Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

What some Trump backing Republican donors get told if they don’t make their gifts recurring ones – p

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited April 2021 in General
imageWhat some Trump backing Republican donors get told if they don’t make their gifts recurring ones – politicalbetting.com

Last week there was a big report in the New York Times about some of the high-pressure fundraising tactics of the Trump campaign. A feature that got special attention was that many donors who thought they had made one-off donations in the run up to WH2020 suddenly found that this had been deemed to be a weekly donation and money was being sucked out of their banks every 7-days. In many cases this had led to hardship.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Grifters gotta grift
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,100
    edited April 2021
    Second.

    Allegedly.

    Thanks for a good piece this AM, Ms C.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    edited April 2021
    Runner-up
    .. to the runner-up
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    geoffw said:

    Runner-up
    .. to the runner-up

    That's a bronze medal in some places
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Re the last sentence: no, because we have much higher standards of consumer protection in this country.

    For example, part of the PPI mis-selling scandal was the practice of negative option selling, whereby the consumer got the product (and had to pay for it) unless they ticked a box opting out. This was effectively ruled illegal and the requirements are now explicit that the consumer has to know what it is that they are buying. I would expect [whichever regulator has dominion over donations to political parties; possibly the Charities Commission?] to come down like a tonne of bricks on this practice if anything like it was tried in the UK.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Trump getting more like Tony Soprano or Michael Corleone by the day
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    The Trumpies love their block capitals, don't they?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    England 1st 39650 2nd 232840
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    England 1st 39650 2nd 232840

    Over a quarter of a million. Not bad for a Tuesday reporting figure. Not much sign of an April slowdown there.

    Hopefully we see closer to half a million tomorrow.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,721
    For those that were particularly exercised about it - Masterchef Final is on Wednesday at 8pm apparently.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56732411
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Pulpstar said:

    England 1st 39650 2nd 232840

    When is your 1st?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Not surprising - it's got the same issues AZ has and having seen how the EU has handled that vaccine best to delay things as long as possible to avoid a backlash.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    These should be the stats which worry Starmer the most. The VE isn't that important, but the case is once someone has a view of you, it's tricky to shift it.

    Not impossible, but tricky.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Selebian said:

    On Hull University (from the other thread)... I've taught there occasionally - I'm not employed by Hull, but sometimes invited to do seminars there through contacts. My experience has been that the students are more working class (from accents and manner of speech) and more black than in the fancier unis. Don't speak 'as well', perhaps (and likely that comes through in writing too) but they're sharp and, to be honest, I've had more interesting debates with students in seminars there than I generally have at my own, 'fancier' (i.e. Russell Group) uni.

    Now, written English is important, I don't dispute that, but the Hull groups I've taught would probably do worse on English marks while maybe being more enquiring and egaging. So I have some sympathy with trying to address that. I would however think it would be better done, to enhance future prospects too, by providing extra tuition in written English for those who could benefit from that.

    Sadly that extra tuition would cost money and would be hard to do in a way that would encourage the students who need those lessons to take them.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,310

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    FPT:
    Nigelb said:

    John McPhee, possibly my favourite non fiction writer, still going strong (if a little circumlocutory) at 90...
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/19/tabula-rasa-volume-two

    For a moment there I thought you were about to deliver terrible news.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    eek said:

    Selebian said:

    On Hull University (from the other thread)... I've taught there occasionally - I'm not employed by Hull, but sometimes invited to do seminars there through contacts. My experience has been that the students are more working class (from accents and manner of speech) and more black than in the fancier unis. Don't speak 'as well', perhaps (and likely that comes through in writing too) but they're sharp and, to be honest, I've had more interesting debates with students in seminars there than I generally have at my own, 'fancier' (i.e. Russell Group) uni.

    Now, written English is important, I don't dispute that, but the Hull groups I've taught would probably do worse on English marks while maybe being more enquiring and egaging. So I have some sympathy with trying to address that. I would however think it would be better done, to enhance future prospects too, by providing extra tuition in written English for those who could benefit from that.

    Sadly that extra tuition would cost money and would be hard to do in a way that would encourage the students who need those lessons to take them.
    Yes, that's certainly true. Maybe we need the schools to sort this out before they get to uni!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Seems to have put a billion or so on the value of Novavax.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    eek said:

    Not surprising - it's got the same issues AZ has and having seen how the EU has handled that vaccine best to delay things as long as possible to avoid a backlash.

    Well, hopefully the NHS wasn't relying too much on this product. The totality of the Moderna order is only sufficient to cover the over 40s; one assumes that Novavax is really going to be needed for the young folks now, or else they'll be kept waiting and the pressure on the Government to stall the removal of the evil restrictions will build.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    Not especially. The EU keep essentially putting all their eggs in one basket, we're not really relying upon any individual vaccine.

