Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
Banning protests, seeking to place the Government above the law, banning people from leaving the country. These are not the actions of a democratically minded open Government.
Limiting protest to protect the rights of individuals from nuisance isn't banning protest. Try Hong Kong or Burman for what that looks like.
The government will still be obliged to abide by its own laws. At least until we have clear examples of this not being the case from the Court of Appeal/SC who will be quick to say so.
Banning leaving is a temporary measure to do with death causing illness, and concerns the medical dangers of acting on your right to return.
1. It is not just limiting protest, it is giving the police such wide ranging powers that they could ban any protest if the felt like it. It is, in effect, an enabling act. There is unlikely to ever be protest march that someone does not find a nuisance, particularly when noise is one criteria. All this law does is allow the authorities to ban any protest they don't like.
2. As Cyclefree has already pointed out the Government has clearly decided it is not obliged to abide by its own laws - see 'break the law in a limited and specific way' as one example. More importantly it has decided that the courts should not be allowed to decide on points of law as to whether or not they have broken said laws.
3. Banning leaving the country is not in any way a proportionate reaction. It also sets a precedent - Governments love those things - for future, perhaps less obvious, situations. If they were that worried about people bringing disease back in they could have said people can leave but may not return until we know they are not infected. That would have been proportionate.
You are trying to defend the indefensible.
Very sympathetic to your view, which instinctively I follow. but:
1) My difficulty is that I neither trust the police to act with sense (Clapham recently) nor protesters even to want to obey reasonable laws ('Kill the Bill' last week). On balance I want to protect ordinary people from nuisance and society from organised mayhem. I'm not sure whether a better draft has been offered.
2) Government has been foolish to speak of its own lawbreaking. Of course. Quoting it does not make a case. In the special circumstance of Ireland, where both the EU and UK have already threatened unilateral action, this is because Brexit and the island of Ireland are logically incompatible facts given the red lines. I still want real world examples of where the courts won't be able to stop government breaking its own laws.
3) Sympathetic but realistically temporary bans may be the best available in practice.
So many daily tests, Excel COVID edition is taking longer to boot up?
I did break Excel and the server this morning.
I asked for a transactions report today, and instead of asking for a batched total report I accidentally asked it for every single transaction, which is 18 million transactions. Oops.
The server should have calculated the number of rows and then refused the batch. Not your fault, it's up to IT to stop the stupid users being stupid.
I am Head of Regulatory Affairs & Compliance, apparently I have unlimited power to check *everything* that goes on.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Who regulates your affairs and compliance?
The Prudential Regulatory Authority, The Financial Conduct Authority, The Bank of England, The Securities and Exchange Commission, The European Banking Authority, The European Securities and Markets Authority, The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, and The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority
There are a few others, but they are the main ones.
Blimey, that's a lot of regulation and compliance, they must not trust anybody!
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Its along the lines of if I understand
EU: London you must stop doing euro swaps, they are only allowed to be done in the EU
London: No
This is A LOT more complicated than that. In particular, there is the issue of whether the BOE will be implicitly backing Euro denominated swaps between EU counterparties.
If the Italian government defaults on a Euro-denominated swap, and the German government is the beneficiary, do we really want to be guaranteeing that?
That, and the cases - which were essentially flat from 7-15 Mar - look like they may be starting to drop off again. Only very slowly, but it seems like it might be happening nonetheless. Perhaps the two things are related, and enough of the asymptomatic cases amongst kids have been identified and isolated to have some kind of impact upon transmission?
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
No way they relax earlier I am sad to say. The slow opening up will run as timetabled or even be put back. Worrying to hear talk of third surge when no evidence for one in UK to be honest.
Ah ok. I thought it was pukka. I do regular meditations but you are far more clued in to this, I think.
Fake Buddha quotes is a really interesting site. Top scholarship there. The problem with Buddhism, unlike most other religions, is that there is such a vast quantity of stuff. Buddha taught several times a day for 50+ years. He said a great many things. Plus, the Mahayana has humungous swathes of later texts as canon, too. No individual, however learned or devout, can memorise it all. Therefore, it is highly susceptible to "random hippy dippy inspirational banality quote." Signed The Buddha.
☺
No man is happier than he who ceases to seek happiness.
Good. Let's hope this "vaccine ban" really was just absurdist theatre.
Something will emerge.
