earth, salt of the earth, earthy sense of humour and so on. As a homogenous group, us northerners are proud of our roots, whether they be from Wigan, Richmond, Didsbury, Harrogate, Sunderland, Headingly, Sheffield......
What nonsense some folk write. Us northerners are just as varied as you southerners. All I'd grant you is that we're a bit less posh and up ourselves, as a generalisation.
Though I’m currently defrosting a haggis and preparing Mars bars for deep frying while muttering Freeeeedom under my breath, I understand where you’re coming from.
Bit sad that aid for the world's poorest has been identified as a wedge issue in the war on woke but I think the author is right - it has. 0.7% was a manifesto commitment and it's utter bullshit that we now can't afford it because of the pandemic. The reason for the cut is pure politics and of the most poisonous type. They think Red Wall voters - as in generic term for working class Leavers who used to vote Labour - will see this and go, "Yeah, too right. Charity begins at home innit. Good on yer, Boris." I hope they're wrong. I hope this reductive patronizing pandering view of their voter base comes back and bites them in their fat cynical arses. So there.
Ok, but we can test the grandstanding here with the counter-argument: if cutting from 0.7% to 0.5% costs "hundreds of thousands" of lives then it stands to reason that having it at 0.7% rather than 1% also costs "hundreds of thousands" of lives, and we should spend more.
So, if you're concerned about saving lives above all else then you should be arguing for an increase on the basis that the current level of spending is a tragedy. Otherwise you are innately conceding an affordability argument that you don't really want to engage in.
I don't see much of that so I'm forced to conclude it's just grandstanding.
I can argue for higher quite compellingly but all that would do is trigger a whole bunch of "If you're so concerned about it why don't YOU give all your money to Oxfam? Total hypocrite if you don't" type grief from the likes of anotherrichard and pagan and the general band of reactionary reductives. Then I'd get frustrated and tetchy and start having spats with people. Not appropriate for a Friday.
More seriously, on a pure "spend where the need is greatest" rationale every rich country would be allocating an order of magnitude more to overseas aid than they do at the moment. And every single one of them could afford it. But one has to be realistic and recognize that the limits of domestic political acceptability are in the current range of nought point something of GDP.
And why is that something not nought point five at the current time?
Public sector pay is frozen. Private sector is struggling to survive. Even nurses aren't getting much of a pay rise.
But you want to take billions more from those nurses etc in taxes to give on aid than our neighbours give. Why?
And while I'm here, nobody is seriously suggesting a curfew on men, not even Drakeford. Don't rely on The Sun. Although it seems to have really triggered some of the snowflake men on here.
It's an old debate brought up, rightly, by feminists over the last 50 years. The idea of a male curfew, never to be taken literally, is a response to those who suggest that if women want to be safe they should stay at home, or not go out alone, or avoid x, y, z. Why should women stay at home to protect themselves from men?
The problem is that it's a 'modest proposal' so monumentally dense that all it does is to discredit the side making it and alienate the sympathy of others. Well done!
O/T, who did PBers reckon will be the next cartoon / children's character to be cancelled? My money is on Bagpuss - old, pale, stale male and figure of the Patriarchy, with slightly dubious intentions towards Emily.
Camberwick Green. The Patriarchy ensures women are not allowed to be in charge of anything more than a baby, a loaf or a dog.....
Curfews for men is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Christ.
Why?
Because it doesn't solve anything and it's the opposite of liberty. I haven't ever committed violence towards women so why should I be punished by being forced to stay inside my house?
FFS I've just seen this - Mike is allegedly a liberal.
What I'm wondering is when we are going to get round to criticising - you know - the actual criminal that murdered the poor woman?
And while I'm here, nobody is seriously suggesting a curfew on men, not even Drakeford. Don't rely on The Sun. Although it seems to have really triggered some of the snowflake men on here.
It's an old debate brought up, rightly, by feminists over the last 50 years. The idea of a male curfew, never to be taken literally, is a response to those who suggest that if women want to be safe they should stay at home, or not go out alone, or avoid x, y, z. Why should women stay at home to protect themselves from men?
The problem is that it's a 'modest proposal' so monumentally dense that all it does is to discredit the side making it and alienate the sympathy of others. Well done!
And we have so called "liberals" asking what the problem is with the idea.......
For local election followers there were 3 by-elections in Scotland yesterday. Con defence in Highland and SNP defences in Borders and West Lothian. Counting is today.
I remember watching the 1988 Olympics when Des Lynam broke the news of Ben Johnson testing positive for drugs and always assumed the shame of it all would mean noone would ever try anything like that again.
Cycling is dirtier than it's ever been at all levels because the techniques are so well known and the 'produits' are so readily available. I know people who do blood bags/testosterone gels for Regional C races - the 2nd lowest level of amateur competition in the UK.
Is it still on balance good for you, then, if all that shit is going on? I mean, weighing up the massive fitness you accrue from elite sport against the poison of the drugs?
Assume this means that the Covid vax bounce for Unionist parties theory can be put to bed in that case?