    Our vaccine rollout Phase I is already complete so we're not really relying upon anything. It will take Europe months about 3 months if they're lucky just to catch up just to where we already are now. Months without one of the main vaccines they were counting upon. 😕

    Its a terrible position they're in. Not helped by them so vocally messing around Astrazeneca that Novavax and other vaccine manufacturers have declined to subsequently sign contracts with them which makes this even worse.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes its such a big ask.

    This is realpolitik, given the different countries are led by different parties every time a decision needs making it would make sense for all other countries to turn down the proposal until given something to grease the wheels.

    What a nightmare. Terrible idea that doesn't work with real politics.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    Selebian said:

    On Hull University (from the other thread)... I've taught there occasionally - I'm not employed by Hull, but sometimes invited to do seminars there through contacts. My experience has been that the students are more working class (from accents and manner of speech) and more black than in the fancier unis. Don't speak 'as well', perhaps (and likely that comes through in writing too) but they're sharp and, to be honest, I've had more interesting debates with students in seminars there than I generally have at my own, 'fancier' (i.e. Russell Group) uni.

    Now, written English is important, I don't dispute that, but the Hull groups I've taught would probably do worse on English marks while maybe being more enquiring and egaging. So I have some sympathy with trying to address that. I would however think it would be better done, to enhance future prospects too, by providing extra tuition in written English for those who could benefit from that.

    Those people are being really shortchanged though, by not inculcating them with the tools that they need to express those sharp insights in good English.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Well Trump lost so it doesn;t matter now. Biden's in charge

    Americans voted for a quiet life and now there's no more burning cities, no more looting, no more rioting, no more theft and damage to property.....

    The man really has worked the whole thing out.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,310
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    eek said:

    Not surprising - it's got the same issues AZ has and having seen how the EU has handled that vaccine best to delay things as long as possible to avoid a backlash.

    Well, hopefully the NHS wasn't relying too much on this product. The totality of the Moderna order is only sufficient to cover the over 40s; one assumes that Novavax is really going to be needed for the young folks now, or else they'll be kept waiting and the pressure on the Government to stall the removal of the evil restrictions will build.
    Novavax and Pfizer. No need to worry at all. Our J&J order wasn't even going to commence until mid July. It hasn't been factored into any unlockdown plans.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,557

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes. It means that 15% of the country can override 85%.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Well Trump lost so it doesn;t matter now. Biden's in charge

    I know. Thank God for that, aye?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes its such a big ask.

    This is realpolitik, given the different countries are led by different parties every time a decision needs making it would make sense for all other countries to turn down the proposal until given something to grease the wheels.

    What a nightmare. Terrible idea that doesn't work with real politics.
    Make it about real politics then - use a real world example. I've used several in arguing my case that this would be a good idea.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited April 2021

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes its such a big ask.

    This is realpolitik, given the different countries are led by different parties every time a decision needs making it would make sense for all other countries to turn down the proposal until given something to grease the wheels.

    What a nightmare. Terrible idea that doesn't work with real politics.
    Make it about real politics then - use a real world example. I've used several in arguing my case that this would be a good idea.
    2017 General Election, May needed the DUP so had to bung money to Northern Ireland to get them to give her supply.

    You're talking about doing that not just because of a failed election once, but for every single vote for the rest of time.

    Every difficult decision would need a bung associated with it. That's no way to run a country, what a terrible idea.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Once again, and I'll keep saying it as many times as necessary, the EU would be mad to block Pfizer shipments as they rely on the UK supply chain for it. Around 90% of Pfizer's total supply from Puurs has got lipid nanoparticles made in the UK. It's a complete and utter non-starter. Pfizer have also made this clear to the commission on a number of occasions and aiui reassured the UK government that they would work with us on building up non-EU capacity to ensure non-EU clients can continue to be served.

    We aren't "relying on the EU" we're relying on an American company that signed a contract with the UK government that happens to have a production site in the EU. That American company has got the means to produce the necessary vaccines elsewhere.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,310
    edited April 2021
    There is no solution to the asymmetry of the UK. We can ameliorate it by making the Lords an elected Federal chamber (with two Lords from each UK county?), but there is no optimal arrangement

    This is a rare occasion when I agree with Kinabalu. Apart from that change to the Lords, the fudge we have now is probably the best we can hope for. It's a good deal for Scotland, Wales and NI, but that's the price England pays for keeping the Union.

    The Scots would be mad to reject it for something worse, but ultimately they must decide that (in about 10 years time)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    I see up to yesterday that nice Mr Drakeford is outperforming his counterparts by a widening margin on the vaccine front.