Ursula and Friends' arses have not lost their requirement to be covered.
It will be May or June at least before they feel safe on the rollout, and by then a lorra-lorra more people might be dead. I guess their only benign option is to persuade the population to treat vaccination like a cheered on spectator sport, as we do.
EU goes through 600k death toll on Friday.
That's 100k more since I wrote my header last month.
850k would be a rather higher death per pop than UK.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
The all out gamble on vaccines paid off. That gave the government the time and headspace to come up with a sensible, cautious plan. (Germany, amingst others, is in full on panic).We haven't seen a surge in positives from schools going back, so on to stage 2. Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now? They should stick with it. Because it is working. Will they? Not sure. That's my take.
That, and the cases - which were essentially flat from 7-15 Mar - look like they may be starting to drop off again. Only very slowly, but it seems like it might be happening nonetheless. Perhaps the two things are related, and enough of the asymptomatic cases amongst kids have been identified and isolated to have some kind of impact upon transmission?
If they can stop infections among kids from leading to community transmission, they that initial increase should burn itself out quickly and then cases should continue to fall.
That, and the cases - which were essentially flat from 7-15 Mar - look like they may be starting to drop off again. Only very slowly, but it seems like it might be happening nonetheless. Perhaps the two things are related, and enough of the asymptomatic cases amongst kids have been identified and isolated to have some kind of impact upon transmission?
Cases in all age groups are falling apart from 0-14 (at least for England). 0-14 still rising.
This will take the smirks off a few faces...........................
STATEMENT FROM ALEX SALMOND AT CONCLUSION OF INQUIRIES
This is my third and final public statement on the subject of the parliamentary and Hamilton investigations and the Dunlop Review. The Inquiries are over and despite their manifest limitations, the findings are in and must be accepted, just like the verdicts of juries and the judgements of courts. A year ago, outside the High Court, I said that there was evidence which I wished to see the light of day. Some of that key material, including the government legal advice, eventually emerged through the Parliamentary Committee. Much of it did not. https://wingsoverscotland.com/time-to-shine-a-light/
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
Money laundering regulations and the lack of banking licenses in the EU.
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
It's completely stupid, as the article points out the biggest losers have been EU based banks that have been forced to give up access to London's markets, usually to US and UK based rivals. The main damage being done is to EU companies.
On retail banks, they're also being stupid. There's no scenario where they get fined by the FCA for ensuring European people have got bank accounts.
But Democrats do aspire to MLK's vision. The current arguments are not about the ends, but the means: how do you achieve a society in which character is always more important than skin colour?
No, I don't agree. I don't think the hard left Democrats want racial equality. In the same way as certain elements of the UK Labour party don't want equality, because it would restrict their ability to claim victimhood, and paint their political opponents as evil.
Looks like a distinguished career from her Wiki biography. Do you want to cancel her for something she wrote as a student in 1994 in response to the racist Bell Curve stuff?
I think the answer to that is probably yes.
She was born in 1976, so would have been 18 back then...
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
No way they relax earlier I am sad to say. The slow opening up will run as timetabled or even be put back. Worrying to hear talk of third surge when no evidence for one in UK to be honest.
The lockdown happy combined with those frit of normality make up the majority at the moment. If they continue to down this route there will be a lot more rioting this summer.
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Its along the lines of if I understand
EU: London you must stop doing euro swaps, they are only allowed to be done in the EU
London: No
This is A LOT more complicated than that. In particular, there is the issue of whether the BOE will be implicitly backing Euro denominated swaps between EU counterparties.
If the Italian government defaults on a Euro-denominated swap, and the German government is the beneficiary, do we really want to be guaranteeing that?
Thanks everyone. I'm slightly the wiser. 'Pat' was the biggest mystery. Everything else was the secind biggest mystery.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
The all out gamble on vaccines paid off. That gave the government the time and headspace to come up with a sensible, cautious plan. (Germany, amingst others, is in full on panic).We haven't seen a surge in positives from schools going back, so on to stage 2. Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now? They should stick with it. Because it is working. Will they? Not sure. That's my take.
'Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now?'
Because people are fed up and the economy is suffering?