There is a Unionist bounce and the SNP are down, so in reality the SNP are getting no bounce at all for the vaccination programme, in fact when it comes to voting intention they are significantly down
Both the Queen and Duke of Cambridge have a more than +50% favourable rating amongst every age group.
Charles and Camilla however only have a net positive favourability rating with over 50s and net negative with under 50s, Harry and Meghan though are the reverse, net positive with under 50s, net negative with over 50s (though Meghan is also net negative with 25 to 49 year olds and only net positive with 18 to 24 year olds)
Tory, Labour and LD voters similarly all give the Queen and Duke of Cambridge net positive ratings. However only Tory and LDs give Charles and Camilla a net positive rating, Labour voters give them a negative rating. Harry gets a negative rating from Tory voters, positive from Labour and LDs, Meghan gets a negative rating from Tory and LD voters, positive from Labour voters.
I remember watching the 1988 Olympics when Des Lynam broke the news of Ben Johnson testing positive for drugs and always assumed the shame of it all would mean noone would ever try anything like that again.
Cycling is dirtier than it's ever been at all levels because the techniques are so well known and the 'produits' are so readily available. I know people who do blood bags/testosterone gels for Regional C races - the 2nd lowest level of amateur competition in the UK.
Is it still on balance good for you, then, if all that shit is going on? I mean, weighing up the massive fitness you accrue from elite sport against the poison of the drugs?
I recall a documentary about the Ben Johnson saga. The only guy in that race who hasn't tested positive for something, since, was interviewed. He'd never got anywhere in international sprinting - no sudden surge in performance etc. They asked him about how he felt, knowing that everyone else....
Both the Queen and Duke of Cambridge have a more than +50% favourable rating amongst every age group.
Charles and Camilla however only have a net positive avourability rating with over 50s and net negative with under 50s, Harry and Meghan though are the reverse, net positive with under 50s, net negative with over 50s (though Meghan is also net negative with 25 to 49 year olds and only net positive with 18 to 24 year olds)
Tory, Labour and LD voters similarly all give the Queen and Duke of Cambridge net positive ratings. However only Tory and LDs give Charles and Camilla a net positive rating, Labour voters give them a negative rating. Harry gets a negative rating from Tory voters, positive from Labour and LDs, Meghan gets a negative rating from Tory and LD voters, negative from Labour voters.
Comments
On the legislation point - I am not a lawyer... but my understanding is the budget & Finance Bill legislate for tax changes - they don't technically cover spending (although chancellors often announce things at that opportunity).
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00813/#_ftn5
This is interesting, to make a point: only three years ago people were by and large very positive about Meghan and Harry.
So, was it media coverage that turned them off since the wedding? Or might their behaviour have had something to do with it?
They're pretty shit numbers, no?
https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1370275365378170881
And, in any case, if the public as a whole have a toss about trade figures we would not have voted for Brexit, and if they were concerned about Johnson lying to them, they would have turned against him by now.
or as someone else asked - the next terror attack
A dumb idea - one of the dumbest I have ever heard tbh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3RKfT4pUho
The January trade figures are grim, however you cut it. Yes, it's a one month snapshot and we can expect them to pull back a bit in February and so on. But they are really bad - much worse than I was expecting, and I'm not Brexit's greatest fan.
The most aggravating thing is the government doesn't care. Their only concerns are no lorry queues on the M20 and no empty shelves in supermarkets. Otherwise you are on your own, or more succinctly, you are stuffed. The government could do some things to improve the situation a bit, even now. But it won't.
My own observation is that one months figures, especially January this year, is just a nonsense and let us see how the position looks after 6 months
And in any respect, there is no going back now and of course the EU have handed a huge boost to leaving with the vaccine debacle and consequent unrest in member states
It's not only multilateral programmes - DFID will have signed multi-year contracts with NGOs/universities/consultancies.
The way they have announced it essentially means they cannot prioritize on what is better/worse aid spending, it will instead just be to cut everything that is politically/legally possible and start as few new things as they can.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Possibly one reason I'm not bothered by woke is that the idea of what you describe as woke seems like alien nonsense only read about on Twitter and here whereas what you've just said is normal life.
1st dose 22,656
2nd dose 15,455
The three most impressive performers in F1 are Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen, and Romain Grosjean's agent.
https://foster.house.gov/media/press-releases/foster-highlights-president-obama-s-contribution-to-rapid-vaccine-development
Jul 31, 2020
Washington, DC – Today, at a hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) highlighted the work done and investments made during the Obama administration that are directly responsible for the successes of current vaccines in development. Specifically, Foster pointed to President Obama’s decision to invest in mRNA vaccine research, which is one platform being used to develop potential vaccines in record time.
Foster said, “Heeding the advice of his scientific panel, in 2013 the Obama Administration invested $25 million through DARPA for research into the mRNA platform for pandemic response. This was followed by a $125 million investment by BARDA in 2015, so that by the end of the Obama administration, mRNA vaccines and therapeutics were being tested in both animals and humans...