    Scotland

    1st 2.67m (48.8%)
    2nd 590k (10.8%)


    England

    1st 27.11m (48.1%)
    2nd 6.34m(11.3%)


    Wales

    1st 1.59m(50.4%)
    2nd 528k (16.7%)

    NI

    1st 826k (43.6%)
    2nd 199k (10.5%)

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55855220
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,310
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Once again, and I'll keep saying it as many times as necessary, the EU would be mad to block Pfizer shipments as they rely on the UK supply chain for it. Around 90% of Pfizer's total supply from Puurs has got lipid nanoparticles made in the UK. It's a complete and utter non-starter. Pfizer have also made this clear to the commission on a number of occasions and aiui reassured the UK government that they would work with us on building up non-EU capacity to ensure non-EU clients can continue to be served.

    We aren't "relying on the EU" we're relying on an American company that signed a contract with the UK government that happens to have a production site in the EU. That American company has got the means to produce the necessary vaccines elsewhere.
    Yes, I know. But I have also read reports that EU has war-gamed this, and come to the conclusion that the UK would not retaliate if the EU seized jabs. Those reports could be wrong, in multiple ways, but presuming the EU will act rationally has not been a sensible assumption, of late
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    Fishing said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes. It means that 15% of the country can override 85%.
    Yes it does mean that - though as the COTI would have no powers to create policy, only to vote on UK Government proposals, I think 15% having the power to 'block' or 'delay' the 85% would be a more accurate expression of it.

    However, I think conflating the desires of the people of England with the desires of the PM, is not credible. If a war (for example) is stopped this way, do you think the people of England would be upset at their democratic rights being overridden? I don't.

    Expressed another way, it means decisions would be taken by five democratically accountable people, as opposed to one.
  • pingping Posts: 3,724
    edited April 2021
    On topic

    Wow. Seriously scummy...

    History will not be kind to Mr Trump.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit!
    I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Selebian said:

    On Hull University (from the other thread)... I've taught there occasionally - I'm not employed by Hull, but sometimes invited to do seminars there through contacts. My experience has been that the students are more working class (from accents and manner of speech) and more black than in the fancier unis. Don't speak 'as well', perhaps (and likely that comes through in writing too) but they're sharp and, to be honest, I've had more interesting debates with students in seminars there than I generally have at my own, 'fancier' (i.e. Russell Group) uni.

    Now, written English is important, I don't dispute that, but the Hull groups I've taught would probably do worse on English marks while maybe being more enquiring and egaging. So I have some sympathy with trying to address that. I would however think it would be better done, to enhance future prospects too, by providing extra tuition in written English for those who could benefit from that.

    I think there's two issues here which you may be conflating. Undoubtedly, people from such backgrounds are less likely to be able to construct well-written sentences and essays, using flowing English prose that sounds easy on the ear. This may be damaging their prospects, as people tend to think of written eloquence as an indicator of intelligence, or competence. There's an argument for placing less reliance on this as a skill, especially since work environments typically just want people who can explain things clearly and concisely, and bullet points are usually totally fine for that.

    However, I can see no reason for relaxing standards on spelling and grammar errors, since those are often indicators of sloppiness, and raise doubts in the audience's mind as to the author's overall competence. Allowing outright errors, rather than just marking down poor style in the use of language, does the students no favours at all.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,310
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit!
    I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
    I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited April 2021
    Fishing said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes. It means that 15% of the country can override 85%.
    Indeed, even if we went to a fully Federal UK with an English Parliament/regional assemblies, what Federal nation allows Federal policy to be vetoed by 1 or 2 states? It would be like Wyoming and Vermont being able to veto US defence and tax policy or Bavaria being able to do the same in Germany.

    If we had a written constitution it might work in terms of the requirements to change the constitution in a major way but we don't
  • Lennon said:

    For those that were particularly exercised about it - Masterchef Final is on Wednesday at 8pm apparently.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56732411

    More importantly, the final day of Radio 3's 50th celebration of Stravinsky's death will now take place on April 24 with a 5 and a half hour flow of 50 pieces by Stravinsky.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,557
    Leon said:

    There is no solution to the asymmetry of the UK. We can ameliorate it by making the Lords an elected Federal chamber (with two Lords from each UK county?),

    London (9 million) as many senators as Rutland (40,000)?

    It would be almost less democratic than the current House of Lords.

    I think the best thing to do is devolve as much as possible to stronger national Parliaments, and have a hollowed out federal government only taking care of defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy. That doesn't solve the problem of English dominance, but it rather reduces its scope.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes its such a big ask.

    This is realpolitik, given the different countries are led by different parties every time a decision needs making it would make sense for all other countries to turn down the proposal until given something to grease the wheels.

    What a nightmare. Terrible idea that doesn't work with real politics.
    Make it about real politics then - use a real world example. I've used several in arguing my case that this would be a good idea.
    2017 General Election, May needed the DUP so had to bung money to Northern Ireland to get them to give her supply.

    You're talking about doing that not just because of a failed election once, but for every single vote for the rest of time.