I don't pretend to know the right answer but there is an argument for gambling on reopening - The Gambler being the title of the Boris Johnson biography.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
To be absolutely fair to Justin, a PC performance as good as 17% at a General Election would be something of a turn-up for the books. They only managed 10% last time. AFAIK Plaid have never come close to winning a Commons seat beyond the four they currently hold and Ynys Mon; at the last GE they were no better than third anywhere else, and a pretty poor third at that in every case except Llanelli.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
The all out gamble on vaccines paid off. That gave the government the time and headspace to come up with a sensible, cautious plan. (Germany, amingst others, is in full on panic).We haven't seen a surge in positives from schools going back, so on to stage 2. Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now? They should stick with it. Because it is working. Will they? Not sure. That's my take.
I wouldn't call it a gamble - with the possible execution of the 12 week gap for Pfizer (12 weeks is the recommended gap for AZN). Unless you are referring to the original vaccine development program.
Both vaccines were known to be highly effective in the months before they were approved. The end of trials and the acceptance simply put a stamp on that.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
The all out gamble on vaccines paid off. That gave the government the time and headspace to come up with a sensible, cautious plan. (Germany, amingst others, is in full on panic).We haven't seen a surge in positives from schools going back, so on to stage 2. Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now? They should stick with it. Because it is working. Will they? Not sure. That's my take.
'Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now?'
Because people are fed up and the economy is suffering?
I don't pretend to know the right answer but there is an argument for gambling on reopening - The Gambler being the title of the Boris Johnson biography.
This being Boris Johnson we're talking about here, you'd be a fool to rule out a volte face, I quite agree. However, the Government has thus far been uncommonly disciplined in sticking to these five weeks gaps, with strong backing from the sensible wing of the scientific community. I'd be surprised if they suddenly decided to hurry things along. Not very surprised. But surprised nonetheless.
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
The all out gamble on vaccines paid off. That gave the government the time and headspace to come up with a sensible, cautious plan. (Germany, amingst others, is in full on panic).We haven't seen a surge in positives from schools going back, so on to stage 2. Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now? They should stick with it. Because it is working. Will they? Not sure. That's my take.
I wouldn't call it a gamble - with the possible execution of the 12 week gap for Pfizer (12 weeks is the recommended gap for AZN). Unless you are referring to the original vaccine development program.
Both vaccines were known to be highly effective in the months before they were approved. The end of trials and the acceptance simply put a stamp on that.
We should get some pfizer 12 week antibody? numbers in anger soon I think ?
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
It's completely stupid, as the article points out the biggest losers have been EU based banks that have been forced to give up access to London's markets, usually to US and UK based rivals. The main damage being done is to EU companies.
On retail banks, they're also being stupid. There's no scenario where they get fined by the FCA for ensuring European people have got bank accounts.
Don't forget that MiFID relates to where the customer is, not where the financial services provider is.
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
It's fine for old fucks, not for the rest of the population.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
The all out gamble on vaccines paid off. That gave the government the time and headspace to come up with a sensible, cautious plan. (Germany, amingst others, is in full on panic).We haven't seen a surge in positives from schools going back, so on to stage 2. Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now? They should stick with it. Because it is working. Will they? Not sure. That's my take.
'Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now?'
Because people are fed up and the economy is suffering?
I don't pretend to know the right answer but there is an argument for gambling on reopening - The Gambler being the title of the Boris Johnson biography.
Know when to hold 'em, etc... As I said. Not sure they will. For me. The plan is working.
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
It's completely stupid, as the article points out the biggest losers have been EU based banks that have been forced to give up access to London's markets, usually to US and UK based rivals. The main damage being done is to EU companies.
On retail banks, they're also being stupid. There's no scenario where they get fined by the FCA for ensuring European people have got bank accounts.
The ability of European banks to be totally wrong-footed by the blindingly obvious is hardly a new thing.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
The all out gamble on vaccines paid off. That gave the government the time and headspace to come up with a sensible, cautious plan. (Germany, amingst others, is in full on panic).We haven't seen a surge in positives from schools going back, so on to stage 2. Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now? They should stick with it. Because it is working. Will they? Not sure. That's my take.
'Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now?'
Because people are fed up and the economy is suffering?
I don't pretend to know the right answer but there is an argument for gambling on reopening - The Gambler being the title of the Boris Johnson biography.
This being Boris Johnson we're talking about here, you'd be a fool to rule out a volte face, I quite agree. However, the Government has thus far been uncommonly disciplined in sticking to these five weeks gaps, with strong backing from the sensible wing of the scientific community. I'd be surprised if they suddenly decided to hurry things along. Not very surprised. But surprised nonetheless.