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Because it would do more than Covid to destroy the night time economy.
Because it is irrational and unjust.
Because it punishes the innocent.
Because it is unenforceable.
Because men have to get to work.
Many universities/consortia have direct contracts with FCDO for research, my assumption is those cannot easily be scrapped (although perhaps can be slowed) so cuts will have to fall more deeply elsewhere.
If you think that voters - especially Tory voters - have the slightest concern about a small cut in the aid budget at a time when we're whacking up taxes to fill a giant fiscal hole, then you're frankly out of your mind. You're lucky we're not cutting aid to zero for the next several years until we get back on our feet.
While in the TEN-T Network, the UK was part of the North Sea – Mediterranean
corridor. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK will not participate in the
future CEF funding programme.
The UK financial contribution was in the region of €447m annually. This is calculated
as a percentage of the UK’s contribution to the EU budget for 2014-2020. Despite this
level of funding, UK transport schemes only received around €48m annually from
the CEF-Transport budget.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968214/DfT-Union-Connectivity-Review-Interim-Report-March-2021-accessible.pdf
Incidentally there isn't a huge amount of unrest in EU member states. much as people on here would like there to be. In any case that has nothing to with us. We're out.
What I'm wondering is when we are going to get round to criticising - you know - the actual criminal that murdered the poor woman?
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1370277887488720900?s=20
Assume this means that the Covid vax bounce for Unionist parties theory can be put to bed in that case?
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
The subsequent vote, among a predominantly white and almost all female electorate, elected one man and one woman, both non-white.
(Re earlier discussion, this was in the north, but the villain of the piece was not a northerner! And just a difficult person, if t hadn't been 'wokery', it would have been something else.)
Like the UK funding Oxford's research helping to develop a vaccine that works, then being founding members and one of the largest proportional donors to Covax - thus helping vaccinate the globe against a pandemic.
That's a pretty impressive raspberry - and it has a purpose. 0.7% is a number not a purpose.
Aid projects that are worthy should be funding because they're worthy not because we're doing this to hit an arbitrary number.
Aid projects that are worthy should be funded because they're worthy not rejected because we've already hit the arbitrary number elsewhere so better luck next time.
Con 42 (-3)
Lab 33 (+1)
LD 7 (+1)
Green 6 (-1)
REFUK 3
Greens still appear too high on 6%.
More importantly gaslighted doesn't just mean misled, and he is using it wrong.
What nonsense some folk write. Us northerners are just as varied as you southerners. All I'd grant you is that we're a bit less posh and up ourselves, as a generalisation.
I mean, I've said this a thousand times on here. I'm just trying to help you people.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1369936341404942341?s=20
It's an old debate brought up, rightly, by feminists over the last 50 years. The idea of a male curfew, never to be taken literally, is a response to those who suggest that if women want to be safe they should stay at home, or not go out alone, or avoid x, y, z. Why should women stay at home to protect themselves from men?
That fact that supposedly serious politicians can suggest this without fear of ridicule is profoundly depressing.
Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of the confluence of number of factors: the demonization of men (white, middle aged in particular) as the cause of all societies ills; the imposition and normalization of lockdowns as government policy; the aggressive pursuit of the woke agenda by those in positions of influence ... all fueled by the need for attention on social media and to fill 24 hour news cycles.
Who speaks for the sensible, decent, ordinary people of this country that would shoot this illiberal, authoritarian nonsense down in a second?
More seriously, on a pure "spend where the need is greatest" rationale every rich country would be allocating an order of magnitude more to overseas aid than they do at the moment. And every single one of them could afford it. But one has to be realistic and recognize that the limits of domestic political acceptability are in the current range of nought point something of GDP.
Public sector pay is frozen.
Private sector is struggling to survive.
Even nurses aren't getting much of a pay rise.
But you want to take billions more from those nurses etc in taxes to give on aid than our neighbours give. Why?
https://www.ft.com/content/4eabdc7a-f8e1-48d5-9592-05441493f652?shareType=nongift
For perspective - Global population Billion:
1889: 1.6
1920: 1.9
1957: 2.9
1968: 3.5
2020: 7.8
So the contemporary percapita mortality of the Kentucky "Spanish" (sic) Flu would be around 205 million dead....
Charles and Camilla however only have a net positive favourability rating with over 50s and net negative with under 50s, Harry and Meghan though are the reverse, net positive with under 50s, net negative with over 50s (though Meghan is also net negative with 25 to 49 year olds and only net positive with 18 to 24 year olds)
Tory, Labour and LD voters similarly all give the Queen and Duke of Cambridge net positive ratings. However only Tory and LDs give Charles and Camilla a net positive rating, Labour voters give them a negative rating. Harry gets a negative rating from Tory voters, positive from Labour and LDs, Meghan gets a negative rating from Tory and LD voters, positive from Labour voters.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/dkq32ft8nv/Royal favourability 11 March.pdf
Pot and kettle.
Although Ballot Box Scotland points out that in STV seats "gain" may be innappropriate....
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1370351760628400133?s=20