    Every difficult decision would need a bung associated with it. That's no way to run a country, what a terrible idea.
    OK, my request was not clear. I meant, use a scenario whereby the 'nightmare' you predict could happen - rather than something that has actually happened when my proposed COTI didn't exist.

    I am not talking about doing this for every vote for the rest of time - not even for most votes. I am talking about a small set of very key decisions. These decisions would be taken in public, and for the most part, would follow a vote in the national parliaments - I just don't see any case whereby the horsetrading/bribery that you envisage could take place.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
  • ChelyabinskChelyabinsk Posts: 488
    edited April 2021

    Fishing said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes. It means that 15% of the country can override 85%.
    Yes it does mean that - though as the COTI would have no powers to create policy, only to vote on UK Government proposals, I think 15% having the power to 'block' or 'delay' the 85% would be a more accurate expression of it.
    How well has giving small minority nationalist groups the abiity to 'block' or 'delay' UK government business worked in the past?

    'from the 1877 session of parliament he brilliantly developed an old parliamentary weapon. This was the practice of obstruction – preventing progress on bills by continuing debate on them for as long as possible, thus wrecking the plans of government for legislation... Parnell, newly elected to the leadership of the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster, orchestrated a campaign of obstruction that kept the House sitting for two days – 41 hours – before it was brought to an end by the Speaker, Sir Henry Brand, acting on his own authority. The incident helped to bring about a series of procedural innovations that would eventually limit the ability of individual MPs to oppose the will of the majority of the House.'

    It's amazing: you watch people here criticise the May government for letting the DUP tail wag the dog or the US Electoral College for empowering small states, and then propose something that would work even worse in practice.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093
    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    Not really. I don't think the UK has approved J+J yet. It's not totally critical for the EU either- Pfizer is their workhorse. Besides my science teacher guess is that this will play out much like the AZ wobble. Pause while the boffins work out who reacts badly, then shuffle the doses round to avoid the problems.

    Not ideal, but fine in the grand scheme of things.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Once again, and I'll keep saying it as many times as necessary, the EU would be mad to block Pfizer shipments as they rely on the UK supply chain for it. Around 90% of Pfizer's total supply from Puurs has got lipid nanoparticles made in the UK. It's a complete and utter non-starter. Pfizer have also made this clear to the commission on a number of occasions and aiui reassured the UK government that they would work with us on building up non-EU capacity to ensure non-EU clients can continue to be served.

    We aren't "relying on the EU" we're relying on an American company that signed a contract with the UK government that happens to have a production site in the EU. That American company has got the means to produce the necessary vaccines elsewhere.
    Yes, I know. But I have also read reports that EU has war-gamed this, and come to the conclusion that the UK would not retaliate if the EU seized jabs. Those reports could be wrong, in multiple ways, but presuming the EU will act rationally has not been a sensible assumption, of late
    They also wargamed that they could bounce the UK into staying in the single market and customs union, then Theresa May and Olly Robbins were dumped along with their dodgy deal. Then they thought they could bounce the UK into permanent alignment with EU standards by just refusing to negotiate until very close to deadline day, yet here we are without any area where the UK has agreed unilateral alignment.

    It will not work out to their advantage if they decided to block Pfizer shipments, their strategists are clearly complete idiots that have yet to figure out that the UK won't be dictated to.

    Additionally, the UK may have a duty to the rest of the world to ensure that any shipments of vital ingredients were being exported to a country that doesn't in turn block exports of finished vaccines.
    USA will start exports soon, at which point the UK will start shipping Pfizer lipids there and vaccines back, with the Belgian factory all but abandoned?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.

    So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    edited April 2021
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes. It means that 15% of the country can override 85%.
    Indeed, even if we went to a fully Federal UK with an English Parliament/regional assemblies, what Federal nation allows Federal policy to be vetoed by 1 or 2 states? It would be like Wyoming and Vermont being able to veto US defence and tax policy or Bavaria being able to do the same in Germany.

    If we had a written constitution it might work in terms of the requirements to change the constitution in a major way but we don't
    It is not one or two states, it is three states out of four, and the Federal Government (the UK) has a vote. Meaning if England and the UK are aligned (which seems to be the argument) they need only one other to assent in order to go to war or sign a new binding international treaty. I am puzzled as to why this seems a hardship.

    The US has 50 states afaik, so your example is absurdly inaccurate.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    There is no solution to the asymmetry of the UK. We can ameliorate it by making the Lords an elected Federal chamber (with two Lords from each UK county?),

    London (9 million) as many senators as Rutland (40,000)?

    It would be almost less democratic than the current House of Lords.