I think they'll stick to the dates. It's close to a certainty. And if they do move, it's imo more likely they'll speed up than slow down.
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Er, what about twentysomethings who will probably have to wait until June do their jabs? Sideline them despite all the sacrifices they have made for the elderly?
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
Money laundering regulations and the lack of banking licenses in the EU.
If they are UK high street banks, operating accounts in the UK, what on earth have EU banking licenses got to do with anything? We can and do offer bank accounts to people from any country, and always have. For that matter I had a French bank account in 1974, and my father had a Swiss bank account in the 1960s, because he'd inherited some money there. There were no reciprocal banking licences as far as I know.
As for money laundering, what is the issue? We can check the identities as usual (in fact, these are existing accounts being closed).
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
But Democrats do aspire to MLK's vision. The current arguments are not about the ends, but the means: how do you achieve a society in which character is always more important than skin colour?
No, I don't agree. I don't think the hard left Democrats want racial equality. In the same way as certain elements of the UK Labour party don't want equality, because it would restrict their ability to claim victimhood, and paint their political opponents as evil.
Looks like a distinguished career from her Wiki biography. Do you want to cancel her for something she wrote as a student in 1994 in response to the racist Bell Curve stuff?
She chose to respond to the Bell Curve not by arguing that character is more important than skin colour, but that the colour of her skin gave her "greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities... which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards".
But that cuts both ways: are you saying that anyone who says anything that might be considered as supportive of "The Bell Curve" should be banned from any government job?
They key thing surely is whether people can back up their positions with credible science and data?
Isn't the key thing that saying 'black people are better than white people' wouldn't be acceptable the otger way around? I say this not out of white fragility, @kinbalu, but to show that the application of differential standards according eding to race is a feature of Democrat culture.
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
Covid has made far too many of us lacking in empathy.
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
Money laundering regulations and the lack of banking licenses in the EU.
If they are UK high street banks, operating accounts in the UK, what on earth have EU banking licenses got to do with anything? We can and do offer bank accounts to people from any country, and always have. For that matter I had a French bank account in 1974, and my father had a Swiss bank account in the 1960s, because he'd inherited some money there. There were no reciprocal banking licences as far as I know.
As for money laundering, what is the issue? We can check the identities as usual (in fact, these are existing accounts being closed).
As mentioned MiFID relates to where the customer is so British banks would be caught by this and we are seeing divergence already in the UK.
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
It's completely stupid, as the article points out the biggest losers have been EU based banks that have been forced to give up access to London's markets, usually to US and UK based rivals. The main damage being done is to EU companies.
On retail banks, they're also being stupid. There's no scenario where they get fined by the FCA for ensuring European people have got bank accounts.
It's even worse than that, I think - UK citizens have had their UK accounts closed because they happen to live in the EU. What on earth is that about?
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
Covid has made far too many of us lacking in empathy.
Plus Nick's "don't claim the right to mingle" WTAF.
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
It's completely stupid, as the article points out the biggest losers have been EU based banks that have been forced to give up access to London's markets, usually to US and UK based rivals. The main damage being done is to EU companies.
On retail banks, they're also being stupid. There's no scenario where they get fined by the FCA for ensuring European people have got bank accounts.
The ability of European banks to be totally wrong-footed by the blindingly obvious is hardly a new thing.
You can strike "European" from that and still have a solid offering.
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
By July, I believe? (I'm 71) In the meantime, who is actually in fabour of a resurgence?
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
By July, I believe? (I'm 71) In the meantime, who is actually in fabour of a resurgence?
The deal was these measures are in place to protect the NHS from imminent threat, not as permanent just in case safety blanket.
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
By July, I believe? (I'm 71) In the meantime, who is actually in fabour of a resurgence?
So the 20-30 yr olds will be there, noses pressed against the window for three months.
Soz about the age. You post like a much sprightlier type.
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Er, what about twentysomethings who will probably have to wait until June do their jabs? Sideline them despite all the sacrifices they have made for the elderly?
No - just protect them and other twentysomethings from catching a disease which probably won't kill them but may well cause permanent damage to them. We're at the end of March. Is it really responsible to let the disease start soreading again, just so people can go indoors in a pub in the next 3 months?