    I think the best thing to do is devolve as much as possible to stronger national Parliaments, and have a hollowed out federal government only taking care of defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy. That doesn't solve the problem of English dominance, but it rather reduces its scope.
    If you're going to make a serious attempt to save the UK then that would be my preferred option. The only other stable alternative, besides dissolution, is reintegration - and good luck selling that to the Scots.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
    Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Starmer's net approval with Labour voters is -7

    Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63


    'Tis but a flesh wound...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    edited April 2021

    Lennon said:

    For those that were particularly exercised about it - Masterchef Final is on Wednesday at 8pm apparently.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56732411

    More importantly, the final day of Radio 3's 50th celebration of Stravinsky's death will now take place on April 24 with a 5 and a half hour flow of 50 pieces by Stravinsky.
    Would be greatly improved by a 5 minute break every quarter of an hour to sell you insurance apparently.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    Starmer's net approval with Labour voters is -7

    Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63


    'Tis but a flesh wound...
    SKS needs to win Hartlepool or he is dead in the water IMO

    No idea who is next though and that could lead to him hanging around for a while
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Once again, and I'll keep saying it as many times as necessary, the EU would be mad to block Pfizer shipments as they rely on the UK supply chain for it. Around 90% of Pfizer's total supply from Puurs has got lipid nanoparticles made in the UK. It's a complete and utter non-starter. Pfizer have also made this clear to the commission on a number of occasions and aiui reassured the UK government that they would work with us on building up non-EU capacity to ensure non-EU clients can continue to be served.

    We aren't "relying on the EU" we're relying on an American company that signed a contract with the UK government that happens to have a production site in the EU. That American company has got the means to produce the necessary vaccines elsewhere.
    Yes, I know. But I have also read reports that EU has war-gamed this, and come to the conclusion that the UK would not retaliate if the EU seized jabs. Those reports could be wrong, in multiple ways, but presuming the EU will act rationally has not been a sensible assumption, of late
    They also wargamed that they could bounce the UK into staying in the single market and customs union, then Theresa May and Olly Robbins were dumped along with their dodgy deal. Then they thought they could bounce the UK into permanent alignment with EU standards by just refusing to negotiate until very close to deadline day, yet here we are without any area where the UK has agreed unilateral alignment.

    It will not work out to their advantage if they decided to block Pfizer shipments, their strategists are clearly complete idiots that have yet to figure out that the UK won't be dictated to.

    Additionally, the UK may have a duty to the rest of the world to ensure that any shipments of vital ingredients were being exported to a country that doesn't in turn block exports of finished vaccines.
    USA will start exports soon, at which point the UK will start shipping Pfizer lipids there and vaccines back, with the Belgian factory all but abandoned?
    Or the shipment of components from the UK remains completely unchanged, and Pfizer fulfils UK orders from its American plants instead.

    Once Biden has more than he needs to get the job done then any remaining threat to UK supply from EU export shenanigans is, presumably, removed?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
    Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
    Start with the reaction to the Brexit vote - where the assemblies/FMs of Scotland, Wales and NI would have voted against any deal that wasn’t remaining in the EU in all but name.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,865

    Well Trump lost so it doesn;t matter now. Biden's in charge

    Americans voted for a quiet life and now there's no more burning cities, no more looting, no more rioting, no more theft and damage to property.....

    The man really has worked the whole thing out.

    Hope you're not near any milk. It'll go sour.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048

    Fishing said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes. It means that 15% of the country can override 85%.
    Yes it does mean that - though as the COTI would have no powers to create policy, only to vote on UK Government proposals, I think 15% having the power to 'block' or 'delay' the 85% would be a more accurate expression of it.
    How well has giving small minority nationalist groups the abiity to 'block' or 'delay' UK government business worked in the past?

    'from the 1877 session of parliament he brilliantly developed an old parliamentary weapon. This was the practice of obstruction – preventing progress on bills by continuing debate on them for as long as possible, thus wrecking the plans of government for legislation... Parnell, newly elected to the leadership of the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster, orchestrated a campaign of obstruction that kept the House sitting for two days – 41 hours – before it was brought to an end by the Speaker, Sir Henry Brand, acting on his own authority. The incident helped to bring about a series of procedural innovations that would eventually limit the ability of individual MPs to oppose the will of the majority of the House.'

    It's amazing: you watch people here criticise the May government for letting the DUP tail wag the dog or the US Electoral College for empowering small states, and then propose something that would work even worse in practice.
    I didn't criticise May for what she did (on the contrary I admire the DUP for negotiating the way they did), and I have never criticised the US electoral college either.

    Your parliamentary example is interesting but not relevant.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Bad news for Spain - due to start from tomorrow!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited April 2021

    Starmer's net approval with Labour voters is -7

    Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63


    'Tis but a flesh wound...
    That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit!
    I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
    I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
    Jolly good. Speculate away.
    Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped.
    But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.

    In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze.
    Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels.
    I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.

  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
    Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
    Start with the reaction to the Brexit vote - where the assemblies/FMs of Scotland, Wales and NI would have voted against any deal that wasn’t remaining in the EU in all but name.
    Wales voted to leave so I suspect the end result would have been 50/50...
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,721

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
    Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
    Well it's easy to construct specific fake scenarios if you want. Let's say that all 4 nations are agreed that we need to boost naval defence, and that a new battleship is the appropriate requirement. However, you then have an issue that Scotland won't vote Yes unless you commit to building it on the Clyde, NI won't vote Yes unless it's built in Belfast and Wales won't vote Yes unless they get something of commensurate value to whichever of the others actually gets the building contract. And this is for something which, in and of itself, is deemed a 'good thing' by all 4 nations. It's just a recipe for excessive pork-barrelling as means of buying votes.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
    Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
    Start with the reaction to the Brexit vote - where the assemblies/FMs of Scotland, Wales and NI would have voted against any deal that wasn’t remaining in the EU in all but name.
    Wales voted to leave so I suspect the end result would have been 50/50...
    But the Welsh PM and assembly majority are with Labour, who would have voted against any specific Brexit deal.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit!
    I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
    I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
    Jolly good. Speculate away.
    Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped.
    But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.

    In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze.
    Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels.
    I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.

    I assume this is a parable, and the squirrels are Keir Starmer.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Once again, and I'll keep saying it as many times as necessary, the EU would be mad to block Pfizer shipments as they rely on the UK supply chain for it. Around 90% of Pfizer's total supply from Puurs has got lipid nanoparticles made in the UK. It's a complete and utter non-starter. Pfizer have also made this clear to the commission on a number of occasions and aiui reassured the UK government that they would work with us on building up non-EU capacity to ensure non-EU clients can continue to be served.

    We aren't "relying on the EU" we're relying on an American company that signed a contract with the UK government that happens to have a production site in the EU. That American company has got the means to produce the necessary vaccines elsewhere.
    Yes, I know. But I have also read reports that EU has war-gamed this, and come to the conclusion that the UK would not retaliate if the EU seized jabs. Those reports could be wrong, in multiple ways, but presuming the EU will act rationally has not been a sensible assumption, of late
    They also wargamed that they could bounce the UK into staying in the single market and customs union, then Theresa May and Olly Robbins were dumped along with their dodgy deal. Then they thought they could bounce the UK into permanent alignment with EU standards by just refusing to negotiate until very close to deadline day, yet here we are without any area where the UK has agreed unilateral alignment.

    It will not work out to their advantage if they decided to block Pfizer shipments, their strategists are clearly complete idiots that have yet to figure out that the UK won't be dictated to.

    Additionally, the UK may have a duty to the rest of the world to ensure that any shipments of vital ingredients were being exported to a country that doesn't in turn block exports of finished vaccines.
    USA will start exports soon, at which point the UK will start shipping Pfizer lipids there and vaccines back, with the Belgian factory all but abandoned?
    Or the shipment of components from the UK remains completely unchanged, and Pfizer fulfils UK orders from its American plants instead.

    Once Biden has more than he needs to get the job done then any remaining threat to UK supply from EU export shenanigans is, presumably, removed?
    Could be both, I can see Pfizer hedging their bets a bit and using the US site for more non-EU orders.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Starmer's net approval with Labour voters is -7

    Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63


    'Tis but a flesh wound...
    SKS needs to win Hartlepool or he is dead in the water IMO

    No idea who is next though and that could lead to him hanging around for a while
    I imagine that should he do badly in May then there will be enough appetite to initiate a contest, but there's no point doing so if they can't find someone who'd do better. There are some possibilities, but I don't really see any candidate being sufficiently likely to make Labour want to do so. I suspect therefore he'll hang on even if he does moderately badly as you say.

    When the fav to succeed him isn't even an MP you know it'll be tough to switch.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    Not really. I don't think the UK has approved J+J yet. It's not totally critical for the EU either- Pfizer is their workhorse. Besides my science teacher guess is that this will play out much like the AZ wobble. Pause while the boffins work out who reacts badly, then shuffle the doses round to avoid the problems.

    Not ideal, but fine in the grand scheme of things.
    J&J forms a huge part of their summer roll out plan for under 50s because they won't have enough Pfizer/Moderna for that bit of it until probably 2022 and given what we know from AZ it's likely that J&J will be restricted from those age groups.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Yes. It means that 15% of the country can override 85%.
    Indeed, even if we went to a fully Federal UK with an English Parliament/regional assemblies, what Federal nation allows Federal policy to be vetoed by 1 or 2 states? It would be like Wyoming and Vermont being able to veto US defence and tax policy or Bavaria being able to do the same in Germany.

    If we had a written constitution it might work in terms of the requirements to change the constitution in a major way but we don't
    It is not one or two states, it is three states out of four, and the Federal Government (the UK) has a vote. Meaning if England and the UK are aligned (which seems to be the argument) they need only one other to assent in order to go to war or sign a new binding international treaty. I am puzzled as to why this seems a hardship.