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
It's completely stupid, as the article points out the biggest losers have been EU based banks that have been forced to give up access to London's markets, usually to US and UK based rivals. The main damage being done is to EU companies.
One thing the current debacle over vaccine supply chains highlights is that the Commission is full of people who don't understand how business actually works. It's like pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
As mentioned MiFID relates to where the customer is so British banks would be caught by this and we are seeing divergence already in the UK.
But MiFID is an EU set of regulations. We have no agreement on services. We have no equivalence or passporting. So why on earth should UK regulators have to impose the idiotic bits of MiFID on UK banks and UK citizens?
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
This has already been heavily trailed. He's running for the corresponding seat in the Scottish Parliament.
By the way, I love this about Britis politics. You can't simply resign your seat, you have to be appointed to one of two very specific positions which, almost as a happy coincidence, cannot be occupird at the same time as a seat in parliament. Which clever clogs can say who the existing Steward of the Manor of Northstead is? And who is the Chiltern Hundreds one? (I don't know the answer OTTOMH)
BBC News - Coronavirus: EU and UK try to end row with 'win-win' on vaccines
After weeks of tensions over Covid vaccine supplies, the UK government and European Commission have said they are working together to improve their relationship over the pandemic.
I'm very interested at watching the deaths-by-date-of-death from around the 18th onwards. Cases looked like they plateaued(-ish) three weeks before, and with reporting lag, the final few days of deaths-by-date look as though they could be hinting at a plateau around 50-60 per day. Hopefully not, but worth watching.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
This has already been heavily trailed. He's running for the corresponding seat in the Scottish Parliament.
By the way, I love this about Britis politics. You can't simply resign your seat, you have to be appointed to one of two very specific positions which, almost as a happy coincidence, cannot be occupird at the same time as a seat in parliament. Which clever clogs can say who the existing Steward of the Manor of Northstead is? And who is the Chiltern Hundreds one? (I don't know the answer OTTOMH)
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
Money laundering regulations and the lack of banking licenses in the EU.
If they are UK high street banks, operating accounts in the UK, what on earth have EU banking licenses got to do with anything? We can and do offer bank accounts to people from any country, and always have. For that matter I had a French bank account in 1974, and my father had a Swiss bank account in the 1960s, because he'd inherited some money there. There were no reciprocal banking licences as far as I know.
As for money laundering, what is the issue? We can check the identities as usual (in fact, these are existing accounts being closed).
You mentioned ex pat accounts.
You need a banking license in the EU state where the ex pat is, some banks have decided the cost outweighs any benefits.
Some UK banks are closing accounts now because of how Brexit is likely to change 'passporting' arrangements at the end of this year.
'Passporting' is when UK banks are allowed to provide services to customers in other states in the European Economic Area (EEA) – that's the European Union plus Iceland, Liechenstein and Norway – without having to get direct authorisation in those states. Current passporting rules are set to end on 31 December 2020 unless a new agreement is reached with the EU.
What that means is that, as things stand, from 1 January 2021 each UK bank will need to have separate authorisation in every EEA country it wants to operate in. This would mean applying for a licence in any of those countries it doesn't already trade in. As a result, some banks have decided to simply close accounts in countries where they no longer wish to operate.
The issue has been flagged by the Treasury Committee, with its chair Mel Stride this week calling for people to be given 'sufficient warning' if their account is being closed. He has written to the financial regulator asking it to set out how much notice banks should give.
As for EU citizens here, there's a tendency to remit large money transfers to and from EU states which causes all sorts of money laundering regulations, again costs outweigh the benefits.
One thing that really flags up checks is lots of/regular transactions with organisations like Western Union on your bank account.
As mentioned MiFID relates to where the customer is so British banks would be caught by this and we are seeing divergence already in the UK.
But MiFID is an EU set of regulations. We have no agreement on services. We have no equivalence or passporting. So why on earth should UK regulators have to impose the idiotic bits of MiFID on UK banks and UK citizens?
It applies to EU customers. Just like the Fed oversees all dollar cleared transactions.
The Italian government said the Carabinieri health squad had gone to "verify" batches after a request by the European Commission. Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton told the BBC that he had asked for the raid to ensure everything was on track and it had been "helpful to understand what was happening in Italy".
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
I'm very interested at watching the deaths-by-date-of-death from around the 18th onwards. Cases looked like they plateaued(-ish) three weeks before, and with reporting lag, the final few days of deaths-by-date look as though they could be hinting at a plateau around 50-60 per day. Hopefully not, but worth watching.
Yes. Though the admissions numbers have continued down pretty steadily.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
Money laundering regulations and the lack of banking licenses in the EU.
If they are UK high street banks, operating accounts in the UK, what on earth have EU banking licenses got to do with anything? We can and do offer bank accounts to people from any country, and always have. For that matter I had a French bank account in 1974, and my father had a Swiss bank account in the 1960s, because he'd inherited some money there. There were no reciprocal banking licences as far as I know.
As for money laundering, what is the issue? We can check the identities as usual (in fact, these are existing accounts being closed).
You mentioned ex pat accounts.
You need a banking license in the EU state where the ex pat is, some banks have decided the cost outweighs any benefits.
Some UK banks are closing accounts now because of how Brexit is likely to change 'passporting' arrangements at the end of this year.
'Passporting' is when UK banks are allowed to provide services to customers in other states in the European Economic Area (EEA) – that's the European Union plus Iceland, Liechenstein and Norway – without having to get direct authorisation in those states. Current passporting rules are set to end on 31 December 2020 unless a new agreement is reached with the EU.
What that means is that, as things stand, from 1 January 2021 each UK bank will need to have separate authorisation in every EEA country it wants to operate in. This would mean applying for a licence in any of those countries it doesn't already trade in. As a result, some banks have decided to simply close accounts in countries where they no longer wish to operate.
The issue has been flagged by the Treasury Committee, with its chair Mel Stride this week calling for people to be given 'sufficient warning' if their account is being closed. He has written to the financial regulator asking it to set out how much notice banks should give.
As for EU citizens here, there's a tendency to remit large money transfers to and from EU states which causes all sorts of money laundering regulations, again costs outweigh the benefits.
One thing that really flags up checks is lots of/regular transactions with organisations like Western Union on your bank account.
It is UK accounts in UK branches of UK banks being closed (usually when an ex-pat keeps the account they had when they emigrated). So the bank isn't providing a banking service or operating in the EU country, it is providing a banking service in the UK. Why should we care a toss whether the EU likes this or not?
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Not interested in history. Big G you do often remind us of your historic connections to Scotland.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Those who ignore history are doomed....
The trend matters and it is away from labour in Wales and Plaid are in reasonable shape and maybe the Lib Dems will become extinct in Wales in May
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
This has already been heavily trailed. He's running for the corresponding seat in the Scottish Parliament.
By the way, I love this about Britis politics. You can't simply resign your seat, you have to be appointed to one of two very specific positions which, almost as a happy coincidence, cannot be occupird at the same time as a seat in parliament. Which clever clogs can say who the existing Steward of the Manor of Northstead is? And who is the Chiltern Hundreds one? (I don't know the answer OTTOMH)
Personally I wish they would abolish this sillyness.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
I am surprised you have no interest in history , but Plaid doing well in the May Assembly elections is not relevant to my point. Plaid has always outperformed at those elections , but it consistently fails to translate into support at Westminster elections. I believe your own seat of Aberconway provides a good example of that.
That the Tories won't stand aside and campaign for Labour in defence of their "precious Union." Whilst simultaneously urging Labour voters to vote Tory to defeat the SNP at Holyrood.
BBC News - Coronavirus: EU and UK try to end row with 'win-win' on vaccines
After weeks of tensions over Covid vaccine supplies, the UK government and European Commission have said they are working together to improve their relationship over the pandemic.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Those who ignore history are doomed....
The trend matters and it is away from labour in Wales and Plaid are in reasonable shape and maybe the Lib Dems will become extinct in Wales in May
If you knew anything you'd already know the Lib Dems became extinct in Wales in 2019 at one level.
Should be mandatory as a condition for reopening. If it's optional then competition will make pubs reluctant to do it. What's the problem? Most adutls will have had vaccinations shortly, so excluding those who haven't will merely affect the recalcitrant types who refuse (fine, I'm not in favour of it being mandatory, but then don't claim the right to mingle and infect others)
Most adults? Thus speaks a 75-yr old. When is a 30-yr old due a jab?
This has already been heavily trailed. He's running for the corresponding seat in the Scottish Parliament.