    The US has 50 states afaik, so your example is absurdly inaccurate.
    I like your idea, but I also like the idea of MPs from the devolved assemblies acting as a revising chamber, and PM and FMs being directly elected by FPTP and MPs by PR. None of it is going to happen though because it would make us too democratic and neither Labour or Conservative (let alone the SNP) want that.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
    Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
    Start with the reaction to the Brexit vote - where the assemblies/FMs of Scotland, Wales and NI would have voted against any deal that wasn’t remaining in the EU in all but name.
    Had the COTI existed and had the final deal been subject to a vote by it (not a foregone conclusion), I suspect the leaders would have been briefed more regularly and the whole process would have been slightly more collaborative. We might have ended up with a softer version of Brexit. However, that's looking into the past - I am proposing we do this from now (obviously) where mercifully, Brexit is behind us.

    Accession to the TPPTPT (or whatever it's called) would be a simpler example.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842
    I observe that the League Cup final will have a crowd.
    But no under 18's or clinically vulnerable allowed.
    What I don't see is any explanation of the rationale.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257

    Selebian said:

    On Hull University (from the other thread)... I've taught there occasionally - I'm not employed by Hull, but sometimes invited to do seminars there through contacts. My experience has been that the students are more working class (from accents and manner of speech) and more black than in the fancier unis. Don't speak 'as well', perhaps (and likely that comes through in writing too) but they're sharp and, to be honest, I've had more interesting debates with students in seminars there than I generally have at my own, 'fancier' (i.e. Russell Group) uni.

    Now, written English is important, I don't dispute that, but the Hull groups I've taught would probably do worse on English marks while maybe being more enquiring and egaging. So I have some sympathy with trying to address that. I would however think it would be better done, to enhance future prospects too, by providing extra tuition in written English for those who could benefit from that.

    You make a really important point here. This is more about social class and family background than it is about ethnicity. In my experience in education, incredibly bright working class kids often didn't have the formal writing, or speaking, skills of the middle class kids, due to a combination of less formal schooling, and the absence of cultural capital at home. After all, it is no surprise that speech patterns, and subsequently writing patterns, are heavily influenced by what parents say, how they speak, and what's available to read at home.

    It's a really difficult conundrum for people (like me) who recognise the vital importance of good formal writing/speaking skills for future advancement. It's not easy for schools to compensate for the absence of such skills at home, but it would be a tragic waste if such bright kids were denied higher education. There's no easy answer. Lurking behind the problem is, I suspect, not enough practice in learning from reading. I suspect this will be an issue for most sections of society going forward in the age of soundbites, social media and viewing habits.
    Yep, I agree. I guess it comes down to the question of whether being able to express something in 'good' English is important or just 'what we expect' (where 'we' is generally white, middle class, well educated because we're the ones who have set the norms).

    If it is important then we need to give everyone the teaching required to be able to do it - not easy, necessarily, but in schools or it could become part of university courses. Most undergrad science degrees don't really teach you how to write a paper, for example. It's just something you're supposed to pick up over time. I've had the benefit of going on a course during my PhD (run by a couple of profs off their own bat) and it really did help.

    If it's not important, then we shouldn't penalise those who do it differently.

    I'm not bothered about things like penalising US spellings as it doesn't affect understanding (most papers I read have US spellings anyway, as the authors are outwith the UK). On the whole, though, I lean towards the first, because communication is important and we need to be able to do it well. If it's hard for the main audience to understand, then it's not good. I've recently been doing some 'plain English' summaries of some of our research, cutting out all the jargon. Not easy, but it really does make you think about what you did, what is important and how to communicate it.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    On lockdowns - and the argument sometimes made that in the US they've made no difference whatsoever... Have we discussed Michigan yet?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited April 2021

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
    Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
    You do seem at times to swerve into being a Russia troll but here in a democracy a nightmare for the PM is actually a nightmare for the voters.

    The voters get to choose Parliament and thus the PM. You're proposing all that gets thrown in the bin for grubby backroom deals between First Ministers.

    What an atrocious mess. And to fix a non-problem too. Have the democratically elected UK Parliament decide UK issues, its not difficult.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Selebian said:

    On lockdowns - and the argument sometimes made that in the US they've made no difference whatsoever... Have we discussed Michigan yet?

    What is the conclusion from Michigan?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,100
    edited April 2021
    Interesting graph that Comical Dave is using today:




    Really quite creative.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048
    Endillion said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.

    So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
    Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.

    As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    edited April 2021
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer's net approval with Labour voters is -7

    Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63


    'Tis but a flesh wound...
    That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
    Just humour him.

    I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,100
    edited April 2021
    Endillion said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
    However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU

    If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
    Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit!
    I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
    I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
    Jolly good. Speculate away.
    Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped.
    But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.