By the way, I love this about Britis politics. You can't simply resign your seat, you have to be appointed to one of two very specific positions which, almost as a happy coincidence, cannot be occupird at the same time as a seat in parliament. Which clever clogs can say who the existing Steward of the Manor of Northstead is? And who is the Chiltern Hundreds one? (I don't know the answer OTTOMH)
By current, of course, I meant previous.
The existing Steward is Neil Gray
His immediate predecessor was John Bercow (I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of these things, I looked it up.)
The Stewardships of the Manor of Northstead and of the Chiltern Hundreds are both positions to which MPs are appointed when they want to resign, apparently because resignation is technically illegal - but so is being an MP whilst holding "an office of profit under the Crown." So an MP effectively gets themselves booted out by taking one of these ceremonial offices. They then hold it until the next one who wants to quit comes along and is appointed in their place.
The current Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds is the Labour chap who just quit in Hartlepool.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Not interested in history. Big G you do often remind us of your historic connections to Scotland.
And how has that anything to do with Mays elections in Wales where the trend is away from labour, plaid doing OK and the Lid Dems likely becoming extinct
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Not interested in history. Big G you do often remind us of your historic connections to Scotland.
And how has that anything to do with Mays elections in Wales where the trend is away from labour, plaid doing OK and the Lid Dems likely becoming extinct
Because you use history as a relevant factor in your political analysis.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Vax passports for internal use are vastly more illiberal than banning people from the country for a short period. Frankly any place that demands to see one is a place not getting my custom. It is vaccine compulsion by the backdoor.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Those who ignore history are doomed....
The trend matters and it is away from labour in Wales and Plaid are in reasonable shape and maybe the Lib Dems will become extinct in Wales in May
The very first Wales Assembly elections held in the late 1990s under Blair were good for Plaid. I recall Llanelly was captured from Labour.2016 saw Plaid win the Rhondda - but it meant very little when it came to the general elections in 2017 and 2019.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Those who ignore history are doomed....
The trend matters and it is away from labour in Wales and Plaid are in reasonable shape and maybe the Lib Dems will become extinct in Wales in May
If you knew anything you'd already know the Lib Dems became extinct in Wales in 2019 at one level.
That the Tories won't stand aside and campaign for Labour in defence of their "precious Union." Whilst simultaneously urging Labour voters to vote Tory to defeat the SNP at Holyrood.
Easy SNP hold. Richard Leonard is standing for Labour.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Comments
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1372690114753744899?s=19
1) My difficulty is that I neither trust the police to act with sense (Clapham recently) nor protesters even to want to obey reasonable laws ('Kill the Bill' last week). On balance I want to protect ordinary people from nuisance and society from organised mayhem. I'm not sure whether a better draft has been offered.
2) Government has been foolish to speak of its own lawbreaking. Of course. Quoting it does not make a case. In the special circumstance of Ireland, where both the EU and UK have already threatened unilateral action, this is because Brexit and the island of Ireland are logically incompatible facts given the red lines. I still want real world examples of where the courts won't be able to stop government breaking its own laws.
3) Sympathetic but realistically temporary bans may be the best available in practice.
And should they. Or not?
If the Italian government defaults on a Euro-denominated swap, and the German government is the beneficiary, do we really want to be guaranteeing that?
No man is happier than he who ceases to seek happiness.
Ursula and Friends' arses have not lost their requirement to be covered.
It will be May or June at least before they feel safe on the rollout, and by then a lorra-lorra more people might be dead. I guess their only benign option is to persuade the population to treat vaccination like a cheered on spectator sport, as we do.
EU goes through 600k death toll on Friday.
That's 100k more since I wrote my header last month.
850k would be a rather higher death per pop than UK.
Why potentially chuck the gains away on a reckless gamble just now?
They should stick with it. Because it is working.
Will they? Not sure.
That's my take.
Will they? Your guess is as good as mine. You'd have to say it's likely, but I'm not actually going to believe any of it until it happens.
STATEMENT FROM ALEX SALMOND AT CONCLUSION OF INQUIRIES
This is my third and final public statement on the subject of the parliamentary and Hamilton investigations and the Dunlop Review.
The Inquiries are over and despite their manifest limitations, the findings are in and must be accepted, just like the verdicts of juries and the judgements of courts.