    In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze.
    Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels.
    I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.

    I assume this is a parable, and the squirrels are Keir Starmer.
    The most caring thing would be to wring their necks, or knock them insensible with a priest.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,093
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
    And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
    Not really. I don't think the UK has approved J+J yet. It's not totally critical for the EU either- Pfizer is their workhorse. Besides my science teacher guess is that this will play out much like the AZ wobble. Pause while the boffins work out who reacts badly, then shuffle the doses round to avoid the problems.

    Not ideal, but fine in the grand scheme of things.
    J&J forms a huge part of their summer roll out plan for under 50s because they won't have enough Pfizer/Moderna for that bit of it until probably 2022 and given what we know from AZ it's likely that J&J will be restricted from those age groups.
    The mood music from J+J seems to be that the problem is fixable, provided doctors follow the right treatments. And the pause is to get that information sorted and disseminated.

    Source:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/apr/13/coronavirus-live-news-europe-death-toll-passes-one-million-india-approves-russias-sputnik-v-vaccine?CMP=share_btn_tw&page=with:block-6075ad148f08b7e3afb8a3ea#block-6075ad148f08b7e3afb8a3ea

    A problem has cropped up, it's been identified quickly, and is in the process of being fixed.
    Science as normal.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,048

    Sandpit said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.

    You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.

    The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
    Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
    You do seem at times to swerve into being a Russia troll but here in a democracy a nightmare for the PM is actually a nightmare for the voters.

    The voters get to choose Parliament and thus the PM. You're proposing all that gets thrown in the bin for grubby backroom deals between First Ministers.

    What an atrocious mess. And to fix a non-problem too. Have the democratically elected UK Parliament decide UK issues, its not difficult.
    I've racked up a truly scary amount of posts here, on all sorts of topics, with no particular slant except my own (admittedly unique) world view. I'm relatively anonymous (as most of us are to some extent - admittedly some are here using their full name), but not to a huge degree, and I am fairly frank about my life and experiences. I know very little about Russian trolling of any kind, but I strongly suspect that whoever they are, and whatever they do, being 'me' on PB would not be a very good use of Putin's rubles. So might I strongly suggest that however passionately you disagree with me, you refrain from calling me an agent (or in this case 'swerving into' being an agent, if you can do that) of a foreign power, if you wouldn't mind. I'll pay you the same courtesy, even when I think you're being an utter cock.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Endillion said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.

    So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
    Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.

    As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
    There is a reason all countries have a key decision maker for acts of war etc - war is not an issue to decide upon by committee.

    Lets say MI6 says they have intelligence on a dangerous and known terrorist like Jihadi John that can be cleanly taken out by a missile strike. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.

    Or terrorists have taken over a building in London, the SAS are ready and prepared to take it back. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.

    You want to have instead of a PM accountable to Parliament making these decisions, them instead to be taken by a committee in public? And you think that works?

    What a joke. Clearly not thought through whatsoever.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    It looks like there's an extraordinary loophole at the Cabinet Office:

    * Crothers was able to work as both civil servant & adviser to Greensill under Cabinet Office's conflict of interest policy

    * He & Cab Office argue this meant he didn't have to apply to Acoba for clearance
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Crothers implies he is not alone among senior servants combining their official roles with acting as advisers for companies

    'This advisory role was not seen as contentious, and I believe not uncommon'

    How many of them are there?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    Cookie said:

    Selebian said:

    On lockdowns - and the argument sometimes made that in the US they've made no difference whatsoever... Have we discussed Michigan yet?

    What is the conclusion from Michigan?
    My hypothesis would be that the current crisis may be related to the easing of restrictions on 5 March and no subsequent re-imposition of tighter restrictions. That and the arrival of the Kent variant. Vaccinations not yet at a high enough level to stop the resurgence.

  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    Endillion said:

    FPT:

    Endillion said:

    I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".

    It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.

    And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.

    I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.

    There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
    What a sclerotic nightmare.

    So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?

    And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?

    What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
    Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
    Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.

    So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
    Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.

    As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
    Good grief. Where to even start with this.

    Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".

    Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.

    Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    Scott_xP said:

    Crothers implies he is not alone among senior servants combining their official roles with acting as advisers for companies

    'This advisory role was not seen as contentious, and I believe not uncommon'

    How many of them are there?

    I really don't think corruption matters to, or harms this Government. After all "Boris will be Boris".
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    dixiedean said:

    I observe that the League Cup final will have a crowd.
    But no under 18's or clinically vulnerable allowed.
    What I don't see is any explanation of the rationale.

    I'm assuming that they're keeping extremely vulnerable people out of these test events because they're still paranoid about them being (possibly) too unsafe. As for children, they probably don't want to be accused of acting unethically by getting them involved in what could be framed as a scientific experiment.
This discussion has been closed.