A year ago, outside the High Court, I said that there was evidence which I wished to see the light of day. Some of that key material, including the government legal advice, eventually emerged through the Parliamentary Committee. Much of it did not.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/time-to-shine-a-light/
On retail banks, they're also being stupid. There's no scenario where they get fined by the FCA for ensuring European people have got bank accounts.
She was born in 1976, so would have been 18 back then...
'Pat' was the biggest mystery.
Everything else was the secind biggest mystery.
Because people are fed up and the economy is suffering?
I don't pretend to know the right answer but there is an argument for gambling on reopening - The Gambler being the title of the Boris Johnson biography.
It's being overwritten by the 0-14 line at the bottom of the graph.....
Both vaccines were known to be highly effective in the months before they were approved. The end of trials and the acceptance simply put a stamp on that.
As I said. Not sure they will.
For me. The plan is working.
As for money laundering, what is the issue? We can check the identities as usual (in fact, these are existing accounts being closed).
I say this not out of white fragility, @kinbalu, but to show that the application of differential standards according eding to race is a feature of Democrat culture.
Labour should be seriously targetting this seat.Failure to pick it up will be a blow to them.
Soz about the age. You post like a much sprightlier type.
So why on earth should UK regulators have to impose the idiotic bits of MiFID on UK banks and UK citizens?
By the way, I love this about Britis politics. You can't simply resign your seat, you have to be appointed to one of two very specific positions which, almost as a happy coincidence, cannot be occupird at the same time as a seat in parliament.
Which clever clogs can say who the existing Steward of the Manor of Northstead is? And who is the Chiltern Hundreds one? (I don't know the answer OTTOMH)
After weeks of tensions over Covid vaccine supplies, the UK government and European Commission have said they are working together to improve their relationship over the pandemic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56509521
Doesn't it take two to have a row?
Predictions?
Hopefully not, but worth watching.
Which clever clogs can say who the existing Steward of the Manor of Northstead is? And who is the Chiltern Hundreds one? (I don't know the answer OTTOMH)
By current, of course, I meant previous.
You need a banking license in the EU state where the ex pat is, some banks have decided the cost outweighs any benefits.
Some UK banks are closing accounts now because of how Brexit is likely to change 'passporting' arrangements at the end of this year.
'Passporting' is when UK banks are allowed to provide services to customers in other states in the European Economic Area (EEA) – that's the European Union plus Iceland, Liechenstein and Norway – without having to get direct authorisation in those states. Current passporting rules are set to end on 31 December 2020 unless a new agreement is reached with the EU.
What that means is that, as things stand, from 1 January 2021 each UK bank will need to have separate authorisation in every EEA country it wants to operate in. This would mean applying for a licence in any of those countries it doesn't already trade in. As a result, some banks have decided to simply close accounts in countries where they no longer wish to operate.
The issue has been flagged by the Treasury Committee, with its chair Mel Stride this week calling for people to be given 'sufficient warning' if their account is being closed. He has written to the financial regulator asking it to set out how much notice banks should give.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2020/09/thousands-of-british-expats-face-uk-account-closures/
As for EU citizens here, there's a tendency to remit large money transfers to and from EU states which causes all sorts of money laundering regulations, again costs outweigh the benefits.
One thing that really flags up checks is lots of/regular transactions with organisations like Western Union on your bank account.
The Italian government said the Carabinieri health squad had gone to "verify" batches after a request by the European Commission. Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton told the BBC that he had asked for the raid to ensure everything was on track and it had been "helpful to understand what was happening in Italy".
There'll be some fudge or other
Which clever clogs can say who the existing Steward of the Manor of Northstead is? And who is the Chiltern Hundreds one? (I don't know the answer OTTOMH)
Personally I wish they would abolish this sillyness.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/uk-london-mayor-voting-intention-17-march-2021/
Whilst simultaneously urging Labour voters to vote Tory to defeat the SNP at Holyrood.
His immediate predecessor was John Bercow (I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of these things, I looked it up.)
The Stewardships of the Manor of Northstead and of the Chiltern Hundreds are both positions to which MPs are appointed when they want to resign, apparently because resignation is technically illegal - but so is being an MP whilst holding "an office of profit under the Crown." So an MP effectively gets themselves booted out by taking one of these ceremonial offices. They then hold it until the next one who wants to quit comes along and is appointed in their place.
The current Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds is the Labour chap who just quit in Hartlepool.
(Blockquotes going to pot again...)
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.